Preparing Croatia for the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector by United Nations Development Programme in Croatia

Please cite this paper as: Baker, Ian; Marriott, Sean; (2013), â&#x20AC;&#x153;Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sectorâ&#x20AC;?, UNDP Croatia; ISBN No 978-953-7429-45-4 Web page: www.undp.hr

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector 2013

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector Please cite this paper as: Baker, Ian; Marriott, Sean; (2013), â&#x20AC;&#x153;Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sectorâ&#x20AC;?, UNDP Croatia; ISBN No 978-953-7429-45-4 Web page: www.undp.hr

2013

This Study Report is prepared as a final report of the Project Preparing Croatia for introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector, which was implemented from November 2011 to January 2013.

Project Manager: Ivana Laginja, UNDP

Project was implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Croatia with funds of The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands in cooperation with the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Fisheries.

Acknowledgements - Sean Marriott and Ian Baker would like to acknowledge the excellent welcome and support provided by all connected with the study. The courtesy and hospitality of the Directorate of Fisheries team and that of the local partners, especially the fishermen of Kali, made us feel very welcome. Particular mention must be made of the Zadar UNDP team, without whose energy and persistence this study would not have been accomplished. The support of FARNET was also important in ensuring the right linkages were made to Common Fisheries Policy at this time of transition.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the UNâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s global development network, advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 177 countries and territories, working with governments and people on their own solutions to global and national development challenges.

Authors: Ian Baker; Catalys Ltd SeĂĄn Patrick Marriott

Copyright: UNDP, April 2013 As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners that can bring about results.

Short extracts from this publication may be reproduced unaltered without authorisation, on condition that the source is indicated. UNDP gives permission to the authors to use this publication; on condition that source is indicated.

ISBN: 978-953-7429-45-4

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily express the views of UNDP.

www.undp.hr

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the National and University Library in Zagreb under 843831.

Table of Contents The Croatia FLAG Project Report Executive Summary

1. Introduction 1.1 Project purpose and objectives 1.2 Rationale for timing of the study 1.3 Methodology 1.4 FLAG development work in Croatia before the project started 1.5 The report and its structure

7 9 10 10

2. Context 2.1 Description of the Fisheries Sector in Croatia 2.1.1 Economic Indicators 2.1.2 General Characteristics and Administrative Framework 2.1.3 Marine Fisheries 2.1.4 Aquaculture 2.1.5 Processing and market 2.1.6 Short term Objectives for the Sector 2.1.7 The current situation in the Zadar County 2.2 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and European Fisheries Fund (EFF) 2.2.1 Common Fisheries Policy 2.2.2 The 5 axes of the EFF 2007-13 2.2.3 The Rationale for Axis 4 2.2.4 FLAGs 2007-13

13 15 15

11 12

15 18 20 20 21 22 22 22 24 25 25

2.3 Current research and future development of CLLD in fisheries 2.3.1 FARNET research into FLAGs 2007-13y 2.3.2 Case Studies 2.3.3 International experience 2.3.4 CLLD and FLAGs 2014-20 2.3.5 Fund Integration

28 28 29 30 31 31

3. Discussion and Conclusions 3.1 The Need and Role for FLAGs in Croatia 3.2 Target audiences, stakeholders and â&#x20AC;&#x153;affected groupsâ&#x20AC;? 3.3 Directorate of Fisheries responsibilities, delegation & the role of Intermediaries 3.4 National Objectives 3.5 Local Objectives 3.6 Local model 3.7 Area definition 3.8 The role of Local Authorities 3.9 Facilitation 3.10 Development Plan 3.11 Communication 3.12 Data and evidence 3.13 Market analysis 3.14 Conclusions

33 35

4. Recommendations 5. Action Plan

59 65

37 39 43 44 46 49 50 51 52 55 55 56 57

Annexes 1 – FLAG Model 2 – Outcomes from the Local Workshop 3 – Case Studies 4 – Methodology 5 – Presentations 6 – Data collection and sampling Figures 1 – Map of NUTS 2 regions and counties in Croatia 2 – Fishing zones of the Republic of Croatia 3 – Zadar County LAG areas 4 – Structure and components of the European Fisheries Fund 2007-13 5 – Diagram showing Vertical (Supply Chain) uses of Axis 1, 2 & 3, in comparison to the added Horizontal (Territorial) potential of Axis 4 – 2007-13 6 – Figure from FARNET showing the range of sectoral and territorial roles of the FLAGs 7 – Beneficiary mapping & the role of Intermediaries 8 – Potential National Objectives emerging from the national project workshop – Zagreb – Jan 13 9 – Potential National Guidance emerging from the national project workshop – Zagreb – Jan 13 10 – Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve 11 – Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve – with effort and Return on Investment as added factors 12 – Potential FLAG Selection Criteria 13 – Timeline for introduction of FLAGs to Croatia

73 75 84 86 90 94 95

Tables 1 – Mapping Current and potential Future roles of Stakeholders and other resources with regard to the role of local intermediaries and animation 2 – Action Plan for implementation of FLAG Recommendations

Note on Terminology – This report relates to the implementation of the Community Led Local Development (CLLD) approach in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) from 2014-20. Currently, community led local development activity is supported by Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in those Member States where it is eligible. Both sets of terms are used in this report, wherever relevant. This change in terminology as a result of Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform can cause confusion.

The Croatia FLAG Project Report

The Croatia FLAG Project Report Executive Summary Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Executive Summary Introducing Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) and the Community Led Local Development (CLLD) methodology to Croatia through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) has significant potential to assist introduction of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the EU’s newest Member State as well as playing an important role in support of the post-accession alignment process. The key recommendations focus first on decisions to be taken by the Directorate Fisheries (DF), as strategic lead and Managing Authority for the programme. This shouldn’t imply that all the work involved would fall on the staff of DF; it should not. The report recommends that Croatia should take a proactive approach to delegation; enabling a great deal of the necessary activity to be carried out by local and national partners. The human resources exist for effective implementation of FLAGs, what is currently lacking is a nationally coordinated approach to ensure its coordination and delivery. Consequently, the key recommendation of the report is to promote the establishment of a Development Plan (DP) that would help guide partners through the CLLD and FLAG development process at both national and local levels, as well as recommending measures to help improve Communication. The report also proposes the establishment of a Pilot Project to help all the local partners to focus their ideas and through which the national development process can be informed. An effective

pilot project would further improve communication between the local and national levels. If all the necessary mechanisms are to be ready for implementation within the 2014-20 programme, then there is an 18-24 month window of opportunity within which all the necessary mechanisms should be established. This is a relatively short time compared to the tasks to be accomplished; however, with effective planning it can be achieved. The power of the FLAGs mechanism is that they can play a role that is more significant than the relatively modest budget allocation they are likely to receive. Once established they can improve information flow by playing the role of intermediary and interlocutor between central policy and fishermen themselves; as well as providing a powerful mechanism for helping fishermen to express and achieve their aspirations. However, the administrative and governance challenges at the national and the local level should not be underestimated. In order to support the study’s key recommendation that: • Croatia should Implement the CLLD Methodology within the 2014-20 EMFF programme and facilitate the establishment of FLAGs for all relevant areas; the recommendations should be implemented in full and without undue delay. Implementation will require financial, human and

The Croatia FLAG Project Report Executive Summary Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

institutional resources, coordinated by a cooperative partnership approach that brings together national and local interests. The study was initiated in order to investigate the role FLAGs could play in Croatiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fishing communities, as well as exploring how they might be introduced. The study looked at two levels, national and local, looking at both the strategic and administrative arrangements to support FLAGs, as well as the local level addressing the practical implementation issues. It found genuine enthusiasm for FLAGs and a desire to apply them at all levels; and whilst there was a need for greater clarity, particularly for fishermen; we are confident that once the key decisions are taken regarding implementation, the basic elements of FLAGs (i.e., the Partnerships, Strategies and Potential Projects) should be able to take shape fairly quickly. The report describes the purpose for the project in section 1, including the methodology followed; section 2 provides the Fisheries and Organisational context for implementation of FLAGs in Croatia, as well as providing the findings from the desk research. Section 3 discusses these findings and begins to draw out their implications; the study conclusions are presented at the end of this section. Section 4 provides the study recommendations, supported by the rationale for reaching those recommendations and Section 5 provides an Action Plan. The Annexes provide a model to support local FLAG implementation, as well as more detailed notes on the methodology.

Ian Baker & Sean Marriott 17-05-13

1. Introduction

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Introduction

1. Introduction Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

1. Introduction

1. Introduction Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

1.1 Project purpose and objectives

Overall Project Objective â&#x20AC;&#x201C; taken from brief

The project was commissioned by UNDP with the support and approval of local and national partners, with the purpose of providing assistance for the Ministry of Agriculture in planning and preparation for introduction of LEADER methodology, i.e. community led local development (CLLD) into the fisheries sector in Croatia. In effect this means the introduction of the Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG) approach and methodology to the Fisheries programme and the Fisheries sector, as is currently funded through Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).

Consultant will assist Croatian authorities in identifying best approach in establishing the CLLD concept in fisheries and propose action plan for its implementation.

CLLD will play an important role in the programming of European Structural and Investment funds for 2014-20, as proposed by the horizontal regulation and guidance on CLLD. Given this, it is the ministryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intention to introduce CLLD for the sustainable development of areas and communities that depend on fisheries in the 2014-20 Operational Programme for fisheries (under the future EMFF). Programming for the next financial period is still in the early phase, and needs to be coordinated at the national level under the Partnership Agreement for ESI funds, but it is expected that the activities shall be significantly intensified in the coming months. The study had two complementary parts; firstly, working nationally with the Ministry of Agriculture Directorate of Fisheries to look at the overall process involved in introducing FLAGs and its implications for planning, resourcing and communication. Secondly, the study is based on discussions undertaken with local partners primarily from Zadar County to explore the local implementation issues as well as to judge the readiness for the development of the local partnership.

The objective stated will be done by way of implementation of the following activities: 1. perform analysis in order to identify main challenges for implementation of the community led local development on administrative and local level 2. draft a proposal for actors involved in fisheries sector for introduction of concept of community led local development based on acquis1 and best practices in other Member states and Croatian reality 3. draft a model for implementation of the chosen approach, containing key activities, and related time line The project was directed towards Zadar County for the investigation of the local model. The establishment of a LAG on Zadar islands, already under implementation, will be used as a model and a testing field for the development of the Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG) Regulation. Regulation for FLAGs in Croatia will be prepared based on the already prepared draft Regulation for introduction of the LEADER Approach in the rural development in Croatia in cooperation with the Directorate for Rural Development. The project has examined the potential for implementation of the FLAG methodology in the coastal fisheries communities in Croatia; excluding inland waters, as advised by DF. The question of

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provision on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 and Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and Council Regulation No XXX/2011 on integrated maritime policy

1. Introduction Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

inland FLAGs will need to be addressed in the preparation of the EMFF Operational Programme (EMFF OP).

1.2 Rationale for timing of the study The timing of this study is significant. It comes after a period of discussion on the introduction of CLLD for the benefit of fisheries areas in Croatia, whilst at the same time mainstream LAG development has reached a key milestone with the commencement of the implementation of Croatiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first national LEADER programme; which was launched in January 2013. The coincidence between these two developments means that national and local partners are well prepared to discuss the potential benefits of FLAGs in an informed way. Much of the coast is now covered by LAGs that are well informed regarding the CLLD procedures; i.e., defining areas, partnership composition and local strategy development. This is very helpful, as although FLAGs will also have to develop wider roles, expertise and knowledge base in terms of their application in the context of the EMFF programme, there is already local experience in applying CLLD principles. In developing the fisheries components of the LDS, FLAGs will need to ensure the use of relevant expertise regarding the sustainable development of fisheries areas in order to set appropriate goals for FLAG strategies and projects.2

LAGs should be developed according to the regulations set out in Article 65 of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund [repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1198/2006] and Council Regulation (EC) No. 861/2006 and Council Regulation No. 1255/2011 on Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU).

Furthermore, the focus on FLAGs is now timely, given the amount work that is needed if Croatia is to develop an effective approach to their implementation. Although it is impossible to be certain about start dates, taking into consideration the fact that the EMFF OP should be approved by the EC and adopted by the national authorities as early as possible in 2014; including the CLLD approach in the fisheries sector; it is likely that FLAG implementation could start at

any time from late 2014, to early 2015. Even if the programme does not start until later, so much groundwork is needed, both at the national and local levels, that undertaking this study and then acting on its recommendations is now an imperative. The implication of this timetable is that the formal steps towards implementation need to be commenced urgently, due to the number of tasks that must be completed in preparation for implementation and the wide range of stakeholders (people and organisations) who need to be involved in that process. This study has given particular attention to timeline and the recommended overall timeline is set out in Figure 13.

1.3 Methodology The methodology was largely set in advance of the project and was structured around a series of national and local workshops conducted in November and December of 2012 and January 2013. The consulting team (Ian Baker; Catalys and Sean Marriott) provided the detailed methodology, planned and delivered the workshop sessions and undertook the necessary research. The consulting team also provided expertise on Fisheries and Community Led Local Development and worked closely with the UNDP team drawing on their expertise and experience in introduction of the LEADER approach into the local rural communities in Croatia. The steps followed for the study were as follows: 1. Pre-project research and familiarisation 2. Mission 1 2.1. National briefing 2.2. Local briefing

2.3. Project team workshop on timeline 3. Mission 1 report identifying the key issues 4. Further research and Case study development 4.1. Meeting with FARNET 4.2. Meeting with N Norfolk FLAG 4.3. Development of interim conclusions for discussion in Mission 2 5. Mission 2 5.1. National workshop – reviewing timeline and development plan issues 5.2. Local workshop – reviewing development and local coordination issues 5.3. Project team workshop on horizontal and vertical integration 5.4. Meeting with Fisheries Institute, Split – on overall fisheries situation in Croatia, implications of accession and implications for FLAGs implementation. 6. Mission 3 6.1. National workshop – Consideration of final recommendations and implementation issues 6.2. Local workshop – Consideration of final recommendations. 6.3. Project Team workshop on final report. 7. Final report production This comprehensive inquiry process was generally seen by participants as an effective overall approach. The project commenced in November 2012 and concluded in January 2013 and so all partners were able to follow the development of the project and could see how each of the steps built towards the final output. Annex 4 sets out the series of meetings and workshops.

1.4 FLAG development work in Croatia before the project started

1. Introduction Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

On November 15, 2011 Directorate of Fisheries issued signed a Statement of Cooperation with UNDP on introduction of FLAG concept in the Republic of Croatia in line with the related acquis. Before that UNDP held intensive talks with the DF representatives who expressed interest in UNDP work in particular on the establishment of LAG on Zadar islands and coast, today LAG Mareta. Their special interest was the fact that fisherman communities, especially those from islands were actively involved in lively participatory process of preparation of Local Development Strategy and establishment of LAG. Having developed a rich experience in the introduction of LEADER approach in many local communities in rural areas of Croatia UNDP in early stages of development of LAG Mareta realised the importance of the fishery as a major source of income for many communities in LAG area. Process of development of LDS for LAG Mareta was conducted based on the requirements of the draft Ordinance for introduction of Measure 202 (LEADER) in rural development. Since fishery sector has quite limited position in such LDS where emphasis should be given to a rural development issues (due to the current and future major sources of funding – IPARD and after the accession, EAFRD) it became clear that new solutions should be searched for to fulfil recognized needs and to open additional possibilities for the fisheries sector as well as communities dependant on fisheries and related activities. In summary, this project was created in order to prepare the fisheries sector for the implementation of Axis 4, which means opening a pathway for the establishment of FLAGs in Croatia, in the framework of the New Marine and Fisheries Program for period 2014 to 2020,.

1. Introduction Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

1.5 The report and its structure The study has offered an insight into the national and local challenges with regard to implementation of FLAGs in Croatia. The report does not attempt to be the last word on the issue; it acts as an accurate summation of the current “state of play” and the desirable next steps to support implementation. Section 2 describes the context and is split into 3 parts. In section 2.1, we present the context for the FLAGs, covering socio-economic and fisheries issues; both from the national and the local perspective. Section 2.2 explores the EU fisheries policy context and Section 2.3 goes on to explore the lessons from current research, international experience and looks forward to the 2014-20 programming period. In Section 3 the findings of the study are discussed and conclusions drawn regarding FLAG implementation Section 4 sets out the Recommendations and provides supporting rationale. Section 5 provides an Action Plan with an indicative timescale. The Annexes provide supporting details regarding: • Methodology; • Possible Objectives; • Possible Implementation model; • Case studies; • Supplementary reports provided; • Sampling;

2. Context

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Context

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

2. Context

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

2.1 Description of the Fisheries Sector in Croatia 2.1.1 Economic Indicators Croatia has a population of 4,290,621 persons,3 compared to 4,437,460 inhabitants in 2001 or 4,784,265 in 1991. 18.3% of the total population in 2011 were younger than 14 years of age, 66.1% were between 15 and 64 and 15.6% were older than 65. Unlike the average growth trend in the EU in the period 2000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2009; Croatia has a total population decline of 0.16% per annum. From 2000 to 2005 the average annual GDP growth was about 4%. Between 2000 and 2005, imports grew at a lower rate as a result of negligible economic growth of major trading partners of Croatia. The biggest increase was recorded in tourist services. Industrial production continued its downward trend, so in 2011 the physical volume of production decreased by 1.2% compared to 2010. Positive developments were in the retail trade, tourism, and partly in foreign trade. Compared with the previous year, the nominal retail trade turnover increased by 4.0%, and actual turnover by 1.0%, resulting from an increase in the consumer price index. The annual rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index in 2011, was 2.3%.

2.1.2 General Characteristics and Administrative Framework Croatia has a substantial territorial sea of 31.067 kmÂ˛, representing some 35.5% of the area of the whole country. Estimates of the direct share of fisheries to GDP vary between 0.2% and 0.7% and

it is an important source of employment on the coast and the islands, where fishery is one of the rare activities that provides a source of income throughout the year. Fisheries significantly contributes to national exports with total export value in 2011 of $178,503,695 (38,493 tonnes). The five most significant products by the export value in 2010 were blue fin tuna (total export value was $67,674,780 out of which $67,631,851 was exported to the Japanese market), salted anchovies (total export value $23,001,574, out of which $17,389 622 were for the Italian market), canned sardines (total export value $19,622,286) fresh sea bass from aquaculture (total export value $10,781,900) and fresh anchovies (total export value $6,526,864). Imports in 2011 were $123,676,657 (38,417 tonnes) which included significant quantities of relatively inexpensive products (herring), imported exclusively for the needs of tuna aquaculture. Consumption of fish in the Republic of Croatia is estimated to be around 8.5 kg per capita, but it seems to be underestimated. The tourism sector consumes domestic fish and is an important outlet for fish products during the summer. Large retail stores and hotel chains usually use fish from farms, and preliminary data show that there are significant differences in consumption (in quantity and species), in different regions of the Croatia.

