Main conclusions of the studies and analysis carried out by Interact, discussion of 2020+
27 March 2017 | Central European Initiative, Trieste, Italy
@InteractEU
Studies onmacro-regional strategies
Studies referred to in this presentation
• study ‘Cooperation methods and tools applied by European Structural and Investment Funds programmes for 2014-2020 to support implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region’, 2015
• study ‘Cooperation methods and tools applied by EU funding programmes to support implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region’, 2017
• study ‘Added value of macro-regional strategies: collecting practice examples’, 2016
Content
Cooperation methods and tools
Cooperation methods and tools applied by ESIF programmes for 2014-2020 to support implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
Interact, 2015
• The study was aiming at analysing
methods and tools foreseen for
cooperation within pre-selected ESI Funds
programmes to support implementation of
the EUSBSR
• The study was launched in Oct 2014 and
implemented until June 2015
• 18 programmes were analysed:
– national and regional programmes, and
one Interreg programme;
– programmes covering all 8 MS of the
Baltic Sea Region;
– programmes covering all ESI Funds
Study on cooperation
methods for the EUSBSR
...
Misunderstandings regarding macro-regional
cooperation
Conclusions
• The notion of ‘contribution to macro-regional strategies’ has not been properlydefined;
• Cooperation and coordination are not seen needed to contribute to the EUSBSR;
• Cooperation is mostly interpreted as implying ‘joint implementation’ and
therefore largely dismissed;
• Expectation that the cooperation should emerge bottom-up;
• The EUSBSR is perceived as a topic for Interreg;
• ESIF programmes have not foreseen changing their working methods;
• Contribution to the EUSBSR mainly indirect;
• Low involvement and dialogue with the EUSBSR actors;
• Programmes focus on their programme area, not beyond.
Recommendations
Conclusions
• Clarify what macro-regional cooperation should be about and its specific features
and added-value;
• Make the EUSBSR more concrete and action-oriented in collaboration with ESIF
programmes;
• Improve capacity of ESIF programmes to design and implement strategic
actions; work to change methods, raise awareness;
• Create preconditions for diverse types of cooperation and support development;
• Establish complementarities of different ESIF programmes and other funds;
• Engage a reflection on how ESIF programmes can relate to shared BSR
challenges and opportunities;
• Initiate a discussion on possible future changes in the architecture of ESI Funds
and Interreg.
Cooperation methods and tools
Cooperation methods and tools applied by EU funding programmes to support implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region
Interact, March 2017
• Study is focusing on analysing methods and tools foreseen for cooperation within pre-selected EU programmes to support implementation of the EUSDR (and partly the EUSAIR)
• Study was launched in 2016 and to be finalised in March 2017
• 23 EU funding programmes were analysed:
– national and regional programmes (ESIF), Interreg, IPA II (candidate countries) and ENI (neighbourhood countries);
– programmes covering 13 countries.
Study on cooperation methods for the EUSDR
Aim
• Task 1: describe programmes and
relevant strategic programming
documents for the ESIF (Partnership
Agreements) and for IPA II / ENI;
• Task 2: be in dialogue with programme
MAs to see actual methods and tools
applied;
• Task 3: summarise analysis of above
tasks and come up with the
recommendations for improvement.
Main tasks within the study
Tasks
The EUSDR and EUSAIR in the Partnership
Agreements
• Most Partnership Agreements describe the role of macro-regional cooperation
in the EUSDR / EUSAIR adequately or extensively. There is only one weak
description;
• All Partnership Agreements foresee specific country-wide approaches for
coordination, cooperation or exchange on the EUSDR and EUSAIR;
• The EUSDR- and EUSAIR-related approaches are frequently embedded into
the wider domestic arrangements set up for ensuring coordination between
the ESIF and other relevant policies, strategies or instruments at Union or
national level;
• The EUSDR- and EUSAIR-related approaches are described at different levels
of detail: three Partnership Agreements include extensive descriptions,
whereas the others describe these approaches either adequately or weakly.
