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

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

Please cite this paper as: Fisheries Sector Baker, Ian; Marriott, Sean; (2013), “Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector”, UNDP Croatia; ISBN No 978-953-7429-45-4 Web page: www.undp.hr 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), “Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector”, 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 Pre- Project Manager: Ivana Laginja, UNDP paring Croatia for introduction of the Community Led Local De- velopment in the Fisheries Sector, which was implemented from Authors: Ian Baker; Catalys Ltd November 2011 to January 2013. Seán Patrick Marriott

Project was implemented by the United Nations Development Acknowledgements - Sean Marriott and Ian Baker would like to Programme (UNDP) Croatia with funds of The Netherlands Minis- acknowledge the excellent welcome and support provided by all try of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands in cooperation connected with the study. The courtesy and hospitality of the Di- with the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Fisheries. rectorate of Fisheries team and that of the local partners, especially the fishermen of Kali, made us feel very welcome. Particular The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the UN’s mention must be made of the Zadar UNDP team, without whose global development network, advocating for change and connect- energy and persistence this study would not have been accom- ing countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help peo- plished. The support of FARNET was also important in ensuring ple build a better life. We are on the ground in 177 countries and the right linkages were made to Common Fisheries Policy at this territories, working with governments and people on their own time of transition. solutions to global and national development challenges. 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 ISBN: 978-953-7429-45-4 without authorisation, on condition that the source is indicated. UNDP gives permission to the authors to use this publication; on A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the National condition that source is indicated. and University Library in Zagreb under 843831.

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

2 Table of Contents

The Croatia FLAG Project Report 2.3 Current research and future development of Executive Summary 5 CLLD in fisheries 28 2.3.1 FARNET research into FLAGs 2007-13y 28 1. Introduction 7 2.3.2 Case Studies 29 1.1 Project purpose and objectives 9 2.3.3 International experience 30 1.2 Rationale for timing of the study 10 2.3.4 CLLD and FLAGs 2014-20 31 1.3 Methodology 10 2.3.5 Fund Integration 31 1.4 FLAG development work in Croatia before the project started 11 3. Discussion and Conclusions 33 1.5 The report and its structure 12 3.1 The Need and Role for FLAGs in Croatia 35 3.2 Target audiences, stakeholders and “affected 2. Context 13 groups” 37 2.1 Description of the Fisheries Sector in Croatia 15 3.3 Directorate of Fisheries responsibilities, 2.1.1 Economic Indicators 15 delegation & the role of Intermediaries 39 2.1.2 General Characteristics and Administrative 3.4 National Objectives 43 Framework 15 3.5 Local Objectives 44 2.1.3 Marine Fisheries 18 3.6 Local model 46 2.1.4 Aquaculture 20 3.7 Area definition 49 2.1.5 Processing and market 20 3.8 The role of Local Authorities 50 2.1.6 Short term Objectives for the Sector 21 3.9 Facilitation 51 2.1.7 The current situation in the Zadar County 22 3.10 Development Plan 52 2.2 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and European 3.11 Communication 55 Fisheries Fund (EFF) 22 3.12 Data and evidence 55 2.2.1 Common Fisheries Policy 22 3.13 Market analysis 56 2.2.2 The 5 axes of the EFF 2007-13 24 3.14 Conclusions 57 2.2.3 The Rationale for Axis 4 25 2.2.4 FLAGs 2007-13 25 4. Recommendations 59 5. Action Plan 65

3 Annexes 73 Tables 1 – FLAG Model 75 1 – Mapping Current and potential Future roles of 2 – Outcomes from the Local Workshop 84 Stakeholders and other resources with regard to 3 – Case Studies 86 the role of local intermediaries and animation 4 – Methodology 90 2 – Action Plan for implementation of FLAG Recom- 5 – Presentations 94 mendations 6 – Data collection and sampling 95

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 Fisher- ies Fund 2007-13 5 – Diagram showing Vertical (Supply Chain) uses of Axis 1, 2 & 3, in comparison to the added Horizon- tal (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 Note on Terminology – This report relates to the 8 – Potential National Objectives emerging from the implementation of the Community Led Local Devel- national project workshop – Zagreb – Jan 13 opment (CLLD) approach in the European Maritime 9 – Potential National Guidance emerging from the and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) from 2014-20. Currently, national project workshop – Zagreb – Jan 13 community led local development activity is supported 10 – Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve by Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in those 11 – Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve – with effort Member States where it is eligible. Both sets of terms and Return on Investment as added factors are used in this report, wherever relevant. This change 12 – Potential FLAG Selection Criteria in terminology as a result of Common Fisheries Policy 13 – Timeline for introduction of FLAGs to Croatia (CFP) reform can cause confusion.

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

Introducing Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) and the Com- pilot project would further improve communication between the munity Led Local Development (CLLD) methodology to Croatia local and national levels. through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) has significant potential to assist introduction of the Common Fisheries If all the necessary mechanisms are to be ready for implementation Policy (CFP) in the EU’s newest Member State as well as playing an within the 2014-20 programme, then there is an 18-24 month window important role in support of the post-accession alignment process. of opportunity within which all the necessary mechanisms should be established. This is a relatively short time compared to the tasks to The key recommendations focus first on decisions to be taken by be accomplished; however, with effective planning it can be achieved. the Directorate Fisheries (DF), as strategic lead and Managing Au- thority for the programme. This shouldn’t imply that all the work The power of the FLAGs mechanism is that they can play a role involved would fall on the staff of DF; it should not. The report rec- that is more significant than the relatively modest budget alloca- ommends that Croatia should take a proactive approach to del- tion they are likely to receive. Once established they can improve egation; enabling a great deal of the necessary activity to be car- information flow by playing the role of intermediary and interloc- ried out by local and national partners. The human resources exist utor between central policy and fishermen themselves; as well as for effective implementation of FLAGs, what is currently lacking providing a powerful mechanism for helping fishermen to express is a nationally coordinated approach to ensure its coordination and achieve their aspirations. and delivery. However, the administrative and governance challenges at the na- Consequently, the key recommendation of the report is to pro- tional and the local level should not be underestimated. In order mote the establishment of a Development Plan (DP) that would to support the study’s key recommendation that: help guide partners through the CLLD and FLAG development process at both national and local levels, as well as recommend- • Croatia should Implement the CLLD Methodology within ing measures to help improve Communication. the 2014-20 EMFF programme and facilitate the establishment of FLAGs for all relevant areas; The report also proposes the establishment of a Pilot Project to help all the local partners to focus their ideas and through which the recommendations should be implemented in full and without the national development process can be informed. An effective undue delay. Implementation will require financial, human and

5 The Croatia FLAG Project Report institutional resources, coordinated by a cooperative partnership Executive Summary approach that brings together national and local interests. Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries The study was initiated in order to investigate the role FLAGs could Sector play in Croatia’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 confi- dent 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 Fisher- ies 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

6 1. Introduction

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

1.Introduction

7 1. Introduction

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

8 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 – taken from brief

The project was commissioned by UNDP with the support and Consultant will assist Croatian authorities in identifying best ap- approval of local and national partners, with the purpose of pro- proach in establishing the CLLD concept in fisheries and propose viding assistance for the Ministry of Agriculture in planning and action plan for its implementation. preparation for introduction of LEADER methodology, i.e. community led local development (CLLD) into the fisheries sector in The objective stated will be done by way of implementation of the Croatia. In effect this means the introduction of the Fisheries Lo- following activities: cal Action Group (FLAG) approach and methodology to the Fish- 1. perform analysis in order to identify main challenges for im- eries programme and the Fisheries sector, as is currently funded plementation of the community led local development on ad- through Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). ministrative and local level 2. draft a proposal for actors involved in fisheries sector for in- CLLD will play an important role in the programming of European troduction of concept of community led local development Structural and Investment funds for 2014-20, as proposed by the based on acquis1 and best practices in other Member states horizontal regulation and guidance on CLLD. Given this, it is the and Croatian reality ministry’s intention to introduce CLLD for the sustainable devel- 3. draft a model for implementation of the chosen approach, 1 Regulation of the European Parliament and opment of areas and communities that depend on fisheries in the containing key activities, and related time line of the Council laying down common provi- 2014-20 Operational Programme for fisheries (under the future sion on the European Regional Develop- ment Fund, the European Social Fund, the EMFF). Programming for the next financial period is still in the early The project was directed towards Zadar County for the investiga- Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural phase, and needs to be coordinated at the national level under the tion of the local model. The establishment of a LAG on Zadar is- Fund for Rural Development and the Euro- Partnership Agreement for ESI funds, but it is expected that the ac- lands, already under implementation, will be used as a model and pean Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and tivities shall be significantly intensified in the coming months. a testing field for the development of the Fisheries Local Action laying down general provisions on the Group (FLAG) Regulation. Regulation for FLAGs in Croatia will be European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and Cohesion The study had two complementary parts; firstly, working nationally prepared based on the already prepared draft Regulation for intro- Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No with the Ministry of Agriculture Directorate of Fisheries to look at the duction of the LEADER Approach in the rural development in Croa- 1083/2006 and Regulation of the European overall process involved in introducing FLAGs and its implications tia in cooperation with the Directorate for Rural Development. Parliament and of the Council on the Euro- pean Maritime and Fisheries Fund repeal- for planning, resourcing and communication. Secondly, the study is ing Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 based on discussions undertaken with local partners primarily from The project has examined the potential for implementation of the and Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and Council Regulation No XXX/2011 on Zadar County to explore the local implementation issues as well as FLAG methodology in the coastal fisheries communities in Cro- integrated maritime policy to judge the readiness for the development of the local partnership. atia; excluding inland waters, as advised by DF. The question of

9 1. Introduction inland FLAGs will need to be addressed in the preparation of the any time from late 2014, to early 2015. Even if the programme does Study Report of the Project EMFF Operational Programme (EMFF OP). not start until later, so much groundwork is needed, both at the na- Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led tional and local levels, that undertaking this study and then acting Local Development in the Fisheries Sector on its recommendations is now an imperative. 1.2 rationale for timing of the study The implication of this timetable is that the formal steps towards The timing of this study is significant. It comes after a period of dis- implementation need to be commenced urgently, due to the num- cussion on the introduction of CLLD for the benefit of fisheries areas ber of tasks that must be completed in preparation for implementa- in Croatia, whilst at the same time mainstream LAG development tion and the wide range of stakeholders (people and organisations) has reached a key milestone with the commencement of the imple- who need to be involved in that process. This study has given par- mentation of Croatia’s first national LEADER programme; which was ticular attention to timeline and the recommended overall timeline launched in January 2013. The coincidence between these two devel- is set out in Figure 13. opments means that national and local partners are well prepared to discuss the potential benefits of FLAGs in an informed way. 1.3 Methodology Much of the coast is now covered by LAGs that are well informed regarding the CLLD procedures; i.e., defining areas, partnership The methodology was largely set in advance of the project and composition and local strategy development. This is very helpful, was structured around a series of national and local workshops as although FLAGs will also have to develop wider roles, expertise conducted in November and December of 2012 and January 2013. and knowledge base in terms of their application in the context of the EMFF programme, there is already local experience in ap- The consulting team (Ian Baker; Catalys and Sean Marriott) pro- plying CLLD principles. In developing the fisheries components of vided the detailed methodology, planned and delivered the work- the LDS, FLAGs will need to ensure the use of relevant expertise shop sessions and undertook the necessary research. The consult- regarding the sustainable development of fisheries areas in order ing team also provided expertise on Fisheries and Community to set appropriate goals for FLAG strategies and projects.2 Led Local Development and worked closely with the UNDP team

2 LAGs should be developed according to drawing on their expertise and experience in introduction of the the regulations set out in Article 65 of the Furthermore, the focus on FLAGs is now timely, given the amount LEADER approach into the local rural communities in Croatia. Proposal for a Regulation of the European work that is needed if Croatia is to develop an effective approach to Parliament and of the Council on the Euro- pean Maritime and Fisheries Fund [repeal- their implementation. Although it is impossible to be certain about The steps followed for the study were as follows: ing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1198/2006] start dates, taking into consideration the fact that the EMFF OP 1. Pre-project research and familiarisation and Council Regulation (EC) No. 861/2006 and Council Regulation No. 1255/2011 on should be approved by the EC and adopted by the national authori- 2. Mission 1 Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU). ties as early as possible in 2014; including the CLLD approach in the 2.1. National briefing fisheries sector; it is likely that FLAG implementation could start at 2.2. Local briefing

10 2.3. Project team workshop on timeline 1. Introduction 3. Mission 1 report identifying the key issues 1.4 fLAG development work in Croatia before the Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the 4. Further research and Case study development project started introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the 4.1. Meeting with FARNET Fisheries Sector 4.2. Meeting with N Norfolk FLAG On November 15, 2011 Directorate of Fisheries issued signed a State- 4.3. Development of interim conclusions for discussion in ment of Cooperation with UNDP on introduction of FLAG concept Mission 2 in the Republic of Croatia in line with the related acquis. Before that 5. Mission 2 UNDP held intensive talks with the DF representatives who expressed 5.1. National workshop – reviewing timeline and develop- interest in UNDP work in particular on the establishment of LAG on ment plan issues Zadar islands and coast, today LAG Mareta. Their special interest was 5.2. Local workshop – reviewing development and local the fact that fisherman communities, especially those from islands coordination issues were actively involved in lively participatory process of preparation of 5.3. Project team workshop on horizontal and vertical in- Local Development Strategy and establishment of LAG. tegration 5.4. Meeting with Fisheries Institute, Split – on overall Having developed a rich experience in the introduction of LEAD- fisheries situation in Croatia, implications of acces- ER approach in many local communities in rural areas of Croatia sion and implications for FLAGs implementation. UNDP in early stages of development of LAG Mareta realised the 6. Mission 3 importance of the fishery as a major source of income for many 6.1. National workshop – Consideration of final recom- communities in LAG area. Process of development of LDS for LAG mendations and implementation issues Mareta was conducted based on the requirements of the draft 6.2. Local workshop – Consideration of final recommen- Ordinance for introduction of Measure 202 (LEADER) in rural de- dations. velopment. Since fishery sector has quite limited position in such 6.3. Project Team workshop on final report. LDS where emphasis should be given to a rural development is- 7. Final report production sues (due to the current and future major sources of funding – IPARD and after the accession, EAFRD) it became clear that new This comprehensive inquiry process was generally seen by partic- solutions should be searched for to fulfil recognized needs and ipants as an effective overall approach. The project commenced to open additional possibilities for the fisheries sector as well as in November 2012 and concluded in January 2013 and so all part- communities dependant on fisheries and related activities. ners were able to follow the development of the project and could see how each of the steps built towards the final output. Annex 4 In summary, this project was created in order to prepare the fisher- sets out the series of meetings and workshops. ies 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,.

11 1. Introduction Study Report of the Project 1.5 the report and its structure Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector 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;

12 2. Context

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

2.Context

13 2. Context

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

14 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 it is an important source of employment on the coast and the is- 4,437,460 inhabitants in 2001 or 4,784,265 in 1991. 18.3% of the lands, where fishery is one of the rare activities that provides a total population in 2011 were younger than 14 years of age, 66.1% source of income throughout the year. were between 15 and 64 and 15.6% were older than 65. Unlike the average growth trend in the EU in the period 2000 – 2009; Croa- Fisheries significantly contributes to national exports with total tia has a total population decline of 0.16% per annum. 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 From 2000 to 2005 the average annual GDP growth was about 4%. (total export value was $67,674,780 out of which $67,631,851 was Between 2000 and 2005, imports grew at a lower rate as a result exported to the Japanese market), salted anchovies (total export of negligible economic growth of major trading partners of Croa- value $23,001,574, out of which $17,389 622 were for the Italian tia. The biggest increase was recorded in tourist services. Industrial market), canned sardines (total export value $19,622,286) fresh production continued its downward trend, so in 2011 the physical sea bass from aquaculture (total export value $10,781,900) and volume of production decreased by 1.2% compared to 2010. Positive fresh anchovies (total export value $6,526,864). developments were in the retail trade, tourism, and partly in foreign trade. Compared with the previous year, the nominal retail trade Imports in 2011 were $123,676,657 (38,417 tonnes) which included turnover increased by 4.0%, and actual turnover by 1.0%, resulting significant quantities of relatively inexpensive products (herring), from an increase in the consumer price index. The annual rate of in- imported exclusively for the needs of tuna aquaculture. flation, as measured by the consumer price index in 2011, was 2.3%. 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 2.1.2 General Characteristics and Administrative Framework tourism sector consumes domestic fish and is an important outlet for fish products during the summer. Large retail stores and hotel Croatia has a substantial territorial sea of 31.067 km², represent- chains usually use fish from farms, and preliminary data show that ing some 35.5% of the area of the whole country. Estimates of the there are significant differences in consumption (in quantity and 3 direct share of fisheries to GDP vary between 0.2% and 0.7% and species), in different regions of the Croatia. 2011 National Census

15 2. Context It is estimated that approximately 14,000 people (including: fish- Main statistical units of NUTS III level, in which fishing activities

Study Report of the Project ermen; employees of companies involved in fishing; aquaculture exist, are counties XVII, VIII, IX, XIII, XV, XVII and XIX, i.e., the Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led and processing fish; and employees on vessels) are directly em- regions extending from Istria to southern Dalmatia. In addition, Local Development in the Fisheries Sector ployed in the sector. Apart from permanent employees, there are there are certain areas in the continental part of the country, as a significant number of seasonal workers, especially on fishing is area XIV, where freshwater aquaculture has been developed. vessels. Overall around 25,000 people work in the sector, either The Administrative and statistical divisions of Croatia on NUTS directly or indirectly. In 2011, it was estimated that there were regions are shown in Figure 1. around 10,000 subsistence fishermen. The Ministry of Agriculture (MA) has administrative responsibility Tourism on the coast and islands represents an economically sig- for all fisheries-related matters, the Directorate of Fisheries (DF) nificant activity, especially with seasonal openings of additional is a directorate within the MA. The DF is responsible for all admin- market for different products, where fishing products have and istrative tasks within marine fisheries (managing the fleet and re- could have a significant role. Tourism is a seasonal activity and it sources), freshwater fisheries, aquaculture (marine and freshwa- enables employment and income during the summer, while fisher- ter), structural measures (as the Administrative Directorate), and ies enable permanent source of income for numerous coast and market policy and fishery inspection. In addition to the central island communities. Additionally, fisheries in conjunction with the office in Zagreb, the DF also has seven regional units working with tourism offer also an added value to the tourist service. the marine fisheries sector. In addition, a Department of Fisher- ies has been established within the Agricultural Advisory Service According to the national strategic determinants in tourism devel- with the objective of linking administration and stakeholders in opment, the objective is to develop the tourism offer through high fisheries, and to provide advisory services to them. added-value services. On the coast and on the islands, along with the traditional forms of agriculture (wine making and olive pro- Stakeholders of the sector are associated in chambers and coop- cessing), fishing is one of the rare activities which has survived in a eratives. The most significant umbrella institutions are the Croa- relatively unchanged form. Also, it is important to emphasize that tian Chamber of Economy (CCE) and Croatian Chamber of Trades marine culture is directly tied to the islands, and that it substan- and Crafts (CCTC). Within the MA, 18 fishery cooperatives are now tially effects the development and sustainability of sensitive island recognised, with total membership of 443 (May 2012). Some of the communities. Areas and communities which traditionally depend fishery cooperatives will have the possibility to turn into producer on fishing and which also today have characteristics of “fishing vil- organizations. lages” 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.