2011 National Census

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

It is estimated that approximately 14,000 people (including: fishermen; employees of companies involved in fishing; aquaculture and processing fish; and employees on vessels) are directly employed in the sector. Apart from permanent employees, there are a significant number of seasonal workers, especially on fishing vessels. Overall around 25,000 people work in the sector, either directly or indirectly. In 2011, it was estimated that there were around 10,000 subsistence fishermen. Tourism on the coast and islands represents an economically significant activity, especially with seasonal openings of additional market for different products, where fishing products have and could have a significant role. Tourism is a seasonal activity and it enables employment and income during the summer, while fisheries enable permanent source of income for numerous coast and island communities. Additionally, fisheries in conjunction with the tourism offer also an added value to the tourist service. According to the national strategic determinants in tourism development, the objective is to develop the tourism offer through high added-value services. On the coast and on the islands, along with the traditional forms of agriculture (wine making and olive processing), fishing is one of the rare activities which has survived in a relatively unchanged form. Also, it is important to emphasize that marine culture is directly tied to the islands, and that it substantially effects the development and sustainability of sensitive island communities. Areas and communities which traditionally depend on fishing and which also today have characteristics of â&#x20AC;&#x153;fishing villagesâ&#x20AC;? in Croatia, especially on the islands, represent also a significant capital in terms of developing tourism offer in general. Most coastal areas of Croatia are classified as areas of special state concern where GDP per capita is below national average.

Main statistical units of NUTS III level, in which fishing activities exist, are counties XVII, VIII, IX, XIII, XV, XVII and XIX, i.e., the regions extending from Istria to southern Dalmatia. In addition, there are certain areas in the continental part of the country, as is area XIV, where freshwater aquaculture has been developed. The Administrative and statistical divisions of Croatia on NUTS regions are shown in Figure 1. The Ministry of Agriculture (MA) has administrative responsibility for all fisheries-related matters, the Directorate of Fisheries (DF) is a directorate within the MA. The DF is responsible for all administrative tasks within marine fisheries (managing the fleet and resources), freshwater fisheries, aquaculture (marine and freshwater), structural measures (as the Administrative Directorate), and market policy and fishery inspection. In addition to the central office in Zagreb, the DF also has seven regional units working with the marine fisheries sector. In addition, a Department of Fisheries has been established within the Agricultural Advisory Service with the objective of linking administration and stakeholders in fisheries, and to provide advisory services to them. Stakeholders of the sector are associated in chambers and cooperatives. The most significant umbrella institutions are the Croatian Chamber of Economy (CCE) and Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts (CCTC). Within the MA, 18 fishery cooperatives are now recognised, with total membership of 443 (May 2012). Some of the fishery cooperatives will have the possibility to turn into producer organizations.

Republic of Croatia Croatian Bureau of Statistics

2. Context

Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)

population 2 960 157

Statistical regions level 2 (NUS 2)

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

population 1 468 921

Legend 2 statistical regions (regional level) Continental Croatia Adriatic Croatia County center State border County border 625km2 100km2

Source: CBS (Croatian Bureau of Statistics)

Figure 1 Map of NUTS 2 regions and counties in Croatia

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

2.1.3 Marine Fisheries The Marine Fisheries Act (Official Gazette, no. 56/10, 127/10, 55/11 and 50/12) defines that fishing at sea can be commercial, small coastal, sports and recreational, fishing for scientific and educational purposes and fishing for aquariums open to the public. Commercial fishing is divided into two subcategories: commercial fishing senso strictu and small coastal fishing. Small coastal fishing is a new legal concept in Croatia and represents the form of fishing which has developed from the earlier category of small-scale fishing for personal needs. Small-scale fishing for personal needs, as previously authorised, will cease to exist on 1 January 2015. The Croatian Fishery Sea consists of the inner and outer fishery seas and includes the area of the territorial sea of the Republic of Croatia and ecological and fisheries protection zone of the Republic of Croatia. The fishing sea of Croatia is divided into eleven (11) fishing zones and thirty-seven (37) fishing subzones. Out of eleven (11) fishing zones, four (4) are in the inner fishing sea of Croatia (A, E, F and G), and seven (7) are in the outer fishing sea of Croatia (B, C, D, H, I, J and K) (Figure 2). In 2011 4,136 vessels for commercial fishing were registered in Croatia. The largest percentage of fleet (81.29%) includes vessels shorter than 12 metres in length. Total strength and tonnage of the fishing fleet of the Republic of Croatia in respect of commercial fishing in 2011 was 326,987 kW and 44,998 GT. 10,138 people are registered for small-scale fishing for personal purposes. Although the number of these smaller vessels is relatively large, their total strength and tonnage is relatively insignificant, as all are shorter than 12 metres.

The largest single category of registered fishing vessels is that of multi-purpose vessels (45.19% of the fleet). These vessels are typical for fishing in the Mediterranean where there are no clearly defined target species and in which fishermen change gear during the year. Purse seine vessels account for 5.46% (226 vessels) of the fleet, and these vessels have the largest quantity of catch, while trawl fishing vessels make up 13.59% (562 vessels) of the fishing fleet of the Republic of Croatia. In 2011 the total catch from purse seining was 64,389 tonnes. Benthic trawling is carried out by 562 vessels; catching 4,275 tonnes of fish. Out of all vessels using this gear, around 230 of them achieved a catch larger than 5 tonnes/year. The average age of the fleet of the Republic of Croatia is more than 30 years, but there is substantial variation within the fleet. For instance, on average active trawlers are older than active purse seines; indeed the trawlers are among the oldest active vessels. In terms of catch by fishing gear, purse seiners landed the greatest quantity of catch (91.29%) in 2011. Trawling was 6.10% of the catch, while gillnetting accounted for around 2% of total catch (24 % of fleet are registered gillnetters). Other fishing gear represented less than 1% of the total catch. The total catch in 2008 was 49,011 tonnes, in 2009 – 55,364 tonnes, in 2010 – 52,395 tonnes, and in 2011 – 70,535 tonnes. Over the years, more than 80% of total catch is the catch of small pelagics (sardine and anchovy). In 2011, the share of demersal and pelagic fish catch is around 97%, cephalopods 1.50%, crabs and shellfish around 1%. The most significant landing places in 2011 for small pelagics were Kali, Zadar, Novalja, Biograd na Moru, and Mlina, and for trawlers and general fin-fish: Tribunj, Hvar, Poreč, Komiža and Mali Lošinj.

Figure 2 Fishing zones of the Republic of Croatia

MAp 1 Source: NSP (National Strategic Program)

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Following ICCAT recommendations, Croatia has reduced its tuna purse seine quota. Tuna fishing is the only form of fishing that is currently subject to quotas.

more kg). The annual production of Bluefin Tuna is around 30% (in volume) of the total mariculture production, or around 3,500 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4,000 tonnes and it is almost entirely designated for the Japanese market. In the last few years the stagnation of the production is recorded, due to restrictive measures of tuna catching.

2.1.4 Aquaculture Croatian marine aquaculture includes the culture of fin fish, tuna and shellfish. The total average production amounts to approximately 11,000 tonnes, with a total value of HRK 876 million (â&#x201A;Ź120 million). Total production in 2011 amounted to about 7 000 tonnes; however, this is believed to be a statistical anomaly, resulting from a new datacollection system, and the real production is estimated to be at least at the same level of 2010, when it was 10,628 tonnes, and that there has since been an increase in fin fish aquaculture production. Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and sea bream (Sparus aurata) dominate the culture of fin fish with a production of over 5,000 tonnes per year. Farming is carried out in floating cages using advanced techniques with a closed production cycle, from controlled spawning to the final product. Aquaculture is carried out along the entire coastline, but particularly in the area of the Zadar County. Most of the cultivated finfish is placed on the domestic market and the EU market (mainly Italy). Export to the EU market is limited to small duty free quotas. During the last few years a constant growth in the production of these species has been recorded due to an increase in consumption on the domestic market, as well as the stabilization of prices on the EU market. Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) is farmed in floating cages in the half-open and open areas of the Central Adriatic, or in the areas of Zadar and Split-Dalmatia counties. Ranching is based on catching small tuna in nature (8-10 kg) and their further culture to market size (30 and

Shellfish farming is carried out in production areas that are constantly monitored by the State for hygiene control for marketstandard products. In Croatia, mussels (Mytilus galoprovincialis) and oysters (Ostrea edulis) are cultivated almost exclusively by raft culture. Shellfish farming is for the most part done in the area of Malostonski zaljev and Malo more, on the western coast of Istria, the estuary of the Krka River and the Novigradsko more. Shellfish spawning applies traditional technologies, using the Pergolari mesh and it is based on collecting young shellfish from nature. Currently there are no shellfish hatcheries. Around 2,000 tonnes of mussels and around 1 million individual oysters are produced yearly. Culture is carried out at sites with a capacity less than 50 tonnes/year.

2.1.5 Processing and Market The processing sector consists of a relatively small number of processors, especially for benthic fish because this is mostly brought fresh to the market. Small pelagic fish are the main raw ingredient in the traditional processing industry that was once based mainly on canning. Over the last 5 years canning has decreased, compensated by an increase in the production of salted fish (anchovies) and frozen fish. In 2011 there were 76 fish-processing companies in Croatia, of which 70 were active. Of the total number, only two were large companies (one in the Zadar County and one in the Split â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dalmatia County). Most of the companies employ less than 50 workers.

Until the accession of Croatia to the full membership in the EU, all processing concerns must fulfil the prescribed hygiene measures for the production of food of animal origin. Difficulties in modernisation of production in this segment are due to the fact that only companies and crafts without a registered export number can apply for pre-accession funds, which would prevent the financing of production modernisation from these funds. Market organisation in Croatia is based on fishing cooperatives, redemption fish stations and registered first buyers (retailers and wholesalers). First sale can only be made with registered first buyers. In 2012, 1 039 first buyers were entered in the corresponding Register of the MA. Trade channels and market organization are different for demersal species and pelagics. The largest part of the demersal catch (trawler fishing, fishing with sports nets, etc.) after first sale is intended for export, while the catch of small pelagics is also the raw material for canning and the fish salting industry as well as for feed in tuna ranching. Due to natural fluctuations in the stock and thus the catch at some months during the year there is market saturation due to inability to store fish, so a part of the catch has to be destroyed. Lack of proper fish storage and its withdrawal from the market presents a significant factor on the market.

2.1.6 Short-term Objectives for the Sector It is envisaged that in the limited period, Croatia will use the funds from the EMFF along with the national co-funding of the following objectives: 1. Adjustment of fishing fleet • Establishing a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities 2. Sustainable development of aquaculture • Increase of production and strengthening the competitiveness of the aquaculture 3. Sustainable development of processing and marketing • Strengthening the capacities of processing and marketing 4. Strengthening of fisheries administration and the sector for using structural support through Technical Assistance • Improvement of Administration capacities and stakeholder´s awareness

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

In addition, the NSP plans an intervention in line with the acquis concerning the structural support in fisheries for the period 20142020 and has set the following strategic priorities: 1. sustainable development of commercial fisheries 2. sustainable development of aquaculture 3. sustainable development of fisheries areas 4. marketing and processing.

During the last few years, significant changes in trade channels for farmed fish have been noted, in the sense that more is being sold through big retail chains and less through the fish market. Farmed shellfish are placed on the market only through registered distribution centres. Source: National Strategic Plan (NSP)

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

2.1.7 The current situation in Zadar County The study used Zadar County to investigate the local implementation issues; this investigation was supported by desk research, workshops and local meetings. The current position regarding LAG development is that three Local Action Groups have been established in the Zadar County: • LAG Laura, LAG Bura and LAG Mareta. LAG Laura was a pioneer LAG, established in 2009 centred on the small coastal area around Biograd and covering two towns: Biogradna-Moru and Benkovac and 11 municipalities (coast, islands and hinterland). LAG Bura is situated under the Velebit mountain channel centred on the small rural settlement Murvica near Zadar. It comprises of 9 municipalities one of which (Municipality of Karlobag) is in Lika-Senj County. LAG Mareta was established in 2011, covering 8 municipalities on the coast and islands of the Zadar Archipelago some of which are administratively governed by the City of Zadar. All three LAGs have local development strategies prepared in anticipation of the applications for funding to the Ministry of Agriculture in 2013. These three LAGs between them cover 73,34 % of territory of the County with 73,951 inhabitants. The residents of these three areas share similar developmental problems, challenges and possibilities, thus LAGs are expected to assist in strengthening and developing rural areas of the County. The LEADER approach and the LAGs in Zadar County are serving as a platform for local partnerships through which rural strategy is being prepared and implemented. The islands of Pag and Vir are the only remaining parts of the Zadar County not involved in any of the LAGs. They are also highly rural communities, economically very dependent on cattle breeding and fisheries.

Fisheries Communities have been engaging in the development of the LAGs, both to ensure that Fisheries interests are represented with LAGs, but also with a view to ensuring FLAG development will be appropriately informed. In this sense the Fisheries communities have been positively engaged and this should serve fisheries communities well in their development of FLAGs and LAGs and positive relationships between them.

2.2 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and European Fisheries Fund (EFF) 2.2.1 Common Fisheries Policy The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the longest standing elements of EU policy and is currently undergoing one of its periodic processes of reform in readiness for the 2014-20 Financial Perspective. With regard to the current CFP, the most important areas of action of the common fisheries policy are: • Laying down rules to ensure Europe’s fisheries are sustainable and do not damage the marine environment (fishing rules) • Providing national authorities with the tools to enforce these rules and punish offenders (fisheries controls) • Monitoring the size of the European fishing fleet and preventing it from expanding further (fishing fleet) • Providing funding and technical support for initiatives that can make the industry more sustainable (European Fisheries Fund) • Negotiating on behalf of EU countries in international fisheries organisations and with non-EU countries around the world (international fisheries)

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

ZADAR COUNTY

LAG BURA

LAG MARETA

LAG LAURA

Karlobag

Olib Silba Premuda

Starigrad Vir

Ist

Privlaka

Nin

Molat

Vrsi Vrsi

Jasenice

Ražanac Posedarje

Sestrunj

Zverinac

Novigrad

Ugljan Zadar

Zemunik Donji Škabrnja Galovac Sukošan

Iž Dugi otok

Obrovac

Poličnik

Rivanj

Rava Pašman

Sv. Filip i Jakov

Benkovac

Polača

Lišane Ostrovačke

Biograd na moru Pakoštane Stankovci Tkon Vrgada

Figure 3 Zadar County LAG areas

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

• Helping producers, processors and distributors get a fair price for their produce and ensuring consumers can trust the seafood they eat (common market organisation) • Supporting the development of a dynamic EU aquaculture sector (fish, seafood and algae farms) (aquaculture) • Funding scientific research and data collection, to ensure a sound basis for policy and decision making (research and data collection) The Commission is reviewing the Common Fisheries Policy to make it more efficient in ensuring the economic viability of the European fleets, conserving fish stocks, integrating with the maritime policy and providing good quality food to consumers. The Irish Presidency has made completing the reform of the CFP its priority for fisheries during its presidency (the first half of 2013). This means the CFP frameworks could be one of the earliest elements of the 2014-20 to be agreed. For The 2014-20 programme the current European Fisheries Fund (EFF) will change to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The change in terminology reflects the wider role of the Fund in the management of fisheries areas. Another change that will take place is that the term Axis 4 will disappear to be replaced by CLLD, in line with the use of Community Led Local Development across EU funds.

approach, as the re-arrangement of the Fisheries programming mechanisms will not change the principles behind Axis 4 and the FLAGs. The most significant effect is likely to be the requirement for increased coherence between CLLD approaches support by all the funds covered by the new Partnerneship Agreement (PA) The European Fisheries Fund, 2007-13, is one of the key tools of the CFP. The EFF is comprised of 5 elements (or “Axes”), and participating member states are expected to implement all 5. The five axes are: • Adjustment of the Fleet; • Aquaculture, processing and marketing & inland fishing; • Measures of common interest; • Sustainable development of Fisheries areas; and • Technical assistance

Ensure an economically resilient & ecologically sustainable fisheries sector

Axis 1:

Adjustment of the Fleet

Axis 2:

Aquaculture, processing & marketing & inland fishing

Axis 3:

Measures of Common Interest

2.2.2 The 5 axes of the EFF 2007-13 Although the project focuses on the preparatory activities for the 2014-20 programming period, the legislative framework for this period has not yet been adopted, so the report uses experience and material from the current programme. This is a legitimate

Axis 5: Technical Assistance Figure 4 Structure and components of the European Fisheries Fund 2007-13

Axis 4:

Sustainable Development of Fisheries Areas

Axis 4, highlighted above, is the axis of the EFF that has been created to support FLAGs. NB – although it is useful to use the current structure and terminology relating to the EFF and Axis 4, as these are the current terms in common usage, it is important to note that these terms will change with the advent of the 2014-20 programme and the new EMFF and mainstreamed CLLD, which will replace Axis 4.

2.2.3 The Rationale for Axis 4; 2007-13 Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) provides support for the sustainable development of fisheries areas. In particular, it supports measures to promote economic diversification (tourism, food, renewable energy..) and an improved quality of life in areas affected by a decline in fishing activities. An important innovation in the implementation of Axis 4 is the emphasis on the territorial approach, which encourages a focus on specific areas and seeks to mobilise local actors from all sectors: public, private and civil society, to work together as “groups” to design and implement integrated local development strategies. The aim of Axis 4 is not just to tackle the short-term effects of the CFP and the economic, social and environmental impacts of the depletion of fish stocks; its purpose is also to help fishing communities and areas to create new sustainable sources of income and quality living. It does this by providing the people who most understand both the problems and the dreams of fishing communities – with the tools for adapting the solutions to their real needs.

There are 5 key features that describe the “bottom-up” approach within Axis 4: 1. Local territorial approach 2. Integrated strategy 3. Partnerships and Participation 4. Local innovation 5. Networking and cross-border cooperation

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

In summary, the FLAGs mechanism has been devised to assist fisheries communities in adapting to the institutional, economic and environmental changes going on around them and to help them play a stronger local role. It will also increase the efficiency of EU Fisheries policy. Prior to reform of CFP there has been a disconnect between fishermen and their environment & resource. The FLAG provides a mechanism for direct engagement by fishermen with the management of the resources, tools – and funds – for fishermen to take responsibility for the environmental impact of coastal development and resource-use, a mechanism for training and awarenessraising and an ability to improve supply chain benefits to fishermen by increasing the value of product and sales and improve fisheries organisation and governance. CLLD within the EMFF will replace Axis 4 for the 2014 programme.

2.2.4 FLAGs 2007-13 FLAGs are a new innovation in the 2007-13 EFF programme, designed to provide a local territorial perspective and community led-development within the Common Fisheries Programme. FLAGs apply a Community Led Local Development (CLLD) methodology that was first established in rural programmes, where it is known as Leader. FLAGs

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

are locally based partnerships between fisheries actors and other local, private and public stakeholders, which are given the responsibility to design and implement a bottom-up strategy that addresses their areaÂ´s economic, social and environmental needs. The FLAGs programme has grown quickly to the point where there are now over 300 groups in 21 EU Member States involving thousands of local stakeholders as project promoters and FLAG members. FLAGs are responsible for the management of Axis 4 funds. They generally do not tend to have large budgets themselves, but are seen to have an effect beyond the strict limits of the size of their budgets through leverage of funds into the FLAG programme and the influence the FLAG is able to have with regard to other programmes in the same area. FLAGs and Axis 4 are subtly, but fundamentally different from the rest of the EFF. Whereas EFF (and indeed the whole of the rest of the CFP) are focused on the vertical characteristics of the fishery sector supply chain, i.e., the stock, the fleet, the human resources and the processing and marketing of the primary and secondary product. On the other hand, Axis 4 is able to support the development of horizontal linkages between the local fishery sector and its wider territory and other local economic sectors. The Axis 4 mechanism can support a much wider range of activities, for example it can support investment in community infrastructure, economic diversification, local capacity building, as well as assisting the improvement of vertical connections. The figure below has been developed through the project to show how these linkages work and additionally, the type of projects that might be achieved using these funds.