Partnership
Agreements
Consideration of the EUSDR / EUSAIR during the
programme preparation
• Macro-regional cooperation was well taken into account during programme
preparation phase;
• 20 out of the 23 programmes considered the EUSDR / EUSAIR either
extensively or adequately during the process;
• 20 out of the 23 programmes involved relevant national or regional EUSDR- and
EUSAIR-stakeholders either intensively or adequately in the process;
• However, there is no evidence that other important networks, structuresor initiatives from the EUSDR or EUSAIR were directly or indirectly involved in
the programme elaboration.
EUSDR: International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, Danube Commission, Central European Initiative, Energy Community, Regional Co-
operation Council.
EUSAIR: Adriatic-Ionian Initiative, the Forum of the Adriatic and Ionian Chambers of Commerce and the Adriatic Ionian Euroregion.
Programme preparation
Programme strategies and their contribution to
the EUSDR or EUSAIR
• Majority of the programmes fully or largely comply with regulatory provisionsrequiring to set out their contribution to the EUSDR and EUSAIR or to be coherent
with these strategies;
• Most of the national or regional ESIF programmes (i.e. 14 out of 18 programmes)
and also the five cooperation programmes under ETC, IPA II and ENI have
described their contribution to the EUSDR or EUSAIR either extensively or
adequately:
o Most national or regional ESIF programmes envisage focused contributions
(i.e. 15 out of 18 programmes) - contributions address only some pillars and
a few of the related priority areas or topics of the EUSDR and EUSAIR Action
Plans;
o All ETC, IPA II and ENI cooperation programmes envisage wide
contributions: this means that their contributions address most pillars and
also a larger number of the related priority areas set out by the EUSDR
Action Plan.Programme strategies
Weak inclusion of macro-regional cooperation
under priority axes & investment priorities
• Only five national or regional ESIF programmes use interregional or
transnational actions with beneficiaries located in other Member States
explicitly for supporting macro-regional cooperation in the EUSDR or EUSAIR;
• Substantial references to the EUSDR and EUSAIR and/or concrete examplesfor specific macro-regional actions are only found in six programmes;
• Only seven programmes included specific provisions into their “guiding
principles for a selection of operations” that support macro-regional
cooperation (e.g. preferential treatment, allocation of additional points, specific
calls for proposals).
Priority Axes and IPs
Programme level coordination, cooperation and
exchange
• 12 programmes do not foresee additional processes. They are embedded into
existing national coordination structures on the EUSDR or EUSAIR, linked to a
country’s general ESIF arrangements;
• Six programmes have set up additional processes for coordination, cooperation
and dialogue/exchange on the EUSDR or EUSAIR, in general focusing on their
respective domestic context;
• One programme is included into an additional country-wide and ERDF-specific
approach supporting macro-regional cooperation in the EUSDR (i.e. ERDF
Programme Austria).
• Four German regional ESIF-programmes in Baden-Württemberg and Bayern are
o embedded into comprehensive Land-level coordination arrangements set up for ensuring an effective and efficient implementation of the EUSDR,
o also connected to a vertical process of cooperation and information exchange on the EUSDR between the regional and federal government level.
Coordination
Conclusions - weaknesses
• Provisions on macro-regional strategies in the EU regulations for the period
2014-2020 were not very helpful;
• Many programmes have a substantial gap in their EUSDR- or EUSDR-related
intervention logic;
• Often lacking or inadequate guidance / assistance provided to bottom-up
initiated operations supporting an implementation of the EUSDR or EUSAIR;
• Little use of monitoring and evaluation activities for determining programme
contributions to the EUSDR or EUSAIR;
• Little use of communication activities for raising awareness on the EUSDR or
EUSAIR;
• Partially lacking involvement of national EUSDR/EUSAIR stakeholders in the
ongoing work of programmes;
• Little cooperation and information exchange with administrations or EU
programmes in other Member States or non-EU countries;
• One half of the EU funding programmes achieved a low degree of embedding,
but many of these have potentials for reaching a medium degree.
