Short version natavan aliyeva

1

EU Regional Policy:

Future Of Cohesion Policy

2

Outline:

Current Use of EU Funds Development of EU Strategy Process and Timetable Initial Positions

3

Allocation of Funds:COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS

BY HEADING

In billion of EUR, at 2004 prices

In %

1a. Competitiveness for growth and employment (research, innovation, competitiveness)

72.1 8,4%

1b. Cohesion for growth and employment (regional policy) 307.6 35,7%

2. Preservation and management of natural resources

(Common Agricultural Policy, rural development, environment)

371.2 43,1%

of which market-related expenditure (CAP) 293.1 34,0%

3. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice

(internal policies; public health, asylum, immigration)

10.3 1,2%

4. The EU as a global partner (humanitarian and development aid) 50.0 5,8%

5. Total administrative expenditure 50.3 5,8%

6. Compensations Bulgaria and Romania (after accession expected in 2007)

0.8 0,1%

Total commitments 862.4 100

In % of EU-27 GNI 1.045%

COMMITMENT APPROPRIATIONS

BY HEADING

In billion of EUR, at 2004 prices

In %

1a. Competitiveness for growth and employment (research, innovation, competitiveness)

72.1 8,4%

1b. Cohesion for growth and employment (regional policy) 307.6 35,7%

2. Preservation and management of natural resources

(Common Agricultural Policy, rural development, environment)

371.2 43,1%

of which market-related expenditure (CAP) 293.1 34,0%

3. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice

(internal policies; public health, asylum, immigration)

10.3 1,2%

4. The EU as a global partner (humanitarian and development aid) 50.0 5,8%

5. Total administrative expenditure 50.3 5,8%

6. Compensations Bulgaria and Romania (after accession expected in 2007)

0.8 0,1%

Total commitments 862.4 100

In % of EU-27 GNI 1.045%

4

Allocation of Funds:

EU regional Policy funding is mainly concentrated on least prosperous. E.g.. Regions with the GDP per head below 75% of EU average

Also Member States with GDP per head below 90% of average

<50

50 - 75

75 - 90

90 - 100

100 - 125

125

5

Indicative Financial allocation (2007-2013):

Poland - € 67 284 million Czech Republic - € 26 692 million Germany - € 26 340 million France - € 14 319 million United Kingdom - € 10 613 million Luxembourg - € 65 million

Source: ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf

6

Future priorities: III Barca Report

Structure/spatial focus of the policy: place based policy for reducing persistent social inclusion in specific places

Thematic focus, core priorities:

Innovation Climate change Managing migration Skills Demographic ageing Performance: flexible

spending, promoting learning process

Delivery: strengthening governance for the core priorities; addressing management and control

7

Future Priorities: IV Hübner Report Mission: ‘a strong

development policy which enables all EU citizens wherever they live, to reap the benefits and to mitigate the risks of the market unification’

Goals: enhance competitiveness and employment at regional level

Concentration on core priorities

Coherence in delivery Simplier management and

control systems

8

Future Priorities: V Regions 2020 Europe 2020 puts forward

3 priorities:1. Smart growth: developing

an economy based on knowledge and innovation

2. Sustainable growth: promoting a more efficient, greener and more competitive economy

3. Inclusive growth: fostering a high-employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion

9

Future Priorities: V Regions 2020 Main targets: 75% of the population aged

20-64 should be employed 3% of the EU’s GDP should

be invested in R&D The “20/20/20”

climate/energy targets should be met (increase 30% of emissions reductions if the conditions are right)

The share of early school leaver be under 10% and at least 40% of the younger generation should have a tertiary degree

20 million less people should be at risk of poverty

10

Changes at National Level:

Old Member States: Germany: would lose all convergence coverage, except

Brandenburg-Nordost Greece: 3 regions (Ionia Nisia, Peloponnesus and Kriti)

would lose eligibility with coverage falling from 37% to 24% of the national population

Italy: 2 regions (Molise and Balisicata) would gain Convergence status, taking coverage from 29% to just over 30% of the national population

Spain: 3 regions (Andalusia, Castilla-La Mancha and Galicia) would lose eligibility; only Extremadura would retain it so that coverage would fall form 31% to 2.4% of population

UK: West Wales and the Valleys; Cornwall and Scilly Isles would lose eligibility, so that the UK would have no Convergence regions

11

Changes at National Level:

Following regions also will lose Convergence status:

Czech Republic: Stredni Cechy Malta Poland: Mazowiecki (Warsaw region) Romania: Bucharest-Ilfov Slovenia: following the split into 2 NUTS 2 regions,

Zahodna Slovenia (Ljubljana region)

Convergence regions coverage would become more heavily concentrated in the new Member States

12

Timetable:

July 2010: Budget review July 2010: Letter from REGI to Commission and

MS on the future of Cohesion Policy November 2010: Report in REGI on ‘Urban

dimension of Cohesion Policy’ November 2010: 5th Cohesion Report January 2011: Cohesion Forum Early 2011: Proposal for Financial perspective Spring 2011: Legal proposals, impact assessment 2012/13: Adoption of legislative package 2014: Entry in force

13

Process:

Significant changes in implementation One of the important changes introduced by the Lisbon

Treaty, is that co-decision becomes the ‘ordinary legislative procedure

Based on the principle of parity and means that neither institutions (EU parliament of Council) may adopt legislation without the other’s assent

In accordance with Lisbon Treaty only the Commission may put forward legislative proposals

It must be consulted with the Committee of the Regions Strengthened role of the national Parliament in the

legislative process. The national Parliament will act as watchdogs agency of the principle of subsidiary at an early stage of the decision –making procedure

14

15

Initial Positions: 1. What are the overall views about the future of the EU Regional Policy?