2. Context

Fisheries sector o u t p u t s

aXIS 4

Markets ď&#x192;Ą National +International Marketing Transport + Refrigeration Processing

Community infrastructure links + benefits

Fisheries

Harbours + ports

Mariculture Fishery lg.

Roads Community infrastructure Fuel + basic supplies Telecommunications Fisheries tradition Traditional cooking + fishing for tourist & other

Small scale fishery + shelfish

i n p u t s

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Fishery management Fleet management Stock management etc.

Fishing cultural centres Cookery courses with famous chefs

aXIS 1,2 & 3

Local economic links + benefits Local sales and marketing of fish products Purchasing services bussines Purchasing services - sector specific Underpining tourism Pesca Tourism Value adding to local sales eg., restaurant, direct sales, new products

aXIS 4

Extending the tourism sea &fisheries season Seasonal cultural events Restaurant chain Landing points Life long learning for fisheries Services for boats Production of fisheries tools

Fig 5 Diagram showing Vertical (Supply Chain) uses of Axis 1, 2 & 3, in comparison to the added Horizontal (Territorial) potential of Axis 4

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

2.3 Current research and future development of CLLD in fisheries 2.3.1 FARNET research into FLAGs 2007-13 Recent FARNET Research has established that there is a wide diversity in the fishing areas where FLAGs have been implemented. There is no significant connection between the dominant fishery type in the areas where FLAGs have been implemented. FLAGs are developing in every type of fishery area and key fishery factors, such as relative dominance of seiners, trawlers, the relative strength of aquaculture and mariculture, fleet segmentation, absolute levels of activity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; number of jobs, boats, landings, etc.;

none of these appear to be significant factors in whether or not FLAGs are established. The research does appear to establish that FLAGs are particularly relevant in areas where there is a relatively high dependency of the territory on fisheries, the overall economic health of territory is under pressure, fishing has a socio-cultural significance and/or the fishery is vulnerable in some way. All of these factors apply to the main fishery areas of Croatia. The research is starting to clarify the presentation of the roles that a FLAG can play and this is summarised in the diagram below. FLAGs are adopting all of the roles depicted in this diagram, i.e., from the sectoral to territorial focus and many combine these elements.

Different roles for fisheries focused FLAGs Axis 4 at interface between sectorial and territorial development

Sector structure & organisation

SSF outreach

EFF local antenna

Figure 6 Figure from FARNET showing the range of sectoral and territorial roles of the FLAGs

Sectoral development Territorial development

Preservation of primary activities

Vertical integration (within supply chain)

Catalyst for change of mindset

Horizontal integration (within territory)

Main added value: improve resilience of fisheries sector N.B.: the same FLAG can play different roles simultaneously or sequentially

It is clear that if Axis 4â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s underlying purpose of territorial development is to be achieved, then the approach to be followed needs to be towards the right hand end of the spectrum on the illustration above. Whilst a sector-led approach is possible, it is however not necessarily the best use of the CLLD methodology and its capacity to make local inter-sectoral connections. Most importantly a sector-led approach is less likely to lead to increased economic opportunity. The FLAG methodology was developed by taking the principles developed through LEADER, within EU Rural Development policy, and applying it to the specificities of the fisheries funds. The Leader methodology is described (by DG-Agri) as:

The main difference of course between mainstream LEADER and the application of CLLD in Fisheries, is of course its sectoral focus; and it is therefore important that FLAGs maintain a distinctive fishery focus. This can be a tension for some, as the intention that Axis 4 assists the fishing community to engage with other economic sector and add value to their own sector, is not necessarily the core motivation of the fishing community. Each FLAG will have their own approach to addressing this question and the success with which the Local Strategy evidences and analyses the local links and identifies the opportunities for positive development will underpin the success of the FLAG itself.

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

2.3.2 Case Studies Since it was launched in 1991, the Leader Community Initiative has been working to provide rural communities in the EU with a method for involving local partners in steering the future development of their areas. The Leader approach is based on the premise that, given the diversity of European rural areas, development strategies are more effective and efficient if decided and implemented at local level by local actors, accompanied by clear and transparent procedures, the support of the relevant public administrations and the necessary technical assistance for the transfer of good practice. The following seven key features summarise the Leader approach: local public-private partnerships or local action groups; area-based local development strategies; bottom-up elaboration and implementation of these local strategies; integrated and multi-sectoral actions, innovation; networking; and cooperation. These are described in more detail at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/factsheet_en.pdf .

The Annex includes two case studies, the Costa dei Trabocchi, Italy, and North Norfolk, UK. The purpose of these case studies is to highlight implementation issues to inform the development of Croatiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s FLAGs. Both areas are implementing FLAGs in areas where other EU funding is available, in the Italian example the area abuts Leader and ERDF-assisted areas, in the case of N Norfolk the area is also a LEADER area. The Costa dei Trabocchi partnership has seen the benefits of integration and has sought to develop strong relationships from the start. The benefits of this are seen in the high levels of cooperation over coastal and fisheries based tourism, where infrastructure is being developed that benefits the fishing communities that would otherwise be unaffordable if FLAG resources alone were utilised. The N Norfolk example has taken a more focused approach, largely due to national and local administrative approaches, due to a very focused national fisheries management body and local

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

decisions to take a more sector-led approach than other English FLAGs, such as Cornwall. The issues that emerge are: • The importance of integration – the Italian case study shows how its success was built on proactive engagement between the FLAG partnership and the bigger and better established partnerships in the same and neighbouring areas. Commitment to partnership from the outset has led to the fisheries programme having a positive influence over the spending of the ERDF and Rural Development programmes, particularly in the area of tourism. • The importance of facilitation – the UK case study shows how crucial the facilitator has been to the success of the partnership and its programme. In this case the facilitator was based at the local authority and his role has been pivotal in creating the partnership, achieving agreement and turning the fishing communities aspirations into a deliverable programme. • The great diversity in approach – the Case studies, the FARNET Research and the international experience quoted below shows that there is great variability. The FARNET research has sought to explain this through examining the factors underlying this variability, however, the conclusions do not yet show strong relationships between particular fishery and FLAG characteristics. It is not yet clear how this variability will be addressed in the next planning period. It is however clear that variety in approach will continue to be a feature.

2.3.3 International experience In the course of the research, the approach of Denmark, Scotland, Bulgaria and Cyprus were also reviewed.

Denmark offers the most appropriate best practice experience as they appear to have made the greatest efforts to establish FLAGs on meaningful boundaries and worked with fishermen applying the principles of Community Led Local Development, as intended. Denmark has also taken the most positive approach to aligning their administrative processes, the Rural Development and Fisheries Departments working closely together to assure programme coherence. It is useful to understand best practice, whilst Croatia develops its own national approach. Whilst RoC’s approach will not be comparable to Denmark in the short term, it provides an idea of best practice at which to aim. Scotland and Bulgaria appear to have taken a more top down approach, but with important differences. In the case of Bulgaria, the government took a strategic approach defining the areas where they believed the FLAG approach was appropriate. Although the Bulgarian government has had delivery system difficulties, it has sought a response from local fishing communities and so the approach has had top down and bottom up components. Development of the FLAGs has been relatively slow, but it has respected the importance of the local response; each has also been allocated relatively large budgets (3 times the size of the Scottish examples in gross terms). In the case of Scotland, the Scottish government also took a top down approach, adopting a distributive approach to by applying a simple formula to allocate funds to all the eligible areas. However the budget is very small and the area covered is large, as a result small amounts of funding have been allocated to each area and FLAGs lack critical mass. Since making the allocation, the Scottish government has taken a relatively low-key approach to the intervention, allowing areas to develop their own programmes with relatively little interference.

In Cyprus, just one FLAG has been identified and it has been built directly on a pre-existing LAG. The LAG membership has not changed to reflect the change in function and fishermen constitute 1.2% of the membership. In this small review of international best practice, the Danes appear to have the most to offer Croatia in terms of the approach they have taken and its results.

Secondly, the guidance for implementation of the FLAG methodology will be in the common guidance for Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) methodology that will be covered by new guidelines for all CLLD approaches in EU funds. This will also encompass LEADER and CLLD implementation through Cohesion programmes. This guidance is most likely to require more coherence between programmes and between approaches followed and strategic integration. It is likely that DG Mare will add further guidance to the CLLD guidance that applies to all funds.

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

2.3.4 CLLD & FLAGs 2014-20 2.3.5 CLLD in 2014-20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fund Integration Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is a key element of the current negotiations regarding the 2014-20 period. Three Commission proposals for new laws are still under negotiation: the new CFP, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and the Common Market Organisation. Whilst these negotiations are currently ongoing, it is clear that CLLD and FLAGs are most likely to form part of the reformed CFP; as DG Mareâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach to implementation of Community Led Local Development under the new EMFF. It is important therefore to understand that the 2014-20 FLAGs will be governed by EMFF regulations; as well as benefiting from two sets of regulation and at least one set of guidance. Firstly, the detailed regulations for implementation under the ESI and the EMFF will apply. These will build on the current regulations and guidance, but it may strengthen the requirements to reflect local circumstances and follow a more consistent EU model, as the current levels of variability cannot be justified and it is apparent that more needs to be done to move towards the genuinely territorial approaches intended.

Under the current programme arrangements for EU programmes, managing authorities and national governments are expected to show clear demarcation between programmes. This is important to help ensure funds are effectively deployed, that duplication of outputs and funding is avoided. Under the proposed 2014-20 programmes, the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) will require the establishment of Partnership Agreements (PA) between Member States and the EC that will identify at the strategic level how the funds are due to work together, and where they are intended to be discrete and separate. As elsewhere the CSF and the PA for Croatia will also be required to show how the approaches to CLLD will be developed in a coherent way. The guidance for this is currently under discussion between DG-Mare, DG-Agri, DG-Employ and DG-Regio.

2. Context Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Discussion and Conclusions

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

3. Discussion and Conclusions The previous sections have presented the findings of the study. In this section we discuss the implications of these findings, bringing in the outcomes of discussions of the workshop sessions held by the project to support the conclusions at the end. The study has shown that there is a wide range of issues that need to be considered in addressing the question of FLAGs in Croatia. Whilst none of these issues are complex in itself the sheer number of competing issues and interests demands close attention.

3.1 The Need and Role for FLAGs in Croatia Although implementation of CLLD is a key element of implementation of the CFP and EMFF from 2014-20, it is also important that key stakeholders are clear about the purpose of the FLAGs and the “problem(s)” that they are being expected to address. It is clear from the study that a variety of views exist on the state of the fish stocks and of the fishery sector. The information quoted has come from the best sources currently available, but there are well recognised deficiencies in this data that will begin to be addressed by the development of the EMFF OP and the development of the Management Plans. The fishery management position is complex and a full description is beyond the scope of this report and more work needs to be done to gain an accurate picture of the sector. In the study, we sought data and evidence from a number of sources, in particular, the Directorate of Fisheries, the National Strategic Plan and the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries at Split.

3. Discussion and Conclusions

However, the study has identified that the Croatian fisheries sector faces significant economic, environmental, social and regulatory issues, which support the RoC Government’s intention to implement CLLD in this sector. These issues include: • The territorial sea has relatively healthy fish stocks, according to the NSP, however, there are weaknesses in that the key spawning/recruitment grounds in the Jabučka kotlina are outside the territorial sea in international waters and therefore outside Croatian government control. • The fishery has structural weaknesses in the onshore infrastructure, its regulation and coordination, all of which impede the marketing of Croatian fish. • There appear to be areas of over-fishing, according to the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, particularly in demersal stocks, where there appears to be an ongoing decline biomass. • The Croatian fishery sector is currently large and economically successful, with 4000 professional fishermen and 14000 subsistence fishermen; an unskilled fisherman can expect to earn €1000 per month for 120 days work per year, a salary that is underpinned by a state subsidy of €8000 per year. • Obtaining accurate figures on stocks and fishing effort is difficult, as fishery regulation is rather demanding in all countries. This is particularly the case in Croatia, given the number of fishermen, significant amounts of illegal activity, and the very large number of possible landing places – about 360 in Croatia of varying sizes. Most of these ports do not satisfy EU criteria for registration. By way of comparison there are approximately 13 landing places in Adriatic Italy; all of which have been registered as satisfying EU standards. Added to which fishermen are a politically significant group, who have the support of all political parties.

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

• However, these incomes and levels of active fishermen are not sustainable as the stock is in decline and effective implementation of the CFP (which will play a significant role in assuring future sustainability) will lead to inevitable need for changes, and the need for many fishermen to cease and great changes to the way in which the sector is regulated. • FAO, working with the Oceanography and Fisheries Institute at Split have undertaken a great deal of research, particularly through the Adriamed project. This research provides a comprehensive evidence base on which to base future control, however, control based on science is always contentious with fishermen and there is a need for more local studies and an increase in awareness amongst fishermen of the role that this evidence can play. The above picture has emerged from information provided by consultees, from the NSP and in particular information provided by the Oceanography and Fisheries Institute at Split. It is not intended to be a comprehensive problem analysis, however, it is sufficiently clear from this overview that Croatia faces significant challenges in this sector. The challenges faced were discussed by the national and local workshops and both groups agreed that FLAGs could play a significant role in assisting Croatia to address the range of issues identified. In particular FLAGs could provide the following benefits: • Support the fisheries sector in dealing with the need for and the process of change that the sector now faces; • Changes in the CFP mean that Stakeholders and resourceusers are an essential part of the reformed CFP • The environmental management issues mean that fisherman should become most engaged protectors of the resource as their futures depend on it;

• Changes in capacity demand alternative livelihoods for fishermen – what are these? • Expanding employment opportunities – through links to other sectors (tourism etc.) • Training opportunities for new entrants; retraining redundant fishermen and upgrading skills to add-value to product • Developing/improving facilities • Support for safety at sea • Equip fishermen to become active in shaping their own economic futures; • FLAG creates a platform for fishermen to develop their own development programme • Creates basis for direct support to marine business development • Mechanism for market development and promotion • Enables exploration of the alternative economic activity outside fishing & links • Optimise fishery sector engagement in local development; • FLAG is directly connected to local government and other economic sectors • Creates forum for exchanging ideas and views • Provides mechanism for cross-sectoral development • Platform for PR & promotion • Joint activities and projects • Assist in the complex task of integrating EU and domestic funds at national and local level; • Require the active collaboration of local actors, including organisations appropriate for accountable body status. • Maximise use of funds. • Give assurance to Managing Authority, Paying Agency and Audit Authorities.

• Increase resilience & reduce vulnerability of fisheries sector, increase the sustainability of fishing and the resource on which it depends, as well as its capacity to react to shocks & crises. Prior to reform of CFP there has been a disconnect between fishermen and their environment & resource and without improving this connection, the fishery sector’s capacity to inadvertently cause or exacerbate a crisis remains a risk. The FLAG can help to reduce this risk as it can provide: • A mechanism for direct engagement by fishermen with the management of the resources and their better understanding; • Tools – and funds – for fishermen to take responsibility for assessing environmental impact of coastal development and resource-use; • A mechanism for training and awareness raising; and • An ability to provide improved supply chain benefits to fishermen by increasing the value of products and sales. In each case strengthened coordination, organisation and fisheries governance can play a key role. Improved associations will help in marketing, purchasing, stock management, engagement with other sectors locally; as well as improving the means for engaging with national agencies and supporting the process of adaptation necessary, as the CFP is implemented. These issues were thoroughly discussed by the national and local workshops and both concluded that based on the rationale presented above, there was a need and a role for FLAGs in Croatia and they could play a strong role in securing the future of this important sector.

3.2 Target audiences, stakeholders and “affected groups” A key component of the development process is to identify the “affected groups” regarding FLAG implementation. This process has already commenced, and a positive collaborative atmosphere was evident in both the national and local groups.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

At the national level, the development work done to date has identified: • Ministry of Agriculture – Directorate of Fisheries – the lead body for development and implementation, as Managing Authority within the management and control system for EFF and EMFF. Whilst CLLD and FLAGs are not within the scope of the work of the Twinning Team within the DF, they could play a role in the transfer of experience from those countries where FLAGs are already implemented. • Ministry of Agriculture – Directorate of Rural Development – DRD is DF’s key partner at the government level, given the need for complementarity of programmes and funds. Important lessons can be learnt from the current implementation of the LEADER programme under IPA. • Paying Agency for Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development – responsible for the Payment and Control System for the FLAGs programme and is likely to be required to participate in the certification of the CLLD programme within EMFF and its implementation. At the local level the development work to date has identified a range of groups who should be involved in the development of FLAGs in each fishery area: • Fishery interests – it will be important that the structure of the sector is respected in developing partnerships; in particu-

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

lar FLAGs need to ensure that they include both large and small scale fishermen. In Zadar County the study encountered representatives of both: • Large-scale fishing companies and cooperatives tend to be easier to work with, as they are generally better organised and have more management capacity and are therefore better able to engage in partnership activities. Companies and Cooperatives who showed capacity and interest include Kali Tuna, Ribarska Sloga and Omega 3. • Smaller scale fishermen – a much harder group to work with, however some of the smaller fishing and mariculture groups have engaged with the development process to date and some are involved with their local LAGs; particularly small mussel production cooperatives at Starigrad and small scale fishermen at Novigrad. • Extension Service – Zadar County – The Extension Service officer for Zadar County Lav Bavčević has the respect of the local fishermen and could play a key role in the development of the FLAG, if given the role. • LAGs Bura, Mareta and Laura that cover 73,34 % of territory of ZD County where fishing communities and fishery sector are important stakeholders in these partnerships, also, they are ready to provide additional support to fisherman in order to prepare them for the introduction of CLLD into fishery policy of Croatia • Local Authorities for Zadar County and Zadar City – are offering very positive support and ready to financially contribute to implementation of pilot projects in 2013.

An early task will be to undertake a more formal stakeholder analysis that identifies those who are involved in the processes of development and implementation. The Stakeholder Analysis would then be used formally to ensure that all those affected groups are involved appropriately. Amongst other things, this will be a key requirement for assessing compliance with EU regulations. It is evident from discussions with the wider group of stakeholders with whom engagement will be required, that beyond the “inner circle” of those who are currently aware of FLAGs, that awareness is low and work is required with this wider group: • Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds – the Ministry of Agriculture will need to work with MRDI (along with other ministries) showing how the respective programmes build toward a cohesive set of national objectives. This will need to be written in the PA and EMFF OP. There is a new requirement for 2014-20 that the PA will additionally need to show how all CLLD programmes work together. • Ministry of Economy and Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts. • Croatian Chamber of Economy and Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts. • Smaller scale Fishermen – although some smaller scale fishermen have been involved in the project, most have not and few will understand the role of the FLAG programme. A significant local communication task exists to engage this group and work with them constructively. This is one of the biggest challenges that FARNET have identified so far.

