Date post: | 09-May-2015 |
Category: |
News & Politics |
Upload: | patrick1willcocks |
View: | 150 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Session 4/2
The Future of Structural Funds
2014-2020
Patrick Willcocks Visiting Teaching Fellow
School of Business
Stop Press
http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-industrial-renaiss/eu-eyes-softer-climate-policies-news-533721
http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-industrial-renaiss/eu-tries-revert-de-industrialisa-news-533704
http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-enabling-technolog/kroes-future-going-grow-roses-news-533725
http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/usage-data-illustrates-failure-e-news-533586
https://audioboo.fm/boos/1950241-eu-commissioner-influx-of-romanians-and-bulgarians-not-a-reality
ObjectivesBy the end of this session you should understand
– The lead up to the new programme– The focus of the new Programme 2014-2020– The main geographical foci– Including Resources– Strategic Direction– The UK direction
• The Barca Report 2009
● EU2020 launch 2010
● 5th Cohesion Report 2010
KEY BACKGROUND WORK
The Barca Report 2009
need for significant change- primarily place based- more strategic direction- concentration of limited priorities- more evaluation/output related- transitional regions
Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion
‘Cohesion policy should continue to playa critical role in these difficult times, in order to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusivegrowth, while promoting harmonious development of the Union and its regionsby reducing regional disparities.’
Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion
KEY RESULTS Reinforcing Strategic Programming Increasing thematic concentration Strengthening performance through
conditionality Improving evaluation New financial instruments
Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion
KEY RESULTS
Reinforcing partnership
Reducing Administrative burden
Architecture of Cohesion Policy
LOBBYING
LOBBYING
r
1. Compulsory urban earmarking in the mainstream programmes.2. Tackling the realities in all our cities3. Cities at the table: strengthening multi-level governance beyond the regions4. Thematic concentration supporting new partnerships5. Financial engineering to design instruments with direct access for cities6. Conditionality: keeping it urban and integrated
THE NEW PROGRAMME
Agreed budget
Regulations for the whole programme
Regulations for ERDF
Regulations for ESF
Regulations for the Cohesion Fund
THE NEW PROGRAMME – How the Commission Sees it – 10 key elements
1. Appropriate levels of investment in the regions
2. Targeted growth
3. Accountability and results
4. Pre-conditions for funding
5. Coordinated action
6. Simplification of procedures
7. Expanded urban dimension
8. Cross-border cooperation
9. Consistency and coherence
10. Financial instruments
THE NEW PROGRAMME
THE NEW PROGRAMME
Three main geographies
Less Developed Regions – equivalent to Convergence Transition Regions – these are NEW More Developed Regions – equivalent to Competitiveness
Plus Cohesion Fund Territorial Co-operation
How will funding be allocated?
The New Progamme – ERDF and ESF Allocations
│ 19
More coherent use of available EU fundsThe Golden Thread
2007-2013 2014-2020
Lisbon Agenda EU2020
Regulations Regulations
Community Strategic Guidelines Common Strategic Framework
National Strategic Ref Frame Partnership Contract
Operational Programmes Operational Programmes
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
│ 20
The Golden Thread
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
EU2020
Far more detailed than Lisbon strategy – 7 flagship programmes underneath each with targets
Common Strategic Framework
Co-ordinates ERDF, ESF EAGFF etc – one set of rules
Partnership Contract
Much more detailed than the NSRF,. With national targets and meeting key areas as outlined in the National Reform Programme
Operational Programmes
More focussed, ex ante conditions – e.g.need smart specialisation strategy
│ 21
A menu of thematic objectives1. Research & innovation
2. Information and communication technologies (ICT)
3. Competitiveness of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)
4. Shift towards a low-carbon economy
5. Climate change adaptation & risk prevention and management
A menu of thematic objectives cont.6. Environmental protection & resource
efficiency7. Sustainable transport & removing
bottlenecks in key network infrastructures
8. Employment & supporting labour mobility
9. Social inclusion & combating poverty10.Education, skills & lifelong learning11. Institutional capacity building & efficient
public administrations
│ 23
Concentrating resources to maximise impactConcentration of ERDF and ESF
│ 24
European Social Fund (ESF)
25%22%
Share of ESF within Cohesion Policy budget
2014-20202007-2013
Of total Structural Fund support (ERDF & ESF), ESF will represent: 25 % in less developed regions 40 % in transition regions 52 % in more developed regions
Ex Ante Conditionality - Smart Specialisation – new mantra
Smart Specialisation – new mantra
The European Commission wants national and regional authorities across Europe to draw up research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation.
Smart specialisation means identifying the unique characteristics and assets of each country and region, highlighting each region’s competitive advantages, and rallying regional stakeholders and resources around an excellence-driven vision of their future.
It also means strengthening regional innovation systems, maximising knowledge flows and spreading the benefits of innovation throughout the entire regional economy.
