1. 1 Place of Rural Development in Regional Policies Wladyslaw Piskorz, Head of Unit Urban development and territorial cohesion, European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy

2. 2 Rural development key figures  SF efforts (without EAGGF for 2000-2006 period) in favour of rural development have doubled from €34 Bn (2000-06) to €70 Bn (2007-13)  Funds allocated by DG AGRI progressed of 48% from €62 Bn (63% from EAGGF-Guarantee / 37 % from EAGGF- Guidance) to €91 Bn (EAFRD 2007-2013)

3. 3 ERDF/EAGGF focuses  Relatively clear specialisation of funds during the 2000-06 period EAGGF shared out different categories with predominance in water resources development, LEADER and support to rural heritage; ERDF concentrated on tourism, craft industry, environmental preservation, adaptation of rural economies and support to rural heritage as well.

4. 4 Implementing Cohesion policy and CAP Pillar II in 2007-13 (1)  Cohesion and Rural Development strategic guidelines have different objectives – but advocate coherence: synergy between structural, employment and rural development policies needs to be encouraged Member States should ensure complementarity and coherence between actions financed by the ERDF Cohesion Fund, ESF, EFF and EAFRD on a given territory and in a given field of activity demarcation and coordination between actions supported by different Funds should be defined at level of NSRF/NSP  National authorities required to: avoid overlap and guarantee consistency and complementarity of Structural Funds and EARDF demarcate fields of support to be financed by each Fund (1) Source: EPRC presentation for Sub Rosa Seminar, 29II-1II 2008

5. 5 Implementing Cohesion policy and CAP Pillar II in 2007-13 (1) Member States taking different approaches to coordination:  Planning approaches consultation during programming National coordination through strategic plans  Demarcation of activities separation of activities in NSRFs and OPs detailed breakdown of spending by fields of support identification of points of intersection use of eligibility/award guidelines and criteria  Implementation procedures coordination arrangements (e.g. committee cross-membership) requirement for implementing bodies to avoid overlap monitoring arrangements (1) Source: EPRC presentation for Sub Rosa Seminar, 29II-1II 2008

6. 6 Risk of overlaps and grey areas  Overlaps could exist, especially in new MS : mainly inside Axis 3 of RDP for non-agricultural activities, support to SMEs, basic services and local infrastructures  risk of the appearance of "grey areas" (projects tackled neither by one nor by the other fund, especially high in EUR-15): ERDF concentration on economic competitiveness of dynamic and urban poles EAFRD focus on agricultural competitiveness (Axis 3 dedicated to diversification of rural economies is on average just above the 10% minimum requirement

7. 7 The common guidance note  Guidance note adopted by DG REGIO, EMPL and AGRI Adoption in January 2007 for a better complementarity between funds at 3 stages: during NSRF/NSP negotiating phase thanks to a clear setting up of principles and operational coordination mechanisms between funds. during the design of OPs/RDPs, by checking demarcation criteria and grids. during the implementation of the OPs/RDPs, cross- participation on programme Monitoring Committees is encouraged.

8. 8 Recommandations of the note  ERDF concentration on job creation outside agriculture, access and connectivity between cities and rural areas, SME/SMI support, risk prevention basic infrastructure and services.  These domains correspond to the main overlapping/grey areas and address therefore correctly what is at stake.

9. 9 Examples of coordination mechanisms  Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany a single managing authority for all 3 programmes (ERDF,ESF and EAFRD), a common regional monitoring committee a common monitoring system.  Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Poland extensive joint representation in Coordinating Committees and in working groups The Ministry of Regional Development developed a detailed list which demarcates the types of intervention to be co-financed by the different EU Funds

10. 10 Main lessons drawn  Demarcation line/guiding note approach not sufficient by itself: ERDF assigned to a passive role (residual source of funding) stakeholders, MS and MA continue to call for a simplification (=end of dualism) of the system.  This "duplicated state of play" needs to be assessed as regards the opportunity costs of having 2 coexisting systems, the reality of the overlapping and grey zones' risks, the degree of real implementation of coordination mechanisms presented in OPs.  Ex post evaluation study launched by the evaluation unit in DG REGIO partially address these questions