3.3 Directorate of Fisheries responsibilities, delegation and the role of Intermediaries The Directorate of Fisheries carries responsibility for development and implementation of the CLLD and FLAG programme, however they have a number of other priorities competing for their time and attention. DF will therefore need to think hard about how they use the resources available to them in order to deliver these responsibilities. The majority of actions start with them, either in terms of giving or delegating authority, resourcing the activity or in terms of direct delivery. The study has concluded that the majority of these tasks can be accomplished outside the DF, however, this will need to be initiated and overseen by DF to ensure all development activity (both within and outside the Directorate) remains coordinated. DF has resources under its own control that can be used to support development: • DF’s own staff – their numbers are planned to increase, however, the responsibilities and tasks that need to be delivered will also increase at least at the same rate as staff numbers rise; and currently staff numbers are fluctuating. • Staff of other ministries – staff in other departments will assist development and delivery, but they have their own responsibilities and whilst they can play a supporting role, they will only do so if DF takes the lead and is clear about the contribution required from other Departments. • Paying Agency – the paying agency will undertake key tasks in developing the payment and control function of the programme, however, it will require those tasks to be initiated and orchestrated by DF, as the Managing Authority. • Budgets – DF is responsible for a budget in 2013 to support fisheries. The study team understands that this budget was largely unspent in 2012 and the same could happen in 2013.

3. Discussion and Conclusions

Therefore, part of the current year budget could be devoted to supporting the developments identified by this report. • DF Field Office staff – the Field Office staff are not engaged in the FLAG development process, as the scope of their work is different. It is possible that they could play a role in the development of the FLAGs for the whole of Croatia. However, such a change in role would need to be planned and resourced and the impact on other tasks recognised. Also, the compatibility of their current (largely regulatory) work with the more facilitative and partnership roles necessary for FLAG development would need to be considered carefully.

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

One of the biggest challenges is that of communication as the Figure below demonstrates. The commonest way to overcome these obstacles is to identify and map the organisations that can act as effective intermediaries. These Intermediaries should be made aware of the CLLD approach and then they can provide information and assistance to their local stakeholders. If DF is to “animate” the fisheries sector and ensure that there is good two-way communication within the sector, then it will need to consider how it communicates with the intended beneficiaries in a detailed and serious way. It is clear from the analysis of possible players set out in this section that the communication challenge is very significant. Very rough estimates with which the study has been provided show there are in the region of 250,000 potential beneficiaries of EMFF and CLLD as applied through EMFF. The clear implication is that those working at the state level will need to think carefully about the best communication channels and intermediaries to use in order to get their message across.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

The use of electronic communication will help get the messages across, as will wise use of the (TV, radio and print) media; however, the main effort will be through those who can act as Intermediaries and interlocutors for the programme communicating directly with potential beneficiaries. These intermediaries include Local Authorities, Universities and Institutes with relevant competences UNDP, LAGs, Local and Regional Development Agencies and the Extension Service and Fisheries Associations and organisations, amongst others. The figure below shows the potential number of beneficiaries with whom DF need to communicate and however many staff are taken on by the Ministry; they will not have the scope to animate beneficiaries. Therefore the role of Intermediary Bodies will be critical in transmitting messages and undertaking the direct role of “animation”. The purpose of this figure is to depict the size of this task, but also to indicate the potential role that Intermediary Bodies could play.

250, 000 Potential Final Beneficiaries

1000 + Possible Intermediaries

10 - 20 DF Local officers State Ministry and Agency Officials Figure 7 Beneficiary mapping & the role of Intermediaries

The DF can call upon the resources of these Intermediary Bodies to support the development and delivery of the CLLD and the FLAGs: • Local fisheries sector – Large and small fishermen have both indicated commitment to developing FLAGs and their interest and some of the fishing groups are clearly well resourced and already have the capacity to deliver projects and to support programme delivery. • UNDP – has played a key role in prompting the development of the FLAG process through their support of this study as well as having facilitated previous development steps at the national and local level. • Local Authorities – commitment and understanding is variable, depending on other interests, however, authorities such as Zadar County Council are very well placed to support FLAG development in their areas. • LAG partnerships – potential exists for overlap and confusion with LAGs and FLAGs being developed side-by-side, however, this can be overcome by good communication and a will to cooperate on both sides. It seems evident from the LAGs that have been working with this project, and from the Italian case study, how beneficial this can be when it works. There is also strong evidence of the benefits of working in this way from other cases, such as Finland and Greece. In addition, the draft CLLD guidance for 2014-20 strongly suggests greater cooperation at the local level. The table below identifies stakeholders currently involved in the Fisheries sector that could play a role in its future animation, as intermediaries. The list isn’t exclusive and does not preclude the creation of a whole new sector of intermediary for CLLD in the new programme period, either by top down design or through open calls and tenders to play this important role.

3. Discussion and Conclusions

Stakeholder / Partner

Current Role / Status

Future / Potential Role

Comments

Responsibility for development of the programme

Managing Authority with Strategic responsibility for the programme

The decision to define, resource and to delegate the role of Intermediaries can only be made by DF; i.e., the development of a coordinated approach to animation / facilitation of CLLD in Fisheries starts with DF.

Other ministries

Responsibility to integrate programme activities

Integrated management arrangements, joint communications, parallel and joined up development of CLLD

Local animation and development can be integrated, e.g., LAGs and FLAGs.

Paying Agency

Responsible for payment and Control systems

Delivery of Payment and Control System

This is a demanding role and a significant amount of work is required from PA in the development phases and the programme cannot commence unless the system developed satisfies the EU. DF and PA will need to work closely together throughout this process. This has to be rigorous, but also proportionate to the nature and scale of the programme

DF Fisheries Budget

Largely unallocated budget for 2013

Could be used to fund all or part of the development plan.

The project did not study the parameters for this budget in detail, however it would appear to offer a potential means to support development. Once Croatia is a MS, the development plan could be co-financed with EMFF.

DF local office staff

Currently not engaged in the national FLAG development process.

Might be able to play a key role in FLAG development.

The project did not meet these staff, as DF wanted to be clear on the development requirements, before engaging them in the debate.

Fisheries Institute, Split

Provides technical input to the development of the Fisheries Strategy, but not yet the development plan for FLAGs.

Could support DF in the development of Fisheries Criteria for the FLAG programme and in defining areas.

Whatever role the Fisheries Institute plays in the development of FLAGS; this role will need to be coordinated with the role it plays for the programme as a whole.

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Table 1 Mapping Current and potential Future roles of Stakeholders and other resources with regard to the role of local intermediaries and animation

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Table 1 Mapping Current and potential Future roles of Stakeholders and other resources with regard to the role of local intermediaries and animation

Stakeholder / Partner

Current Role / Status

Future / Potential Role

Comments

Local Fisheries sector

Croatia has a very diverse Fisheries sector; including successful and well-resourced fishing interests, along with large numbers of smaller-scale fishermen.

The larger fishing operators appear interested in development of the sector and can support FLAGs.

Care needs to be exercised in engagement of private sector interests in programme development to ensure fair access to resources and to reduce the danger of conflicts of interest arising.

UNDP

UNDP has prioritised FLAG development in Croatia and their work has been well received.

Could continue to play a facilitation role.

The continued facilitation role will require formal acknowledgement and support, if it is to continue into formal programme development and delivery. Whatever role is envisaged will need a transition stage.

Local Authorities

Local Authorities currently vary in their interest and involvement in FLAGs. Both Zadar and Lika-Senj County have shown interest.

Can play a key role in supporting the development of FLAGs at the local level, including giving reassurance to the national level that EU-funded CLLD programmes will be integrated and complementary.

The Italian case study shows the importance of the local level integration. Although local integration and cooperation can be specified as a national requirement, it will not be achieved unless the partners, such local authorities and LAG partners are prepared and ready to support.

LAG Partnerships

The LAGs will be responding to the national call for proposals that will be issued soon by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. At the same time, they appear ready to support FLAG development in their locality, with for example Zadar County

LAGs are 2 or more years further advanced in their development than are FLAGs and can offer useful support to developing FLAGs. LAGs are able to offer more practical support in terms of co-hosting and co-location and mentoring.

Similar comments as for Local Authorities Establishing joined up structures will be a requirement of the Fisheries and Rural Development Programmes as well as the CSF.

The table above provides an analysis of the current and potential future roles for the key stakeholders. One of the key issues in establishing and delivering the development plan will be how messages are transferred backwards and forwards between the ministry and those in the field. State level organisations in all Member States are often too cautious and risk averse and this gets in the way of effective implementation of CLLD, implementation of which is about accepting that the approach is inherently risky and there will be failures. However, intrinsic to the approach is that national authorities should resist the temptation to “gold plate” regulation through additional and unnecessary regulation and control and should “get out of the way” as much as possible and allow local partners to drive the process. One of the biggest challenges is that of communication, as the Figure below demonstrates. The commonest way to overcome these obstacles is to identify and map the organisations that can act as effective intermediaries. These Intermediaries should be made aware of the Axis 4 approach and then they can provide information and assistance to their local stakeholders.

3.4 National Objectives The role of the DF is not only to set the delivery framework for the FLAGs and encourage the local partnerships to establish effective and coherent local strategies; it is also to establish the strategic framework within which the strategies should be established.

3. Discussion and Conclusions

Potential National Objectives Economic growth + consolidation

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

1. Help create new jobs 2. Create more and better jobs for fishing communities that repeat ‘’green’’ constraints 3. Advice and diversification of fishery products 4. Strategic objective- creating sustainable communities focusing on primary sector (fisheries), increase added value Fishermen leading their own development 1. Encourage fisherman to work together and think strategically for the future development 2. Make a development strategy, which is owned by all people who live there and who believe in it 3. To take responsibility for their future developments, not just ‘’wait and see’’ 4. Active participation of fishermen in management and decision making process Horizontal integration 1. Horizontal integration at local level 2. Objective- local development strategy 3. Improving communication between different stakeholders from the same territory 4. Objective- local community, economical value added 5. To achieve the best possible multiplying effect through interconnections between different sectors in coastal areas (i.e. Agriculture, tourism, public health, pharmacy) Horizontal integration 1. Improving collaboration between FLAG and scientists 2. Communication with fishery community

Fig 8 Potential National Objectives emerging from the national project workshop – Zagreb – Jan 2013

In establishing the national plans that will deliver the CFP and EMFF, a series of strategic objectives will be set and DF, along with its partners, will need to establish which of those objectives should be delivered by the FLAGs and indeed if any further objectives should be set for the FLAGs specifically. 43

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

The national workshop considered this question and the following points emerged as potential objectives.

Guidance

Fig 9 Potential National Guidance emerging from the national project workshop – Zagreb – Jan 2013

1. Help and support diversification through value adding 2. Integration in local development (not only sector development) 3. Communication, integration with other sectors, key point, added value 4. Inclusion of vulnerable groups + gender equality as FLAG priorities 5. Area (size) limitation or limitation of number of flags per area (unit) (county perhaps) 6. Partnership should be developed on the basis of tradition and experience from the past in order to revive positive experiences from the past (i.e. Fish processing factories)

In addition, the national workshop was asked to consider those stipulations that should be given to the local group(s) as guidance and the following list emerged. It is likely that as the FLAG approach develops in Croatia; these lists will develop and change, as will the composition of these two lists.

3.5 Local Objectives The essence of a CLLD approach is that the programme is substantially owned and led by the local community for whom it is intended. Local partners will need to be involved in the determination of the Croatian approach to developing a FLAG structure in meaningful ways that can ensure that the approach agreed has local support and is realistic. A good way to explore this issue would be through the pilot that is suggested in Section 4.

It can be challenging to establish the CLLD approach in post-communist regimes, as the local and national authorities have historically had such a strong centralist approach to all areas of public policy. However, It is clear from the local discussions and local workshops where local stakeholders played a very full part in the development of ideas and proposals that the appetite and the will exists to overcome these obstacles., In particular our consultations in Zadar County have shown that public and private capacity exists to support development of the FLAG partnership and mechanisms. Strongly supportive and facilitative Local Authority backing is critical to the success of FLAG implementation; however, in postcommunist states, the legacy of local command and control administration can be a real problem, as it is significantly at odds with the CLLD methodology and principles, which require administrations to support and facilitate; i.e. to let go. These problems have been a major impediment to LAG and FLAG development in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland. The local workshops produced two sets of draft local objectives for their own development of the FLAG and strategy, which are presented in Annex 2. The objectives developed have been sorted into two groups; those focused on the territory, or horizontal actions (Table 1) and those focused on the fisheries sector, or vertical actions (Table 2). It is clear to see from the variety and depth of these actions that there is a wealth of ideas in the local partnerships and that a key challenge will be in prioritising what is possible, particularly in the earlier stages of the programme. Involvement of fishermen. One lesson from the project workshops and interviews is the importance of ensuring that fishermen are involved from the start of the process. This doesn’t mean that every

fisherman will engage form the start, but that successful implementation of the CFP will depend on planned engagement of fishermen from the start (see also communication below). There is a requirement on those responsible for the programme to inform and involve the fisheries sector in the development of the National Programme. However this can be more difficult when dealing with fisheries, given the fragmentation of the fisheries sector as, unlike the farming sector, it does not have well developed associations, like COPA-COGECA that connect local, to national and to EU-wide information and lobbying structures. In this respect this makes the job of developing fishery structures more difficult than in other similar sectors, so extra attention needs to be paid to involvement and communication planning. When planning to introduce new ideas to any group, such as fishermen, an understanding of that group as well as general understanding of how groups adopt new ideas. The general principles that apply to this process have been well researched in the fields of psychology and technology adoption. One of the best known depictions of this is the Rogers curve (see below), which has been developed to demonstrate this process.

The key for successful adoption is defining who sits in which sector of this bell curve and then segmenting the communication approach accordingly. A question for the longer term will be what stance to take regarding the Late majority and the Laggards. In the context of the fishing sector this is likely to mostly be comprised of small fishermen, who are by definition “hard to reach” and there is a diminishing rate of returns; i.e., they require more effort for less effect, as the second figure below shows:

Adoption

Skeptics

Effort

Bystanders

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Naysayers

ROI

Innovators 2.5%

Early Adopters 13.5%

Early Majority 34%

Late Majority 34%

Laggards 16%

Fig 11 Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve – with effort and Return on Investment as added factors

Considering these questions and factoring them into the communication planning and stakeholder analysis effectively will greatly assist adoption of the programmes, and foster ownership and innovation by the fishermen.

Innovators 2.5%

Early Adopters 13.5%

Early Majority 34%

Fig 10 Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve

Late Majority 34%

Laggards 16%

In using these models to help guide the change process, it is important to be aware that they describe an ideal situation and there are other factors that condition later involvement, e.g., the nature of employment and access to resources for investing / diversifying in times of economic difficulty can all have a profound

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

effect. Other sources for change management theory and methods include John Kotter and his 8-step change theory. In addition, there are other questions that will need to be considered in planning for effective involvement of the fishermen, for example: how best to achieve inter-sectoral cooperation and the way that Facilitation should be developed (See section 3.9, below). In summary, the involvement of fishermen – the resource-users – in the FLAG is crucial. Without the whole-hearted support of the resource-user the FLAG cannot succeed. The project action plan and interventions therefore include: • A number of immediate and short-term projects capable of providing the basis for the longer-term actions required to provide sustainable economic, social and environmental improvements. • A number of projects that are likely to require a longer period of propagation to be able to create a significant impact. The final beneficiaries of the FLAG should be the primary, secondary and tertiary industry businesses, as well as the wider coastal communities, located in the Zadar FLAG area. Specifically, the programme should work for the duration of the programme with the fishermen themselves, both inshore and offshore (primary industry), the processors, wholesalers and retailers (secondary industry) and other businesses directly or indirectly associated with the fishery, such as restaurants, hotels and so on (tertiary industry). The programme should also have a strongly positive impact on surrounding communities, in particular those that focus on developing the fishery and its area as an attractive venue for tourists and other visitors. Taking the example of Zadar County, fishermen are already starting to think about possible initiatives and ideas such as a Fishing Skills Training Centre and a Visitor Centre,

both of which could be self-sustaining by the end of the FLAG programme, and provide wider community benefits.

3.6 Local model Turning vision and ideas into reality is often the hardest step to take for a local partnership, as it means coming to agreement over priorities, roles and responsibilities. To assist in this process the report provides a model for local partners to consider as they develop their local decision-making structures. This is provided in Annex 1. It is important to use the model in the manner it has been intended. It is not a template to be followed, but it is a dummy model for comparison purposes. The intention is that it provides an idea of what the local structures might look like once they have been developed through an appropriate local development process. The model is based on what has been shown to work in other European countries. In using this model, it is important to ensure that local and national circumstances are reflected. In addition, the model may require more adaptation in Croatia, given that Croatia’s political, social and commercial development is different from that experienced in western Europe, meaning that additional work is likely to be needed on its regulatory and cultural alignment. The model is intended to offer a good starting-point that can be moulded to fit better with Croatian realities, using the CLLD concept to produce a locally workable entity. The model is based on structures that are in operation elsewhere, adapted to the circumstances of the locality reviewed by the project, i.e., Zadar County. The proposal is based on a small number of meetings and requires further adaptation to ensure it addresses

all the relevant local legal and administrative requirements. Developing the local model will also need to address how FLAGs are introduced into the developing regional and rural development structures in line with the Partnership Agreement (PA). The model will also need to address communication and coordination structures with all other programmes and groups, for instance, LAGs, Local Authorities, and if different whoever is nominated as the accountable body for the partnership. Regarding CLLD programmes, this is very likely to be a requirement in the PA, however, it would also make sense to broaden this so that the responsible partnership has an overview of all funds in the area. In the process of establishing the FLAG, it will be important for the FLAG to formalise the communication mechanisms with the Paying Agency and Managing Authority. Whilst this process will be mostly led from the national level, however, communication should be two way and the local partners will need to organise accordingly. Development of the FLAG will need to focus expectations regarding the funding. FLAG funding is for smaller scale actions that in particular address interface issues, e.g., the relationship between Fishing and Tourism and the wider community. For instance the desire was expressed to address the network of landing places. Funding this would probably not be the best use of FLAG mechanisms and available funding, partly because it is out of scope and scale of the Axis 4 funding; but feasibility work could be done through the FLAG. If other resources can be found, then feasibility work such as this could also be done in preparation for the launch of the FLAGs, so that they have some “oven ready” projects that can demonstrate quickly what the FLAG can offer.