Representatives from Budapest, LGA, Poland, Dortmund and Brussels had positive views on current policy

However representative from Lille Metropole suggested that the programme needs an improvement

Representative from Malmo had a slight pessimism

Eurocities: ‘Need for the cohesion to remain a policy aimed at a balanced and sustainable development of the whole Union, within and between territories’

16

Initial Positions:2. Will the new policy be very different from the current policy?

Representatives from Budapest, Malmo, LGA and Poland suggested that crisis and tight budget will affect the policy

Lille Metropole: there is needed better definition of level and implementation

Representative from Dortmund suggested that there might be changes on the city level

Netherlands: highlighted 2 possible ways of changes-slide change (innovation/financial changes); will completely change (“revolutionary changes”)

Representative from Brussels argued that mainstreaming may also change

However representative from LGA emphasised there will not be great change because of political structure of EU

17

Initial Positions:3. What would be a better solution?

Malmo: cover everyone Lille Metropole: better geographical definition; more

consideration for practical issues; long-term objectives should become short and medium term objectives

Poland: encourage greater participation of local communities

Dortmund: innovation Brussels: keep policy on EU level CEMR: sustainable development; and to identify,

strengthen and further develop the potential of each territory

UK: ‘Structural and Cohesion Funds should not be used other than for reducing regional disparities’

Germany: Strategy must remain focused on main objectives

18

Initial Positions:4. Poor vs. Rich regions:

Budapest: concentrate money only on poorest countries is a mistake (“not to reduce to the poorest regions”); allocate according to regions; but emphasize poorer regions

Poland, CEMR: emphasise poorer regions Malmo: if spend money only on poorer nations it will turn to aid

programme, and in that case richer regions will lose an interest in regional policy

LGA: significant proportion of the EU funds should go to the disadvantage countries

Dortmund: poorer regions may have difficulties in handling more money. Therefore it should be equally distributed

Dortmund, Brussels: richer regions also need money as there are disparities within richer regions as well

Netherlands, Brussels: bigger amount of money should go to new Member States

UK: ‘Funding should be concentrated in the poorest regions. The richest 13 Member States should not receive any regional funds. Richer MS should remain responsible for the majority of their own regional funding’

19

Initial Positions:5. Will there be problems in reaching agreement?

Almost all representatives agreed that there will be an agreement

But they also emphasised that there is huge divide in opinions, more than it was before

20

Initial Positions:6. At what level of geography should the new programmes be designed and managed?

CEMR: more responsibility should be allocated to local and regional authorities. MS should be obliged to involve the local and regional level

Brussels: bigger lines should be drawn by the EU (EU level), but more autonomy should be given to the regions to decide how to allocate money (regional level)

Lille Metropole, Netherlands: flexible geography Dortmund: no change should be done, remain EU level LGA: sub-regional level Budapest: functional regions level Eurocities: ‘Functional urban area is the most

appropriate level to take action on numerous issues like transport or waste management’

21

Initial Positions:7. What indicators should be used to allocate funding?

Budapest, LGA: GDP per capita Budapest, Dortmund: employment Representatives from Malmo, Lille

Metropole, Dortmund, Brussels argued that GDP per capita is not a good indicator

LGA also suggested demographic and climate change as possible indicators

UK: ‘The use of other indicators to pick up economic changes at local level (unemployment, health disparities, social inclusion) would be desirable’

22


Representative from Netherlands suggested 3 levels of indicators:

1. On EU level: GDP2. On country level: climate change,

poverty, unemployment (depend on country’s own strategy)

3. Regional level: level of poverty on street level

*He also suggested that there should be given more autonomy for MS to decide which indicators to use

23


CEMR: supports a wider set of criteria for the orientation and assessment of Cohesion Policy to complement the traditional GDP-based indicators:

a. Socio economic developmentb. Socio-cultural criteriac. Socio-demographic factorsd. Socio- environmental criteriae. Access to services f. Social inclusion

24


Brussels: emphasised social indicator

However representative from Lille Metropole, Malmo and Dortmund believe that no changes will be done to current indicator

25

Initial Positions:8. What should be the role of the cities?

Brussels: Cities should be heard Poland, Lille Metropole: urban dimension is

important Netherlands: problems must be dealt on urban level LGA: it should be up to cities how they manage their

programme Budapest: leadership of the cities is a solution for

the strengthen of regions Eurocities:’Cohesion Policy should include

mandatory urban priorities: principal cities in a region should be involved in setting those and in determining the appropriate scales of intervention. Cities should have the opportunity to manage urban measures directly and receive delegated funding’

26

Conclusion: what questions will need answering in order to reach an agreement on the future of Cohesion Policy?

Which priorities to concentrate on? How to balance local, regional and

national priorities with EU priorities? How to balance connection between

richer and poorer regions? Financial management-maintaining a

stable, EU-wide policy? What should be done in order to make

achievements even more visible? To be sure that the policy is effective

27

Thank You!

Natavan Aliyeva [email protected]

Short version natavan aliyeva

Education

funds

allocation

head

gdp