So far:

-2014: Launch of ex-post evaluations and studies

-2014: High Level Group on implementation set-up

-28 August 2015: Speech by Mrs Creţu at 55th Congress of the European Regional Science Association in Lisbon

-2015: High level Group on simplification set-up

Upcoming:

-interim results/discussions on ex-post evaluation of ESIF

-26 November 2015: Informal Council on Cohesion Policy to evaluate/review Territorial Agenda 2020

-Before end-2015: Commission report on 2014-2020 on the outcome of the 2014/20 PA programming and OP negotiations

-Early 2016:Pubblication of Ex-post evaluation of ESIF

-March 2016: Conference of the Committee of the Regions on cohesion policy post-2020, Brussels

-First half of 2016: Urban Agenda subject to several conferences under Dutch Presidency

-2016: Additional allocation of EUR 4 billion in view of most recent statistics (Art. 92.3 of Common Provisions Regulation)

-Before end-2016: Review of EU 2014-2020 budget

-By the end of 2016: ESIF Summary Report by Commission based on AIRs and synthesis of evaluation findings (annually thereafter)

-2017: High-level Group on Simplification to present conclusions

-31 August 2017: MS Progress Report to Commission on PA implementation

-2017: Commission Strategic Report on ESIF

-End-2017: 7th Cohesion Report to set-out reform proposals and launch public consultation on post-2020 policy design

-31 August 2018: MS Progress Report to Commission on PA implementation

-By 2018: European Commission to present 2021-2027 (?) budget and legislative proposals

-2019: EU Institutional negotiations on post-2020 ESIF Regulations

-2019: EU institutional negotiations on post-2020 MFF

-2019: Performance Reserve Review

-2019: European Commission strategic report on ESIF

Source: European Policy Research Paper, University of Strathclyde, Permanent revolution in Cohesion policy: restarting the reform debate

What are the decisive factors which will determine the debate on the future of CP?

1) The first and central question is how EU cohesion policy can best contribute to its two complementary objectives, the two sides of its coin: competitiveness and cohesion. What is the added value of cohesion policy in this context?

2) what is the best way to support the lagging regions, especially those which in spite of decades of EU and national support, did not converge towards the EU average?

3) how should the architecture of the policy be defined? Should cohesion policy continue to invest in the advanced regions, especially in the metropolitan ones, which are not only richer, but also privileged by private investors?

What are the scenarios related to the future budget for CP?

4) what is the best use of cohesion policy funds to stimulate investment in Europe? Which form of support is most efficient: grants, repayable assistance, financial instruments, or their combination? Should the share of financial instruments in EU funds be further increased?

What are the most convincing arguments, narratives and rationales for the future of Cohesion Policy?

5) how can cohesion policy investment best contribute to overarching European priorities, while keeping its territorial focus? Should we pay a more specific attention to certain geographical areas?

Which levers in CP should be changed and which ones should be kept? What are the main dimensions defining the future EU model of Cohesion Policy as public investment policy?

» Continue reading “#EU #Cohesion #post2020: Key Questions”

Despite about 8% of #EU #Cohesion #Policy funding is spent on public administrations through technical assistance and capacity-building, the administrative capacity of public Administrations is still lacking, the enhancement of it being perceived as a major challenge in the EU and member states in: 1) Europe 2020 strategy; 2) ESIF Operational Programmes 2014/2020; 3) Country-Specific Recommendations and initiatives under European semesters, calling for the modernisation of public administration at all levels.

There are at least three huge challenges behind all this: i) improving administrative capacity and the quality of public spending; ii) modernizing the structure of public administrations; iii) tackling corruption;

While three interrelated factors determine the success of each step in the policy life-cycle: A) Structure & Governance; B) Human Resources; C) Systems and Tools.

The new programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and the related operational programmes for the period 2014/2020 systematically addresses the problem.

Regulation (EU) n.1303/2013, Article 9 of Title II, strategic approach, Chapter I “Thematic objectives for the ESI Funds and Common Strategic Framework”, introduces the thematic objective #11 in the body of rules governing the common principles which apply to all five European Structural and Investment Funds (ERDF/ESF/CF/EAFRD/EMFF):

“Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration”

Through it, the European Union supports the public administrations of the Member States with concrete initiatives and resources.

» Continue reading “Enhancing the administrative capacity of public administrations: Key Resources”