1. 1 Final Report Results of the on-line Public Consultation of the Conclusions of the 5th Cohesion Report Peter Berkowitz Head of Unit Conception, forward studies, impact assessment

2. 2 Final Figures – Contributions Public Consultation Open from 12 November 2010 to 31 January 2011 444 contributions received

3. 3 Breakdown of contributions by type of stakeholder

4. 4 Europe 2020 and Cohesion Policy Question 1: How could the Europe 2020 Strategy and cohesion policy be brought closer together at EU, national and sub-national levels? Main Messages: –General support for a stronger link between cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 Strategy –General concern about fully aligning cohesion policy with the Europe 2020 Strategy – specificity of cohesion policy (28% of respondents; 12 Member States) –Support for flexibility in integrating EU priorities into national and sub- national programmes –Support for reinforced partnership and a bottom-up approach that takes into account the regional and local context when defining the policy goals (61% of respondents; 13 Member States)

5. 5 Reinforcing Strategic Programming Question 2: Should the scope of the development and investment partnership contract go beyond cohesion policy and, if so, what should it be? Main messages: –General support for a Common Strategic Framework to include other EU funds – especially EAFRD and EFF (76% of respondents; 16 Member States) –Some support as well for the extension of the Common Strategic Framework to different funds beyond cohesion policy: transport, energy, or research –Most stakeholders - no clear position on the extension of the Partnership Contracts to other EU funds

6. 6 Increasing Thematic Concentration Question 3: How could stronger thematic concentration on the Europe 2020 priorities be achieved? Main Messages: –Support for the Commission’s proposal for a focus on a limited number of priorities to achieve the Europe 2020 objectives (59 % of respondents; 21 Member States) –Important concern expressed about stronger thematic concentration defined at EU level –Alternative proposals include: earmarking for local priorities (21% of respondents; 1 Member State) ring fencing expenditures (12% of respondents; 1 member State)

7. 7 Strengthening Performance through Conditionality and Incentives Question 4: How could conditionalities, incentives and results- based management make cohesion policy more effective? Main Messages: –Support for the introduction of incentives linked to the performance of cohesion policy (54% of respondents; 15 Member States) –Some support for the use of incentives and sanctions related to the establishment of effective preconditions directly linked to cohesion policy –Mixed reactions vis-à-vis macro-fiscal conditionality in cohesion policy linked to the Stability and Growth Pacts, in particular its implications for beneficiaries –Mixed reactions towards the use of a performance reserve

8. 8 Improving Evaluation, Performance and Results Question 5a: How could cohesion policy be made more results- oriented? Main Messages: –Support for the introduction of better-functioning monitoring and evaluation systems linked to a results-oriented approach to cohesion policy –Agreement on the need to introduce more appropriate quantitative and qualitative indicators (57% of respondents; 15 Member States) –Support for greater and better use of ex-ante evaluations and impact assessment with the aid of impartial external expertise

9. 9 Improving Evaluation, Performance and Results Question 5b: Which priorities should be obligatory? Main Messages: –Very few contributors were openly in favour of mandatory cohesion policy priorities defined at EU level (3% of respondents; 1 Member State) –Suggested priority areas were: sustainable development, environment and energy, competitiveness (achieved through greater support to innovation) poverty alleviation, equal opportunities and social inclusion

10. 10 Introducing a Third Dimension: Territorial Cohesion Question 6: How can cohesion policy take better account of the key role of urban areas and of territories with particular geographical features in development processes and of the emergence of macro- regional strategies? Main Messages: –General support for a greater focus on urban territories (51% of respondents; 13 Member States) as well as regions with particular geographic and/or demographic challenges (34% of respondents; 10 Member States) –Call for the development of macro-regional strategies (37% of respondents; 10 Member States) and of reinforced urban-rural linkages (31% of respondents; 5 Member States)

11. 11 Reinforcing Partnership Question 7: How can the partnership principle and involvement of local and regional stakeholders, social partners and civil society be improved? Main Messages: –General call for greater involvement of local stakeholders throughout the strategic programming process and during programme implementation (94% of respondents; 19 Member States) –Support for a clearer partnership approach defined at EU level –Suggested solutions included: an improved dialogue between public and private actors clearer definition and enforcement of the partnership principle stronger involvement of target groups in the design of measures and projects more effective communication with all stakeholders

12. 12 Question 8: How can the audit process be simplified and how can audits by Member States and the Commission be better integrated, whilst maintaining a high level of assurance on expenditure co- financed? Main messages: –Strong support for a more transparent and simplified set of financial management procedures (75% of respondents; 16 Member States) –Support for a proportionate and progressive system of audit and control (36% of respondents; 10 Member States) A Streamlined and Simpler Delivery System – Financial Management

13. 13 Question 9: How could application of the proportionality principle alleviate the administrative burden in terms of management and control? Should there be specific simplification measures for territorial cooperation programmes? Main messages: –General support for the reduction of the administrative burden through flexibility and simplification of administrative procedures (58% of respondents; 14 Member States) especially by reinforcing the application of proportionality (29% of respondents; 11 Member States) –Support for simpler results-based approach proportionate to programmes (25% of respondents; 3 Member States) and accompanied by greater coordination of funds at EU level (18% of respondents; 2 Member States) –Some support for the simplification of rules in the field of territorial cooperation (10% of respondents; 8 Member States) A Streamlined and Simpler Delivery System – Reducing the Administrative Burden

14. 14 A Streamlined and Simpler Delivery System Question 10: How can the right balance be struck between common rules for all the Funds and acknowledgement of Funds' specificities when defining eligibility rules? Main Messages : –General support for a common set of rules for the Structural Funds on eligibility of expenditure, audits, financial issues, use of standards costs (81% of respondents; 15 Member States) –Support for a degree of flexibility with regard to the different aims of specific funds and/or regions

15. 15 A Streamlined and Simpler Delivery System – Financial Discipline Question 11: How can financial discipline be ensured, while providing enough flexibility to design and implement complex programmes and projects? Main message: –General support for the Commission’s proposal to apply the N+2 rule but introduce an exception for the first year (21% of respondents; 6 Member States) –Need to go beyond the Commission’s proposal and extent the decommitment rule to N+3 for the whole programming period (12% of respondents; 8 Member States) –Contributors’ proposals for striking the balance between ensuring financial discipline and providing flexibility: Improve the effectiveness of audit procedures (15% of respondents; 2 Member States) Financial decentralisation to local and regional authorities (16% of respondents; no MS) Clear, stable requirements defined ex ante (15% of respondents; no MS)

16. 16 The Architecture of Cohesion Policy Question 12: How can it be ensured that the architecture of cohesion policy takes into account the specificity of each Fund and in particular the need to provide greater visibility and predictable funding volumes for the ESF and to focus it on securing the 2020 objectives? Main messages: –Contributors highlighted the major contribution made by ESF in the current socio- economic circumstances and its direct links with Europe 2020 –Support for greater coordination between ESF and ERDF (51% of respondents; 5 Member States) –Support for keeping the same budget heading for ESF and ERDF (34% of respondents; 14 Member States)

17. 17 The Architecture of Cohesion Policy Question 13: How could a new intermediate category of regions be designed to accompany regions which have not completed their process of catching up? Main message: –General support to cohesion policy for all regions (58% of respondents; 13 Member States) –Some in favour of intermediate categorisation (38% of respondents; 7 Member States)

18. 18 Next Steps The synthesis of the results of the public consultation will be published as a Staff Working Document – 13 May 2011 The results of the public consultation will feed into the Commission’s proposals for the post- 2013 period