16 Republic of Croatia 2. Context Croatian Bureau of Statistics Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Nomenclature of territorial units Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector for statistics (NUTS) population 2 960 157 Statistical regions level 2 (NUS 2)

population 1 468 921

Legend 2 statistical regions (regional level) Continental Croatia Adriatic Croatia County center State border County border Figure 1 2 625km Map of NUTS 2 regions and 100km2 Source: CBS (Croatian Bureau of Statistics) counties in Croatia

17 2. Context 2.1.3 Marine Fisheries The largest single category of registered fishing vessels is that of

Study Report of the Project multi-purpose vessels (45.19% of the fleet). These vessels are typical Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led The Marine Fisheries Act (Official Gazette, no. 56/10, 127/10, 55/11 for fishing in the Mediterranean where there are no clearly defined Local Development in the Fisheries Sector and 50/12) defines that fishing at sea can be commercial, small target species and in which fishermen change gear during the year. coastal, sports and recreational, fishing for scientific and educa- Purse seine vessels account for 5.46% (226 vessels) of the fleet, and tional purposes and fishing for aquariums open to the public. these vessels have the largest quantity of catch, while trawl fishing vessels make up 13.59% (562 vessels) of the fishing fleet of the Commercial fishing is divided into two subcategories: commercial Republic of Croatia. In 2011 the total catch from purse seining was fishing senso strictu and small coastal fishing. Small coastal fishing 64,389 tonnes. Benthic trawling is carried out by 562 vessels; catch- is a new legal concept in Croatia and represents the form of fishing ing 4,275 tonnes of fish. Out of all vessels using this gear, around which has developed from the earlier category of small-scale fish- 230 of them achieved a catch larger than 5 tonnes/year. ing for personal needs. Small-scale fishing for personal needs, as previously authorised, will cease to exist on 1 January 2015. 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 The Croatian Fishery Sea consists of the inner and outer fishery instance, on average active trawlers are older than active purse seas and includes the area of the territorial sea of the Republic of seines; indeed the trawlers are among the oldest active vessels. Croatia and ecological and fisheries protection zone of the Repub- lic of Croatia. The fishing sea of Croatia is divided into eleven (11) In terms of catch by fishing gear, purse seiners landed the greatest fishing zones and thirty-seven (37) fishing subzones. Out of eleven quantity of catch (91.29%) in 2011. Trawling was 6.10% of the catch, (11) fishing zones, four (4) are in the inner fishing sea of Croatia (A, while gillnetting accounted for around 2% of total catch (24 % of E, F and G), and seven (7) are in the outer fishing sea of Croatia (B, fleet are registered gillnetters). Other fishing gear represented C, D, H, I, J and K) (Figure 2). less than 1% of the total catch.

In 2011 4,136 vessels for commercial fishing were registered in Croatia. 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, The largest percentage of fleet (81.29%) includes vessels shorter more than 80% of total catch is the catch of small pelagics (sardine than 12 metres in length. Total strength and tonnage of the fishing and anchovy). In 2011, the share of demersal and pelagic fish catch is fleet of the Republic of Croatia in respect of commercial fishing in around 97%, cephalopods 1.50%, crabs and shellfish around 1%. The 2011 was 326,987 kW and 44,998 GT. 10,138 people are registered most significant landing places in 2011 for small pelagics were Kali, for small-scale fishing for personal purposes. Although the number Zadar, Novalja, Biograd na Moru, and Mlina, and for trawlers and of these smaller vessels is relatively large, their total strength and general fin-fish: Tribunj, Hvar, Poreč, Komiža and Mali Lošinj. tonnage is relatively insignificant, as all are shorter than 12 metres.

18 Figure 2 MAp 1 Fishing zones of the Republic of Croatia Source: NSP (National Strategic Program)

19 2. Context Following ICCAT recommendations, Croatia has reduced its tuna more kg). The annual production of Bluefin Tuna is around 30%

Study Report of the Project purse seine quota. Tuna fishing is the only form of fishing that is (in volume) of the total mariculture production, or around 3,500 – Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led currently subject to quotas. 4,000 tonnes and it is almost entirely designated for the Japanese Local Development in the Fisheries Sector market. In the last few years the stagnation of the production is recorded, due to restrictive measures of tuna catching. 2.1.4 Aquaculture Shellfish farming is carried out in production areas that are con- Croatian marine aquaculture includes the culture of fin fish, tuna and stantly monitored by the State for hygiene control for market- shellfish. The total average production amounts to approximately standard products. In Croatia, mussels (Mytilus galoprovincialis) 11,000 tonnes, with a total value of HRK 876 million (€120 million). and oysters (Ostrea edulis) are cultivated almost exclusively by raft Total production in 2011 amounted to about 7 000 tonnes; however, culture. Shellfish farming is for the most part done in the area of this is believed to be a statistical anomaly, resulting from a new data- Malostonski zaljev and Malo more, on the western coast of Istria, collection system, and the real production is estimated to be at least the estuary of the Krka River and the Novigradsko more. Shellfish at the same level of 2010, when it was 10,628 tonnes, and that there spawning applies traditional technologies, using the Pergolari mesh has since been an increase in fin fish aquaculture production. and it is based on collecting young shellfish from nature. Currently there are no shellfish hatcheries. Around 2,000 tonnes of mussels Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and sea bream (Sparus aurata) and around 1 million individual oysters are produced yearly. Culture dominate the culture of fin fish with a production of over 5,000 is carried out at sites with a capacity less than 50 tonnes/year. tonnes per year. Farming is carried out in floating cages using advanced techniques with a closed production cycle, from con- trolled spawning to the final product. Aquaculture is carried out 2.1.5 Processing and Market along the entire coastline, but particularly in the area of the Zadar County. Most of the cultivated finfish is placed on the domestic The processing sector consists of a relatively small number of proces- market and the EU market (mainly Italy). Export to the EU mar- sors, especially for benthic fish because this is mostly brought fresh ket is limited to small duty free quotas. During the last few years to the market. Small pelagic fish are the main raw ingredient in the a constant growth in the production of these species has been traditional processing industry that was once based mainly on can- recorded due to an increase in consumption on the domestic mar- ning. Over the last 5 years canning has decreased, compensated by an ket, as well as the stabilization of prices on the EU market. increase in the production of salted fish (anchovies) and frozen fish.

Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) is farmed in floating cages in the half-open In 2011 there were 76 fish-processing companies in Croatia, of and open areas of the Central Adriatic, or in the areas of Zadar and which 70 were active. Of the total number, only two were large Split-Dalmatia counties. Ranching is based on catching small tuna companies (one in the Zadar County and one in the Split – Dalma- in nature (8-10 kg) and their further culture to market size (30 and tia County). Most of the companies employ less than 50 workers.

20 Until the accession of Croatia to the full membership in the EU, all 2.1.6 Short-term Objectives for the Sector 2. Context processing concerns must fulfil the prescribed hygiene measures Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the for the production of food of animal origin. Difficulties in modern- It is envisaged that in the limited period, Croatia will use the funds introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the isation of production in this segment are due to the fact that only from the EMFF along with the national co-funding of the following Fisheries Sector companies and crafts without a registered export number can ap- objectives: ply for pre-accession funds, which would prevent the financing of 1. Adjustment of fishing fleet production modernisation from these funds. • Establishing a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities Market organisation in Croatia is based on fishing cooperatives, 2. Sustainable development of aquaculture redemption fish stations and registered first buyers (retailers and • Increase of production and strengthening the competitive- wholesalers). First sale can only be made with registered first buy- ness of the aquaculture ers. In 2012, 1 039 first buyers were entered in the corresponding 3. Sustainable development of processing and marketing Register of the MA. • Strengthening the capacities of processing and marketing 4. Strengthening of fisheries administration and the sector for Trade channels and market organization are different for demer- using structural support through Technical Assistance sal species and pelagics. The largest part of the demersal catch • Improvement of Administration capacities and stakeholder´s (trawler fishing, fishing with sports nets, etc.) after first sale is in- awareness tended for export, while the catch of small pelagics is also the raw material for canning and the fish salting industry as well as for In addition, the NSP plans an intervention in line with the acquis feed in tuna ranching. Due to natural fluctuations in the stock and concerning the structural support in fisheries for the period 2014- thus the catch at some months during the year there is market 2020 and has set the following strategic priorities: saturation due to inability to store fish, so a part of the catch has 1. sustainable development of commercial fisheries to be destroyed. Lack of proper fish storage and its withdrawal 2. sustainable development of aquaculture from the market presents a significant factor on the market. 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)

21 2. Context 2.1.7 The current situation in Zadar County Fisheries Communities have been engaging in the development of

Study Report of the Project the LAGs, both to ensure that Fisheries interests are represented Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led The study used Zadar County to investigate the local implemen- with LAGs, but also with a view to ensuring FLAG development Local Development in the Fisheries Sector tation issues; this investigation was supported by desk research, will be appropriately informed. In this sense the Fisheries com- workshops and local meetings. The current position regarding munities have been positively engaged and this should serve fish- LAG development is that three Local Action Groups have been eries communities well in their development of FLAGs and LAGs established in the Zadar County: and positive relationships between them. • LAG Laura, LAG Bura and LAG Mareta.

LAG Laura was a pioneer LAG, established in 2009 centred on the 2.2 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and European small coastal area around Biograd and covering two towns: Biograd- Fisheries Fund (EFF) na-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 com- 2.2.1 Common Fisheries Policy prises of 9 municipalities one of which (Municipality of Karlobag) is in Lika-Senj County. LAG Mareta was established in 2011, covering 8 mu- The Common Fisheries Policy is one of the longest standing elements nicipalities on the coast and islands of the Zadar Archipelago some of EU policy and is currently undergoing one of its periodic processes of which are administratively governed by the City of Zadar. All three of reform in readiness for the 2014-20 Financial Perspective. LAGs have local development strategies prepared in anticipation of the applications for funding to the Ministry of Agriculture in 2013. With regard to the current CFP, the most important areas of action of the common fisheries policy are: These three LAGs between them cover 73,34 % of territory of the • Laying down rules to ensure Europe’s fisheries are sustainable County with 73,951 inhabitants. The residents of these three areas and do not damage the marine environment (fishing rules) share similar developmental problems, challenges and possibilities, • Providing national authorities with the tools to enforce these thus LAGs are expected to assist in strengthening and develop- rules and punish offenders (fisheries controls) ing rural areas of the County. The LEADER approach and the LAGs • Monitoring the size of the European fishing fleet and prevent- in Zadar County are serving as a platform for local partnerships ing it from expanding further (fishing fleet) through which rural strategy is being prepared and implemented. • Providing funding and technical support for initiatives that can make the industry more sustainable (European Fisheries Fund) The islands of Pag and Vir are the only remaining parts of the Za- • Negotiating on behalf of EU countries in international fisher- dar County not involved in any of the LAGs. They are also highly ies organisations and with non-EU countries around the world rural communities, economically very dependent on cattle breed- (international fisheries) ing and fisheries.

22 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 VrsiVrsi Ražanac Jasenice Molat Posedarje Sestrunj Obrovac Poličnik Rivanj Novigrad Ugljan Zemunik Zverinac Zadar Donji

Škabrnja Galovac Iž Sukošan Benkovac

Dugi otok Rava Sv. Filip Polača Lišane i Jakov Ostrovačke Pašman Biograd na moru Pakoštane Stankovci Tkon

Vrgada Figure 3 Zadar County LAG areas

23 2. Context • Helping producers, processors and distributors get a fair price approach, as the re-arrangement of the Fisheries programming

Study Report of the Project for their produce and ensuring consumers can trust the sea- mechanisms will not change the principles behind Axis 4 and the Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led food they eat (common market organisation) FLAGs. The most significant effect is likely to be the requirement Local Development in the Fisheries Sector • Supporting the development of a dynamic EU aquaculture for increased coherence between CLLD approaches support by all sector (fish, seafood and algae farms) (aquaculture) the funds covered by the new Partnerneship Agreement (PA) • Funding scientific research and data collection, to ensure a sound basis for policy and decision making (research and data The European Fisheries Fund, 2007-13, is one of the key tools of collection) the CFP. The EFF is comprised of 5 elements (or “Axes”), and participating member states are expected to implement all 5. The Commission is reviewing the Common Fisheries Policy to make it more efficient in ensuring the economic viability of the The five axes are: European fleets, conserving fish stocks, integrating with the mari- • Adjustment of the Fleet; time policy and providing good quality food to consumers. The • Aquaculture, processing and marketing & inland fishing; Irish Presidency has made completing the reform of the CFP its • Measures of common interest; priority for fisheries during its presidency (the first half of 2013). • Sustainable development of Fisheries areas; and This means the CFP frameworks could be one of the earliest ele- • Technical assistance ments of the 2014-20 to be agreed.

For The 2014-20 programme the current European Fisheries Fund Ensure an economically resilient & (EFF) will change to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund ecologically sustainable fisheries sector (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 Develop- Axis 1: Axis 2: Axis 3: Axis 4: Adjustment Aquaculture, Measures Sustainable ment across EU funds. of the Fleet processing & of Common Development marketing & Interest of Fisheries inland fishing Areas

2.2.2 The 5 axes of the EFF 2007-13

Although the project focuses on the preparatory activities for the Axis 5: Technical Assistance 2014-20 programming period, the legislative framework for this period has not yet been adopted, so the report uses experience Figure 4 and material from the current programme. This is a legitimate Structure and components of the European Fisheries Fund 2007-13

24 Axis 4, highlighted above, is the axis of the EFF that has been cre- There are 5 key features that describe the “bottom-up” approach 2. Context ated to support FLAGs. within Axis 4: Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the 1. Local territorial approach introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the NB – although it is useful to use the current structure and ter- 2. Integrated strategy Fisheries Sector minology relating to the EFF and Axis 4, as these are the current 3. Partnerships and Participation terms in common usage, it is important to note that these terms 4. Local innovation will change with the advent of the 2014-20 programme and the 5. Networking and cross-border cooperation new EMFF and mainstreamed CLLD, which will replace Axis 4. In summary, the FLAGs mechanism has been devised to assist fisheries communities in adapting to the institutional, economic and environ- 2.2.3 The Rationale for Axis 4; 2007-13 mental changes going on around them and to help them play a strong- er local role. It will also increase the efficiency of EU Fisheries policy. Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) provides support for the sustainable development of fisheries areas. In particular, it Prior to reform of CFP there has been a disconnect between fish- supports measures to promote economic diversification (tourism, ermen and their environment & resource. The FLAG provides a food, renewable energy..) and an improved quality of life in areas mechanism for direct engagement by fishermen with the manage- affected by a decline in fishing activities. An important innovation ment of the resources, tools – and funds – for fishermen to take in the implementation of Axis 4 is the emphasis on the territorial responsibility for the environmental impact of coastal develop- approach, which encourages a focus on specific areas and seeks ment and resource-use, a mechanism for training and awareness- to mobilise local actors from all sectors: public, private and civil raising and an ability to improve supply chain benefits to fisher- society, to work together as “groups” to design and implement men by increasing the value of product and sales and improve integrated local development strategies. fisheries organisation and governance.

The aim of Axis 4 is not just to tackle the short-term effects of the CLLD within the EMFF will replace Axis 4 for the 2014 programme. 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 2.2.4 FLAGs 2007-13 quality living. It does this by providing the people who most understand both the problems and the dreams of fishing communi- FLAGs are a new innovation in the 2007-13 EFF programme, designed ties – with the tools for adapting the solutions to their real needs. to provide a local territorial perspective and community led-development within the Common Fisheries Programme. FLAGs apply a Com- munity Led Local Development (CLLD) methodology that was first established in rural programmes, where it is known as Leader. FLAGs

25 2. Context are locally based partnerships between fisheries actors and other

Study Report of the Project local, private and public stakeholders, which are given the responsi- Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led bility to design and implement a bottom-up strategy that addresses Local Development in the Fisheries Sector their area´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 thou- sands 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.

