Development of CPMR proposals for post-2020 Cohesion policy Eurocities meeting 26.04.2017

1. Development of CPMR proposals for post-2020 Cohesion policyEurocities meeting26.04.2017 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 • JunePolitical Bureau (Rogaland, NO): CPMR position on post-2020 Cohesion Policy • October/November (Helsinki, FI): Analysis / Reaction to 7th Cohesion Report CPMR Cohesionpolicy meeting (Core Group) 16 May: discussion withEric Von Breska, Director for DG REGIO 6 discussion groups to feed in to JuneCohesion 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 InstrumentsLead region: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern • Will bemostlikelystrengthened for the post-2020Cohesionpolicy • Best approachis constructive!: • Financial instruments best suited to particularsectors (i.e. innovation, low-carboneconomy) • No targetsfor financial instruments at programme level • Need for furthercapacity building

6. Cohesionpolicy and EFSILead region: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern EFSI extendeduntil 2020… and mostlikely post-2020, soneed for constructive approach!: • Defineclearroles and boundariesbetween the twopolicies and opportunities for combination • Adressunevenplayingfieldbetween EFSI / Cohesionpolicy (e.g state aids) • Streamlined communication for EFSI and Cohesion Policy

7. SimplificationLead 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 CooperationLead region: Dutch provinces • Better articulation between three strands • More alignmentbetween programme area priorities and macroregional and sea basin strategies • Single set of rules and processfor ETC programmes • Needs-basedapproachto definethematicpriorities • Transitional cooperation programme between UK and EU Member States

9. Partnership and MLGLead region: Västra-Götaland Pillar of Cohesionpolicy! Advanced in development: • Timelyadoption of legislation • Improvingquality of ‘informal’ involvementof partners • ERDF fundingimplemented at regionallevel • Improvealignmentstrategic documents Possibilities for the future: • Ex ante conditionalityto strengthenrole of the Commission guardingpartnership? • Positive incentives or ‘carrots’: i.e. benchmarking, awards for best partnerhsip, etc.?

10. European Social FundLead 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 clearthat all regionswillbesupported in the future... • Ideagainingground: single category of regionsfor post-2020? • Pros: • Guaranteedcoverage for all Europeanregions • Simpler and more transparent • 2. Link with EU semester • A main priority for the European Commission • CPMR position: weacceptrelationship and wantit to be positive and constructive • Scenarios: • Cohesionpolicyfullysupporting Country SpecificRecommendations • - Cohesion Policy couldbeused as a ‘carrot’ to deliverrecommendations and carry out structural reforms

13. Cohesion policy eligibility projections

14. 3. Flexibility Elusive concept… differentmeanings Differentpossibilities to explore: • A single fund? • A single set of rules for all ESI funds? • A flexibilityreserve for managingauthorities? 4. More simplification… Some issues related to simplification needfutherreflection • Differentiation in the management, audit and control? • and if so, basedon whichcriteria?

15. 5. Territorial dimension • Specificproposals to betterlink Article 174 to Cohesion Policy (islands) • Defendingspecificinterests of outermostregions (article 349) and NorthernSparselyPopulated Areas

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