Smart Specialisation – new mantra
RATIONALE To develop and implement strategies for economic
transformation To respond to economic and societal challenges To make regions more visible to international investors To improve a region’s internal and external connections To avoid overlaps and replication in development strategies To accumulate a ‘critical mass’ of resources To promote knowledge spillover and technological
diversification
│ 28
European Social Fund (ESF)
Fully in line with the Europe 2020 strategy Promoting employment & supporting labour
mobility Investing in education, skills & life-long learning Promoting social inclusion & combating poverty Enhancing institutional capacity & efficient public
administration
│ 29
European Social Fund (ESF)
Reinforced social dimension 20 % of ESF allocations for social inclusion Greater emphasis on fighting youth
unemployment Mainstreaming & specific support for gender
equality & non-discrimination
│ 30
SimplificationCommon rules - funds covered by Common
Strategic Framework Cohesion Policy, rural development and maritime &
fisheries policy
Option of multi-fund programmes ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund
Streamlined delivery system Harmonised rules on eligibility and durability Greater use of simplified costs Linking payments with results e-Cohesion: “one stop shop” for beneficiaries Proportional approach to control
│ 31
Reinforcing Territorial CohesionFocus on sustainable urban development At least 5 % of ERDF resources – expectation that
decision making is devolved down
Creation of urban development platform Networking between cities and exchanges on urban
policy
Innovative actions for sustainable urban development
Subject to a ceiling of 0.2 % of the annual funding
Areas with specific natural or demographic features Additional allocation for outermost & sparsely
populated regions
│ 32
An investment-oriented policy
Promoting the use of innovative financing instruments Extending scope to all areas of investment Clearer regulatory framework 10 % bonus for innovative financing instruments &
community-led development A range of options offering flexibility to programme
managers
Maximum co-financing rates 75-85 % in less developed and outermost regions 60 % in transition regions 50 % in more developed regions
New Partnership Delivery Mechanisms
‘The multiple challenges confronting Europe – economic, environmental and social – show the need for an integrated and territorial place-based approach to deliver an effective response.’
Integrated Territorial Investment
Community-Led Local Development
New Partnership Delivery Mechanisms – Integrated Territorial Investment
│ 35
Cohesion Fund – much the sameSupports Member States with GNI/capita < 90 % of EU27
average
Investing in environment Climate change adaptation and risk prevention Water and waste sectors Biodiversity including through green infrastructures Urban environment Low carbon economy
Investing in transport Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) Low-carbon transport systems and urban transport
The New Progamme – Cohesion Fund Allocations
Role of Partnership Contract/AgreementAn Agreement between member state and EC Outlining the issues that need tackling The number of Operational Programmes
(regional/National) The broad types of intervention The governance arrangements (including
delegation) Ex ante Conditions The outputs/targets
Draft Bulgarian Partnership Agreement
What’s the Impact in the UK Less Developed Regions €2,4bn
Transition Regions € 2.6bn
More Developed regions € 5.8bn
Cross Border Co-operation € 0.6bn Transnational Co-operation € 0.25bn Youth Employment Initiative € 0.2bn Total € 11,8bn
UK REGIONS
What’s the UK’s thoughts Consultation on developing ideas Working on the draft partnership contract at
the moment – been ongoing for over 12 months
Are refusing to consult on draft partnership contract document
Will be consulting on the Operational Programmes (OPs)
Will be England ERDF and ESF OPs
HMG’s GROWTH PROGRAMME ORGANISING PRINCIPLES
National and local priorities
aligned
Variable geographies
Local decision making and
drive
Complex EU funds packaged as a coherent and
consistent programme
Common standards and
transparent accountabilities
Lower cost & simplifies
administration
A single set of targets and milestones
across England
EU regulatory requirements
met and financial risk minimised
BETTER FOCUS
HIGHER IMPACT
INCREASED GROWTH
INITIAL DELIVERY ARRANGEMENTS THOUGHTS
Projects
Community Led Local Development, including Leader and
FLAGs
Maritime and Fisheries
Programme(EMFF)
RuralDevelopmentProgramme
(EAFRD)
Growth Programme(ERDF, ESF & EAFRD)
Local Growth Teams
Co-financing Organisations
LEPs
NOTE THIS IS ENGLAND ONLY
Role of Local Enterprise Partnerships
There are no regional organisations left to deliver the funds (except London)
So national ERDF and ESF programmes are proposed
Every LEP is putting forward its overall strategy and its European funding strategy
Some LEP’s might want ITI’s but CLG against Namely Core Cities, London and Cornwall?
Timetable from Now
Draft Partnership Agreement submitted to EC Hopefully to be agreed shortly Drafting Operational programmes –
Consulting in April 2014 Hope to be agreed autumn of 2014 But currently behind schedule
Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
Draft submitted October 7th 2013Final version January 31st 2014Awaiting comments from BIS/DCLG
£238m allocation (plus £19m YEI)Chosen 6 priorities
• Innovation and R&D £30m
• Stimulating Business and Enterprise£45m
• Low Carbon and Resilient Places£35m
• Promoting Employment and Mobility£36.5m
• Promoting Social Inclusion and Employability£36.5m
• Skills for Growth and Entrepreneurship £36,5m
Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
GREATER BIRMINGHAM AND SOLIHULL LEPISSUES
A Complicated Picture• Straddling a transition and a
more developed region• A young partnership with
little history of working together
• Want an ITI –i.e. delegated powers but CLG not keen
• Trying to co-ordinated with neighbouring LEPS
• Overlap LEP issues
Role of LEPs - Issues
Role of Local Enterprise PartnershipsIssues
Many more LEPs than regions so may be difficult to deliver – might not be cheaper
These are not full partnerships – made up of businesses and local authorities – will need to bring in further partners – partnership principle
Seeking to write the national Ops on the basis of 39 LEP plans – how is this possible
• Co-ordination of national policy say on Smart Specialisation with LEP based work will be problematic
• Disagreement with the Commission over LEPs – over the issue of delegated powers.
• Many LEPs lacking in expertise and resources to deliver these programmes
Role of Local Enterprise PartnershipsIssues
Conclusions
Clear that new funding programmes offers– Greater Simplification– Greater focus on key priorities– Greater co-ordination between funds– Still significant funds for the UK– More devolved delivery proposed – but
uncertain how it will work in the UK