In analysing the problems facing the local Zadar fishery, it is helpful to look at what the NSP has noted as weaknesses in the Croatian fishery sector. The NSP states that the fisheries are characterised by: • Few high value-added products • Limited innovation in production and added value • Lack of brands and branding • Poor distribution channels • Limited infrastructure • Inadequate refrigeration and storage capacities and aggravated unloading.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

These are signs of weak organisation across all parts of the fishery, and that the small scale fishery sector in particular lacks the capital and capacity to upgrade itself significantly. In looking at the strengths, the NSP noted the following trends: • Modernisation of fish processing industry • Development of frozen and chilled supply and processing of fish products from fish farming • Growing tourism sector • Increase in number of large retail outlets • Availability of EU funds and markets • Mechanisms of national support in establishment and operation of fishing cooperatives and producer organisations • National programmes for support of infrastructure development in fisheries • Opening of the EU market for shellfish • Branding of fisheries product • Increase in consumption of fisheries products These strengths clearly identify market development as the way forward but it is clear that this development will require a transformation in the food supply chain. This transformation will need capital investment.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Investing capital into a sector at this stage of development needs a coherent structure that will merge the various interests so that they all pull in the same direction. To make the best use of CLLD funding demands a local organisation such as a FLAG. For a FLAG to work it needs a well-understood and agreed objective. An objective, furthermore, that is accepted by all the stakeholders. The dummy model suggests an objective for the FLAG, however it will be for partners in each areas to develop their own objectives based on local circumstances, whilst reflecting programme intentions. The FLAG and the local CLLD programme should help the fishery to adapt and diversify as market conditions change by delivering an integrated programme of mutually beneficial actions to support the sustainable and profitable development of the sector.

FIG 12 - POTENTIAL FLAG SELECTION CRITERIA: Socio-economic analysis which provides evidence based assessment of: - Economic contribution of sector (eg, No. & Sizes of boats, value of catch) - Potential for continued positive contribution - Evidence of support from local community, inc lag, local authoroties and other stakeholders - Evidence based swot that interprets the evidence collected and clearly informs priority setting Local development strategy: - Objectives, targets & priorities for investment appropriate to the flag mechanism (type and scale) - Project approval process (also project development support processes) - Demarcation between funds - Sustainability, value added & persistence of impact - Consideration of cross-cutting agendas, eg, environment & equality - Effective monitoring and evaluation Area definition:

The introduction of FLAGs would provide the means of maximising the impact of EMFF investment by allying this funding with other funding initiatives and also providing a better basis for private sector investment. The FLAG should aspire to introduce into the programme as much counterpart funding as possible using this approach. On the next page a set of potential criteria are provided to assist in the process of developing and selecting FLAGs.

- Land and sea area definitions - inclusive of fishing areas to be covered, identifying & justifying any areas of overlap - Population covered - Coherent with national approach and international best practice - Relationship to other clld lags either overlapping, or neighbouring Governance: - - - - - - -

Composition / members Decsion making structure Transparency and conflict of interest arrangements Project selection process Inclusion of fishery interests Certification/audit, etc.. Communication strategy

Budgets: - Funding allocation - Co-financing - Management arrangements - Alignment with other eu funding source: esf, eafrd, erdf - Alignment with non-eu funding - State aids considerations

3.7 Area definition Area definition will be one of the key issues for any FLAG partnership. The project discussions in Zadar County demonstrate this, as do the reviews of other countries’ approaches. In Zadar County, several issues are apparent: • Each FLAG will need landward and seaward boundaries. • The DF should make clear whether they want to set criteria for area definition. We would suggest that a clear set of criteria are developed regarding size, relationship to processing capacity/areas, relationship to current and potential tourism centres, relationship to other CLLD LAG boundaries and inclusion of main fishing grounds and conservation zones. • By way of comparison; Bulgaria set a national template for the areas it expected to come forward, this hasn’t been 100% successful yet, but at least local partners understand national government intentions. • NB – The PA will have to set out the type of areas where CLLD will be implemented and the priorities which it is intended to address • FLAG boundaries should be coherent. This means that boundaries should be drawn to consolidate those areas that have natural associations of fishing activity. Areas should also be coherent from a regional and national perspective ensuring that no areas are inadvertently omitted. By way of example, in Zadar County, the Islands of Pag & Vir and are not currently included in any LAG, but both have an active fishing sector. • The FLAG area should be centred on the main centre for the fishing industry for the area; generally the main landing point; this will also help to define the distribution of FLAGs down the coast. • In setting criteria for the acceptability of Local Development Strategies and plans one consideration will need to be whether the area defined has optimised the geographic coverage.

• FLAG/LAG coherence is an issue and does need to be factored into partners’ thinking and the most made of these relationships. Several models exist, and whilst the joined up approach is preferable, this must be supported by the ministry and facilitated at the local level. • Each area should consider whether it wishes to be part of the overall area covered by the FLAG, however, DF guidance should make clear who is able to make that choice. For example, if the municipality representing an area of coast, an island, or part of an island decides it doesn’t want to be part of the FLAG, but the local fishermen wish to engage, there could be difficulties. DF guidance therefore needs to establish which are the essential partners. • DF will need to determine how porous LAG boundaries can be. For instance if a facility in Zadar or Split, e.g port-related facility, serves the FLAG area, but is outside the FLAG boundaries, then the rules need to allow for funding of such facilities. One example would be a depuration unit that serves a number of mariculture enterprises in the FLAG area would be best located in the main port for the area.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

The advice of FARNET regarding area selection: The EU regulations allow Member States or regions to use different approaches to area selection. Some Member State managing authorities define only the broad conditions that a territory has to meet in order to benefit from Axis 4, and invite fisheries communities to make proposals for FLAG areas. This has the advantage of being more bottom-up, but Member States have to judge whether they have the systems in place which will allow them to select the areas that genuinely have the “critical mass” and are the most “coherent and able to support a viable development strategy”, as required in the regulations.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Other managing authorities prioritise territories that meet certain characteristics and then encourage the creation of partnerships and the development of strategies in these areas. Whilst in certain circumstances this can help ensure that funding is concentrated on areas that fulfil the conditions for meeting the strategic objectives of Axis 4 it does have the disadvantage of being more rigid and top down. There is also an intermediate option, where the managing authorities might indicate the broad geographic scope of Axis 4 eligibility (e.g., only a certain part of the coast, exclusion of certain large ports and so on), but the actual number of groups and their borders are negotiated between the local stakeholders. In practice, the definition of fisheries areas is often one of the most hotly contested issues in Axis 4. It is frequently the result of long discussions and negotiations involving key local, regional and national authorities. During these negotiations there is often strong pressure to satisfy a wide range of stakeholders and this can lead to an expansion of the boundaries of fisheries areas and a dilution of the funding. Despite the fact that, under Axis 4, fisheries areas do not have to be confined to existing administrative boundaries (Implementing Regulation, Article 22 .2), the result of the negotiations is usually a combination of municipalities (NUTS 5 areas). In fact, in some countries the formal declaration of the local authority (e.g., the local council or mayor) is a necessary condition for the given locality to be formally included in the FLAG area. As far as possible, Fisheries should however be the defining characteristic. According to the regulation , a fisheries area eligible for support shall be: a limited in size and, as a general rule, shall be smaller than NUTS level 3 of the common classification of territorial units for statis4

2011/0380

OJ L 154, 21.6.2003, p. 1

tics within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of 26 May 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)5; and b functionally coherent in geographical, economic and social terms, taking specific account of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and offer sufficient critical mass in terms of human, financial end economic resources to support a viable local development strategy.

3.8 The role of Local Authorities The role of Local Authorities is not prescribed by DG-Mare, although there is strong guidance that Local Authorities can play a key role in supporting local partnerships in the development and delivery of the FLAG. Their roles could include being a potential source of co-financing, undertaking the financial management roles on behalf of the LAG/FLAG, bringing together other sources of funding and helping to leverage maximum community/economic benefit from investments. However, as their role could be quite significant for all FLAGs, the questions therefore are; what is the role of local authorities and how is it being planned for? If the proposal for a pilot is adopted, then it was clear through the local workshops was that local authorities are committed and have capacity to assist the process and are ready to do so. Across Croatia, the Local Authorities appear to have differing levels of interest and knowledge of FLAGs, so one question for the development process is what would be the most effective way of planning consistent engagement? Alongside the role of Local Authorities, the role of the Regional Development Agencies should also be examined.

A further issue that will concern Local Authorities is the allocation of funds between LAG areas. For instance, ideally this should reflect the wider purposes of the fund, given its territorial focus and not simply be determined by detailed fishery criteria.

nership takes time and patience and would be in conflict with the core work of the DF’s local fisheries officers. Indeed extension of the allocation for management and administration to 25% in all EU funded CLLD is explicitly to include provision for animation.

Care also needs to be taken to ensure Local Authorities do not dominate or own the FLAG, this is a key consideration in new regulations. Local Authorities have an important role to play, but it will not help the FLAG or the delivery of its objectives if they control the Partnership. It is also important that and any conflicts of interest are clearly and transparently addressed and that there is no preference given to projects because they are promoted by the local authority.

Hence, in establishing the FLAG Facilitation system, the following questions will need to be addressed: • To what extent are DF local staff able to assist – if they carry out a “policing” role currently; are they the right people to provide facilitation advice? There is a real tension here that can be a significant barrier in establishing the necessary trust, as the regulatory/policing role is the main function of the local offices. • What role should be envisaged for County and Municipalities, Regional Development Agencies, UNDP, Extension Service, other enablers and service providers, etc.. • Is it possible to use the existing Facilitation structures, i.e., do not try and re-design the whole thing with a new system, if the existing systems can be made to work with a little simple adaptation.

3.9 Facilitation The processes of communication and development will be greatly simplified if a nationally consistent approach is taken to FLAG facilitation. The progress made to date has been possible due to the proactive role taken by UNDP in the Zadar County and the existence of local facilitators who already have the confidence of the fishermen, for example Lav Bavčević, who works for the national extension service. Establishing a nationally consistent approach does not mean that Facilitation needs to be delivered through the same cadre of personnel everywhere, simply that whoever is leading the process locally should be well connected to the ministry and their facilitation role should be publicly recognised. The DF local staff could have a key role to play in ensuring the process is taking place in every area, however, they will need to seek allies who can work directly with the fishermen and who already have their confidence to do the hands on facilitation developing the partnerships, strategies and programmes. This is very time consuming work; working in part-

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

The implication is that these facilitators do not need to be working in any one service; so for example a county council could facilitate in one area, the extension service in another and UNDP in another. However, whoever is expected to lead this work should be working in a common framework and they should also be delivering broadly the same messages. Whatever system is adopted, it should avoid any temptation to add a further level of bureaucracy and it should be seamless to the beneficiaries.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

3.10 Development Plan The discussion above points strongly to the need for a Development Plan (DP) that should be in place from early 2013 up to the commencement of formal FLAG support under the 2014-20 programme. The development plan would be required to address all the components needed at the local and national level. It should also consider how the development processes are to be funded, programmed, planned and delivered. The development process also needs to include a communication plan. At the beginning of 2014 the “Preparatory Support” becomes available to all CLLD LAGs including FLAGs. It is also likely that the proposed ‘start up kit’ currently only proposed for LEADER, should be made available to all LAGs and FLAGs. The advantages of a nationally coordinated development process are obvious, it will crucially provide the DF, its national partners and the European Commission with the assurance that the available resources are being used in a complementary way building towards coherent implementation of FLAGs in Croatia. The Development Plan would need to be structured around a clear timeline and should be based on transparent assumptions. For instance, although the absolute milestone dates are not known for the reform of the CFP and full establishment the EMFF, it is important for all concerned to establish realistic target dates. Dates will also be established for FLAG establishment, working on experience from the current programmes, FALGs will need to be established by the end of 2015 at the latest. To be realistic this timescale also needs to be set with reference to the likely time involved in each of the necessary development steps. Establishing a realistic end point is an iterative process, as the target end point will need to be re-calibrated once all of the develop-

ment steps have been scoped out in detail in detail and any issues and dependencies identified and addressed. Each step has its own internal time constraints, but some tasks can overlap, establishing an effective Development Plan, based in project management software, will mean the process can be managed effectively. In addition the Development Plan will help ensure that there is coordination at the national level, e.g., between RD and Fisheries policy and frameworks regarding strategic focus, programming, the development of local approaches, national networks, etc. It will also help to ensure that local development proceeds in step with the national developments and issues such as resourcing are addressed in a timely fashion. Another issue for the Development Plan is coordination between FLAG development and other areas of relevant policy. The 201420 implementation model will need to include both LAGs and FLAGs, as well as implementation of CLLD through ERDF and ESF; all of which will need to be presented as a coherent delivery structure within the CSF. This means that both the human capacity and the formal structures will need to be adequately elaborated, decisions taken on management, coordination, delegation, targeting, etc., as well as the structures required to deliver the programme, including functions and skills required – e.g., for programming, management, payment, audit, monitoring and evaluation. 2013 is a critical year within which, much of this learning and development will need to take place. A key issue will be ensuring that local level activity is coordinated with national and contributes to the overall development of FLAGs in Croatia. Without clear DF direction, the danger exists that local fishing groups, with or without their local partners

start to develop their ideas in any number of ways. To do this in a vacuum is most likely to lead to mis-directed and wasted effort and frustration on all sides. This is one of the reasons why we have suggested a pilot FLAG. The pilot will enable activity to take place at the local level, where fishermen can feel involved and can feel they â&#x20AC;&#x153;ownâ&#x20AC;? part of the development process. Lessons can be learnt and the FLAG proposals when they emerge will be better as a result. This process will need to be funded and we believe this would be a very effective use of the Fisheries national budget. This budget could also lever funds from other partners and from local groups (we were given evidence of this). The project has produced a high level Timeline to help gain an overview of the likely length of this process and the main blocks of work. A simplified version of this is reproduced below, the more detailed versions are annexed.

it has a strategic approach and also the most settled LAG/FLAG approach. The Fisheries and RD ministry officials have also found good ways of working together. It also manages the island/coastal/hinterland interface.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Italy might make another good location for a study visit, given the common interests in the Adriatic. Such a visit could also include a meeting with the FAO team working on the Adriamed project. However, Italy was very late to establish their systems and processes, so they may not offer the best example. In some respects Romania or Bulgaria might be better in highlighting issues likely to be faced or Greece where we see similar coastline and strong LAG/FLAG integration based on LEADER experience and autonomous Local Development Agencies

Accreditation, which is placed towards the right hand side of the chart to be done in early 2014, is an example of the challenges that will need to be tackled in planning this work. Based on the experience of the LEADER programme, accreditation of the programme alone will take 12 months. If DF is to establish the FLAGs by the end of 2015, then 2015 will need to be a transition year from pilot to mainstream programme. It will be important to maintain pace throughout the process, so that stakeholders remain engaged; however, the development of FLAGs will take time and there will be times when little appears to be happening as far as stakeholders are concerned. Therefore regular communication about progress will be important. A further suggested element of the development programme is a Study Visit or study visits that would include national and local interests. Advice is that the best country would be Denmark;

2013

2014

2015

emff national strategy, objectives & buget allocations

Ministry (DF) Development of CLLD Approach for fisheries

Ministry/DF capacity assessment & development

DF chioces & decisions

Use 2013 budget as testbed to develop HR national approach

Flag communications strategy

SHADOW FLAGs

CROATIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s FLAG ESTABLISHED - LDS - LAG APPROVED - STATUTES IN PLACE

Flag Development PROGRAMME

Study visits

UNDP REPORT ON FISHERY CLLD

Fig 13 Simplified timeline for introduction of FLAGs to Croatia, showing local and national actions

EMFF PROGRAMME READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Development of National FLAG Approach and Programme

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT OF CLLD IN FISHERIES

LOCAL FLAG MODEL

ACREDITATION

Pilot flag

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT NationaL MINISTRY / DiF

Local Flag development Ministry/ Directorate of Fisheries

3.11 Communication There is an urgent need for fishermen and other interested stakeholders to understand the plans with regard to FLAGs. As indicated above, communication with fishermen needs to be clearly structured, carefully planned, and it needs to be integrated with the development process overall. Given the audience, the time constraints, the low level of current understanding of the programme and its requirements, coupled with the need for partners to engage with the development of the programme; the communication challenge is very significant. For this reason a communication plan is needed that sets out: • Target audience – with whom are DF and partners intending to communicate? • Message – what is the message for the selected target audience, e.g., if DF wish to see fishermen collaborate in developing the FLAG programme, the message should be something like – “we’re in this together”. • Communication objective – What is the overall purpose of the communication? How to “measure” achievement? • Desired reaction – what do DF want the target audience to do? • Channels – what is the best way to communicate this message with the intended audience? How to use intermediaries, e.g., DF local staff. Appropriate channels will be those that fishermen already know and trust. An approach to developing a communication plan that would assist in this process is set out in the Action Plan. One of the components of the Communication Plan is the Frequently Asked Questions (or FAQ). This approach is widely used and would be of great assistance. Partners and Colleagues have a lot of questions and this is a quick, easy way to get facts out into the public domain.

It is also easy to update and it is interactive, as you can add new questions as they are asked and answered. FARNET can also be very helpful in this area.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

3.12 Data and evidence “The collection of data is not an end in itself, but is essential for informed decision- making.” 6 If the fishery, and the community based on it, is to function properly then proper planning is needed. Planning includes both fishery management plans as well as the business plans for fishing businesses – and the development of the FLAG. For these plans to be effective good reliable data are needed and these data must be adequate to answer the users’ needs. Data collection should cover all aspects of a fishery, from the stocks themselves and their exploitation through to the local consumers, industry and markets. EU Decision 2010/93 (Chapters 1-5), EC Regulation 199/2008 and EU Regulation 1224/2009 (referred to as the EU Sampling Acquis) between them require all EU Member Countries to establish the following data collection and management systems, which are required to produce the data needed to support stock assessment and its introduction into Croatia’s fisheries management system: a. A Fishery Independent data collection system based on FRVs (Fisheries Research Vessels) which collects biological data at sea, together with supporting oceanographic data. Sea surveys of this kind are normally conducted as national or, where possible as joint regional research exercises with scientists from other EU countries participating, and with multi vessel surveys whenever feasible. Data obtained, e.g. on abundance, size and species composition of the fish popu-

FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 4: Fisheries Management: Article 2, FAO 1997.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

lations, are not influenced by the fishery and should be representative of the natural populations of fish. Such data are used to estimate growth and mortality and to construct biological, dynamic pool models. b. A Fishery Dependent data collection system: such data are collected by scientists and technicians at the landing places, and on commercial boats at sea. These data provide extremely valuable scientific data which, when combined with fishery independent biological data taken on Fishery Research Vessels (FRVs) at sea, allow various kinds of biological stock assessment models to be constructed. Fishery dependent data are likely to be biased by effort distribution and gear type but are extremely important because the fish caught differ in species composition, sizes and abundance from the fish in natural populations. It is essential to know how the structure of the catches differs from that of the natural populations.

