1. 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

3. ‘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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.?

10. 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

11. Issues under discussion

12. 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

13. Cohesion policy eligibility projections

14. 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 ?

15. 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

16. Many thanks for your attention!
Nick Brookes
CPMR Director