1. Managing State aid compliance in Cohesion policy programmes Rona Michie, European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow Meeting of the Monitoring Committee, Riga, 24 November 2010

2. IQ-Net partners – regional and national programme management authorities
Italy
Lombardia
IPI / Ministry of Economic
Development
Austria
Niederösterreich
Steiermark
Belgium
Enterprise Flanders
Poland
Śląskie Voivodeship
(Marshal’s office)
Czech Republic
Ministry for Regional
Development
Portugal
Financial Institute for
Regional Development (IFDR)
Denmark
Danish Enterprise &
Construction Authority
Slovenia
Government Office for Local Self-
Government & Regional Policy
Finland
Keski-Suomi
Min. of Employment & the Economy
Spain
País Vasco (Province of Bizkaia)
France
DATAR
Sweden
Tillväxtverket (Swedish Agency for
Economic & Regional Growth)
Germany
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Sachsen-Anhalt
United Kingdom
North-East England
Department of Communities &
Local Government (CLG)
Wales (WEFO)
Scottish Government
Hungary
Hungarian Enterprise Development Centre (MAG)
in association with National Development Agency
Greece
Management Organisation Unit
of Development Programmes S.A.
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

3. Methodology – interviews and desk research
Focus today on practical issues faced by partners when trying to manage compliance
Absence of ‘sharp edges’ has practical consequences in particular areas
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

4. Managing compliance – domestic arrangements
State aid rules do not specify internal structures for managing compliance
Structures are more formal in new Member States – legacy of pre-accession era
Common theme: importance of training, advice and information by State aid specialists; only in Slovenia is binding opinion given
Attitudes to compliance vary:
extreme caution – notify for legal certainty in cases of doubt
informed risk analysis
“we try to comply, but if it really doesn’t suit, we don’t”
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

5. Managing compliance – EU framework
In principle all aid must be notified to and approved by the Commission before implementation
In practice, not workable, so most aid in form of schemes, for which potentially ‘000s of beneficiaries
Hierarchy of scrutiny has emerged – from case-by-case analysis to reporting (GBER) or ‘no aid’ (de minimis)
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

6. Use of block exemptions
Use of block exemptions among IQ-Net partners:
Those who use say it offers flexibility and room for manoeuvre
National framework legislation in France uses GBER as a template
Italian ‘omnibus’ scheme introduced instead of using GBER
Some see no benefit – Pais Vasco, Flanders
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

7. de minimis – experience of IQ-Net partners
de minimis widely used by IQ-Net partners
avoids having to define State aid; no constraint on aid rate or eligible expenditure
different attitudes use of de minimis:
last resort for some (because of monitoring and compliance obligations)
for others: ‘safe harbour’; ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card
different approaches to monitoring and compliance
reliance on beneficiary declarations
actual or proposed databases of awards
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

8. Use of de minimis databases
Use of databases to help monitor de minimis levels:
Poland: SHRIMP – System for Collection, Reporting and Monitoring Aid
Italy: BDA – Banca Dati Anagrafica
Portugal
Slovenia
Some programmes decided they would be too costly to develop, or that de minimis aid was too marginal
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

9. Slovenian State aids database
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

10. Managing compliance – partner feedback
Workshops held at Steiermark IQ-Net meeting – the main messages:
Perception that definition of State aid is changing and moving into new areas
JEREMIE and JESSICA problematic
Use of de minimis labour intensive and questions about use of databases
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

11. Managing compliance – partner feedback
Partner feedback (continued)
Lack of clear definitions and the complexity and constantly evolving nature of the rules makes the system fraught with uncertainty
Need for better, more centralised, consistent and comprehensive information
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

12. Issues, trends and tensions
Principles drafted 50+ years ago difficult to apply today
Blurred boundary public/private sector, complex areas such as healthcare, infrastructure, public/private partnerships
All these often supported under Cohesion policy programmes
Greater awareness of rules in current planning period
State aid rules are a major source of anxiety for many
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

13. Issues, trends and tensions (cont’d)
Significant asymmetries of risk in compliance process
Technical demands of compliance are considerable
State aid compliance may frustrate Cohesion objectives
Structural Funds may achieve greater State aid compliance than purely domestic policy
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010

14. Thank you for your attention!
Pandora's Box and the Delphic Oracle: EU Cohesion Policy and State Aid Compliance, IQ-Net Thematic Paper 24(2) Fiona Wishlade and Rona Michie
The full paper can be downloaded from the IQ-Net website at:
Rona Michie, Riga 24 November 2010