26 2. Context

Study Report of the Project Fisheries sector Preparing Croatia for the o introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the u Markets Fisheries Sector t  p National +International u Marketing Transport + t Refrigeration Processing s

Community infrastructure Fisheries Local economic links + benefits links + benefits Local sales and marketing of fish products Harbours + ports Mariculture Purchasing services bussines Roads Fishery lg. Purchasing services - sector specific Community infrastructure Small scale fishery + shelfish Underpining tourism Pesca Tourism Fuel + basic supplies aXIS 4 Value adding to local sales eg., restaurant, aXIS 4 Telecommunications direct sales, new products i Fisheries tradition n Extending the tourism sea &fisheries p Traditional cooking + Fishery management season u fishing for tourist & other t Fleet management Seasonal cultural events s Stock management etc. Restaurant chain Fishing cultural centres Landing points Life long learning for Cookery courses with famous chefs fisheries Services for boats Production of fisheries tools

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

27 2. Context 2.3 Current research and future development of none of these appear to be significant factors in whether or not

Study Report of the Project CLLD in fisheries FLAGs are established. Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector The research does appear to establish that FLAGs are particularly 2.3.1 FARNET research into FLAGs 2007-13 relevant in areas where there is a relatively high dependency of the territory on fisheries, the overall economic health of territory Recent FARNET Research has established that there is a wide di- is under pressure, fishing has a socio-cultural significance and/or versity in the fishing areas where FLAGs have been implemented. the fishery is vulnerable in some way. All of these factors apply to There is no significant connection between the dominant fishery the main fishery areas of Croatia. type in the areas where FLAGs have been implemented. FLAGs are developing in every type of fishery area and key fishery fac- The research is starting to clarify the presentation of the roles that a tors, such as relative dominance of seiners, trawlers, the relative FLAG can play and this is summarised in the diagram below. FLAGs strength of aquaculture and mariculture, fleet segmentation, ab- are adopting all of the roles depicted in this diagram, i.e., from the solute levels of activity – number of jobs, boats, landings, etc.; 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 Catalyst for change structure & SSF outreach Preservation of organisation primary activities of mindset

EFF local Vertical integration Horizontal integration antenna (within supply chain) (within territory)

Figure 6 Figure from FARNET showing the Sectoral development range of sectoral and territorial Main added value: improve resilience of fisheries sector Territorial development roles of the FLAGs N.B.: the same FLAG can play different roles simultaneously or sequentially

28 It is clear that if Axis 4’s underlying purpose of territorial develop- The main difference of course between mainstream LEADER and 2. Context ment is to be achieved, then the approach to be followed needs to be the application of CLLD in Fisheries, is of course its sectoral fo- Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the towards the right hand end of the spectrum on the illustration above. cus; and it is therefore important that FLAGs maintain a distinc- introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Whilst a sector-led approach is possible, it is however not necessarily tive fishery focus. This can be a tension for some, as the intention Fisheries Sector the best use of the CLLD methodology and its capacity to make local that Axis 4 assists the fishing community to engage with other inter-sectoral connections. Most importantly a sector-led approach is economic sector and add value to their own sector, is not neces- less likely to lead to increased economic opportunity. sarily the core motivation of the fishing community. Each FLAG will have their own approach to addressing this question and the The FLAG methodology was developed by taking the principles success with which the Local Strategy evidences and analyses the developed through LEADER, within EU Rural Development policy, local links and identifies the opportunities for positive develop- and applying it to the specificities of the fisheries funds. The Lead- ment will underpin the success of the FLAG itself. er methodology is described (by DG-Agri) as:

2.3.2 Case Studies

Since it was launched in 1991, the Leader Community Initiative The Annex includes two case studies, the Costa dei Trabocchi, has been working to provide rural communities in the EU with Italy, and North Norfolk, UK. The purpose of these case studies a method for involving local partners in steering the future de- is to highlight implementation issues to inform the development velopment of their areas. The Leader approach is based on the of Croatia’s FLAGs. Both areas are implementing FLAGs in areas premise that, given the diversity of European rural areas, de- where other EU funding is available, in the Italian example the velopment strategies are more effective and efficient if decided area abuts Leader and ERDF-assisted areas, in the case of N Nor- and implemented at local level by local actors, accompanied folk the area is also a LEADER area. by clear and transparent procedures, the support of the relevant public administrations and the necessary technical assis- The Costa dei Trabocchi partnership has seen the benefits of inte- tance for the transfer of good practice. The following seven key gration and has sought to develop strong relationships from the features summarise the Leader approach: local public-private start. The benefits of this are seen in the high levels of cooperation partnerships or local action groups; area-based local develop- over coastal and fisheries based tourism, where infrastructure is ment strategies; bottom-up elaboration and implementation being developed that benefits the fishing communities that would of these local strategies; integrated and multi-sectoral actions, otherwise be unaffordable if FLAG resources alone were utilised. innovation; networking; and cooperation. These are described in more detail at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leader- The N Norfolk example has taken a more focused approach, plus/pdf/factsheet_en.pdf . largely due to national and local administrative approaches, due to a very focused national fisheries management body and local

29 2. Context decisions to take a more sector-led approach than other English Denmark offers the most appropriate best practice experience as

Study Report of the Project FLAGs, such as Cornwall. they appear to have made the greatest efforts to establish FLAGs Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led on meaningful boundaries and worked with fishermen applying Local Development in the Fisheries Sector The issues that emerge are: the principles of Community Led Local Development, as intended. • The importance of integration – the Italian case study shows Denmark has also taken the most positive approach to aligning how its success was built on proactive engagement between their administrative processes, the Rural Development and Fish- the FLAG partnership and the bigger and better established eries Departments working closely together to assure programme partnerships in the same and neighbouring areas. Commit- coherence. It is useful to understand best practice, whilst Croatia ment to partnership from the outset has led to the fisheries develops its own national approach. Whilst RoC’s approach will programme having a positive influence over the spending of not be comparable to Denmark in the short term, it provides an the ERDF and Rural Development programmes, particularly in idea of best practice at which to aim. the area of tourism. • The importance of facilitation – the UK case study shows how Scotland and Bulgaria appear to have taken a more top down ap- crucial the facilitator has been to the success of the partner- proach, but with important differences. In the case of Bulgaria, the ship and its programme. In this case the facilitator was based at government took a strategic approach defining the areas where they the local authority and his role has been pivotal in creating the believed the FLAG approach was appropriate. Although the Bulgari- partnership, achieving agreement and turning the fishing com- an government has had delivery system difficulties, it has sought a re- munities aspirations into a deliverable programme. sponse from local fishing communities and so the approach has had • The great diversity in approach – the Case studies, the FAR- top down and bottom up components. Development of the FLAGs NET Research and the international experience quoted below has been relatively slow, but it has respected the importance of the shows that there is great variability. The FARNET research has local response; each has also been allocated relatively large budgets sought to explain this through examining the factors underly- (3 times the size of the Scottish examples in gross terms). ing this variability, however, the conclusions do not yet show strong relationships between particular fishery and FLAG In the case of Scotland, the Scottish government also took a top characteristics. It is not yet clear how this variability will be down approach, adopting a distributive approach to by applying a addressed in the next planning period. It is however clear that simple formula to allocate funds to all the eligible areas. However variety in approach will continue to be a feature. 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 2.3.3 International experience government has taken a relatively low-key approach to the intervention, allowing areas to develop their own programmes with In the course of the research, the approach of Denmark, Scotland, relatively little interference. Bulgaria and Cyprus were also reviewed.

30 In Cyprus, just one FLAG has been identified and it has been built Secondly, the guidance for implementation of the FLAG method- 2. Context directly on a pre-existing LAG. The LAG membership has not ology will be in the common guidance for Community-Led Local Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the changed to reflect the change in function and fishermen consti- Development (CLLD) methodology that will be covered by new introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the tute 1.2% of the membership. guidelines for all CLLD approaches in EU funds. This will also en- Fisheries Sector compass LEADER and CLLD implementation through Cohesion In this small review of international best practice, the Danes ap- programmes. This guidance is most likely to require more coher- pear to have the most to offer Croatia in terms of the approach ence between programmes and between approaches followed they have taken and its results. and strategic integration. It is likely that DG Mare will add further guidance to the CLLD guidance that applies to all funds.

2.3.4 CLLD & FLAGs 2014-20 2.3.5 CLLD in 2014-20 – Fund Integration Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is a key element of the current negotiations regarding the 2014-20 period. Three Com- Under the current programme arrangements for EU programmes, mission proposals for new laws are still under negotiation: the managing authorities and national governments are expected to new CFP, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and show clear demarcation between programmes. This is important the Common Market Organisation. to help ensure funds are effectively deployed, that duplication of outputs and funding is avoided. Whilst these negotiations are currently ongoing, it is clear that CLLD and FLAGs are most likely to form part of the reformed CFP; Under the proposed 2014-20 programmes, the Common Strate- as DG Mare’s approach to implementation of Community Led Lo- gic Framework (CSF) will require the establishment of Partnership cal Development under the new EMFF. Agreements (PA) between Member States and the EC that will identify at the strategic level how the funds are due to work to- It is important therefore to understand that the 2014-20 FLAGs gether, and where they are intended to be discrete and separate. will be governed by EMFF regulations; as well as benefiting from two sets of regulation and at least one set of guidance. 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 co- Firstly, the detailed regulations for implementation under the ESI herent way. The guidance for this is currently under discussion and the EMFF will apply. These will build on the current regula- between DG-Mare, DG-Agri, DG-Employ and DG-Regio. tions 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.

31 2. Context

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

32 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

33 3. Discussion and Conclusions

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

34 3. 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 The previous sections have presented the findings of the study. In However, the study has identified that the Croatian fisheries sector Fisheries Sector this section we discuss the implications of these findings, bring- faces significant economic, environmental, social and regulatory is- ing in the outcomes of discussions of the workshop sessions held sues, which support the RoC Government’s intention to implement by the project to support the conclusions at the end. CLLD in this sector. These issues include: • The territorial sea has relatively healthy fish stocks, according to The study has shown that there is a wide range of issues that need the NSP, however, there are weaknesses in that the key spawn- to be considered in addressing the question of FLAGs in Croatia. ing/recruitment grounds in the Jabučka kotlina are outside the Whilst none of these issues are complex in itself the sheer number territorial sea in international waters and therefore outside Cro- of competing issues and interests demands close attention. atian government control. • The fishery has structural weaknesses in the onshore infrastructure, its regulation and coordination, all of which impede the 3.1 the Need and Role for FLAGs in Croatia marketing of Croatian fish. • There appear to be areas of over-fishing, according to the Insti- Although implementation of CLLD is a key element of implemen- tute of Oceanography and Fisheries, particularly in demersal tation of the CFP and EMFF from 2014-20, it is also important that stocks, where there appears to be an ongoing decline biomass. key stakeholders are clear about the purpose of the FLAGs and • The Croatian fishery sector is currently large and economically the “problem(s)” that they are being expected to address. successful, with 4000 professional fishermen and 14000 subsistence fishermen; an unskilled fisherman can expect to earn It is clear from the study that a variety of views exist on the state €1000 per month for 120 days work per year, a salary that is un- of the fish stocks and of the fishery sector. The information quot- derpinned by a state subsidy of €8000 per year. ed has come from the best sources currently available, but there • Obtaining accurate figures on stocks and fishing effort is difficult, are well recognised deficiencies in this data that will begin to be as fishery regulation is rather demanding in all countries. This is addressed by the development of the EMFF OP and the develop- particularly the case in Croatia, given the number of fishermen, ment of the Management Plans. significant amounts of illegal activity, and the very large number of possible landing places – about 360 in Croatia of varying sizes. The fishery management position is complex and a full descrip- Most of these ports do not satisfy EU criteria for registration. By tion is beyond the scope of this report and more work needs to way of comparison there are approximately 13 landing places in be done to gain an accurate picture of the sector. In the study, we Adriatic Italy; all of which have been registered as satisfying EU sought data and evidence from a number of sources, in particular, standards. Added to which fishermen are a politically significant the Directorate of Fisheries, the National Strategic Plan and the group, who have the support of all political parties. Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries at Split.

35 3. Discussion and Conclusions • However, these incomes and levels of active fishermen are • Changes in capacity demand alternative livelihoods for

Study Report of the Project not sustainable as the stock is in decline and effective im- fishermen – what are these? Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led plementation of the CFP (which will play a significant role in • Expanding employment opportunities – through links to Local Development in the Fisheries Sector assuring future sustainability) will lead to inevitable need for other sectors (tourism etc.) changes, and the need for many fishermen to cease and great • Training opportunities for new entrants; retraining redun- changes to the way in which the sector is regulated. dant fishermen and upgrading skills to add-value to product • FAO, working with the Oceanography and Fisheries Institute • Developing/improving facilities at Split have undertaken a great deal of research, particularly • Support for safety at sea through the Adriamed project. This research provides a comprehensive evidence base on which to base future control, • Equip fishermen to become active in shaping their own eco- however, control based on science is always contentious with nomic futures; fishermen and there is a need for more local studies and an • FLAG creates a platform for fishermen to develop their increase in awareness amongst fishermen of the role that this own development programme evidence can play. • Creates basis for direct support to marine business development The above picture has emerged from information provided by • Mechanism for market development and promotion consultees, from the NSP and in particular information provided • Enables exploration of the alternative economic activity by the Oceanography and Fisheries Institute at Split. It is not in- outside fishing & links tended to be a comprehensive problem analysis, however, it is sufficiently clear from this overview that Croatia faces significant • Optimise fishery sector engagement in local development; challenges in this sector. The challenges faced were discussed by • FLAG is directly connected to local government and other the national and local workshops and both groups agreed that economic sectors FLAGs could play a significant role in assisting Croatia to address • Creates forum for exchanging ideas and views the range of issues identified. • Provides mechanism for cross-sectoral development • Platform for PR & promotion In particular FLAGs could provide the following benefits: • Joint activities and projects • Support the fisheries sector in dealing with the need for and the process of change that the sector now faces; • Assist in the complex task of integrating EU and domestic • Changes in the CFP mean that Stakeholders and resource- funds at national and local level; users are an essential part of the reformed CFP • Require the active collaboration of local actors, including • The environmental management issues mean that fisher- organisations appropriate for accountable body status. man should become most engaged protectors of the re- • Maximise use of funds. source as their futures depend on it; • Give assurance to Managing Authority, Paying Agency and Audit Authorities.

36 • Increase resilience & reduce vulnerability of fisheries sec- 3.2 target audiences, stakeholders and “affected 3. Discussion and Conclusions tor, increase the sustainability of fishing and the resource on groups” Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the which it depends, as well as its capacity to react to shocks & introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the crises. Prior to reform of CFP there has been a disconnect be- A key component of the development process is to identify the Fisheries Sector tween fishermen and their environment & resource and with- “affected groups” regarding FLAG implementation. This process out improving this connection, the fishery sector’s capacity to has already commenced, and a positive collaborative atmosphere inadvertently cause or exacerbate a crisis remains a risk. The was evident in both the national and local groups. FLAG can help to reduce this risk as it can provide: • A mechanism for direct engagement by fishermen with At the national level, the development work done to date has the management of the resources and their better under- identified: standing; • Ministry of Agriculture – Directorate of Fisheries – the lead • Tools – and funds – for fishermen to take responsibility body for development and implementation, as Managing Au- for assessing environmental impact of coastal develop- thority within the management and control system for EFF ment and resource-use; and EMFF. Whilst CLLD and FLAGs are not within the scope • A mechanism for training and awareness raising; and of the work of the Twinning Team within the DF, they could • An ability to provide improved supply chain benefits to play a role in the transfer of experience from those countries fishermen by increasing the value of products and sales. where FLAGs are already implemented. • Ministry of Agriculture – Directorate of Rural Development In each case strengthened coordination, organisation and fish- – DRD is DF’s key partner at the government level, given the eries governance can play a key role. Improved associations will need for complementarity of programmes and funds. Impor- help in marketing, purchasing, stock management, engagement tant lessons can be learnt from the current implementation of with other sectors locally; as well as improving the means for en- the LEADER programme under IPA. gaging with national agencies and supporting the process of ad- • Paying Agency for Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Develop- aptation necessary, as the CFP is implemented. ment – responsible for the Payment and Control System for the FLAGs programme and is likely to be required to partici- These issues were thoroughly discussed by the national and local pate in the certification of the CLLD programme within EMFF workshops and both concluded that based on the rationale present- and its implementation. ed 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. 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-

37 3. Discussion and Conclusions lar FLAGs need to ensure that they include both large and An early task will be to undertake a more formal stakeholder anal-

Study Report of the Project small scale fishermen. In Zadar County the study encoun- ysis that identifies those who are involved in the processes of de- Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led tered representatives of both: velopment and implementation. The Stakeholder Analysis would Local Development in the Fisheries Sector • Large-scale fishing companies and cooperatives tend then be used formally to ensure that all those affected groups are to be easier to work with, as they are generally better involved appropriately. Amongst other things, this will be a key organised and have more management capacity and are requirement for assessing compliance with EU regulations. therefore better able to engage in partnership activities. Companies and Cooperatives who showed capacity and It is evident from discussions with the wider group of stakehold- interest include Kali Tuna, Ribarska Sloga and Omega 3. ers with whom engagement will be required, that beyond the “in- • Smaller scale fishermen – a much harder group to work ner circle” of those who are currently aware of FLAGs, that aware- with, however some of the smaller fishing and maricul- ness is low and work is required with this wider group: ture groups have engaged with the development process • Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds – the Min- to date and some are involved with their local LAGs; istry of Agriculture will need to work with MRDI (along with particularly small mussel production cooperatives at other ministries) showing how the respective programmes Starigrad and small scale fishermen at Novigrad. build toward a cohesive set of national objectives. This will need to be written in the PA and EMFF OP. There is a new • Extension Service – Zadar County – The Extension Service requirement for 2014-20 that the PA will additionally need to officer for Zadar County Lav Bavčević has the respect of the show how all CLLD programmes work together. local fishermen and could play a key role in the development • Ministry of Economy and Ministry of Entrepreneurship and of the FLAG, if given the role. Crafts. • Croatian Chamber of Economy and Croatian Chamber of • LAGs Bura, Mareta and Laura that cover 73,34 % of territory Trades and Crafts. of ZD County where fishing communities and fishery sector • Smaller scale Fishermen – although some smaller scale fish- are important stakeholders in these partnerships, also, they ermen have been involved in the project, most have not and are ready to provide additional support to fisherman in or- few will understand the role of the FLAG programme. A sig- der to prepare them for the introduction of CLLD into fishery nificant local communication task exists to engage this group policy of Croatia and work with them constructively. This is one of the biggest challenges that FARNET have identified so far. • 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.