Metier: a group of fishing operations targeting a similar (assemblage of) species, using similar gear, during the same period of the year and/or within the same area and which are characterised by a similar exploitation pattern Particularly unsaturated Omega 3 fatty acids, which are found in high concentrations in â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;oilyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; fish such as the Scombridae (which includes tuna species), but are absent from or present in low concentrations in nonfish foods.

c. Transversal Variables and Metier 7 based surveys: these are carried out by fishing skippers/captains who fill in log sheets for every fishing operation on any fishing ground. Log sheets must be filled in regularly and must record specified data which can be used later to allocate effort by species, fishing ground, gear and time so that stocks can be fished sustainably. d. Surveys fleet censuses which estimate landings and effort and which can be used to identify the relation between increasing effort and landings. These data are used to construct important models surplus production models which can be used to identify biologically sustainable strategies for each stock. e. Surveys which provide economic data so that e.g. biological surplus production models can be converted to bioeconomic

models which are essential for identifying sustainable and profitable management strategies. f. Surveys which provide information on ecosystem structure. g. Surveys of the aquaculture and fish processing sector. Guidelines for collecting the data needed and for establishing data collection systems to cover all of these should have already been established in DF.

3.13 Market analysis The future market for Croatian fish products needs to be well understood and these comments concerning that market may be helpful. Whilst EU consumers are demanding more and more convenience and choice from seafood (as they are with other food products), they are at the same time being very much more exacting about what they expect in terms of both dietary and hygiene standards. In one respect this presents a real growth opportunity for the seafood industry, as there is an increasing awareness amongst consumers of the beneficial health effects from eating marine based protein when compared to other protein sources; particularly given the low calorie content of fish and the beneficial effects of fish oils8 in preventing coronary disease. The Mediterranean diet in particular is well known as being healthy, with pasta, olive oil and fish being among the more common ingredients of this diet. Thus whilst the EU represents a potentially profitable market for producers, it nevertheless has very strict regulations with regard to food health and hygiene standards that require significant financial investment and attention to detail to ensure that these regulations are complied with.

Two further comments concerning the future of the EU seafood industry are also worth mentioning. Firstly, as attention to quality assurance and management is growing in importance, so increased competition in the market place (and the dominance in some countries such as the UK, France and Germany of the multiple retailers) has meant that the number of buyers is falling. Consolidation and economies of scale are being sought to ensure that ever-larger seafood companies/groups stay in business. This will ultimately lead to backwards pressure on producers to supply at acceptable prices and to adopt a more market orientated (as opposed to production orientated) approach to seafood marketing.

ture planning â&#x20AC;&#x201C; especially in relation to long-term demand for fish-feed for aquaculture. At the same time, there is a buoyant summer market for fish and fish products, generated by tourism. Again, market analysis is important.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Secondly, there are signs are that the EU will increasingly look to sourcing its seafood needs from third (non EU) countries, particularly as regards production from capture fisheries. Sustained over fishing and under-reporting of catches, the increased catching of smaller juvenile fish, a serious reduction in catch quotas, over capacity in many of the national fleets, and increasing input costs (particularly fuel and labour costs) are all contributing to a collapse of some of the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most important and traditional fisheries. Experiences from elsewhere in the world where this has happened (such as the collapse of the cod fishery off the east coast of Canada in the early 1990s), suggest that unless sustained and radical corrective action is taken by both the industry and authorities alike (something which is proving difficult for the European Commission to implement politically), the situation for producers over the coming years will get worse before it gets better. This analysis has a carry-over effect for Croatia. There is a particular niche market for sashimi-grade tuna in Japan which will be covered by the tuna-farming companies themselves however the market for local pelagic species needs to be analysed for fu-

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

3.14 Conclusions 1. FLAGs have a key role to play in the sustainable development of Croatiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fishery sector, communities and areas; and in assisting adaptation to the requirements of the Common Fisheries Policy. 2. Time is a critical factor, as implementation of FLAGs can be anticipated from 2015 onwards. Preparatory actions will be possible in 2014, however, formal commencement is unlikely until 2015. 3. Effective implementation of the FLAG methodology will require a Development Plan that coordinates national and local development to ensure that the FLAG programme is ready for implementation. 4. Effective implementation will also require a substantial amount of delegated activity, whereby the Directorate of Fisheries use the full range of resources available to them to deliver their responsibilities in developing the FLAG programme, including a clear nomination of organisationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; roles and responsibilities and in particular identifying lead facilitators in each potential FLAG area.

5. Croatia stands to gain the most from FLAGs in the 201420 period if a pilot area can be used as a test bed and the study has shown that Zadar County offers the best opportunity, as it has both the appetite and the characteristics to make it a good pilot area. 6. In the process of introduction of CLLD into fisheries sector and communities, wider experience gained in introduction of the LEADER approach can be of great assistance, particularly given that local communities in most coastal parts of Croatia have already been extensively involved in the process. Wider experience gained in implementation of FLAGs in other parts of the EU can also be accessed through FARNET.

4. Recommendations

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Recommendations

4. Recommendations Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

4. Recommendations The process of inquiry followed by the project has established clear conclusions and these have been discussed through the process of national and local workshops that have been arranged by the project. The workshops gave solid support to the 3 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was agreed by the workshops, as was the supporting rationale. The implication that a National Development Plan and supporting Communication Plan (Recommendation 2) and a pilot FLAG (Recommendation 3) were required was also supported. The local workshops gave particular support for the idea of a pilot FLAG, with private, public and NGO sector all in support of the idea and indicating their appetite to add their own resources to establishing and delivering a successful pilot in Zadar County.

Recommendation 1 Implement the CLLD Methodology within the 2014-20 EMFF programme and facilitate the establishment of FLAGs for all relevant areas of Croatia Rationale: Full and proactive implementation of CLLD in the EMFF and FLAGs requires a well prepared programme, with clear objectives, a well prepared set of partners and effective targeting. Enabling FLAGs to work in the most effective way possible will be very beneficial to Croatia, because it will: • Support the fisheries sector in dealing with the need for and the process of change that the sector now faces;

4. Recommendations

• Equip fishermen to become active in shaping their own economic futures; • Optimise fishery sector engagement in local development; • Assist in the complex task of integrating EU and domestic funds at national and local level; • In particular, it will provide a communication mechanism for • Increase resilience & reduce vulnerability of fisheries sector, increase the sustainability of fishing and the resource on which it depends, as well as its capacity to react to shocks & crises.

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

In addition, FLAGs could assist the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy in Croatia; helping to soften the eventual impact of aligning the Croatian fishery sector to the CFP. It is easy to waste resources in the early years of implementation of new programmes, as all the partners are searching to understand the EU, the programmes, their respective roles and one another. Establishing a cogent development plan will enable Croatia to be SMART about the way in which it implements FLAGs and the CFP and help it to earn credibility for the implementation of Fisheries policy from national and EU partners. The Recommendation refers to “all relevant areas of Croatia”, as it is not necessarily assumed that the whole coast would be covered. Likewise, there are inland areas, where the development of a FLAG could be beneficial. General Description of Actions needed to achieve recommendation: this a high level action, i.e., it requires the engagement and support of senior decision-makers and focuses on obtaining suf-

4. Recommendations Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

ficient support to implement CLLD and the FLAGs in the 2014-20 programme in the most effective way. It will require Directorate of Fisheries officials to brief the decision makers, to draft the necessary decisions and to negotiate with others (primarily at the national level), to obtain support and resources required for implementation.

Recommendation 2 Establish a National Development Plan for FLAGs Rationale for recommendation: For FLAGs to play a significant role in the implementation of CFP, as set out above, it will be necessary to ensure a well structured, nationally coherent implementation of the FLAGs. The Action Plan elaborates the steps involved in the National Development Plan. Essentially it is a plan to realise the objectives that the project has concluded are appropriate for Croatia and agreed as a sensible approach by those present at the national workshop. General Description of Action: Gain commitment and prepare ground for next steps, including budget commitments and identify any legal or other national regulatory steps that will be needed.

Recommendation 3 Establish a Pilot FLAG in Zadar County Rationale for recommendation: Successful implementation of FLAGs in the 2013-20 programme will be much improved if a Croatian example can be developed from which all other partnerships and areas can learn. This is a well-established practice in public policy, particularly where complex issues are involved, as is the case in FLAG implementation. A significant body of experience exists from elsewhere in the EU, but Croatiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s situation is quite specific and whilst lessons from elsewhere will be helpful, they will need to be placed in a proper context and all temptation to copy-paste should be resisted. However, we recommend a full-scale pilot in Croatia as local partners are likely to see a programme designed and built using Croatian experience as being more robust and convincing. They would also find it easier to visit and view the pilot in operation. The pilot area should be chosen according to robust criteria. The area should be appropriate to the FLAG methodology, and there should be a reasonable expectation that the area will be part of the 2014-20 programme on the basis of the strengths and needs of its Fisheries sector. In order to be an effective pilot, the area to be selected should also be in an area that is relatively accessible to the other areas that are likely to host FLAGs, as well as having good links to Zagreb and internationally. There should be a demonstrable administrative capacity within the area, cooperation between fishermen and local authorities, FLAG/LAG engagement and a clear appetite for implementing the pilot project in order to justify designation of the pilot area.

Another role of the pilot would be to offer the opportunity for those in the other FLAG areas to engage in the pilot exercise and for the learning process within the pilot area to be an open process that is shared with other pilot FLAG areas. For example, LAG Adrion (like the LAGs in Zadar County) is actively interested in developing a FLAG and has LAG members who could play a part in a FLAG pilot network; Ms. Stela Vela, who is a trained fisheries biologist. Other LAG areas could be encouraged to nominate a contact person and a network could be formed fairly quickly. From the evidence presented to this study, Zadar County appears to meet all of these criteria and therefore the pilot has been suggested for this area. There could be other candidates, and it is recommended that DF and partners satisfy themselves that the criteria above are the most appropriate and that selection of the pilot area follows a fair and transparent process. A further question that will need to be considered is what boundaries to follow, in particular, whether the pilot area should be coterminous with an existing LAG, or cover a wider area, e.g., the whole of Zadar County. We would suggest the latter and to set the pilot the job of exploring the pros and cons of different boundary combinations.

Resource Implications The implementation of these recommendations will require staff and financial resources. Development and implementation of the Development Plan (including the Communication Plan) and the Pilot will require dedicated resource equivalent to at least 2 people; plus implementation budget over the next 2 years.

4. Recommendations Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Section 5 takes these 3 Recommendations and turns them into an Action Plan, with leads and target dates. This is a draft with gaps, as it is based on the material collected and presented during the 2 month project. If the partners wish to implement the recommendations it will be for them to ensure the Action Plan is fit for purpose and if necessary develop it further before implementation.

General Description of Action: The selection, planning and implementation of a pilot project that will provide an appropriate and effective testing ground for FLAG implementation in Croatia. The Action Plan includes the reporting requirements, as these are more onerous in the case of a pilot, given the need to learn lessons. The fact that the pilot is in effect part of the National Development Plan will also mean that developments within the pilot will need to take place in ways that best support the national development process and this may not always be the most logical sequence from the local perspective.

3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

5. Action Plan

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Action Plan

5. Action Plan Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

5. Action Plan

The Action Plan is currently in an outline state, with columns 6-9 left intentionally blank, as it is provided as a framework for partners to complete as a next step in implementation of CLLD in fisheries in Croatia. The Action Plan includes detailed initial steps, particularly in Action no.

relation to official adoption and resourcing (e.g., actions 1.1 to 1.3), as these apparently small steps can be overlooked. It is important however that they are included as they critical pre-conditions, without which the rest of the recommendations will not be able to proceed.

Title

Description

Intended impact / Comments

Lead

Rec 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CLLD and FLAGS have a significant role to play in implementation of the CFP and EMFF in Croatia

Gain commitment to and operationalise the decision to support Implementation

Establish a coherent set of FLAGs that will play a key role in local development and in implementing CFP in Croatia

1.1

Adoption

Submission and official adoption by lead partners of UNDP FLAGs report; & documented.

Confirms official support for the conclusions in principle.

1.2

Commitment

Gain official commitment of lead partners to implementation & documented.

Confirms official support to implement an Action plan for establishment of CLLD approach in fisheries.

1.3

Communicate decision

Clear statement of support that indicates overall intentions and direction of travel that is provided to partners & stakeholders.

Gives clear statement of position that enables partners and stakeholders to begin to align their plans and resources.

1.4

Development Plan

Official agreement to establish a Development Plan for the development and implementation of FLAGs in Croatia (See Action 2).

A clear plan that enables partners and stakeholders to align their plans and resources in detail.

1.5

Budget

Establish a budget for 2013/14 development.

The plan is resourced and delivered enabling FLAGs to be developed in the most appropriate way for national and local stakeholders.

Stakeholders

Costs

Start Date

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

End Date

Developing the wider approach to FLAGs across the country should go on in parallel with the pilot; with lessons from the pilot actively being incorporate into development in other parts of the country.

Table 2 Action Plan for implementation of FLAG Recommendations

5. Action Plan Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Action no.

Title

Description

Intended impact / Comments

Lead

1.6

Communication plan

Agreement to establish and implement Communication Plan in parallel to the Development Plan and supporting its delivery. (See Action 2).

Stakeholders and Partners understand what is going on and can coordinate with the FLAG development.

1.7

Pilot FLAG

Agreement to establish a Pilot FLAG (See Action 3).

The partnership should bring together the various interests involved in developing the FLAGs, including both local and national partners.

1.8

Partnership

Establish a National Partnership that would advise DF on the development of the FLAGs.

The partnership should bring together the various interests involved in developing the FLAGs, including both local and national partners.

Establish a National Development Plan for FLAGs

Draft national development plan including a Communication plan for FLAGs (integrated with wider fisheries communication).

Farnet have very considerable relevant experience and can help support the Development Plan implementation. FARNET should be consulted in its development.

2.1

Development Plan

The development of a costed and resourced plan that will have established partner support and will include:

NB – the development of the Development Plan could be delegated to consultants, whilst ownership for the national plan would stay with DF.

2.1.1

• The schedule and main milestones in Fisheries Programme development.

2.1.2

• Development of the national implementation structure for introduction of the FLAGs. The national structure would include all the strategy and programme mechanisms and tools necessary for full implementation.

This is a key output from the DP process and is where the Twinning Teams can be most helpful and effective. The tools required include – guidelines for establishing Groups, Partnerships and Strategies, Funding requirements, Training and Capacity building, as well as guidelines for Governance and Financial Management. All the relevant material would need to be brought together in a certification package for approval by the Paying Agency, the Audit bodies and the European Commission. The final version of the implementation structures and supporting guidelines would need to be ready for implementation of the new programme and can mainly be developed during the implementation of the pilot, using the pilot to learn lessons about the most effective way to establish the guidelines

Stakeholders

Costs

Start Date

End Date

Action no.

Description

Intended impact / Comments

Lead

2.1.3

• Capacity building and training programme to grow the ability of national and local administration to implement FLAGs (& Axis 4, integrated with wider fisheries).

In parallel with the development of the technical requirements to support programme delivery, the DP would need to support the development of human capacity. This will necessitate a capacity building programme. Training will need to be provided for national and local teams involved with the implementation of CLLD and the FLAG programme

2.1.4

• Study visits – a key component of the capacity building programme will be at least two study visits, one focused on fishermen and another focused on administrators.

NB - These study visits could be coordinated so that it is a single trip where representatives are also learning from one another.

2.1.5

• NB – The plan should define the leading partners and stakeholders, along with their Roles and Responsibilities.

This will be important to ensure that all those with a delivery responsibility are clear about their respective roles. This could be done in parallel with the Stakeholder analysis under task 2.2.

2.1.6

• Ex ante evaluation

This will be required for the programme as a whole, and should be planned as part of the preprogramme activities

The development of a Communication Plan that will provide basic information about the ministry’s plans.

The plan should define who is responsible, the target for the communication, the message, in particular defining why FLAGs are good for Croatia, the desired impact of the communication and the channels to be used.

Stakeholder analysis will be undertaken to determine - who it is likely to affect and how to get involved;

A thorough Stakeholder Analysis will be invaluable to the programme, as it will identify all those with an interest, which given nature of the programme will mostly be allies in the development of FLAGs.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Establish a FAQ – page on the DF website. This can also be linked to the FAC on the FARNET Website.

Where to get more information locally.

The communication plan should establish local “antennae”, through which information and messages can be transmitted to local partnerships. The “antennae” should be two way, capable of feeding messages from local groups to the national level and with FARNET and other FLAG areas.

2.2

Title

Communication Plan

Stakeholders

Costs

Start Date

End Date

5. Action Plan Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Action no.

Title

Description

Intended impact / Comments

2.3

Contracting

The development of a “contract” or contract(s) that will support delivery of the Development Plan

The process of delegation should be supported by some sort of contract or contract(s) that clearly nominates roles and responsibilities, sets milestones, and defines monitoring responsibilities. The form of contract does not need to be hugely onerous, for instance, if the work is delegated to one of DF’s existing partners, it could be done under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding, or some similar document. All would need to be done in a transparent manner, ensuring that the procurement met all relevant regulations. The key issue that should not be forgotten is that the core purpose for the contract would be to delegate funds from DF to the delegated body or bodies in order to fulfil the actions set out in this Action Plan.

Development of Pilot FLAG in Zadar County

Existing Farnet Axis 4 guidance should form part of the basis for this work; and FARNET can advise in its development. New EMFF specific CLLD guidance will be very helpful for MA and FLAG in development and implementation of the pilot. The development and implementation of the Pilot should be done in parallel to the development and implementation of the rest of the Development Plan.

3.1

National guidance

Establish national guidelines – guidance (top down advice) on the development of the FLAG pilot, including: • Objectives, timescale and resources for the pilot; • Monitoring and feedback to ensure the pilot operates effectively and lessons are learnt that contribute to full implementation; • Reporting – monthly reporting during inception stages, quarterly reporting thereafter and final report at the end of the piloting period on progress and determination of next steps

Lead

Stakeholders

Costs

Start Date

End Date

Action no.

Title

Description

Intended impact / Comments

3.2

Local implementation

Establish FLAG at the local level, following the following broad development steps:

This is an overview of the steps that should be followed. It will need further elaboration, before any costs and timescales can be set.

Lead

Stakeholders

Costs

Start Date

End Date

5. Action Plan Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

• Decision to support pilot development by local partners • Confirmation of pilot FLAG in Zadar County • Formation of shadow partnership • Establish key FLAG components, including • area definition • Boundaries – bottom up – area definition (linking appropriately to the top down advice / guidance) • partnership development, • Strategy development • capacity building and training programme • options for management structure • LAG/FLAG relationship development • Communication Plan Facilitation

Establish Facilitation project – employment of an individual to promote and support development of the FLAG and raise awareness regarding the changing context for Croatia’s Fisheries.

Pilot projects

Establish Pilot FLAG projects – e.g., training initiative already suggested by the Zadar partnership.

Given the limited time available, the project should focus on an achievable goal, e.g., a feasibility study and some trial training sessions.

