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”

Knowledge dynamics and institutional factors are key elements in shaping the growth trajectory of regional economies.  Better understanding of relationship linking knowledge and institutions to innovation are of critical importance.

As regards macroeconomic conditionality and interaction between EU, national and regional levels, academic analysis is not entirely up to the task.

More research is necessary on the relationship between institutions and growth, as well as on multilevel governance arrangement, bearing in mind that  about 8% of #EU #Cohesion #Policy funding is spent on public administrations through technical assistance and capacity-building.

Interdisciplinary approaches are suitable.  “Differentiation” is key-challenge. “Lack of metrics” on both governance and administrative capacity has to be addressed.

Data and research on both aspects is basic and differentiation and comparability across countries, via interdisciplinary approaches, is very much suitable.

including more empirical research on “equity and efficiency” and trade-offs of both on the ground,being #EU and its levels ideal laboratory.

Regarding objectives of EU Commissioner for her 5-year mandate:

There is one, and one single, absolute priority: ensure that investments reach the real economy; that they result, as soon as possible, in growth and jobs for the millions of Europeans who are today unemployed.

Consequently, all energies, all efforts are now devoted to supporting initiatives that embed a great potential for growth and jobs, such as the EU 2020 Strategy, the Investment Plan for Europe of President Juncker, the Energy Union, or the Digital Single Market, to mention but a few.

Indeed, this is the only way to consolidate the incipient economic recovery, and get the EU out of the crisis.

However, if Policy has to produce a long-term impact on EU regions, it is necessary to couple these measures with further action.

In this context, three major areas have to be addressed:

1) First area of work: the improvement of institutional capacity and good governance, including support to Member States and regions that are facing particular difficulties in using cohesion Funds, as well as action on simplification for beneficiaries and reduction of administrative burden;

2) Second area of work: zero tolerance to fraud and error rate;

3) Third area of work: preparing the future of cohesion policy.

Regarding  preparation of the future of cohesion policy:

The starting point of reflection on the post-2020 cohesion policy should be twofold:

A) on the one hand, it should be based on a sound and honest evaluation of successes and failures of cohesion policy over the last 2 decades;

B) on the other hand, it should build on the first lessons drawn from the new programmes, which have already been adopted under the reformed cohesion policy.

The Commission plans to adopt, by the end of 2015, a detailed report on the outcome of the negotiations of the partnership agreements and programmes, which will be presenting to the European Parliament and the Council.

» Continue reading “Cohesion post-2020: Priorities and Timetable, including State of play of reflections and questions for debate”

Position adopted on 3 June 2011 by the CPMR Political Bureau on conditionality in the framework of the European Cohesion Policy after 2013

The Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe reject the principle of a macro-economic conditionality, however they welcome positively the principle of an internal conditionality intended to strengthen the effectiveness and added value of cohesion policy, and thus its legitimacy in the medium-term.

They believe that such conditionality has to go hand in hand with a reinforcement of regional partnership. In this context, they urge that a political agreement be drawn up, signed by each Member State between the central government and its regional authorities, on the identification of the thematic priorities of cohesion policy and the delivery of the partnership, to be considered as one of the horizontal ex-ante conditions of the future.