38 3.3 directorate of Fisheries responsibilities, 3. Discussion and Conclusions delegation and the role of Intermediaries Therefore, part of the current year budget could be devoted Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the to supporting the developments identified by this report. introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the The Directorate of Fisheries carries responsibility for development • DF Field Office staff – the Field Office staff are not engaged Fisheries Sector and implementation of the CLLD and FLAG programme, however in the FLAG development process, as the scope of their work they have a number of other priorities competing for their time and is different. It is possible that they could play a role in the attention. DF will therefore need to think hard about how they use development of the FLAGs for the whole of Croatia. However, the resources available to them in order to deliver these responsi- such a change in role would need to be planned and resourced bilities. The majority of actions start with them, either in terms of and the impact on other tasks recognised. Also, the compat- giving or delegating authority, resourcing the activity or in terms of ibility of their current (largely regulatory) work with the more direct delivery. The study has concluded that the majority of these facilitative and partnership roles necessary for FLAG develop- tasks can be accomplished outside the DF, however, this will need ment would need to be considered carefully. to be initiated and overseen by DF to ensure all development activity (both within and outside the Directorate) remains coordinated. One of the biggest challenges is that of communication as the Fig- ure below demonstrates. The commonest way to overcome these DF has resources under its own control that can be used to sup- obstacles is to identify and map the organisations that can act port development: as effective intermediaries. These Intermediaries should be made • DF’s own staff – their numbers are planned to increase, how- aware of the CLLD approach and then they can provide informa- ever, the responsibilities and tasks that need to be delivered tion and assistance to their local stakeholders. will also increase at least at the same rate as staff numbers rise; and currently staff numbers are fluctuating. If DF is to “animate” the fisheries sector and ensure that there is • Staff of other ministries – staff in other departments will good two-way communication within the sector, then it will need assist development and delivery, but they have their own re- to consider how it communicates with the intended beneficiaries sponsibilities and whilst they can play a supporting role, they in a detailed and serious way. It is clear from the analysis of pos- will only do so if DF takes the lead and is clear about the con- sible players set out in this section that the communication chal- tribution required from other Departments. lenge is very significant. • Paying Agency – the paying agency will undertake key tasks in developing the payment and control function of the pro- Very rough estimates with which the study has been provided gramme, however, it will require those tasks to be initiated show there are in the region of 250,000 potential beneficiaries of and orchestrated by DF, as the Managing Authority. EMFF and CLLD as applied through EMFF. The clear implication is • Budgets – DF is responsible for a budget in 2013 to support that those working at the state level will need to think carefully fisheries. The study team understands that this budget was about the best communication channels and intermediaries to largely unspent in 2012 and the same could happen in 2013. use in order to get their message across.

39 3. Discussion and Conclusions The use of electronic communication will help get the messages The DF can call upon the resources of these Intermediary Bodies to

Study Report of the Project across, as will wise use of the (TV, radio and print) media; however, support the development and delivery of the CLLD and the FLAGs: Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led the main effort will be through those who can act as Intermediar- • Local fisheries sector – Large and small fishermen have both Local Development in the Fisheries Sector ies and interlocutors for the programme communicating directly indicated commitment to developing FLAGs and their inter- with potential beneficiaries. These intermediaries include Local est and some of the fishing groups are clearly well resourced Authorities, Universities and Institutes with relevant competenc- and already have the capacity to deliver projects and to sup- es UNDP, LAGs, Local and Regional Development Agencies and port programme delivery. the Extension Service and Fisheries Associations and organisa- • UNDP – has played a key role in prompting the development tions, amongst others. of the FLAG process through their support of this study as well as having facilitated previous development steps at the The figure below shows the potential number of beneficiaries with national and local level. whom DF need to communicate and however many staff are taken • Local Authorities – commitment and understanding is vari- on by the Ministry; they will not have the scope to animate benefi- able, depending on other interests, however, authorities such ciaries. Therefore the role of Intermediary Bodies will be critical in as Zadar County Council are very well placed to support FLAG transmitting messages and undertaking the direct role of “anima- development in their areas. tion”. The purpose of this figure is to depict the size of this task, but • LAG partnerships – potential exists for overlap and confusion also to indicate the potential role that Intermediary Bodies could play. 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

250, 000 Potential Final Beneficiaries 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 1000 + Possible Intermediaries CLLD guidance for 2014-20 strongly suggests greater cooperation at the local level.

10 - 20 DF Local officers The table below identifies stakeholders currently involved in the Fisheries sector that could play a role in its future animation, as State Ministry and intermediaries. The list isn’t exclusive and does not preclude the Agency Officials creation of a whole new sector of intermediary for CLLD in the Figure 7 Beneficiary mapping & the role of new programme period, either by top down design or through Intermediaries open calls and tenders to play this important role.

40 3. Discussion and Conclusions

Stakeholder / Partner Current Role / Status Future / Potential Role Comments Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the DF Responsibility for development of the Managing Authority with Strategic The decision to define, resource and introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the programme responsibility for the programme to delegate the role of Intermediaries Fisheries Sector 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 pro- Integrated management arrange- Local animation and development can gramme activities ments, joint communications, parallel be integrated, e.g., LAGs and FLAGs. and joined up development of CLLD

Paying Agency Responsible for payment and Control Delivery of Payment and Control This is a demanding role and a signifi- systems System cant 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 propor- tionate 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 project did not study the param- the development plan. eters 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 Might be able to play a key role in The project did not meet these staff, FLAG development process. FLAG development. as DF wanted to be clear on the development requirements, before engaging them in the debate.

Fisheries Institute, Split Provides technical input to the Could support DF in the development Whatever role the Fisheries Institute development of the Fisheries Strategy, of Fisheries Criteria for the FLAG plays in the development of FLAGS; Table 1 but not yet the development plan for programme and in defining areas. this role will need to be coordinated Mapping Current and potential Future roles of Stakeholders and other FLAGs. with the role it plays for the pro- resources with regard to the role of gramme as a whole. local intermediaries and animation

41 3. Discussion and Conclusions Stakeholder / Partner Current Role / Status Future / Potential Role Comments Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Fisheries sector Croatia has a very diverse Fisher- The larger fishing operators appear Care needs to be exercised in engage- Local Development in the Fisheries Sector ies sector; including successful and interested in development of the sec- ment of private sector interests in well-resourced fishing interests, along tor and can support FLAGs. programme development to ensure fair with large numbers of smaller-scale access to resources and to reduce the fishermen. danger of conflicts of interest arising.

UNDP UNDP has prioritised FLAG develop- Could continue to play a facilitation The continued facilitation role will ment in Croatia and their work has role. require formal acknowledgement been well received. 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 Can play a key role in supporting the The Italian case study shows the their interest and involvement in development of FLAGs at the local importance of the local level integra- FLAGs. Both Zadar and Lika-Senj level, including giving reassurance tion. Although local integration and County have shown interest. to the national level that EU-funded cooperation can be specified as a CLLD programmes will be integrated national requirement, it will not be and complementary. 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 LAGs are 2 or more years further ad- Similar comments as for Local Au- national call for proposals that will vanced in their development than are thorities be issued soon by the Ministry of FLAGs and can offer useful support to Establishing joined up structures will Agriculture and Rural Development. developing FLAGs. LAGs are able to be a requirement of the Fisheries and Table 1 At the same time, they appear ready offer more practical support in terms Mapping Current and potential Future Rural Development Programmes as to support FLAG development in their of co-hosting and co-location and roles of Stakeholders and other well as the CSF. resources with regard to the role of locality, with for example Zadar County mentoring. local intermediaries and animation

42 The table above provides an analysis of the current and potential future 3. Discussion and Conclusions roles for the key stakeholders. One of the key issues in establishing and Potential National Objectives Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the delivering the development plan will be how messages are transferred introduction of the Community Economic growth + consolidation Led Local Development in the backwards and forwards between the ministry and those in the field. Fisheries Sector 1. Help create new jobs State level organisations in all Member States are often too cau- 2. Create more and better jobs for fishing communities that repeat ‘’green’’ constraints tious and risk averse and this gets in the way of effective imple- 3. Advice and diversification of fishery products mentation of CLLD, implementation of which is about accepting 4. Strategic objective- creating sustainable communities focusing on primary that the approach is inherently risky and there will be failures. sector (fisheries), increase added value

Fishermen leading their own development However, intrinsic to the approach is that national authorities should resist the temptation to “gold plate” regulation through ad- 1. Encourage fisherman to work together and think strategically for the future development ditional and unnecessary regulation and control and should “get 2. Make a development strategy, which is owned by all people who live there out of the way” as much as possible and allow local partners to and who believe in it drive the process. One of the biggest challenges is that of commu- 3. To take responsibility for their future developments, not just ‘’wait and see’’ 4. Active participation of fishermen in management and decision making process nication, as the Figure below demonstrates. The commonest way to overcome these obstacles is to identify and map the organisa- Horizontal integration tions that can act as effective intermediaries. These Intermediaries 1. Horizontal integration at local level should be made aware of the Axis 4 approach and then they can 2. Objective- local development strategy provide information and assistance to their local stakeholders. 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 3.4 national Objectives between different sectors in coastal areas (i.e. Agriculture, tourism, public health, pharmacy)

The role of the DF is not only to set the delivery framework for the Horizontal integration Fig 8 FLAGs and encourage the local partnerships to establish effective 1. Improving collaboration between FLAG and scientists Potential National Objectives emerging and coherent local strategies; it is also to establish the strategic 2. Communication with fishery community from the national project workshop – framework within which the strategies should be established. 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 The national workshop considered this question and the following It can be challenging to establish the CLLD approach in post-com-

Study Report of the Project points emerged as potential objectives. munist regimes, as the local and national authorities have histori- Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led cally had such a strong centralist approach to all areas of public Local Development in the Fisheries Sector policy. However, It is clear from the local discussions and local Guidance workshops where local stakeholders played a very full part in the development of ideas and proposals that the appetite and the will 1. Help and support diversification through value adding 2. Integration in local development (not only sector development) exists to overcome these obstacles., In particular our consultations 3. Communication, integration with other sectors, key point, added value in Zadar County have shown that public and private capacity exists 4. Inclusion of vulnerable groups + gender equality as FLAG priorities to support development of the FLAG partnership and mechanisms. 5. Area (size) limitation or limitation of number of flags per area (unit) (county perhaps) Strongly supportive and facilitative Local Authority backing is 6. Partnership should be developed on the basis of tradition and experience critical to the success of FLAG implementation; however, in post- from the past in order to revive positive experiences from the past (i.e. Fish processing factories) communist states, the legacy of local command and control ad- Fig 9 ministration can be a real problem, as it is significantly at odds Potential National Guidance emerging from the national project workshop – with the CLLD methodology and principles, which require admin- Zagreb – Jan 2013 In addition, the national workshop was asked to consider those istrations to support and facilitate; i.e. to let go. These problems stipulations that should be given to the local group(s) as guidance have been a major impediment to LAG and FLAG development in and the following list emerged. Bulgaria, Romania and Poland.

It is likely that as the FLAG approach develops in Croatia; these lists The local workshops produced two sets of draft local objectives for will develop and change, as will the composition of these two lists. 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) 3.5 Local Objectives and those focused on the fisheries sector, or vertical actions (Table 2).

The essence of a CLLD approach is that the programme is sub- It is clear to see from the variety and depth of these actions that stantially owned and led by the local community for whom it is there is a wealth of ideas in the local partnerships and that a key intended. Local partners will need to be involved in the determi- challenge will be in prioritising what is possible, particularly in the nation of the Croatian approach to developing a FLAG structure earlier stages of the programme. in meaningful ways that can ensure that the approach agreed has local support and is realistic. A good way to explore this issue Involvement of fishermen. One lesson from the project workshops would be through the pilot that is suggested in Section 4. and interviews is the importance of ensuring that fishermen are involved from the start of the process. This doesn’t mean that every

44 fisherman will engage form the start, but that successful imple- The key for successful adoption is defining who sits in which sec- 3. Discussion and Conclusions mentation of the CFP will depend on planned engagement of fish- tor of this bell curve and then segmenting the communication ap- Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the ermen from the start (see also communication below). proach accordingly. A question for the longer term will be what introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the stance to take regarding the Late majority and the Laggards. In the Fisheries Sector There is a requirement on those responsible for the programme context of the fishing sector this is likely to mostly be comprised of to inform and involve the fisheries sector in the development of small fishermen, who are by definition “hard to reach” and there is the National Programme. However this can be more difficult when a diminishing rate of returns; i.e., they require more effort for less dealing with fisheries, given the fragmentation of the fisheries sec- effect, as the second figure below shows: tor 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 Adoption Skeptics Bystanders Naysayers than in other similar sectors, so extra attention needs to be paid to Effort involvement and communication planning. ROI

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 Fig 11 of psychology and technology adoption. One of the best known Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve – Innovators Early Early Majority Late Majority Laggards with effort and Return on Investment depictions of this is the Rogers curve (see below), which has been 2.5% Adopters 34% 34% 16% as added factors 13.5% developed to demonstrate this process.

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.

In using these models to help guide the change process, it is Early important to be aware that they describe an ideal situation and Innovators Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Laggards 2.5% 13.5% 34% 34% 16% there are other factors that condition later involvement, e.g., the nature of employment and access to resources for investing / di- Fig 10 Roger’s Innovation Adoption curve versifying in times of economic difficulty can all have a profound

45 3. Discussion and Conclusions effect. Other sources for change management theory and meth- both of which could be self-sustaining by the end of the FLAG

Study Report of the Project ods include John Kotter and his 8-step change theory. programme, and provide wider community benefits. Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector In addition, there are other questions that will need to be considered in planning for effective involvement of the fishermen, for 3.6 Local model example: how best to achieve inter-sectoral cooperation and the way that Facilitation should be developed (See section 3.9, below). Turning vision and ideas into reality is often the hardest step to take for a local partnership, as it means coming to agreement over In summary, the involvement of fishermen – the resource-users – priorities, roles and responsibilities. To assist in this process the re- in the FLAG is crucial. Without the whole-hearted support of the port provides a model for local partners to consider as they develop resource-user the FLAG cannot succeed. The project action plan their local decision-making structures. This is provided in Annex 1. and interventions therefore include: • A number of immediate and short-term projects capable of pro- It is important to use the model in the manner it has been intended. viding the basis for the longer-term actions required to provide It is not a template to be followed, but it is a dummy model for com- sustainable economic, social and environmental improvements. parison purposes. The intention is that it provides an idea of what • A number of projects that are likely to require a longer period the local structures might look like once they have been developed of propagation to be able to create a significant impact. through an appropriate local development process.

The final beneficiaries of the FLAG should be the primary, second- The model is based on what has been shown to work in other Eu- ary and tertiary industry businesses, as well as the wider coastal ropean countries. In using this model, it is important to ensure communities, located in the Zadar FLAG area. Specifically, the pro- that local and national circumstances are reflected. In addition, gramme should work for the duration of the programme with the the model may require more adaptation in Croatia, given that fishermen themselves, both inshore and offshore (primary indus- Croatia’s political, social and commercial development is differ- try), the processors, wholesalers and retailers (secondary industry) ent from that experienced in western Europe, meaning that ad- and other businesses directly or indirectly associated with the fish- ditional work is likely to be needed on its regulatory and cultural ery, such as restaurants, hotels and so on (tertiary industry). alignment. The model is intended to offer a good starting-point that can be moulded to fit better with Croatian realities, using the The programme should also have a strongly positive impact on CLLD concept to produce a locally workable entity. surrounding communities, in particular those that focus on developing the fishery and its area as an attractive venue for tourists The model is based on structures that are in operation elsewhere, and other visitors. Taking the example of Zadar County, fisher- adapted to the circumstances of the locality reviewed by the pro- men are already starting to think about possible initiatives and ject, i.e., Zadar County. The proposal is based on a small number of ideas such as a Fishing Skills Training Centre and a Visitor Centre, meetings and requires further adaptation to ensure it addresses

46 all the relevant local legal and administrative requirements. De- In analysing the problems facing the local Zadar fishery, it is helpful 3. Discussion and Conclusions veloping the local model will also need to address how FLAGs are to look at what the NSP has noted as weaknesses in the Croatian Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduced into the developing regional and rural development fishery sector. The NSP states that the fisheries are characterised by: introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the structures in line with the Partnership Agreement (PA). • Few high value-added products Fisheries Sector • Limited innovation in production and added value The model will also need to address communication and coordi- • Lack of brands and branding nation structures with all other programmes and groups, for in- • Poor distribution channels stance, LAGs, Local Authorities, and if different whoever is nomi- • Limited infrastructure nated as the accountable body for the partnership. Regarding • Inadequate refrigeration and storage capacities and aggra- CLLD programmes, this is very likely to be a requirement in the vated unloading. PA, however, it would also make sense to broaden this so that the responsible partnership has an overview of all funds in the area. These are signs of weak organisation across all parts of the fishery, and that the small scale fishery sector in particular lacks the capi- In the process of establishing the FLAG, it will be important for the tal and capacity to upgrade itself significantly. In looking at the FLAG to formalise the communication mechanisms with the Paying strengths, the NSP noted the following trends: Agency and Managing Authority. Whilst this process will be mostly • Modernisation of fish processing industry led from the national level, however, communication should be two • Development of frozen and chilled supply and processing of way and the local partners will need to organise accordingly. fish products from fish farming • Growing tourism sector Development of the FLAG will need to focus expectations regard- • Increase in number of large retail outlets ing the funding. FLAG funding is for smaller scale actions that in • Availability of EU funds and markets particular address interface issues, e.g., the relationship between • Mechanisms of national support in establishment and opera- Fishing and Tourism and the wider community. For instance the tion of fishing cooperatives and producer organisations desire was expressed to address the network of landing places. • National programmes for support of infrastructure develop- Funding this would probably not be the best use of FLAG mecha- ment in fisheries nisms and available funding, partly because it is out of scope and • Opening of the EU market for shellfish scale of the Axis 4 funding; but feasibility work could be done • Branding of fisheries product through the FLAG. If other resources can be found, then feasibil- • Increase in consumption of fisheries products ity work such as this could also be done in preparation for the launch of the FLAGs, so that they have some “oven ready” pro- These strengths clearly identify market development as the way jects that can demonstrate quickly what the FLAG can offer. forward but it is clear that this development will require a transformation in the food supply chain. This transformation will need capital investment.