Conclusions of the study - strengths
• All programmes realise together a wide range of actions that ensure a
comprehensive embedding of the EUSDR and EUSAIR;
• A majority of programmes involved national EUSDR/EUSAIR stakeholders in
their elaboration and set out a coherent contribution to the EUSDR / EUSAIR;
• One third of the programmes “earmarked” parts of their funding for the EUSDR
or EUSAIR;
• Most programmes are actively increasing their own awareness of the EUSDR or
EUSAIR;
• Solid support for an implementation of the EUSDR or EUSAIR through
coordination, cooperation and information exchange;
• Encouraging dynamic developments on some embedding themes (preferential
treatment of EUSDR- or EUSAIR-relevant operations in the selection process;
specific approaches for supporting the EUSDR or EUSAIR; programme-level
coordination, cooperation and exchange of information activities);
• One half of the examined EU funding programmes achieved a high or medium
degree of embedding
Added value of macro-
regional strategies
Added value of macro-regional strategies: collecting practice examples
Interact, 2016
Study on Added value of macro-regional
strategies
• Macro-regional strategies can be driving forces for change if the rightmomentum is achieved
• Macro-regional cooperation can occur independently of the macro-regional
strategies
• Projects and programmes are usually not aware of the macro-regional strategies
• Better capitalisation of project results is the most tangible benefit macro-
regional strategies bring to projects and programmes
• Macro-regional strategies offer a strategic framework for projects and
programmes to define priorities
• Macro-regional strategies need to be positioned stronger in the territorialcooperation arena and beyond
• The future of the macro-regional strategies is a shared responsibility of all its
key implementers
Conclusions
Added values of macro-regional strategies
throughout the project cycle Figure 1. Added values of
macro-regional strategies
throughout the project cycle
Added values of macro-regional strategies for
funding programmes
• Facilitating inter-sectorial programming
• Easier consensus in defining programme priorities
• Strategic orientation for prioritisation of thematic areas and areas of common
needs
• Easier alignment of funding to make stronger effect
• Easier alignment of thematic and specific objectives of ESIF programmes and
for ESIF implementation partnerships
• Dissemination and communication
• Better and easier coordination
• Synergies and coordination with similar networks in other MS and regions
Conclusions
Added values of macro-regional strategies for
funding programmes
• Organisation of thematic networks and partnerships across macro-region
• Easier for ESIF programmes to show and document evidence that contributed to
desired socioeconomic changes
• Efficient dissemination of projects and programmes results, lessons learnt, new
solutions and good practices
• More effective communication of project activities and results, better overview
of project results and benefits, better overview of projects and on-going
processes within specific thematic fields
Conclusions
Conclusions & needs
Some reflections…
1. Need for a clarification of responsibilities and tasks is needed in order to make
the Strategies successful, especially the role of thematic coordinators.
2. Need for clarification of the concept of what macro-regional strategy really
means research?
3. Need for embedding MRS in sectoral policies in order to strengthen MRS also
a stop-down and not only bottom-up process legislative framework
4. Need for a common understanding that strategies are long-term endeavours
and not a duplication of existing programmes (governance of strategies)
5. Need to understand MRS as drivers of institutional reform and challenges to
existing institutional patterns (change is incremental)
6. Need to understand that strategies are implemented with strategic
uncertainty and within experimentalist approaches, i.e. failures and
misalignments are essential for learning and for the design of future
strategies
Some considerations…
• Throughout the studies and experiences, it has become clear that MRS
need to be considered to a more significative extent in the upcoming
legislative provisions, both inside and outside the ESIF regulations.
• In the long run, if MRS need to be enshrined in the regulations, future
strategies become ever more relevant (to include all EU-MS in MRS).
• European integration is based upon a supranational order with laws,
institutions, and funds (ESF right after Treaty of Rome), all of which MRS
are missing.
• However, integration has always been based upon ’informal’
institutions, a pattern that MRS can grasp and thereby work as a
catalyst in
European integration and enlargement (wider vs. deeper Union)
Politicizing social, territorial and economic cohesion (role of MFAs
and regions? – MLG - Europeanisation)
• MRS implementation is an institutional change that requires time
Quality of
Governance inside
the EU – compared
to outside the EU
(Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., and
Lapuente, V. (2014), ‘Regional
Governance Matters. Quality of
Government within European Union
Member States’, Regional Studies,
48/1: 68–90, , p. 71)
Top Related