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”

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”