47 3. Discussion and Conclusions Investing capital into a sector at this stage of development needs FIG 12 - POTENTIAL FLAG SELECTION CRITERIA: Study Report of the Project a coherent structure that will merge the various interests so that Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led they all pull in the same direction. To make the best use of CLLD Socio-economic analysis which provides evidence based assessment of: Local Development in the Fisheries Sector funding demands a local organisation such as a FLAG. - Economic contribution of sector (eg, No. & Sizes of boats, value of catch) - Potential for continued positive contribution For a FLAG to work it needs a well-understood and agreed objec- - Evidence of support from local community, inc lag, local authoroties and tive. An objective, furthermore, that is accepted by all the stake- other stakeholders holders. The dummy model suggests an objective for the FLAG, - Evidence based swot that interprets the evidence collected and clearly informs priority setting however it will be for partners in each areas to develop their own objectives based on local circumstances, whilst reflecting pro- Local development strategy: gramme intentions. - Objectives, targets & priorities for investment appropriate to the flag mechanism (type and scale) - Project approval process (also project development support processes) The FLAG and the local CLLD programme should help the fishery - Demarcation between funds to adapt and diversify as market conditions change by delivering - Sustainability, value added & persistence of impact an integrated programme of mutually beneficial actions to sup- - Consideration of cross-cutting agendas, eg, environment & equality port the sustainable and profitable development of the sector. - Effective monitoring and evaluation Area definition: The introduction of FLAGs would provide the means of maximis- - Land and sea area definitions - inclusive of fishing areas to be covered, identi- ing the impact of EMFF investment by allying this funding with fying & justifying any areas of overlap - Population covered other funding initiatives and also providing a better basis for pri- - Coherent with national approach and international best practice vate sector investment. The FLAG should aspire to introduce into - Relationship to other clld lags either overlapping, or neighbouring the programme as much counterpart funding as possible using Governance: this approach. - Composition / members - Decsion making structure On the next page a set of potential criteria are provided to assist - Transparency and conflict of interest arrangements in the process of developing and selecting FLAGs. - 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

48 3.7 area definition • FLAG/LAG coherence is an issue and does need to be fac- 3. Discussion and Conclusions tored into partners’ thinking and the most made of these re- Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the Area definition will be one of the key issues for any FLAG partner- lationships. Several models exist, and whilst the joined up ap- introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the ship. The project discussions in Zadar County demonstrate this, proach is preferable, this must be supported by the ministry Fisheries Sector as do the reviews of other countries’ approaches. In Zadar County, and facilitated at the local level. several issues are apparent: • Each area should consider whether it wishes to be part of • Each FLAG will need landward and seaward boundaries. the overall area covered by the FLAG, however, DF guidance • The DF should make clear whether they want to set criteria should make clear who is able to make that choice. For ex- for area definition. We would suggest that a clear set of cri- ample, if the municipality representing an area of coast, an teria are developed regarding size, relationship to processing island, or part of an island decides it doesn’t want to be part capacity/areas, relationship to current and potential tourism of the FLAG, but the local fishermen wish to engage, there centres, relationship to other CLLD LAG boundaries and in- could be difficulties. DF guidance therefore needs to establish clusion of main fishing grounds and conservation zones. which are the essential partners. • By way of comparison; Bulgaria set a national template • DF will need to determine how porous LAG boundaries can for the areas it expected to come forward, this hasn’t be. For instance if a facility in Zadar or Split, e.g port-related been 100% successful yet, but at least local partners un- facility, serves the FLAG area, but is outside the FLAG bound- derstand national government intentions. aries, then the rules need to allow for funding of such facili- • NB – The PA will have to set out the type of areas where ties. One example would be a depuration unit that serves a CLLD will be implemented and the priorities which it is number of mariculture enterprises in the FLAG area would be intended to address best located in the main port for the area. • FLAG boundaries should be coherent. This means that boundaries should be drawn to consolidate those areas that have The advice of FARNET regarding area selection: natural associations of fishing activity. Areas should also be The EU regulations allow Member States or regions to use differ- coherent from a regional and national perspective ensuring ent approaches to area selection. Some Member State managing that no areas are inadvertently omitted. By way of example, authorities define only the broad conditions that a territory has to in Zadar County, the Islands of Pag & Vir and are not currently meet in order to benefit from Axis 4, and invite fisheries commu- included in any LAG, but both have an active fishing sector. nities to make proposals for FLAG areas. This has the advantage of • The FLAG area should be centred on the main centre for the fish- being more bottom-up, but Member States have to judge whether ing industry for the area; generally the main landing point; this they have the systems in place which will allow them to select will also help to define the distribution of FLAGs down the coast. the areas that genuinely have the “critical mass” and are the most • In setting criteria for the acceptability of Local Development “coherent and able to support a viable development strategy”, as Strategies and plans one consideration will need to be wheth- required in the regulations. er the area defined has optimised the geographic coverage.

49 3. Discussion and Conclusions Other managing authorities prioritise territories that meet certain tics within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of 26

Study Report of the Project characteristics and then encourage the creation of partnerships and May 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led the development of strategies in these areas. Whilst in certain circum- May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of Local Development in the Fisheries 5 Sector stances this can help ensure that funding is concentrated on areas territorial units for statistics (NUTS) ; and that fulfil the conditions for meeting the strategic objectives of Axis 4 b functionally coherent in geographical, economic and social it does have the disadvantage of being more rigid and top down. terms, taking specific account of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and offer sufficient critical mass in terms of hu- There is also an intermediate option, where the managing authori- man, financial end economic resources to support a viable lo- ties might indicate the broad geographic scope of Axis 4 eligibility cal development strategy. (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 bor- ders are negotiated between the local stakeholders. 3.8 the role of Local Authorities

In practice, the definition of fisheries areas is often one of the most The role of Local Authorities is not prescribed by DG-Mare, although hotly contested issues in Axis 4. It is frequently the result of long dis- there is strong guidance that Local Authorities can play a key role cussions and negotiations involving key local, regional and national in supporting local partnerships in the development and delivery of authorities. During these negotiations there is often strong pressure the FLAG. Their roles could include being a potential source of co-fi- to satisfy a wide range of stakeholders and this can lead to an expan- nancing, undertaking the financial management roles on behalf of the sion of the boundaries of fisheries areas and a dilution of the funding. LAG/FLAG, bringing together other sources of funding and helping to leverage maximum community/economic benefit from investments. Despite the fact that, under Axis 4, fisheries areas do not have to be confined to existing administrative boundaries (Implementing However, as their role could be quite significant for all FLAGs, the Regulation, Article 22 .2), the result of the negotiations is usually questions therefore are; what is the role of local authorities and a combination of municipalities (NUTS 5 areas). In fact, in some how is it being planned for? If the proposal for a pilot is adopted, countries the formal declaration of the local authority (e.g., the then it was clear through the local workshops was that local au- local council or mayor) is a necessary condition for the given lo- thorities are committed and have capacity to assist the process cality to be formally included in the FLAG area. As far as possible, and are ready to do so. Fisheries should however be the defining characteristic. Across Croatia, the Local Authorities appear to have differing levels According to the regulation4, a fisheries area eligible for support of interest and knowledge of FLAGs, so one question for the devel- shall be: opment process is what would be the most effective way of planning 4 2011/0380 a limited in size and, as a general rule, shall be smaller than NUTS consistent engagement? Alongside the role of Local Authorities, the 5 OJ L 154, 21.6.2003, p. 1 level 3 of the common classification of territorial units for statis- role of the Regional Development Agencies should also be examined.

50 A further issue that will concern Local Authorities is the allocation nership takes time and patience and would be in conflict with the 3. Discussion and Conclusions of funds between LAG areas. For instance, ideally this should re- core work of the DF’s local fisheries officers. Indeed extension of Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the flect the wider purposes of the fund, given its territorial focus and the allocation for management and administration to 25% in all EU introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the not simply be determined by detailed fishery criteria. funded CLLD is explicitly to include provision for animation. Fisheries Sector

Care also needs to be taken to ensure Local Authorities do not domi- Hence, in establishing the FLAG Facilitation system, the following nate or own the FLAG, this is a key consideration in new regulations. questions will need to be addressed: Local Authorities have an important role to play, but it will not help • To what extent are DF local staff able to assist – if they carry the FLAG or the delivery of its objectives if they control the Partner- out a “policing” role currently; are they the right people to pro- ship. It is also important that and any conflicts of interest are clearly vide facilitation advice? There is a real tension here that can be and transparently addressed and that there is no preference given to a significant barrier in establishing the necessary trust, as the projects because they are promoted by the local authority. 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, 3.9 Facilitation other enablers and service providers, etc.. • Is it possible to use the existing Facilitation structures, i.e., do not The processes of communication and development will be greatly try and re-design the whole thing with a new system, if the exist- simplified if a nationally consistent approach is taken to FLAG facili- ing systems can be made to work with a little simple adaptation. tation. The progress made to date has been possible due to the proactive role taken by UNDP in the Zadar County and the existence of The implication is that these facilitators do not need to be work- local facilitators who already have the confidence of the fishermen, for ing in any one service; so for example a county council could fa- example Lav Bavčević, who works for the national extension service. cilitate in one area, the extension service in another and UNDP in another. However, whoever is expected to lead this work should Establishing a nationally consistent approach does not mean that be working in a common framework and they should also be deliv- Facilitation needs to be delivered through the same cadre of per- ering broadly the same messages. Whatever system is adopted, it sonnel everywhere, simply that whoever is leading the process lo- should avoid any temptation to add a further level of bureaucracy cally should be well connected to the ministry and their facilitation and it should be seamless to the beneficiaries. 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-

51 3. Discussion and Conclusions 3.10 development Plan ment steps have been scoped out in detail in detail and any issues

Study Report of the Project and dependencies identified and addressed. Each step has its own Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led The discussion above points strongly to the need for a Development internal time constraints, but some tasks can overlap, establishing Local Development in the Fisheries Sector Plan (DP) that should be in place from early 2013 up to the commence- an effective Development Plan, based in project management soft- ment of formal FLAG support under the 2014-20 programme. The ware, will mean the process can be managed effectively. development plan would be required to address all the components needed at the local and national level. It should also consider how In addition the Development Plan will help ensure that there is the development processes are to be funded, programmed, planned coordination at the national level, e.g., between RD and Fisheries and delivered. The development process also needs to include a com- policy and frameworks regarding strategic focus, programming, munication plan. At the beginning of 2014 the “Preparatory Support” the development of local approaches, national networks, etc. It becomes available to all CLLD LAGs including FLAGs. It is also likely will also help to ensure that local development proceeds in step that the proposed ‘start up kit’ currently only proposed for LEADER, with the national developments and issues such as resourcing are should be made available to all LAGs and FLAGs. addressed in a timely fashion.

The advantages of a nationally coordinated development process Another issue for the Development Plan is coordination between are obvious, it will crucially provide the DF, its national partners FLAG development and other areas of relevant policy. The 2014- and the European Commission with the assurance that the avail- 20 implementation model will need to include both LAGs and able resources are being used in a complementary way building FLAGs, as well as implementation of CLLD through ERDF and ESF; towards coherent implementation of FLAGs in Croatia. 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 Development Plan would need to be structured around a clear the formal structures will need to be adequately elaborated, deci- timeline and should be based on transparent assumptions. For in- sions taken on management, coordination, delegation, targeting, stance, although the absolute milestone dates are not known for etc., as well as the structures required to deliver the programme, the reform of the CFP and full establishment the EMFF, it is im- including functions and skills required – e.g., for programming, portant for all concerned to establish realistic target dates. Dates management, payment, audit, monitoring and evaluation. will also be established for FLAG establishment, working on experience from the current programmes, FALGs will need to be estab- 2013 is a critical year within which, much of this learning and lished by the end of 2015 at the latest. development will need to take place.

To be realistic this timescale also needs to be set with reference to A key issue will be ensuring that local level activity is coordi- the likely time involved in each of the necessary development steps. nated with national and contributes to the overall development Establishing a realistic end point is an iterative process, as the tar- of FLAGs in Croatia. Without clear DF direction, the danger ex- get end point will need to be re-calibrated once all of the develop- ists that local fishing groups, with or without their local partners

52 start to develop their ideas in any number of ways. To do this in it has a strategic approach and also the most settled LAG/FLAG 3. Discussion and Conclusions a vacuum is most likely to lead to mis-directed and wasted effort approach. The Fisheries and RD ministry officials have also found Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the and frustration on all sides. This is one of the reasons why we good ways of working together. It also manages the island/coast- introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the have suggested a pilot FLAG. The pilot will enable activity to take al/hinterland interface. Fisheries Sector place at the local level, where fishermen can feel involved and can feel they “own” part of the development process. Lessons can be Italy might make another good location for a study visit, given the learnt and the FLAG proposals when they emerge will be better common interests in the Adriatic. Such a visit could also include as a result. This process will need to be funded and we believe a meeting with the FAO team working on the Adriamed project. this would be a very effective use of the Fisheries national budget. However, Italy was very late to establish their systems and pro- This budget could also lever funds from other partners and from cesses, so they may not offer the best example. local groups (we were given evidence of this). In some respects Romania or Bulgaria might be better in high- The project has produced a high level Timeline to help gain an lighting issues likely to be faced or Greece where we see similar overview of the likely length of this process and the main blocks coastline and strong LAG/FLAG integration based on LEADER ex- of work. A simplified version of this is reproduced below, the more perience and autonomous Local Development Agencies detailed versions are annexed.

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;

53 2013 2014 2015

emff national strategy, objectives & buget allocations

DF chioces & decisions Ministry/DF capacity assessment & development Ministry (DF) EMFF PROGRAMME Development of ACREDITATION READY FOR CLLD Approach IMPLEMENTATION for fisheries Flag communications Development of National FLAG Use 2013 strategy Approach and Programme budget as testbed to develop HR national Flag Development approach PROGRAMME

CROATIA’s FLAG ESTABLISHED LOCAL - LDS DEVELOPMENT OF SHADOW FLAGs - LAG APPROVED CLLD IN FISHERIES - STATUTES IN PLACE

UNDP REPORT ON Study visits FISHERY CLLD

LOCAL FLAG MODEL Pilot flag

Fig 13 Simplified timeline for introduction of LOCAL DEVELOPMENT Local Flag development FLAGs to Croatia, showing local and national actions NationaL MINISTRY / DiF Ministry/ Directorate of Fisheries

54 3.11 Communication It is also easy to update and it is interactive, as you can add new 3. Discussion and Conclusions questions as they are asked and answered. FARNET can also be Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the There is an urgent need for fishermen and other interested stake- very helpful in this area. introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the holders to understand the plans with regard to FLAGs. As indi- Fisheries Sector cated above, communication with fishermen needs to be clearly structured, carefully planned, and it needs to be integrated with 3.12 data and evidence the development process overall. “The collection of data is not an end in itself, but is essential for Given the audience, the time constraints, the low level of current informed decision- making.” 6 understanding of the programme and its requirements, coupled with the need for partners to engage with the development of the If the fishery, and the community based on it, is to function prop- programme; the communication challenge is very significant. For erly then proper planning is needed. Planning includes both fish- this reason a communication plan is needed that sets out: ery management plans as well as the business plans for fishing • Target audience – with whom are DF and partners intending businesses – and the development of the FLAG. For these plans to to communicate? be effective good reliable data are needed and these data must be • Message – what is the message for the selected target audi- adequate to answer the users’ needs. Data collection should cover ence, e.g., if DF wish to see fishermen collaborate in develop- all aspects of a fishery, from the stocks themselves and their ex- ing the FLAG programme, the message should be something ploitation through to the local consumers, industry and markets. like – “we’re in this together”. • Communication objective – What is the overall purpose of EU Decision 2010/93 (Chapters 1-5), EC Regulation 199/2008 and the communication? How to “measure” achievement? EU Regulation 1224/2009 (referred to as the EU Sampling Acquis) • Desired reaction – what do DF want the target audience to do? between them require all EU Member Countries to establish the • Channels – what is the best way to communicate this mes- following data collection and management systems, which are re- sage with the intended audience? How to use intermediaries, quired to produce the data needed to support stock assessment e.g., DF local staff. Appropriate channels will be those that and its introduction into Croatia’s fisheries management system: fishermen already know and trust. a. A Fishery Independent data collection system based on FRVs (Fisheries Research Vessels) which collects biologi- An approach to developing a communication plan that would as- cal data at sea, together with supporting oceanographic data. sist in this process is set out in the Action Plan. One of the compo- Sea surveys of this kind are normally conducted as national nents of the Communication Plan is the Frequently Asked Ques- or, where possible as joint regional research exercises with tions (or FAQ). This approach is widely used and would be of great scientists from other EU countries participating, and with 6 FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible assistance. Partners and Colleagues have a lot of questions and multi vessel surveys whenever feasible. Data obtained, e.g. Fisheries 4: Fisheries Management: Article 2, FAO 1997. this is a quick, easy way to get facts out into the public domain. on abundance, size and species composition of the fish popu-

