Development of CPMR proposals for post-2020 Cohesion policy Eurocities meeting 26.04.2017 Nick Brookes Director for Cohesion Policy Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions

‘Principles’ position paper (Nov 2016) The European project needs Cohesion Policy to achieve EU objectives across Member States and regions Regions and local authorities need Cohesion Policy so that they take ownership of the EU policy agenda The EU investment efforts need Cohesion Policy to mobilise investments across Europe’s territories The Single Market needs Cohesion Policy to function effectively

Detailed proposals (June 2017) Statutory meetings 2017 June Political Bureau (Rogaland, NO): CPMR position on post-2020 Cohesion Policy October/November (Helsinki, FI): Analysis / Reaction to 7th Cohesion Report CPMR Cohesion policy meeting (Core Group) 16 May: discussion with Eric Von Breska, Director for DG REGIO 6 discussion groups to feed in to June Cohesion Policy paper: Simplification (Provence Alpes Côtes D’Azur, FR) Territorial Cooperation (Friesland/Noord Holland, NL) ESF (Emilia Romagna, IT) Partnership (Vastra Götaland, SE) Territorial dimension (CPMR secretariat) Financial instruments/EFSI (Mecklenburg Vorpommern, DE)

Financial Instruments Lead region: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Will be most likely strengthened for the post-2020 Cohesion policy Best approach is constructive!: Financial instruments best suited to particular sectors (i.e. innovation, low-carbon economy) No targets for financial instruments at programme level Need for further capacity building

Cohesion policy and EFSI Lead region: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern EFSI extended until 2020… and most likely post-2020, so need for constructive approach!: Define clear roles and boundaries between the two policies and opportunities for combination Adress uneven playing field between EFSI / Cohesion policy (e.g state aids) Streamlined communication for EFSI and Cohesion Policy

Simplification Lead region: Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur Very broad area of work! CPMR work focused on: Timing of adoption of the legislative proposal Procedures to designate managing authorities Cohesion Policy as other programmes (i.e. Horizon2020, with regards to State aid Uncertainty created by the retroactivity of rules and guidelines Need for auditors to work constructively and proactively with managing authorities

Territorial Cooperation Lead region: Dutch provinces Better articulation between three strands More alignment between programme area priorities and macroregional and sea basin strategies Single set of rules and process for ETC programmes Needs-based approach to define thematic priorities Transitional cooperation programme between UK and EU Member States

Partnership and MLG Lead region: Västra-Götaland Pillar of Cohesion policy! Advanced in development: Timely adoption of legislation Improving quality of ‘informal’ involvement of partners ERDF funding implemented at regional level Improve alignment strategic documents Possibilities for the future: Ex ante conditionality to strengthen role of the Commission guarding partnership? Positive incentives or ‘carrots’: i.e. benchmarking, awards for best partnerhsip, etc.?

European Social Fund Lead region: Emilia Romagna Survey with 30 CPMR regions on the future of the European Social Fund Key messages arising from survey: The ESF has an essential territorial dimension that mirrors areas of regional competence Better coherence is needed between the European Social Fund and the European Semester More flexibility for regional authorities will lead to efficiencies and cost savings in terms of ESF implementation The Youth Employment Initiative should be integrated into the ESF

Issues under discussion

1. Architecture of the policy Not clear that all regions will be supported in the future... Idea gaining ground: single category of regions for post-2020? Pros: Guaranteed coverage for all European regions Simpler and more transparent 2. Link with EU semester A main priority for the European Commission CPMR position: we accept relationship and want it to be positive and constructive Scenarios: Cohesion policy fully supporting Country Specific Recommendations - Cohesion Policy could be used as a ‘carrot’ to deliver recommendations and carry out structural reforms

Cohesion policy eligibility projections

3. Flexibility 4. More simplification… Elusive concept… different meanings Different possibilities to explore: A single fund? A single set of rules for all ESI funds? A flexibility reserve for managing authorities? 4. More simplification… Some issues related to simplification need futher reflection Differentiation in the management, audit and control? and if so, based on which criteria ?

5. Territorial dimension Specific proposals to better link Article 174 to Cohesion Policy (islands) Defending specific interests of outermost regions (article 349) and Northern Sparsely Populated Areas

Many thanks for your attention! Nick Brookes CPMR Director nick.brookes@crpm.org www.cpmr.org