5. Action Plan Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

FLAG Model Annex 1

Annexes

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

FLAG Model

FLAG Model Annex 1

Annex 1

The model is suggested as a “dummy”, the format of which could be adopted in the pilot area. It is NOT a draft model for the pilot, but is provided as an example of the sort of model that is likely to emerge; so the contents of this model can be used for discussion purposes, to assist local partners to consider their own needs, circumstances and aspirations. The final plan that emerges should be one that is adapted to the local circumstances. Preparation of the local strategy for the pilot area will require a full local development process that is led by local stakeholders and following established best practice for the development of CLLD strategies. The model gives those developing the local strategy an idea of what they are aiming for as a result of the Local Development process and provides some ideas for discussion. It must be stressed however that every component of the model that is actually implemented by local partnership should be “owned” by them. Furthermore, the model is indicative and is likely to be most helpful in the development of the pilot suggested in the report. The approach to be taken for the full 2014-20 programme will need to be specified by the MA in due course. Sections 1 - 13 on the following 10 pages have been drawn from an existing FLAG and provide the main governance mechanisms required for establishment of a FLAG. It is not a “how to do it” guide, as plenty such guides exist and local people will have their

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

own existing approaches, which have been used for example in the development of LAGs and their strategies. The Dummy model covers: • Strategy, Objectives and work programme • Organisation of the FLAG • Performance Management • FLAG function and committee structure • Operation of committees • Delegation • Role of the Chair • Conflict of interest • Dissolution It does not cover financial matters.

1. Dummy Strategy and Objectives for Fisheries Local Action Group 1.1 Strategy The strategy for the FLAG is to establish a profitable, sustainable industry that meets future challenges whilst retaining its position at the heart of the local fishing community. Sustainability will be maintained by sensible resource-use that offers long-term employment prospects which attracts new entrants, supports existing businesses and forges links with other local industries to create

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

synergy. Future success will be maintained by a strongly receptive sector able to adapt and diversify in response to changing market conditions whilst retaining its local character and responsibilities.

1.2 Objectives of the Dummy FLAG Primary Goal – To provide sustainable livelihoods in fisheries areas, based on wise use of natural resources and a sustainable fishery industry. Objectives • Sustained local fisheries sector employment (Vertical development) • Sustained and increased local employment in sectors associated with the fisheries (Horizontal development) • Continued monitoring and protection of the natural resources within the FLAG area • Provide platform for the Dummy area-based fisheries sector to influence policy at local, regional national and international levels

Objectives Outcomes/ Objectives

Outputs/Key performance measures

Activities/Operational performance measures

1. Sustained local fisheries sector employment

1. № of people employed 2. № of people completing industry training

Local government statistics

2. Sustained employment in associated sectors

1. Production and adoption of a diversification plan 2. increased turnover 3. increased volume of active business 1. Monitored levels of marine population sustainability. 2. Extent and condition of habitats impacted by fishery. 3. Sustainable stocks of target and non-target species 4. Acquisition and retention of MSC2 accreditation or similar accreditation 1. Implementation of local sector strategy. 2. Implementation of a local agreement to facilitate effective engagement with regional and national policy-making bodies 3. Increased awareness and improvement in reputation of sector in key target audience 4. Qualitative improvement in local sector business

Immediate objective To maximise the impact of EFF investment in the local fisheries sector for the area by working with private, public and CSO sectors, leading to more robust and sustainable livelihoods. Mechanisms – In particular looking to match funding from the Fisheries programmes with direct private sector investment and other public sector investment from EU and domestic sources.

Notes: 1. Sector is interpreted as ‘Businesses operating in primary and secondary industries’. 2. Marine Stewardship Council – please note that accreditation standards such as this are a high standard to set, and it may be better to aim for a lower compliance standard to start with.

1.3 Overall work programme

1.4 Programme initiatives

The aim of the FLAG should be to develop a programme strategy that will create a sustainable future for the Dummy area fishery through a focussed set of initiatives over an agreed time period. A set of activities has been proposed:

Below are suggested a number of initiatives and projects which could provide the necessary development for the fishery sector and which could be funded through the FLAG:

Objectives

Activity

1. Sustained local fisheries sector employment

Encourage new entrants - individuals and businesses to the industry to ensure that the fishery can continue to operate over the long-term future. Support existing fishery businesses to access funds and advice to improve their business performance and ability to adapt to a number of future industry challenges.

2. Sustained employment in associated sectors

Provide new infrastructure within the FLAG area, much of which will be linked closely with the major local industry (tourism and aquaculture), to ensure that revenue generation opportunities can be exploited.

3. Sustained monitoring and protection of the natural environment within the FLAG area

Ensure that the resources and environment is not impacted adversely by the actions of the fishery and to support this through improved communications with the local community.

4. Increased local sector influence on policy at national and regional level

Increase local sector influence on policy at national and regional level so that fishermen and fishing business are able to articulate their concerns and express their interests with confidence in positive outcomes.

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Business support programme • Small business skills initiative • Training college • Group buying initiative • Microfinance initiative • Directory of fishing businesses initiative • Web page design initiative Marketing programme • Value-chain analysis • New markets initiative • MSC accreditation • ‘Brand’ development initiative New entrant programme • Training for local youth to enter fishery • Start-up business advice and support • Schools initiative to attract new entrants Diversification programme • Pesca-tourism • Micro-Business support Infrastructure programme • Improved harbour facilities • Safety-at-Sea initiative • Improved shore-side handling initiative

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Environmental monitoring • Biodiversity Action Plan • Stock monitoring initiative • Improved pollution impact initiative It must be borne in mind that in order to satisfy eligibility criteria no funded action can lead to increased fishing effort.

2. Dummy FLAG organisation and ‘rules’ The rationale for a Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG) is to bring together all the stakeholders - fishermen, business, local and national government, and NGOs – in a common purpose to improve the local sector for the benefit of the associated community. The FLAG Guidance emphasises that: “the diversity of situations and of the areas throughout the Community and the principle of subsidiarity, assistance from the Fund for the development of fisheries areas will have to form part of an integrated local approach centred on a relevant territorial strategy and adapted to the local situation. Its design and implementation will be as decentralised as possible, preference will be given to the involvement of private actors on the ground and a bottom-up approach.” 9

“Axis 4 Implementation Guidance”, DG Mare, 2006

It is proposed that this should be done by means of a Partnership Agreement that would include all the stakeholders involved in fisheries and coastal issues in the Dummy area. On behalf of the stakeholders, the FLAG should deliver an integrated programme of mutually beneficial actions to bring about the sustainable and profitable development of the local sector.

The stakeholders should recognise that this can only happen through community agreement, change and by improving the resilience of the industry to the future impacts of managing stocks and their allied environment and ecosystems right the way through to the development of new markets, diversification and better use of natural and economic resources. An essential part of the FLAG’s success is that it should be strongly linked to a local business initiative. It will require to be managed on a day-to-day basis by a salaried organiser who should have business development skills. It is also critical to project success that the FLAG Board should be advised by a person with a thorough understanding of the EFF funding rules and the distinctive role of Axis 4.

3. Performance Management Framework The accountable body for the Dummy FLAG should be the Dummy County Council. Within the County body, there should be a unit responsible for effective programme delivery and performance management arrangements. A FLAG Committee, made up of local fishermen and processors and key public and private sector stakeholders should be established. It would, as part of its terms of reference, consider performance management information and, where necessary, agree on appropriate corrective action and oversee implementation. The FLAG Project Board, comprising of private and public sector and ex officio members, would be responsible for the overall direction and management of the projects specified and approved for the Dummy FLAG. It would, as part of its terms of reference, consider performance management information, make

recommendation/s to the FLAG Committee and recommend appropriate corrective action where necessary. An Animator should be identified who would spend time working directly with the local fishing industry and communities in order to maximise uptake of projects and their ultimate delivery. It is very important that this person has a very clear understanding of the EFF (and the EMFF) and also of other EU funding options. Particularly, this person should be able to advise on what initiatives can be funded under CLLD and what would be funded under mainstream EMFF. DF can play an important part in the programme by holding a watching brief to ensure that the FLAG project stays on course and is capable of being replicated elsewhere in Croatia – see the comments below on operational performance. DF local staff should otherwise only act in an ex-officio role, offering advice on the EMFF.

3.1 Operational Performance At an operational level, programme activities would be given specific performance indicators and would be monitored closely to: • Ensure planned timescales, including those for the drawdown of grant, are met. • Alert for corrective action to address any shortfall in effort or effectiveness in any activity. • Demonstrate the contribution that an activity makes is worthwhile and contributes effectively to the programme overall. • Prompt internal switching of funding to alternative, more effective activities within the programme.

There is one caveat: the programme needs to be predicated on what is ‘do-able’. Because the FLAG approach we are proposing is a pilot project, it is important to ensure that it does not fail. Trying to do too much is a guarantee of failure: the sub-project and programmes adopted should be very carefully selected to meet the ‘do-ability’ criterion. This means that the overall programme should be precise and well targeted to meet the main objectives of utilising funding so as to improve the overall market potential of the local fishery and its products. A close watch is needed to ensure that the activities and programmes are feasible and meet clear FLAG objectives. DF’s role would be to provide this oversight and to ensure that the FLAG does not set itself an over-ambitious programme that it cannot fulfil.

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

It is important to remember that this FLAG will have a pilot and mainstream phase; the LDS should be for the longer term but must contain short term achievable objectives for the pilot phase if it is to be effective. Therefore some potential objectives do not need to be deliverable within the pilot phase timeframe

3.2 FLAG Functions and Structure Functions of the FLAG The FLAG purpose is to promote the sustainability and competitiveness of the Zadar area fishery [insert time period?] through a range of programme initiatives and by providing representation for the fishery at local, regional, national and international levels. This will be managed and administered principally by the FLAG Project Board and Committee whose roles are set out in the EFF Regulation. For 2014 onwards these are specified in the CPR and may be added to in the individual regulations. MAs may also delegate, specific functions are as follows:

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Project Board • Vetting expressions of interest and applications received from grant applicants and providing feedback to the same • Approvals for Committee discussions, and making an overall recommendations for all funding applications • Liaising with the Department of Fisheries • Monitoring projects in progress and reporting to the Committee via the FLAG organiser • Producing management reports for the Committee and any other involved body Committee • Debating grant applications already vetted and approved by Project Board • Overall responsibility for approving each project proposal according to a majority vote • Discussing current issues relating to the industry that may require a collective decision Both Project Board and Committee will discuss and become involved with wider fishery issues as seen as appropriate – e.g. attending external meetings, conferences presentation and providing FLAG views to the media and other audiences outside the fishery. Any statement that is seen as coming from the FLAG should be approved in advance. In addition, a Supervision Committee shall be established, made up of representatives of the private sector funders for [a communities engagement programme?]. This will meet on a quarterly basis to scrutinise the spending of such funds and will also be attended by local government and national government and by representatives of any local business development group. The local government [name?] will maintain its position as the strategic

body in order to ensure that the DF’s best interests are safeguarded. Monitoring arrangements will also need to be specified.

4. Membership 4.1 Initial Membership Initial membership of both Project Board and Committee was set at the first meeting of each group.

4.2 Project Board Membership • Project Board membership consists of: • [Number] representatives of local fishermen’s organisations • [Number] public sector members [local and national government] • [Number -2?] ex officio members acting as advisers. • Fishermen’s representatives shall not be outnumbered by public sector representatives. • There will be a 3 way split in membership between public, private and community sectors.

4.3 Committee Membership • Project Board membership will be for a one-year term, with re-election of all members by the FLAG committee if all members are in agreement. • Committee membership will be representative of as many groups as possible in the Dummy FLAG territory. Membership shall includes representatives from:

•

• [Representative bodies to be decided • (the accountable body for the disbursement of EU funds). The Committee shall have the power to identify gaps in membership and issue invitations to new members to join the group in order to fill any gaps. Such members will be accepted onto the Committee via a majority vote. For both Project Board and Committee, each member shall be an equal and active member and substitutes may be sent when required. Members of both Project Board and Committee will represent their organisation or business and are responsible for passing information back to their own organisation management and members. Any Member may retire from the Project Board or the Committee giving one month’s notice in writing to the FLAG Chairman. Upon retirement, a replacement will be sought for the outgoing Member, with the organisation or business of which the outgoing Member was a representative given priority in nominating a replacement from within its ranks first. New members will be accepted by Project Board or Committee according to a majority vote. Any member failing to attend three consecutive Project Board or Committee meetings will be deemed to have retired, unless there are extenuating circumstances notified to the Chairman within 24 hours. In the absence of such circumstances, the Project Board or Committee may then invite the outgoing member’s business or organisation to propose a new member.

4.4 Quorum A quorum is necessary for the effective functioning of the Project Board and Committee. Quorum for both groups will be 50 per cent of full membership. For the Project Board this will be 4 people (two members being ex officio); for the Committee this will be 15 people (at the time of writing). • Members who are not able to attend either group will be required to send a substitute. If this is not possible, proxy votes made via email, post or telephone to the Chairman and also the Animator will be satisfactory no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting. • Any meeting of either group which does not reach quorum will still go ahead but any business requiring a decision shall be deferred to the next appropriate meeting. • If there is meeting at which fishermen’s representatives are outnumbered by public sector representatives then it shall be deemed that a quorum does not exist.

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

5. Chair • The role of Chair of both Project Board and Committee should be held by an active representative of the fisheries sector; • The Chair shall have the deciding vote in Committee meetings but, for audit and scrutiny purposes, he/she shall not have the deciding vote at Project Board meetings; • The Chair will be appointed by the FLAG Project Board and Committee on an annual basis and shall hold office for one year commencing on the 1st January and ending on the 31st December in any year;

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

6. Delegation The FLAG Project Board and Committee may delegate any of its functions to any sub-group, for specific (named) tasks or functions. The limits of any delegation shall be made clear, including the financial limits. All such delegations will be subject to a majority vote.

7. Advisers • In order to obtain specialist, relevant knowledge and expertise the Project Board and Committee shall have the power to invite advisers to advise the committee on specific issues. Such advisers will not have voting rights. • [Specified NGOs or University or Marine Institute] shall be asked to scrutinise applications at Project Board meetings and comment on the environmental impact. They shall not have a vote at Project Board meetings.

8. Secretariat The provision of Secretariat support to the Committee shall be agreed by the committee on an annual basis; along with any financial allocation for carrying out this role.

9. Meetings • The Secretariat will call six Project Board meetings and six Committee meetings annually on an alternating monthly basis. A minimum of 14 days’ notice of meetings will be given, unless urgent deadlines need to be met, with agendas and reports sent out five days in advance of each meeting. 82

• Additional meetings may be convened for the purpose of approving urgent applications. These shall be arranged with at least seven days’ notice, Proxy votes via telephone, email or post will be accepted. These need to be notified to Chairman and the Animator no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting. • Project applications and management reports will be presented for decision to the Project Board and Committee at relevant meetings, and update reports will be presented at three-monthly intervals to both groups. • The Project Board and Committee can invite individuals to attend meetings to give advice and information.

10. Consultations In specific cases, a formal consultation exercise will be required for project applications with a particular impact on the surrounding community. This will be decided as applications are received and suitable arrangements will be made to canvass the wider public.

11. Dissolution • Dissolution of the Dummy FLAG Project Board can be made by the FLAG Committee, while the entire FLAG programme can be dissolved by Dummy Accountable Body. • The FLAG Programme has a [time period] duration, so unless arrangements are made for it to be extended or continued, it will be necessary to dissolve the Project Board and Committee formally [insert date].

12. Conflict of Interest, Vested and Pecuniary Interests • Any interest which could fetter the discretion of a committee member regarding the issues under consideration shall be declared at the outset of any meeting. For instance family or other relationships, membership of clubs, societies, political parties • Grant applicants (for funding) sitting on any committee will not be allowed to vote on their own applications; and should withdraw completely from their consideration. • The Chair, at his or her discretion, shall ask anyone with a perceived vested or pecuniary interest in an agenda item to leave the meeting room at the appropriate time. • The FLAG shall keep a register of Board Members’ interests and this shall be available to the public upon request.

FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

13. Declaration We, the Dummy FLAG Project Board and Committee, agree to the terms of reference for the Dummy FLAG and commit to the objectives, principles and practices as set out in this agreement. Signed etc etc

Outcomes from the Local Workshop Annex 2 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Outcomes from the Local workshop

Annex 2

Local Partners’ Workshop – Kali 9-1-13 Potential FLAG Objectives 1.Territorial (or Horizontal) Focus Area development and branding

At the final local workshop, participants were asked if to identify those things with which they believed the FLAG could assist, in terms of benefits and outcomes. The responses were split into two parts and grouped under potential objective areas, i.e.: 1. Territorial (horizontal) a. Area Development and Branding b. Cooperation between sectors & Development of Strategies c. Depopulation and Sustainability d. Improvement of Employment e. Diversification and Tourism Development f. Environment protection g. Access to new funds h. Development of port infrastructure 2. Sectoral (vertical) a. Education, skills development, studies b. Networking, partnership, integration: fishing, industry and tourism c. Added value (fish products), market placement, branding d. Sustainability, new working places and sources of income e. Improvement of Infrastructure f. Connecting the fisheries sector with local authorities and cooperation with them (+national), fishery sector organisation

1. FLAG needs to have conditions for the area to be worth living in, with all the necessary contents (nurseries, schools, playgrounds, etc.) 2. area development through fishing tourism 3. development of island communities 4. marine protection 5. to make Zadar County area recognized as a distinct fisheries 6. to have a larger impact on the development oft he whole area along with other sectors like tourism, education, traffic 7. FLAG connects the area where it operates with fishermen, and through their joint activities they develop the area and the infrastructure Cooperation between sectors ( public and private) Development of strategies 1. enhancing cooperation between public and private sector 2. developing other sectors connected with fisheries sector 3. development and implementation of a good strategy that would include development of fisheries, education of local people on the importance of eating fish products, and the opening up of a visitors’ centre Depopulation & Sustainability 1. preserving population, especially on the islands 2. to reduce depopulation of island inhabitants Improve employment 1. to employ more people from the local area 2. employing unemployed people from the fisheries area (fishermen’s families!!!) 3. employing staff 4. to increase employment Diversification and Tourism development 1. raising quality/diversification of the tourist offer (ranging from specific food products to tourist excursions ) 2. developing „fisheries tourism“ 3. attracting tourists



Local Partners’ Workshop – Kali 9-1-13 Potential FLAG Objectives

1.Territorial (or Horizontal) Focus

2. Fisheries Sector (or Vertical) focus

Environment protection

Education, skills development, studies

1. to protect the environment 2. sustainable fisheries- concern for fish quantities ( fish resources), protecting the environment, natural resources

1. to improve skills of fisherman 2. raise price of fish by educating fisherman 3. education of personnel for fishery and aquaculture 4. education with other sectors

Access to new fund(s)

Outcomes from the Local Workshop Annex 2 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Networking, partnership, integration: fishing, industry and tourism

1. added value 2. source of information ( information dissemination) 3. education 4. facilitate access to other funds

1. integration 2. to organize and connect local fishermen 3. FLAG needs to teach fisherman entrepreneurship through partnerships

Infrastructure development

Added value (fish products), market placement, branding

1. development of port infrastructure

1. raising value of fish products 2. added value (for fish products) 3. raise price of fish through branding 4. product placement 5. placing products on the market Sustainability, new working places and sources of income 1. new working places 2. help for fishermen that can not fish any more 3. new sources of income 4. fisherman who will end up unemployed need help from FLAG 5. FLAG needs to provide to fisherman the ability to feed his family and everything he catches sells Improvement of infrastructure 1. to improve fishery infrastructure 2. FLAG needs to provide the sources for development of infrastructure Connecting the fisheries sector with local authorities and cooperation with them (+national), fishery sector organisation 1. to inform and connect fishermans and local national authorities 2. better connect fisherman with local authorities 3. development of local community and fisherman

Case Studies Annex 3 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Case Studies

Annex 3

• identify opportunities for diversification • increase local influence on national policy through a heightened industry profile • sustain monitored protection of the natural sea and land environment within the FLAG area

Case Study 1 - North Norfolk FLAG Development of Croatia’s FLAGs should be guided by experiences of the creation of FLAGs elsewhere in Europe. The experience of the North Norfolk FLAG offers a useful guide to establishing a FLAG, both in its relation to organisation and to identifying projects. North Norfolk FLAG In the UK (England); the FLAG programmes are administered in England by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO); an agency of Defra Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The North Norfolk Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG), covering about 106 km of coast, is one of six FLAG programmes currently in operation in England. This programme was set up through the intervention of the local government in the county. The FLAG is housed under a local business development body that links local businesses with the fishing community. The purpose of the North Norfolk FLAG is to help provide a sustainable future for the North Norfolk fisheries by supporting a number of projects and directed interventions aiming at delivering up to 30 projects by the end of 2014. Funding from the EFF funding will be about £1.28 million (€ 1.6 million). There is an additional requirement for local funding (aiming to match this amount) of about 40% to support the majority of these projects: meaning that nearly £2.4 million (€3 million) should have been invested into the fishery by the end of the programme. The main objectives of the NN FLAG stakeholders are to: • increase sector profitability • sustain employment

The resulting FLAG programme has a number of ‘work streams which has work streams covering competitiveness, markets and investments, infrastructure, environment and sustainability. Within these workstreams are a series of subprojects including: • Business Support Programme, • Marketing Programme, • Facilities Improvement Fund, • Stock Research and Seabed Monitoring and • Marine Stewardship Accreditation. A further and related issue is electronic communication and the North Norfolk FLAG programme is addressing the issue of coastal broadband connectivity for the fishing industry. Two examples of the interventions undertaken under the programme are (a) coastal infrastructure – placing of light buoys in the passageway to one of the small fishing/yachting harbours on the coast and (b) micro-finance facility for the fishing community. North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) The microfinance initiative has been developed under the NNDC that also created the NN FLAG. The micro-finance initiative has a starting capital of £200 000 with the intention of raising the total capital to around one million GBP. Loans to fishermen will be lent at a rate which will be no more than 3.5% to 5% over the interbank lending rate: this compares with current rates of around 17% which includes high administration costs. Loans to fishermen will

be up to £60 000 (€75 000). The general approach will be to finance 70% of the project from the financing initiative with the remaining 30% from the fishermen’s own funding.