55 3. Discussion and Conclusions lations, are not influenced by the fishery and should be rep- models which are essential for identifying sustainable and

Study Report of the Project resentative of the natural populations of fish. Such data are profitable management strategies. Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led used to estimate growth and mortality and to construct bio- Local Development in the Fisheries Sector logical, dynamic pool models. f. Surveys which provide information on ecosystem structure.

b. A Fishery Dependent data collection system: such data are g. Surveys of the aquaculture and fish processing sector. collected by scientists and technicians at the landing places, and on commercial boats at sea. These data provide extremely Guidelines for collecting the data needed and for establishing valuable scientific data which, when combined with fishery in- data collection systems to cover all of these should have already dependent biological data taken on Fishery Research Vessels been established in DF. (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 3.13 market analysis extremely important because the fish caught differ in species composition, sizes and abundance from the fish in natural The future market for Croatian fish products needs to be well under- populations. It is essential to know how the structure of the stood and these comments concerning that market may be helpful. catches differs from that of the natural populations. Whilst EU consumers are demanding more and more convenience c. Transversal Variables and Metier 7 based surveys: these are and choice from seafood (as they are with other food products), they carried out by fishing skippers/captains who fill in log sheets are at the same time being very much more exacting about what they for every fishing operation on any fishing ground. Log sheets expect in terms of both dietary and hygiene standards. In one respect must be filled in regularly and must record specified data this presents a real growth opportunity for the seafood industry, as which can be used later to allocate effort by species, fishing there is an increasing awareness amongst consumers of the benefi-

7 Metier: a group of fishing operations tar- ground, gear and time so that stocks can be fished sustainably. cial health effects from eating marine based protein when compared geting a similar (assemblage of) species, to other protein sources; particularly given the low calorie content using similar gear, during the same period d. Surveys fleet censuses which estimate landings and effort of fish and the beneficial effects of fish 8oils in preventing coronary of the year and/or within the same area and which are characterised by a similar and which can be used to identify the relation between increas- disease. The Mediterranean diet in particular is well known as being exploitation pattern ing effort and landings. These data are used to construct impor- healthy, with pasta, olive oil and fish being among the more common 8 Particularly unsaturated Omega 3 fatty ac- tant models surplus production models which can be used to ingredients of this diet. Thus whilst the EU represents a potentially ids, which are found in high concentrations in ‘oily’ fish such as the Scombridae (which identify biologically sustainable strategies for each stock. profitable market for producers, it nevertheless has very strict regu- includes tuna species), but are absent from lations with regard to food health and hygiene standards that require or present in low concentrations in non- fish foods. e. Surveys which provide economic data so that e.g. biological significant financial investment and attention to detail to ensure that surplus production models can be converted to bioeconomic these regulations are complied with.

56 Two further comments concerning the future of the EU seafood ture planning – especially in relation to long-term demand for 3. Discussion and Conclusions industry are also worth mentioning. Firstly, as attention to qual- fish-feed for aquaculture. At the same time, there is a buoyant Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the ity assurance and management is growing in importance, so in- summer market for fish and fish products, generated by tourism. introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the creased competition in the market place (and the dominance in Again, market analysis is important. Fisheries Sector some countries such as the UK, France and Germany of the multiple retailers) has meant that the number of buyers is falling. Con- solidation 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 op- posed to production orientated) approach to seafood marketing.

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 EU’s most important and traditional fisheries.

Experiences from elsewhere in the world where this has hap- pened (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-

57 3. Discussion and Conclusions Study Report of the Project 3.14 Conclusions Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector 1. FLAGs have a key role to play in the sustainable develop- 5. Croatia stands to gain the most from FLAGs in the 2014- ment of Croatia’s fishery sector, communities and areas; 20 period if a pilot area can be used as a test bed and the and in assisting adaptation to the requirements of the study has shown that Zadar County offers the best oppor- Common Fisheries Policy. tunity, as it has both the appetite and the characteristics to make it a good pilot area. 2. Time is a critical factor, as implementation of FLAGs can be anticipated from 2015 onwards. Preparatory actions 6. In the process of introduction of CLLD into fisheries sector will be possible in 2014, however, formal commencement and communities, wider experience gained in introduc- is unlikely until 2015. tion of the LEADER approach can be of great assistance, particularly given that local communities in most coastal 3. Effective implementation of the FLAG methodology will parts of Croatia have already been extensively involved require a Development Plan that coordinates national and in the process. Wider experience gained in implementa- local development to ensure that the FLAG programme is tion of FLAGs in other parts of the EU can also be accessed ready for implementation. through FARNET.

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 organisations’ roles and responsibilities and in particular identifying lead facilitators in each potential FLAG area.

58 4. Recommendations

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

4.Recommendations

59 4. Recommendations

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

60 4. Recommendations 4. Recommendations Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the The process of inquiry followed by the project has established clear • Equip fishermen to become active in shaping their own eco- Fisheries Sector conclusions and these have been discussed through the process of nomic futures; national and local workshops that have been arranged by the pro- • Optimise fishery sector engagement in local development; ject. The workshops gave solid support to the 3 recommendations. • Assist in the complex task of integrating EU and domestic funds at national and local level; Recommendation 1 was agreed by the workshops, as was the sup- • In particular, it will provide a communication mechanism for porting rationale. The implication that a National Development Plan • Increase resilience & reduce vulnerability of fisheries sector, in- and supporting Communication Plan (Recommendation 2) and a crease the sustainability of fishing and the resource on which it pilot FLAG (Recommendation 3) were required was also supported. depends, as well as its capacity to react to shocks & crises.

The local workshops gave particular support for the idea of a pilot In addition, FLAGs could assist the implementation of the Com- FLAG, with private, public and NGO sector all in support of the mon Fisheries Policy in Croatia; helping to soften the eventual im- idea and indicating their appetite to add their own resources to pact of aligning the Croatian fishery sector to the CFP. establishing and delivering a successful pilot in Zadar County. It is easy to waste resources in the early years of implementation of new programmes, as all the partners are searching to under- Recommendation 1 stand the EU, the programmes, their respective roles and one another. Establishing a cogent development plan will enable Croatia Implement the CLLD Methodology within the 2014-20 EMFF to be SMART about the way in which it implements FLAGs and programme and facilitate the establishment of FLAGs for all the CFP and help it to earn credibility for the implementation of relevant areas of Croatia Fisheries policy from national and EU partners.

Rationale: Full and proactive implementation of CLLD in the The Recommendation refers to “all relevant areas of Croatia”, as EMFF and FLAGs requires a well prepared programme, with clear it is not necessarily assumed that the whole coast would be cov- objectives, a well prepared set of partners and effective targeting. ered. Likewise, there are inland areas, where the development of Enabling FLAGs to work in the most effective way possible will be a FLAG could be beneficial. very beneficial to Croatia, because it will: • Support the fisheries sector in dealing with the need for and General Description of Actions needed to achieve recommen- the process of change that the sector now faces; dation: this a high level action, i.e., it requires the engagement and support of senior decision-makers and focuses on obtaining suf-

61 4. Recommendations ficient support to implement CLLD and the FLAGs in the 2014-20 Recommendation 3

Study Report of the Project programme in the most effective way. It will require Directorate of Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Fisheries officials to brief the decision makers, to draft the neces- Establish a Pilot FLAG in Zadar County Local Development in the Fisheries Sector sary decisions and to negotiate with others (primarily at the national level), to obtain support and resources required for implementation. 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 partner- Recommendation 2 ships and areas can learn. This is a well-established practice in public policy, particularly where complex issues are involved, as Establish a National Development Plan for FLAGs is the case in FLAG implementation. A significant body of experience exists from elsewhere in the EU, but Croatia’s situation is Rationale for recommendation: For FLAGs to play a significant quite specific and whilst lessons from elsewhere will be helpful, role in the implementation of CFP, as set out above, it will be nec- they will need to be placed in a proper context and all tempta- essary to ensure a well structured, nationally coherent implemen- tion to copy-paste should be resisted. However, we recommend a tation of the FLAGs. full-scale pilot in Croatia as local partners are likely to see a programme designed and built using Croatian experience as being The Action Plan elaborates the steps involved in the National De- more robust and convincing. They would also find it easier to visit velopment Plan. Essentially it is a plan to realise the objectives that and view the pilot in operation. the project has concluded are appropriate for Croatia and agreed as a sensible approach by those present at the national workshop. The pilot area should be chosen according to robust criteria. The area should be appropriate to the FLAG methodology, and there General Description of Action: Gain commitment and prepare should be a reasonable expectation that the area will be part of ground for next steps, including budget commitments and identify the 2014-20 programme on the basis of the strengths and needs any legal or other national regulatory steps that will be needed. 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 de- monstrable 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.

62 Another role of the pilot would be to offer the opportunity for Resource Implications 4. Recommendations those in the other FLAG areas to engage in the pilot exercise and The implementation of these recommendations will require staff Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the for the learning process within the pilot area to be an open pro- and financial resources. Development and implementation of the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the cess that is shared with other pilot FLAG areas. For example, LAG Development Plan (including the Communication Plan) and the Fisheries Sector Adrion (like the LAGs in Zadar County) is actively interested in Pilot will require dedicated resource equivalent to at least 2 peo- developing a FLAG and has LAG members who could play a part ple; plus implementation budget over the next 2 years. in a FLAG pilot network; Ms. Stela Vela, who is a trained fisheries biologist. Other LAG areas could be encouraged to nominate a Section 5 takes these 3 Recommendations and turns them into an contact person and a network could be formed fairly quickly. 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 From the evidence presented to this study, Zadar County appears month project. If the partners wish to implement the recommen- to meet all of these criteria and therefore the pilot has been sug- dations it will be for them to ensure the Action Plan is fit for pur- gested for this area. There could be other candidates, and it is pose and if necessary develop it further before implementation. 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.

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 Croa- tia. 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.

63 3. Discussion and Conclusions

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

64 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

65 5. Action Plan

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

66 5. Action Plan 5. Action Plan Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the The Action Plan is currently in an outline state, with columns 6-9 left relation to official adoption and resourcing (e.g., actions 1.1 to 1.3), as Fisheries Sector intentionally blank, as it is provided as a framework for partners to these apparently small steps can be overlooked. It is important how- complete as a next step in implementation of CLLD in fisheries in ever that they are included as they critical pre-conditions, without Croatia. The Action Plan includes detailed initial steps, particularly in which the rest of the recommendations will not be able to proceed.

Action Start End Title Description Intended impact / Comments Lead Stakeholders Costs no. Date Date

1 Rec 1 – CLLD and Gain commitment to and Establish a coherent set of FLAGs that will play DF FLAGS have a operationalise the decision to a key role in local development and in imple- significant role to play support Implementation menting CFP in Croatia in implementation of the CFP and EMFF in Developing the wider approach to FLAGs across Croatia 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.

1.1 Adoption Submission and official adop- Confirms official support for the conclusions in DF tion by lead partners of UNDP principle. FLAGs report; & documented.

1.2 Commitment Gain official commitment of Confirms official support to implement an Ac- DF lead partners to implementation plan for establishment of CLLD approach tion & documented. in fisheries.

1.3 Communicate Clear statement of support Gives clear statement of position that enables DF decision that indicates overall inten- partners and stakeholders to begin to align their tions and direction of travel plans and resources. that is provided to partners & stakeholders.

1.4 Development Plan Official agreement to establish A clear plan that enables partners and stake- DF a Development Plan for the holders to align their plans and resources in development and implementa- detail. tion of FLAGs in Croatia (See Action 2).

1.5 Budget Establish a budget for 2013/14 The plan is resourced and delivered enabling Table 2 development. FLAGs to be developed in the most appropriate Action Plan for implementation of way for national and local stakeholders. FLAG Recommendations

67 5. Action Plan Action Title Description Intended impact / Comments Lead Stakeholders Costs Start End Study Report of the Project no. Date Date Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led 1.6 Communication plan Agreement to establish and Stakeholders and Partners understand what DF Local Development in the Fisheries implement Communication is going on and can coordinate with the FLAG Sector Plan in parallel to the Develop- development. ment Plan and supporting its delivery. (See Action 2).

1.7 Pilot FLAG Agreement to establish a Pilot The partnership should bring together the vari- DF FLAG (See Action 3). ous interests involved in developing the FLAGs, including both local and national partners.

1.8 Partnership Establish a National Partner- The partnership should bring together the vari- DF ship that would advise DF on ous interests involved in developing the FLAGs, the development of the FLAGs. including both local and national partners.

2 Establish a National Draft national development Farnet have very considerable relevant experi- DF Development Plan plan including a Communication ence and can help support the Development Plan for FLAGs plan for FLAGs (integrated with implementation. FARNET should be consulted in wider fisheries communication). its development.

2.1 Development Plan The development of a costed NB – the development of the Development Plan DF and resourced plan that will could be delegated to consultants, whilst own- have established partner sup- ership for the national plan would stay with DF. port and will include:

2.1.1 • The schedule and main DF milestones in Fisheries Programme development.

2.1.2 • Development of the national This is a key output from the DP process and is DF implementation structure for where the Twinning Teams can be most helpful introduction of the FLAGs. and effective. The tools required include – The national structure would guidelines for establishing Groups, Partnerships include all the strategy and and Strategies, Funding requirements, Training programme mechanisms and Capacity building, as well as guidelines for and tools necessary for full Governance and Financial Management. All implementation. 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

68 5. Action Plan Action Title Description Intended impact / Comments Lead Stakeholders Costs Start End no. Date Date Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community 2.1.3 • Capacity building and train- In parallel with the development of the DF Led Local Development in the ing programme to grow the technical requirements to support programme Fisheries Sector ability of national and local delivery, the DP would need to support the administration to implement development of human capacity. This will neces- FLAGs (& Axis 4, integrated sitate a capacity building programme. Training with wider fisheries). 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 compo- NB - These study visits could be coordinated so nent of the capacity building that it is a single trip where representatives are programme will be at least also learning from one another. two study visits, one focused on fishermen and another focused on administrators.

2.1.5 • NB – The plan should define This will be important to ensure that all those the leading partners and with a delivery responsibility are clear about their stakeholders, along with their respective roles. This could be done in parallel Roles and Responsibilities. 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 pre- programme activities

2.2 Communication The development of a Commu- The plan should define who is responsible, the Plan nication Plan that will provide target for the communication, the message, in par- basic information about the ticular defining why FLAGs are good for Croatia, ministry’s plans. the desired impact of the communication and the channels to be used.

Stakeholder analysis will be A thorough Stakeholder Analysis will be invaluable undertaken to determine - who to the programme, as it will identify all those with it is likely to affect and how to an interest, which given nature of the programme get involved; will mostly be allies in the development of FLAGs.

Frequently Asked Questions Establish a FAQ – page on the DF website. This (FAQ) can also be linked to the FAC on the FARNET Website.

Where to get more informa- The communication plan should establish local tion locally. “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.

69 5. Action Plan Action Title Description Intended impact / Comments Lead Stakeholders Costs Start End Study Report of the Project no. Date Date Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led 2.3 Contracting The development of a The process of delegation should be supported Local Development in the Fisheries “contract” or contract(s) that by some sort of contract or contract(s) that Sector will support delivery of the clearly nominates roles and responsibilities, sets Development Plan 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.

3 Development of Existing Farnet Axis 4 guidance should form part Pilot FLAG in Zadar of the basis for this work; and FARNET can advise County 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 there- after and final report at the end of the piloting period on progress and determination of next steps

70 5. Action Plan Action Title Description Intended impact / Comments Lead Stakeholders Costs Start End no. Date Date Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community 3.2 Local Establish FLAG at the local This is an overview of the steps that should be Led Local Development in the implementation level, following the following followed. It will need further elaboration, before Fisheries Sector broad development steps: any costs and timescales can be set. • 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 – Given the limited time available, the project e.g., training initiative already should focus on an achievable goal, e.g., a feasi- suggested by the Zadar bility study and some trial training sessions. partnership.

