European Urban CLLD Network

LDnet covered the first public meeting of the newly created European urban CLLD network in Brussels on 3rd and 4th November 2025.  The network has been set up on the initiative of Valentin Dimon, president of the Bucharest LAG.  Its early members include his own LAG in Bucharest, Camina in Spain, a LAG in  Czechia as well as several of the Romanian LAGs including Alexandria, Sus Ramnicu, and Tecuci.

There are currently thought to be over 100 urban LAGs in receipt of EU funds in seven of the EU Member States with the majority being in Romania.  Other countries are Czechia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, France  and Spain although there is very little data available on the exact numbers.  Hopefully the JRC STRAT-board will update data on the current programme period before it ends in 2027. Urban CLLD in Portugal was supported from 2014-20 but ceased after the end of the payment period.  The LAGs themselves continue but without EU funding.

The first day of the meeting consisted of a presentation of the new European Urban LAG network.  More than forty people were present representing LAGs, national authorities and regional offices in Brussels.  The purpose of the second day’s meeting which took place in the European Parliament was to advocate for a 5% floor for urban CLLD in the 2028-35 EU budget for cohesion policy.  The meeting was hosted by Stefan Musoiu MEP.

LDnet’s position was relayed to the new network in a letter.  As things stand in the current regulations for Cohesion policy there is a minimum threshold for the two main territorial instruments: Integrated Territorial Investments and the related delivery mechanisms devolved to cities under Article 11, and community led local development. For the current programme period this went up from 6% in the 2014-20 programmes to 8% for 2021-27.  The lion’s share of this 8% is administered by cities as intermediate bodies.  This means that Cities are likely to be opposed to the proposal for a minimum threshold of 5% for Urban CLLD as the Integrated Territorial Investments that they control make up more than three quarters of the 8% threshold. It is highly unlikely that the Member States would accept a 5% floor for Urban CLLD when in practice, it has been ITI and its other delivery mechanisms that has dominated the funding in all the Member States including those seven which have been financing CLLD for urban areas.

CLLD has been the only territorial instrument to bring the participative aspects of the Leipzig Charter to life.  In contrast most of the ITIs and other ‘integrated operations’ have been both public sector led and controlled with no equivalent governance model to that of CLLD which guarantees the involvement of the private and third sector.  Civil society organisations are shut out of the ITIs whereas in CLLD no one set of actors has control of the LAG boards and their projects are therefore more likely to be funded.

LDnet  thinks that it might be more effective to advocate for greater participation in Integrated Territorial Investments, along the lines of the governance model that has proved so effective in CLLD, namely that no sector, whether public, private or third sector should have a majority on the partnership body administering the local partnership and selecting projects.