Case Study 2 - Coordinating local development in Abruzzo (Italy) – Courtesy of FARNET In the current financial circumstances, maximising the impacts of public funds is paramount. Discussions in Brussels around Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) point to the possibility of development organisations, such as Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) and Leader LAGs, being able to tap into different EU funds to support different parts of their local development strategies. Certain Member States are expected to welcome this option, while others question the complexity of a multi-fund approach to local development. Whatever the reality post-2013, one thing is certain: in the current financial circumstances more than ever, maximizing the impact of public funds is paramount. Communication, cooperation and the coordination of different funds being spent in a given geographical area is essential to ensuring the area gets the best value for money.

Vasto and Ortona – both fishing ports – have approximately 40 000 and 25 000 inhabitants respectively, and agriculture and fisheries still account for 32% of jobs. Fishing in the area is mainly small-scale, practiced by a fleet of 183 boats, mostly 7-10 metres. An important source of employment for the area´s inhabitants is the automotive sector, with Honda and Fiat both having bases in the neighbouring Maiella Verde Leader area.

Case Studies Annex 3 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Forging a common development path Operating just inland from the FLAG, the Maiella Verde Leader LAG is into its fourth programming period, having expanded its territory from 16 municipalities during Leader I, to 81 in 2012. The LAG has become expert in supporting small and micro sized enterprises engaged in activities linked to the identity of the area – especially food, tourism, crafts and services – and in helping them to become successful and sustainable businesses, capable of expanding into new areas, and reaching new markets.

The province of Chieti, in Abruzzo, is an area where, despite a strict demarcation between fisheries and rural development funds, different territorial initiatives are working hand in hand to overcome artificial boundaries arising from different funding rules, and develop the area as an integrated whole.

Operating across both the FLAG and the LAG areas, in the central part of Chieti, is the Sangro Aventino Territorial Pact, a largely public-led development agency. This is one of the many “Territorial Pacts” that were established in Italy in the late 90s, with ERDF and national funds, and adds yet another dimension to the local development picture. The Pact manages a series of larger scale development initiatives, such as a €90 million automotive cluster, and a €7 million project to develop tourism along the Trabocchi Coast. To the South, another Territorial Pact, the “Patto Trigno-Sinello”, also covers both the inland rural municipalities and those along the coast.

The FLAG area covers the coastal section of the province of Chieti, a National Park named after the centuries old “trabocchi”7 dotted along its 45km coastline. A short distance from the Maiella Mountain, this area has seen little urbanisation: its two largest towns,

So, how is the FLAG, a newcomer to this local development landscape, positioning itself in order to play a meaningful role for the communities it serves – and with a total public budget of just €1.2 million? Importantly, the FLAG has been proactive in studying the

Case Studies Annex 3 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

relevant development initiatives already underway in and around its area, and has started building links with those involved. Indeed, prior to the preparation of the FLAG strategy, its President, Franco Ricci, was involved in the Leader LAG´s strategy development process. This has had two key benefits, he explained: firstly, it provided the opportunity to learn about how an experienced LAG plans development in its territory; and secondly, it ensured that there was an integrated approach to developing the area as a whole, which goes beyond administrative boundaries. The Leader LAG, for its part, points out that it has always considered the coastal strip as a functional part of its territory, even though it cannot actually fund projects there. And, the fishing community has much to gain by being included in the strategic thinking of development initiatives inland. Communication and coordination has meant that a clear division of roles and objectives has been agreed, and that both the FLAG and LAG strategies are forging a common development path. This cooperation is also formalised in the structures of the different development agencies, in so far as their boards and partnerships reflect this overlap of territories and objectives. For example, as a member of the boards of the LAG, the FLAG and the Territorial Pact, the Province of Chieti is closely involved in the work of all three agencies. The same goes for the local Chamber of Commerce. This cross-representation is effective in ensuring that information flows smoothly from one agency to the other, and in avoiding duplication of work. A more competitive and attractive territory Such coordination has resulted in a FLAG strategy geared towards mobilising the fisheries sector to “make the territory more competitive”. It is designed to build on and complement existing initiatives, be they industry-based, or aimed at supporting local agricultural products or tourism, while benefiting in particular those most closely linked to the fisheries sector. Indeed, while the Lead-

er LAG´s strength is its ability to reach the more remote parts of the area and the very small, artisanal producers – and the Patto tends to focus on bigger producers and industry – the FLAG aims to ensure the fisheries community is represented in the broader territorial development process. More specifically, it aims to promote better organization of small-scale fisheries and to help them to diversify into complementary activities, such as Pesca-tourism (for which demand currently goes unmet), to exploit opportunities for the small-scale processing of local fisheries products, and to improve their marketing activities and engage in direct sales. These activities complement the regional level project, coordinated by the Territorial Pact, to develop tourism along the coast, as well as ambitious plans to convert the old coastal railway tracks to a 25 km cycle path. LAG, FLAG and Territorial Pact – as well as the Trigno-Sinello Territorial Pact to the South – are all in contact with a view to coordinating activities to get the most out of this investment. Wine routes, the promotion of local agricultural products, visits to the trabocchi, trips on fishing boats, accommodation in traditional fishermen´s homes, and fish bars along the beaches are all being discussed. Each structure will focus on different parts of the overall project: the Patto taking the overall lead and managing the bigger infrastructure projects; the LAG concentrating on the rural municipalities and the development of gastronomy products, as well as carrying out various feasibility studies and improving the web presence of local companies; and the FLAG fostering participation by the fisheries sector. As such, a series of individual projects are being conceived as part of an overall tourism development initiative, which ensures all the projects are coordinated and reinforce each other.

The next step for the recently approved FLAG will be to ensure that this cooperation is built into the day-to-day work of its staff, which, at the time of writing, still has to be recruited. However, the new team will become part of a local development landscape in which a culture of cooperation has already been established by the Leader LAG and the Territorial Pact, the two of which meet on a regular basis, attend each othersÂ´ meetings and are intimately aware of what the other is working on.

Case Studies Annex 3 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

With this in mind, and with the groundwork already laid during the strategy development phase and FLAG set up, the ingredients are in place for the Costa dei Trabocchi FLAG to work closely with other development actors in its area in order to maximize the participation of, and benefits for, its fishing community.

More information: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet/flagsheet/flag-factsheet-italy-trabocchi-coast Contact: ricci.f@confcooperative.it

Methodology Annex 4 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Methodology

Annex 4

Methodology – this Annex sets out the schedule of visits and summarises the process of inquiry followed by the study. Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

4th Nov

Ministry of Agriculture – Directorate of Fisheries and Directorate of Rural Development;

Zagreb

Main points: Directorate of Fisheries has a very challenging agenda within which to develop the fisheries support, therefore Axis 4 support will not be activated at the same time as the other components of EFF. DF will not develop CLLD for fisheries in isolation, and recognise the advanced state of Rural Development arrangements. The Croatian fisheries sector is in great need of reform. Whilst the separate lines of accountability need to be maintained for the funds, there is interest in how management of the two funds/programmes could be streamlined together.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

4th Nov

Pre-brief and de-brief with UNDP staff

Zagreb

Main points: The project should continue to focus its main efforts on the production a workable model for FLAGs that can work across all FLAG areas in Croatia.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

5th Nov

Meeting with larger fishing concerns in LAG Mareta area

Zadar

Main points: Multiple issues in the LAG Mareta area with which local partners feel the FLAG could assist, relating to the social and economic infrastructure. One example discussed was the network of landing points (see above). Key issue is the interface between the fishing community and the tourism sector, e.g., ports with upgraded facilities less keen on fishing activity and cause boats to be relocated. All ports struggle with coming to terms with multi-functionality.Small and big fishermen have differing requirements. Overall issue is that Croats need to understand how to spend EU money. Concern over non-fishing interests having a say over fishing issues – this is at the heart of the FLAG/LDS approach, i.e., partners come to the table to achieve more than they could separately. In doing so, they give up a certain amount of “sovereignty”.

Study trip – suggested as a good way of engaging the interest of participants, i.e., seeing is believing.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

5th Nov

Meeting with City and County Authorities

Zadar

Main points: Currently finalising a 3 year operational programme Would support a merged FLAG/LAG approach. 54% of Croatia catch is in Zadar County.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

6th Nov

Meeting with shell fishery concerns, Lika-Senj County and Paklenica NP; LAG Bura area

Starigrad, Paklenica

Methodology Annex 4 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Operating well below capacity due to absence of key equipment on boats and on land. Don’t feel local authorities are interested in their problems, as they are more interested in white fish. Development needs are training in project development, understanding of responsibilities of FLAG members, governance issues.

Fishery value chain is not confined to marine and coastal areas – the processing and salting is done in the continental area. Have not considered funding allocation between LAG areas, but would be concerned to ensure it was fair.

What about inclusion of companies that are registered in Zadar, but operate in the LAG area? Transition of LAG to FLAG – will require membership, evidence base, analysis all to be addressed. Need to communicate to the fishery sector, because they do not know what is going on.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

5th Nov

Timeline planning with UNDP staff

Zadar

See attached spreadsheet.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

6th Nov

De-brief with UNDP staff

Zadar

Planned next steps and timings.

Methodology Annex 4 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

19th Nov

John Grieve, FARNET

Birmingham, UK

3rd Dec

Employees of the Directorate of Fisheries and Directorate for Rural Development

Zagreb

3rd Dec

Ministry of Regional Development

Zagreb

Briefing from FARNET/DG-Mare on current and likely future direction of FLAG policy, the research undertaken by FARNET on FLAG implementation and DG-Mare’s/FARNET’s expectations of FLAG implementation in Croatia.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

20th Nov

Ian Groves, Animator North Norfolk FLAG

Cromer, Norfolk UK

21st Nov

Robin Smith, Development Manager North Norfolk District Council

Cromer, Norfolk UK

Workshop conclusions • Territorial lead, with horizontal integration, • Importance of Information flow, and SSF engagement • Data for evidence based decision making, • LAG/FLAG boundaries - flexibility. • No. of FLAGs. • Coherence and consistency of LAG/FLAG model. • Development plan • Communication strategy • Awareness raising, communication objectives, etc..

Outcomes of meeting in Case Study 1. Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

4th Dec

Paying Agency for Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development (Ms Dubravka Međimurec, Head of Department for assistance in fisheries and Ms Ana Gadže, Coordinator from the Department for approval of projects and rural development)

Zagreb

35 lags, just 2 on coast Association legal form, territorial integrity 5-15,000 rural area population 25,000 town 50% Manager must not be resident in area

Ministry responsibilities Legal ordinance, Appraisal, awareness, selection, 450,000 kn. pa Tender for selection, admin control, contracts with LAGs, monitoring, execute payments

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

7th Jan

Preparation for workshops with UNDP

Zagreb

8th Jan

National workshop - Directorate of Fisheries - Twinning Team - Directorate for Rural Development - Paying Agency for Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development - Institute Of Oceanography And Fisheries, Split - UNDP

Zagreb

Running costs Process for establishment, strategy, partnership development, administrative set up Sectoral agreement - what is eligible? Advice - involve the paying agency in any potential event

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

5th Dec

Representatives of fisherman and other carriers of development in Zadar County

Zadar

5th Dec

Debriefing with UNDP

Zadar

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

6th Dec

Debriefing with UNDP

Zadar

6th Dec

Institute Of Oceanography And Fisheries, Split (Representative of Institute in Split, Mr. Nedo Vrgoč)

Split

Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Workshop deliberated Objectives and the purpose of FLAG support and agreed that FLAGs could play a strong role and provided very useful inputs on National Objectives.

Date

Meeting no.

With whom

Where

9th Jan

Representatives of fishermen and other carriers of development in Zadar County

Kali

10th Jan

Debriefing with UNDP

Zadar

Agreed a range of suggestions from fishermen, including proposals for “horizontal” projects.

Date

Methodology Annex 4

Workshop debated local objectives and provided an overview of local objectives and timelines.

Very useful; provided a large amount of detailed information regarding management of Croatia’s fisheries. 93

Presentations and Workbooks Annex 5 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

Presentations and Workbooks

Annex 5

These are provided separately and are titled as follows: UNDP Croatia Local FLAGs presentation - by Catalys Dec 2012 UNDP Croatia Local FLAGs presentation - Dec 2012 by Catalys (HR) UNDP Croatia Local FLAGs Presentation by Catalys Jan 2013 UNDP Croatia National FLAGs workshop by Catalys Jan 2013 UNDP National FLAGs presentation by Catalys Dec 2012 In addition an excel workbook is provided with timelines, FLAG criteria and decisions for DF:

Data Collection and Sampling

Annex 6

Introduction Good data is at the heart of effective policy and strategy. It is therefore important that FLAGs have access to the best available data and where there are critical gaps and problems in the available data, this should be identified as early as possible, so that corrective measures can be taken. The following section outlines the main elements in the collection of fisheries data. It will also be important to collect socio-economic and demographic data as well, given the territorial coverage of the FLAG. The starting point for FLAGs is the Directorate of Fisheries and this should be made available to the FLAG either free of charge or at a relatively low cost. Legal basis EU Decision 2010/9310, EU Council Regulation (CE) No 199/2008 EC Regulation 1224/2009 between them provide an extremely precise, description of exactly how national sampling systems must be established and run so as to meet international best practice in a manner which is recognisably the same all over the EU. It applies to all stocks and fisheries exploited in EU waters. It will be expected that Croatia will implement the EU Acquis before it joins the EU, or as soon after it does so as possible. The EU sampling procedures, which are designed to ensure that all scientific data needs are met by all EU countries, impose spe-

cific sampling requirements for stock and fishery related biological and economic variables, to be taken according to specified sampling intensities and time scales.

Data Collection and Sampling Annex 6 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

The basis for all fisheries statistics is the keeping of fisheries logbooks by fishing boat captains. Improvements can be done by: a. Telling fishermen that future catches will be limited by EU quotas unless they fill in log sheets accurately b. Comparing reported catch rates in log sheets with data on subsidised diesel fuel consumption. However, although this may be feasible for demersal fish where zero catches are rare, it may be difficult to apply to small pelagic fisheries where large catches may alternate with several zero catches. c. Reconciling market sales and log sheet data with each other, by recording sales slip numbers in the space provided on the log sheets. d. All logbook data should be crosschecked with sales data to be validated as done by countries in the ICES area. This also implies that the logbook system can work if the sale system can be easily monitored. Otherwise a crosscheck would need to be done using direct observations at the landing places. Fisheries Economic Sampling in Croatia Biological fisheries assessments are essential and are used to describe the production functions of each important fishery. These production functions vary in shape (and thus in their implications for fisheries management). However once the shape of the production function has been accurately described, the production function may be combined with key but simple economic data to provide critical bio-economic assessments of fisheries which identify unequivocally the options available to fisheries managers.

The most recent version available is the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Multiannual EU Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013â&#x20AC;?, EC Decision 2010/93.

Data Collection and Sampling Annex 6 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector

The EU Acquis (Chapter III A) specifies the kinds of economic data, which must be taken annually, and which are needed to support economic analyses and which, when combined with biological data which define growth functions for each fishery, can provide the bio-economic assessments which are the foundation for sustainable fisheries management. Although the information referred to above is required under the EU Acquis, it is also useful information for the FLAG. Particularly in respect of marketing information. Metier (fishery) related sampling of commercial species This is also covered in the EU Acquis, which requires that size frequencies of commercially important species taken in the catches be taken. Resulting data are needed for assessments and are obtained by groups of 3-4 scientists/technicians going to sea for several days or weeks to carry out such measurements on commercial catches taken by commercial vessels. These data can be also collected at the landing places. The main data taken are species and length, using randomised samples from a part of the catch, or if the catch is small, of the whole catch. The team must also record the total weight of the catch and of the sample (if taken) so that the size composition of the total catch may be estimated. Where extra biological data for stock related variables are needed samples (possibly size stratified) with records of length, samples of otoliths and other hard parts, and observations of sex and stage of maturation, may also be taken.

Metier specific data described above, which are taken for commercial fish species, must also be taken for the important discarded species. Metier based data should be made available from the DF. Special fishery surveys Special fishery independent surveys of many kinds, not explicitly identified in the EU Acquis, are also needed. For instance, when it is necessary to implement a new minimum size (which may have been identified using e.g. Yield Per Recruit analytical methods), it will be essential to carry out careful mesh selection research and this in turn may require special surveys to relate mesh size, thickness of the cords/ropes used in the nets, mesh shape, mesh material (nylon, cotton etc), and catch size, to the size frequencies of the fish caught. Other special surveys may involve echo-acoustic and eggs and larval survey techniques.