71 5. Action Plan

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

72 FLAG Model Annex 1

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

73 FLAG Model Annex 1

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

74 FLAG Model FLAG Model Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the Annex 1 introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries Sector The model is suggested as a “dummy”, the format of which could own existing approaches, which have been used for example in be adopted in the pilot area. It is NOT a draft model for the pilot, the development of LAGs and their strategies. 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 discus- The Dummy model covers: sion purposes, to assist local partners to consider their own needs, • Strategy, Objectives and work programme circumstances and aspirations. The final plan that emerges should • Organisation of the FLAG be one that is adapted to the local circumstances. • Performance Management • FLAG function and committee structure Preparation of the local strategy for the pilot area will require a • Operation of committees full local development process that is led by local stakeholders • Delegation and following established best practice for the development of • Role of the Chair CLLD strategies. • Conflict of interest • Dissolution The model gives those developing the local strategy an idea of what they are aiming for as a result of the Local Development pro- It does not cover financial matters. cess 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. 1. Dummy Strategy and Objectives for Fisheries Local Action Group Furthermore, the model is indicative and is likely to be most helpful in the development of the pilot suggested in the report. The 1.1 Strategy approach to be taken for the full 2014-20 programme will need to be specified by the MA in due course. The strategy for the FLAG is to establish a profitable, sustainable industry that meets future challenges whilst retaining its position Sections 1 - 13 on the following 10 pages have been drawn from at the heart of the local fishing community. Sustainability will be an existing FLAG and provide the main governance mechanisms maintained by sensible resource-use that offers long-term employ- required for establishment of a FLAG. It is not a “how to do it” ment prospects which attracts new entrants, supports existing guide, as plenty such guides exist and local people will have their businesses and forges links with other local industries to create

75 FLAG Model synergy. Future success will be maintained by a strongly receptive Annex 1 sector able to adapt and diversify in response to changing market Objectives Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the conditions whilst retaining its local character and responsibilities. introduction of the Community Led Outcomes/ Outputs/Key performance measures Activities/Opera- Local Development in the Fisheries Objectives tional performance Sector measures

1.2 objectives of the Dummy FLAG 1. Sustained local 1. № of people employed Local government fisheries sector 2. № of people completing industry statistics training Primary Goal – To provide sustainable livelihoods in fisheries employment

areas, based on wise use of natural resources and a sustainable 2. Sustained 1. Production and adoption of a fishery industry. employment diversification plan 2. increased turnover in associated 3. increased volume of active business Objectives sectors • Sustained local fisheries sector employment (Vertical devel- 1. Monitored levels of marine popula- opment) tion sustainability. 2. Extent and condition of habitats • Sustained and increased local employment in sectors associ- impacted by fishery. ated with the fisheries (Horizontal development) 3. Sustainable stocks of target and • Continued monitoring and protection of the natural resourc- non-target species 4. Acquisition and retention of MSC2 es within the FLAG area accreditation or similar accreditation

• Provide platform for the Dummy area-based fisheries sector 1. Implementation of local sector to influence policy at local, regional national and internation- strategy. al levels 2. Implementation of a local agreement to facilitate effective engagement with regional and national Immediate objective policy-making bodies 3. Increased awareness and improve- To maximise the impact of EFF investment in the local fisheries ment in reputation of sector in key sector for the area by working with private, public and CSO sec- target audience tors, leading to more robust and sustainable livelihoods. 4. Qualitative improvement in local sector business

Mechanisms – In particular looking to match funding from the Notes: Fisheries programmes with direct private sector investment and 1. Sector is interpreted as ‘Businesses operating in primary and secondary industries’. other public sector investment from EU and domestic sources. 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.

76 1.3 overall work programme 1.4 Programme initiatives FLAG Model Annex 1

Study Report of the Project The aim of the FLAG should be to develop a programme strategy Below are suggested a number of initiatives and projects which Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led that will create a sustainable future for the Dummy area fishery could provide the necessary development for the fishery sector Local Development in the Fisheries through a focussed set of initiatives over an agreed time period. A and which could be funded through the FLAG: Sector set of activities has been proposed: Business support programme • Small business skills initiative Objectives Activity • Training college • Group buying initiative 1. Sustained local Encourage new entrants - individuals and businesses • Microfinance initiative fisheries sector to the industry to ensure that the fishery can continue • Directory of fishing businesses initiative employment to operate over the long-term future. • Web page design initiative Support existing fishery businesses to access funds and advice to improve their business performance Marketing programme and ability to adapt to a number of future industry challenges. • Value-chain analysis • New markets initiative 2. Sustained Provide new infrastructure within the FLAG area, • MSC accreditation employment much of which will be linked closely with the major lo- • ‘Brand’ development initiative in associated cal industry (tourism and aquaculture), to ensure that sectors revenue generation opportunities can be exploited. New entrant programme 3. Sustained Ensure that the resources and environment is not • Training for local youth to enter fishery monitoring and impacted adversely by the actions of the fishery and protection of to support this through improved communications • Start-up business advice and support the natural envi- with the local community. • Schools initiative to attract new entrants ronment within the FLAG area Diversification programme 4. Increased local Increase local sector influence on policy at national • Pesca-tourism sector influence and regional level so that fishermen and fishing busi- • Micro-Business support on policy at ness are able to articulate their concerns and express national and their interests with confidence in positive outcomes. regional level Infrastructure programme • Improved harbour facilities • Safety-at-Sea initiative • Improved shore-side handling initiative

77 FLAG Model Environmental monitoring The stakeholders should recognise that this can only happen Annex 1 • Biodiversity Action Plan through community agreement, change and by improving the Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the • Stock monitoring initiative resilience of the industry to the future impacts of managing introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries • Improved pollution impact initiative stocks and their allied environment and ecosystems right the way Sector through to the development of new markets, diversification and It must be borne in mind that in order to satisfy eligibility criteria better use of natural and economic resources. no funded action can lead to increased fishing effort. 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 2. Dummy FLAG organisation and ‘rules’ 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 The rationale for a Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG) is to bring FLAG Board should be advised by a person with a thorough under- together all the stakeholders - fishermen, business, local and na- standing of the EFF funding rules and the distinctive role of Axis 4. tional government, and NGOs – in a common purpose to improve the local sector for the benefit of the associated community. The FLAG Guidance emphasises that: 3. Performance Management Framework

The accountable body for the Dummy FLAG should be the Dummy “the diversity of situations and of the areas throughout the County Council. Within the County body, there should be a unit Community and the principle of subsidiarity, assistance from responsible for effective programme delivery and performance the Fund for the development of fisheries areas will have management arrangements. to form part of an integrated local approach centred on a relevant territorial strategy and adapted to the local situa- A FLAG Committee, made up of local fishermen and processors tion. Its design and implementation will be as decentralised and key public and private sector stakeholders should be estab- as possible, preference will be given to the involvement of lished. It would, as part of its terms of reference, consider perfor- private actors on the ground and a bottom-up approach.” 9 mance management information and, where necessary, agree on appropriate corrective action and oversee implementation. It is proposed that this should be done by means of a Partnership Agreement that would include all the stakeholders involved in The FLAG Project Board, comprising of private and public sec- fisheries and coastal issues in the Dummy area. On behalf of the tor and ex officio members, would be responsible for the over- stakeholders, the FLAG should deliver an integrated programme all direction and management of the projects specified and ap- 9 “Axis 4 Implementation Guidance”, DG of mutually beneficial actions to bring about the sustainable and proved for the Dummy FLAG. It would, as part of its terms of Mare, 2006 profitable development of the local sector. reference, consider performance management information, make

78 recommendation/s to the FLAG Committee and recommend ap- There is one caveat: the programme needs to be predicated on FLAG Model propriate corrective action where necessary. what is ‘do-able’. Because the FLAG approach we are proposing is Annex 1 Study Report of the Project a pilot project, it is important to ensure that it does not fail. Try- Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led An Animator should be identified who would spend time working ing to do too much is a guarantee of failure: the sub-project and Local Development in the Fisheries directly with the local fishing industry and communities in order programmes adopted should be very carefully selected to meet Sector to maximise uptake of projects and their ultimate delivery. It is the ‘do-ability’ criterion. This means that the overall programme very important that this person has a very clear understanding should be precise and well targeted to meet the main objectives of the EFF (and the EMFF) and also of other EU funding options. of utilising funding so as to improve the overall market potential of the local fishery and its products. A close watch is needed to Particularly, this person should be able to advise on what initia- ensure that the activities and programmes are feasible and meet tives can be funded under CLLD and what would be funded under clear FLAG objectives. DF’s role would be to provide this oversight mainstream EMFF. and to ensure that the FLAG does not set itself an over-ambitious programme that it cannot fulfil. DF can play an important part in the programme by holding a watching brief to ensure that the FLAG project stays on course It is important to remember that this FLAG will have a pilot and and is capable of being replicated elsewhere in Croatia – see the mainstream phase; the LDS should be for the longer term but comments below on operational performance. DF local staff should must contain short term achievable objectives for the pilot phase otherwise only act in an ex-officio role, offering advice on the EMFF. if it is to be effective. Therefore some potential objectives do not need to be deliverable within the pilot phase timeframe

3.1 oPerational Performance 3.2 fLAG Functions and Structure At an operational level, programme activities would be given specific performance indicators and would be monitored closely to: Functions of the FLAG • Ensure planned timescales, including those for the draw- The FLAG purpose is to promote the sustainability and competi- down of grant, are met. tiveness of the Zadar area fishery [insert time period?] through a • Alert for corrective action to address any shortfall in effort or range of programme initiatives and by providing representation effectiveness in any activity. for the fishery at local, regional, national and international levels. • Demonstrate the contribution that an activity makes is worth- This will be managed and administered principally by the FLAG while and contributes effectively to the programme overall. Project Board and Committee whose roles are set out in the EFF • Prompt internal switching of funding to alternative, more ef- Regulation. For 2014 onwards these are specified in the CPR and fective activities within the programme. may be added to in the individual regulations. MAs may also delegate, specific functions are as follows:

79 FLAG Model Project Board body in order to ensure that the DF’s best interests are safeguard- Annex 1 • Vetting expressions of interest and applications received ed. Monitoring arrangements will also need to be specified. Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the from grant applicants and providing feedback to the same introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries • Approvals for Committee discussions, and making an overall Sector recommendations for all funding applications 4. Membership • Liaising with the Department of Fisheries • Monitoring projects in progress and reporting to the Commit- 4.1 initial Membership tee via the FLAG organiser • Producing management reports for the Committee and any Initial membership of both Project Board and Committee was set other involved body at the first meeting of each group.

Committee • Debating grant applications already vetted and approved by 4.2 Project Board Membership Project Board • Overall responsibility for approving each project proposal ac- • Project Board membership consists of: cording to a majority vote • [Number] representatives of local fishermen’s organisations • Discussing current issues relating to the industry that may • [Number] public sector members [local and national gov- require a collective decision ernment] • [Number -2?] ex officio members acting as advisers. Both Project Board and Committee will discuss and become • Fishermen’s representatives shall not be outnumbered by involved with wider fishery issues as seen as appropriate – e.g. public sector representatives. attending external meetings, conferences presentation and pro- • There will be a 3 way split in membership between public, pri- viding FLAG views to the media and other audiences outside vate and community sectors. the fishery. Any statement that is seen as coming from the FLAG should be approved in advance. 4.3 Committee Membership In addition, a Supervision Committee shall be established, made up of representatives of the private sector funders for [a com- • Project Board membership will be for a one-year term, with munities engagement programme?]. This will meet on a quarterly re-election of all members by the FLAG committee if all mem- basis to scrutinise the spending of such funds and will also be bers are in agreement. attended by local government and national government and by • Committee membership will be representative of as many representatives of any local business development group. The lo- groups as possible in the Dummy FLAG territory. Member- cal government [name?] will maintain its position as the strategic ship shall includes representatives from:

80 FLAG Model • [Representative bodies to be decided 4.4 Quorum Annex 1 Study Report of the Project • (the accountable body for the disbursement of EU funds). Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led • The Committee shall have the power to identify gaps in mem- A quorum is necessary for the effective functioning of the Project Local Development in the Fisheries bership and issue invitations to new members to join the Board and Committee. Quorum for both groups will be 50 per Sector group in order to fill any gaps. Such members will be accepted cent of full membership. For the Project Board this will be 4 peo- onto the Committee via a majority vote. ple (two members being ex officio); for the Committee this will be • For both Project Board and Committee, each member shall 15 people (at the time of writing). be an equal and active member and substitutes may be sent • Members who are not able to attend either group will be re- when required. quired to send a substitute. If this is not possible, proxy votes • Members of both Project Board and Committee will represent made via email, post or telephone to the Chairman and also their organisation or business and are responsible for passing the Animator will be satisfactory no later than 24 hours prior information back to their own organisation management and to the meeting. members. • Any meeting of either group which does not reach quorum • Any Member may retire from the Project Board or the Com- will still go ahead but any business requiring a decision shall mittee giving one month’s notice in writing to the FLAG be deferred to the next appropriate meeting. Chairman. Upon retirement, a replacement will be sought for • If there is meeting at which fishermen’s representatives are the outgoing Member, with the organisation or business of outnumbered by public sector representatives then it shall be which the outgoing Member was a representative given pri- deemed that a quorum does not exist. ority in nominating a replacement from within its ranks first. New members will be accepted by Project Board or Commit- tee according to a majority vote. 5. Chair • Any member failing to attend three consecutive Project Board or Committee meetings will be deemed to have retired, unless • The role of Chair of both Project Board and Committee should there are extenuating circumstances notified to the Chair- be held by an active representative of the fisheries sector; man within 24 hours. In the absence of such circumstances, • The Chair shall have the deciding vote in Committee meetings the Project Board or Committee may then invite the outgoing but, for audit and scrutiny purposes, he/she shall not have the member’s business or organisation to propose a new member. 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;

81 FLAG Model 6. Delegation • Additional meetings may be convened for the purpose of ap- Annex 1 proving urgent applications. These shall be arranged with at Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the The FLAG Project Board and Committee may delegate any of its least seven days’ notice, Proxy votes via telephone, email or introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries functions to any sub-group, for specific (named) tasks or functions. post will be accepted. These need to be notified to Chairman Sector The limits of any delegation shall be made clear, including the finan- and the Animator no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting. cial limits. All such delegations will be subject to a majority vote. • 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 7. Advisers three-monthly intervals to both groups. • The Project Board and Committee can invite individuals to at- • In order to obtain specialist, relevant knowledge and exper- tend meetings to give advice and information. tise the Project Board and Committee shall have the power to invite advisers to advise the committee on specific issues. 10. Consultations Such advisers will not have voting rights. • [Specified NGOs or University or Marine Institute] shall be In specific cases, a formal consultation exercise will be required for asked to scrutinise applications at Project Board meetings project applications with a particular impact on the surrounding and comment on the environmental impact. They shall not community. This will be decided as applications are received and have a vote at Project Board meetings. suitable arrangements will be made to canvass the wider public.

8. Secretariat 11. Dissolution

The provision of Secretariat support to the Committee shall be • Dissolution of the Dummy FLAG Project Board can be made agreed by the committee on an annual basis; along with any finan- by the FLAG Committee, while the entire FLAG programme cial allocation for carrying out this role. 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 9. Meetings will be necessary to dissolve the Project Board and Commit- tee formally [insert date]. • 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 12. Conflict of Interest, Vested and Pecuniary FLAG Model Interests Annex 1 Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led • Any interest which could fetter the discretion of a commit- Local Development in the Fisheries tee member regarding the issues under consideration shall be Sector 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 per- ceived 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.

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

83 Outcomes from the Local Workshop Local Partners’ Workshop – Kali 9-1-13 Annex 2 Outcomes from the Local workshop Potential FLAG Objectives Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the Annex 2 introduction of the Community Led 1.Territorial (or Horizontal) Focus Local Development in the Fisheries Sector Area development and branding At the final local workshop, participants were asked if to identify 1. FLAG needs to have conditions for the area to be worth living in, with all those things with which they believed the FLAG could assist, in the necessary contents (nurseries, schools, playgrounds, etc.) terms of benefits and outcomes. The responses were split into 2. area development through fishing tourism two parts and grouped under potential objective areas, i.e.: 3. development of island communities 1. Territorial (horizontal) 4. marine protection a. Area Development and Branding 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 b. Cooperation between sectors & Development of other sectors like tourism, education, traffic Strategies 7. FLAG connects the area where it operates with fishermen, and through their c. Depopulation and Sustainability joint activities they develop the area and the infrastructure

d. Improvement of Employment Cooperation between sectors ( public and private) Development of strategies e. Diversification and Tourism Development 1. enhancing cooperation between public and private sector f. Environment protection 2. developing other sectors connected with fisheries sector g. Access to new funds 3. development and implementation of a good strategy that would include h. Development of port infrastructure development of fisheries, education of local people on the importance of 2. Sectoral (vertical) eating fish products, and the opening up of a visitors’ centre a. Education, skills development, studies Depopulation & Sustainability

b. Networking, partnership, integration: fishing, industry 1. preserving population, especially on the islands and tourism 2. to reduce depopulation of island inhabitants

c. Added value (fish products), market placement, branding Improve employment d. Sustainability, new working places and sources of income 1. to employ more people from the local area e. Improvement of Infrastructure 2. employing unemployed people from the fisheries area (fishermen’s families!!!) f. Connecting the fisheries sector with local authorities 3. employing staff and cooperation with them (+national), fishery sector 4. to increase employment organisation 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 

84 Local Partners’ Workshop – Kali 9-1-13 Local Partners’ Workshop – Kali 9-1-13 Outcomes from the Local Workshop Annex 2 Potential FLAG Objectives Potential FLAG Objectives Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led 1.Territorial (or Horizontal) Focus 2. Fisheries Sector (or Vertical) focus Local Development in the Fisheries Sector Environment protection Education, skills development, studies

1. to protect the environment 1. to improve skills of fisherman 2. sustainable fisheries- concern for fish quantities ( fish resources), protecting 2. raise price of fish by educating fisherman the environment, natural resources 3. education of personnel for fishery and aquaculture 4. education with other sectors Access to new fund(s) Networking, partnership, integration: fishing, industry and tourism 1. added value 2. source of information ( information dissemination) 1. integration 3. education 2. to organize and connect local fishermen 4. facilitate access to other funds 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 every- thing 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

85 Case Studies • identify opportunities for diversification Annex 3 Case Studies • increase local influence on national policy through a height- Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the ened industry profile introduction of the Community Led Annex 3 Local Development in the Fisheries • sustain monitored protection of the natural sea and land en- Sector vironment within the FLAG area Case Study 1 - North Norfolk FLAG The resulting FLAG programme has a number of ‘work streams Development of Croatia’s FLAGs should be guided by experiences which has work streams covering competitiveness, markets and of the creation of FLAGs elsewhere in Europe. The experience of the investments, infrastructure, environment and sustainability. North Norfolk FLAG offers a useful guide to establishing a FLAG, Within these workstreams are a series of subprojects including: both in its relation to organisation and to identifying projects. • Business Support Programme, • Marketing Programme, North Norfolk FLAG • Facilities Improvement Fund, In the UK (England); the FLAG programmes are administered in • Stock Research and Seabed Monitoring and England by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO); an • Marine Stewardship Accreditation. agency of Defra Department of Environment, Food and Rural Af- fairs. The North Norfolk Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG), cov- A further and related issue is electronic communication and the ering about 106 km of coast, is one of six FLAG programmes cur- North Norfolk FLAG programme is addressing the issue of coastal rently in operation in England. This programme was set up through broadband connectivity for the fishing industry. the intervention of the local government in the county. The FLAG is housed under a local business development body that links local Two examples of the interventions undertaken under the pro- businesses with the fishing community. The purpose of the North gramme are (a) coastal infrastructure – placing of light buoys in Norfolk FLAG is to help provide a sustainable future for the North the passageway to one of the small fishing/yachting harbours on Norfolk fisheries by supporting a number of projects and directed the coast and (b) micro-finance facility for the fishing community. 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 North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) million). There is an additional requirement for local funding (aim- The microfinance initiative has been developed under the NNDC ing to match this amount) of about 40% to support the majority of that also created the NN FLAG. The micro-finance initiative has a these projects: meaning that nearly £2.4 million (€3 million) should starting capital of £200 000 with the intention of raising the total have been invested into the fishery by the end of the programme. capital to around one million GBP. Loans to fishermen will be lent The main objectives of the NN FLAG stakeholders are to: at a rate which will be no more than 3.5% to 5% over the inter- • increase sector profitability bank lending rate: this compares with current rates of around 17% • sustain employment which includes high administration costs. Loans to fishermen will

86 be up to £60 000 (€75 000). The general approach will be to fi- Vasto and Ortona – both fishing ports – have approximately 40 Case Studies nance 70% of the project from the financing initiative with the 000 and 25 000 inhabitants respectively, and agriculture and fish- Annex 3 Study Report of the Project remaining 30% from the fishermen’s own funding. eries still account for 32% of jobs. Fishing in the area is mainly Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led small-scale, practiced by a fleet of 183 boats, mostly 7-10 metres. Local Development in the Fisheries An important source of employment for the area´s inhabitants is Sector Case Study 2 - Coordinating local development in Abruzzo the automotive sector, with Honda and Fiat both having bases in (Italy) – Courtesy of FARNET the neighbouring Maiella Verde Leader area.

In the current financial circumstances, maximising the im- Forging a common development path pacts of public funds is paramount. Operating just inland from the FLAG, the Maiella Verde Leader Discussions in Brussels around Community-Led Local Development LAG is into its fourth programming period, having expanded its (CLLD) point to the possibility of development organisations, such territory from 16 municipalities during Leader I, to 81 in 2012. The as Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) and Leader LAGs, being LAG has become expert in supporting small and micro sized enable to tap into different EU funds to support different parts of their terprises engaged in activities linked to the identity of the area – local development strategies. Certain Member States are expected especially food, tourism, crafts and services – and in helping them to welcome this option, while others question the complexity of to become successful and sustainable businesses, capable of ex- a multi-fund approach to local development. Whatever the real- panding into new areas, and reaching new markets. ity post-2013, one thing is certain: in the current financial circumstances more than ever, maximizing the impact of public funds is Operating across both the FLAG and the LAG areas, in the cen- paramount. Communication, cooperation and the coordination of tral part of Chieti, is the Sangro Aventino Territorial Pact, a largely different funds being spent in a given geographical area is essential public-led development agency. This is one of the many “Territorial to ensuring the area gets the best value for money. Pacts” that were established in Italy in the late 90s, with ERDF and national funds, and adds yet another dimension to the local devel- The province of Chieti, in Abruzzo, is an area where, despite a strict opment picture. The Pact manages a series of larger scale develop- demarcation between fisheries and rural development funds, dif- ment initiatives, such as a €90 million automotive cluster, and a €7 ferent territorial initiatives are working hand in hand to overcome million project to develop tourism along the Trabocchi Coast. To the artificial boundaries arising from different funding rules, and de- South, another Territorial Pact, the “Patto Trigno-Sinello”, also cov- velop the area as an integrated whole. ers both the inland rural municipalities and those along the coast.

The FLAG area covers the coastal section of the province of Chieti, So, how is the FLAG, a newcomer to this local development land- a National Park named after the centuries old “trabocchi”7 dotted scape, positioning itself in order to play a meaningful role for the along its 45km coastline. A short distance from the Maiella Moun- communities it serves – and with a total public budget of just €1.2 tain, this area has seen little urbanisation: its two largest towns, million? Importantly, the FLAG has been proactive in studying the

87 Case Studies Annex 3 relevant development initiatives already underway in and around er LAG´s strength is its ability to reach the more remote parts of Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the its area, and has started building links with those involved. Indeed, the area and the very small, artisanal producers – and the Patto introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries prior to the preparation of the FLAG strategy, its President, Franco tends to focus on bigger producers and industry – the FLAG aims Sector Ricci, was involved in the Leader LAG´s strategy development pro- to ensure the fisheries community is represented in the broader cess. This has had two key benefits, he explained: firstly, it provided territorial development process. More specifically, it aims to pro- the opportunity to learn about how an experienced LAG plans de- mote better organization of small-scale fisheries and to help them velopment in its territory; and secondly, it ensured that there was to diversify into complementary activities, such as Pesca-tourism an integrated approach to developing the area as a whole, which (for which demand currently goes unmet), to exploit opportuni- goes beyond administrative boundaries. The Leader LAG, for its part, ties for the small-scale processing of local fisheries products, and points out that it has always considered the coastal strip as a func- to improve their marketing activities and engage in direct sales. tional part of its territory, even though it cannot actually fund projects there. And, the fishing community has much to gain by being These activities complement the regional level project, coordinat- included in the strategic thinking of development initiatives inland. ed by the Territorial Pact, to develop tourism along the coast, as Communication and coordination has meant that a clear division of well as ambitious plans to convert the old coastal railway tracks roles and objectives has been agreed, and that both the FLAG and to a 25 km cycle path. LAG, FLAG and Territorial Pact – as well as LAG strategies are forging a common development path. This coop- the Trigno-Sinello Territorial Pact to the South – are all in con- eration is also formalised in the structures of the different develop- tact with a view to coordinating activities to get the most out of ment agencies, in so far as their boards and partnerships reflect this this investment. Wine routes, the promotion of local agricultural overlap of territories and objectives. For example, as a member of products, visits to the trabocchi, trips on fishing boats, accom- the boards of the LAG, the FLAG and the Territorial Pact, the Prov- modation in traditional fishermen´s homes, and fish bars along ince of Chieti is closely involved in the work of all three agencies. the beaches are all being discussed. Each structure will focus on The same goes for the local Chamber of Commerce. This cross-rep- different parts of the overall project: the Patto taking the over- resentation is effective in ensuring that information flows smoothly all lead and managing the bigger infrastructure projects; the LAG from one agency to the other, and in avoiding duplication of work. concentrating on the rural municipalities and the development of gastronomy products, as well as carrying out various feasibility A more competitive and attractive territory studies and improving the web presence of local companies; and Such coordination has resulted in a FLAG strategy geared towards the FLAG fostering participation by the fisheries sector. As such, mobilising the fisheries sector to “make the territory more com- a series of individual projects are being conceived as part of an petitive”. It is designed to build on and complement existing ini- overall tourism development initiative, which ensures all the pro- tiatives, be they industry-based, or aimed at supporting local agri- jects are coordinated and reinforce each other. cultural products or tourism, while benefiting in particular those most closely linked to the fisheries sector. Indeed, while the Lead-

88 Case Studies The next step for the recently approved FLAG will be to ensure Annex 3 Study Report of the Project that this cooperation is built into the day-to-day work of its staff, Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led which, at the time of writing, still has to be recruited. However, Local Development in the Fisheries the new team will become part of a local development landscape Sector 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 others´ meetings and are intimately aware of what the other is working on.

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: [email protected]

89 Methodology Annex 4 Methodology Date Meeting no. With whom Where Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the 4th Nov 2 Pre-brief and de-brief with UNDP Zagreb introduction of the Community Led Annex 4 Local Development in the Fisheries staff Sector Methodology – this Annex sets out the schedule of visits and sum- Main points: marises the process of inquiry followed by the study. 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

4th Nov 1 Ministry of Agriculture – Directo- Zagreb rate of Fisheries and Directorate of Date Meeting no. With whom Where Rural Development; 5th Nov 3 Meeting with larger fishing con- Zadar Main points: cerns in LAG Mareta area Directorate of Fisheries has a very challenging agenda within which to develop the fisheries support, therefore Axis 4 support will not Main points: be activated at the same time as the other components of EFF. Multiple issues in the LAG Mareta area with which local partners feel the FLAG could assist, relating to the social and economic in- DF will not develop CLLD for fisheries in isolation, and recognise frastructure. One example discussed was the network of landing the advanced state of Rural Development arrangements. points (see above).

The Croatian fisheries sector is in great need of reform. Key issue is the interface between the fishing community and the tourism sector, e.g., ports with upgraded facilities less keen on Whilst the separate lines of accountability need to be maintained fishing activity and cause boats to be relocated. for the funds, there is interest in how management of the two funds/programmes could be streamlined together. 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 -is sues – 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”.

90 Study trip – suggested as a good way of engaging the interest of Methodology participants, i.e., seeing is believing. Date Meeting no. With whom Where Annex 4 Study Report of the Project 6th Nov 6 Meeting with shell fishery Starigrad, Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led concerns, Lika-Senj County and Paklenica Local Development in the Fisheries Paklenica NP; LAG Bura area Sector Date Meeting no. With whom Where

5th Nov 4 Meeting with City and County Zadar Operating well below capacity due to absence of key equipment Authorities on boats and on land. Don’t feel local authorities are interested in their problems, as they are more interested in white fish. Main points: Currently finalising a 3 year operational programme Development needs are training in project development, under- Would support a merged FLAG/LAG approach. standing of responsibilities of FLAG members, governance issues. 54% of Croatia catch is in Zadar County. What about inclusion of companies that are registered in Zadar, Fishery value chain is not confined to marine and coastal areas – but operate in the LAG area? the processing and salting is done in the continental area. Transition of LAG to FLAG – will require membership, evidence Have not considered funding allocation between LAG areas, but base, analysis all to be addressed. would be concerned to ensure it was fair. Need to communicate to the fishery sector, because they do not know what is going on. Date Meeting no. With whom Where

5th Nov 5 Timeline planning with UNDP staff Zadar Date Meeting no. With whom Where

See attached spreadsheet. 6th Nov 7 De-brief with UNDP staff Zadar

Planned next steps and timings.

91 Methodology Annex 4 Date Meeting no. With whom Where Date Meeting no. With whom Where Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the 19th Nov 8 John Grieve, FARNET Birmingham, 3rd Dec 11 Employees of the Directorate Zagreb introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries UK of Fisheries and Directorate for Sector Rural Development

Briefing from FARNET/DG-Mare on current and likely future di- 3rd Dec 12 Ministry of Regional Development Zagreb rection of FLAG policy, the research undertaken by FARNET on FLAG implementation and DG-Mare’s/FARNET’s expectations of Workshop conclusions FLAG implementation in Croatia. • Territorial lead, with horizontal integration, • Importance of Information flow, and SSF engagement • Data for evidence based decision making, Date Meeting no. With whom Where • LAG/FLAG boundaries - flexibility.

20th Nov 9 Ian Groves, Animator North Cromer, • No. of FLAGs. Norfolk FLAG Norfolk UK • Coherence and consistency of LAG/FLAG model.

21st Nov 10 Robin Smith, Development Man- Cromer, • Development plan ager North Norfolk District Council Norfolk UK • Communication strategy • Awareness raising, communication objectives, etc.. Outcomes of meeting in Case Study 1.

Date Meeting no. With whom Where

4th Dec 13 Paying Agency for Agriculture, Zagreb Fisheries and Rural Development (Ms Dubravka Međimurec, Head of Department for assistance in fisheries and Ms Ana Gadže, Co- ordinator from the Department for approval of projects and rural development)

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

92 Ministry responsibilities Methodology Legal ordinance, Appraisal, awareness, selection, Date Meeting no. With whom Where Annex 4 Study Report of the Project 450,000 kn. pa 7th Jan 18 Preparation for workshops with Zagreb Preparing Croatia for the introduction of the Community Led UNDP Local Development in the Fisheries Sector Tender for selection, admin control, contracts with LAGs, moni- 8th Jan 19 National workshop Zagreb toring, execute payments - Directorate of Fisheries - Twinning Team Running costs - Directorate for Rural Develop- ment Process for establishment, strategy, partnership development, - Paying Agency for Agriculture, administrative set up Fisheries and Rural Development - Institute Of Oceanography And Sectoral agreement - what is eligible? Fisheries, Split Advice - involve the paying agency in any potential event - UNDP

Workshop deliberated Objectives and the purpose of FLAG sup- Date Meeting no. With whom Where port and agreed that FLAGs could play a strong role and provided 5th Dec 14 Representatives of fisherman and Zadar very useful inputs on National Objectives. other carriers of development in Zadar County

5th Dec 15 Debriefing with UNDP Zadar Date Meeting no. With whom Where 9th Jan 20 Representatives of fishermen and Kali Agreed a range of suggestions from fishermen, including propos- other carriers of development in Zadar County als for “horizontal” projects. 10th Jan 21 Debriefing with UNDP Zadar

Date Meeting no. With whom Where Workshop debated local objectives and provided an overview of 6th Dec 16 Debriefing with UNDP Zadar local objectives and timelines.

6th Dec 17 Institute Of Oceanography And Split Fisheries, Split (Representative of Institute in Split, Mr. Nedo Vrgoč)

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

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

94 cific sampling requirements for stock and fishery related biologi- Data Collection and Sampling Data Collection and Sampling cal and economic variables, to be taken according to specified Annex 6 Study Report of the Project sampling intensities and time scales. Preparing Croatia for the Annex 6 introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries The basis for all fisheries statistics is the keeping of fisheries log- Sector Introduction books by fishing boat captains. Improvements can be done by: Good data is at the heart of effective policy and strategy. It is a. Telling fishermen that future catches will be limited by EU therefore important that FLAGs have access to the best available quotas unless they fill in log sheets accurately data and where there are critical gaps and problems in the avail- b. Comparing reported catch rates in log sheets with data on able data, this should be identified as early as possible, so that subsidised diesel fuel consumption. However, although this corrective measures can be taken. may be feasible for demersal fish where zero catches are rare, it may be difficult to apply to small pelagic fisheries where The following section outlines the main elements in the collection large catches may alternate with several zero catches. of fisheries data. It will also be important to collect socio-eco- c. Reconciling market sales and log sheet data with each other, nomic and demographic data as well, given the territorial cover- by recording sales slip numbers in the space provided on the age of the FLAG. log sheets. d. All logbook data should be crosschecked with sales data to The starting point for FLAGs is the Directorate of Fisheries and be validated as done by countries in the ICES area. This also this should be made available to the FLAG either free of charge or implies that the logbook system can work if the sale system at a relatively low cost. can be easily monitored. Otherwise a crosscheck would need to be done using direct observations at the landing places. Legal basis EU Decision 2010/9310, EU Council Regulation (CE) No 199/2008 Fisheries Economic Sampling in Croatia EC Regulation 1224/2009 between them provide an extremely Biological fisheries assessments are essential and are used to de- precise, description of exactly how national sampling systems scribe the production functions of each important fishery. These must be established and run so as to meet international best prac- production functions vary in shape (and thus in their implications tice in a manner which is recognisably the same all over the EU. It for fisheries management). However once the shape of the pro- applies to all stocks and fisheries exploited in EU waters. It will duction function has been accurately described, the production be expected that Croatia will implement the EU Acquis before it function may be combined with key but simple economic data 10 joins the EU, or as soon after it does so as possible. to provide critical bio-economic assessments of fisheries which The most recent version available is the “Multiannual EU Community programme identify unequivocally the options available to fisheries managers. for the collection, management and use of The EU sampling procedures, which are designed to ensure that data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013”, EC Decision 2010/93. all scientific data needs are met by all EU countries, impose spe-

95 Data Collection and Sampling The EU Acquis (Chapter III A) specifies the kinds of economic data, Metier specific data described above, which are taken for commer- Annex 6 which must be taken annually, and which are needed to support cial fish species, must also be taken for the important discarded Study Report of the Project Preparing Croatia for the economic analyses and which, when combined with biological species. Metier based data should be made available from the DF. introduction of the Community Led Local Development in the Fisheries data which define growth functions for each fishery, can provide Sector the bio-economic assessments which are the foundation for sus- Special fishery surveys tainable fisheries management. Special fishery independent surveys of many kinds, not explicitly identified in the EU Acquis, are also needed. For instance, when it Although the information referred to above is required under the is necessary to implement a new minimum size (which may have EU Acquis, it is also useful information for the FLAG. Particularly been identified using e.g. Yield Per Recruit analytical methods), it in respect of marketing information. will be essential to carry out careful mesh selection research and this in turn may require special surveys to relate mesh size, thick- Metier (fishery) related sampling of commercial species ness of the cords/ropes used in the nets, mesh shape, mesh mate- This is also covered in the EU Acquis, which requires that size fre- rial (nylon, cotton etc), and catch size, to the size frequencies of quencies of commercially important species taken in the catch- the fish caught. Other special surveys may involve echo-acoustic es be taken. Resulting data are needed for assessments and are and eggs and larval survey techniques. 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.