L42 the future of structural funds 2014


Published on

Presentation on the New EU Funding Programme 2014-2020

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

L42 the future of structural funds 2014

  1. 1. Session 4/2 The Future of Structural Funds 2014-2020 Patrick Willcocks Visiting Teaching Fellow School of Business
  2. 2. Stop Press https://audioboo.fm/boos/1950241-eu-commissioner-influx-ofromanians-and-bulgarians-not-a-reality http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-industrial-renaiss/eu-eyessofter-climate-policies-news-533721 http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-industrial-renaiss/eu-triesrevert-de-industrialisa-news-533704 http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-enablingtechnolog/kroes-future-going-grow-roses-news-533725 http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/usage-data-illustratesfailure-e-news-533586
  3. 3. Objectives By the end of this session you should understand – The lead up to the new programme – The focus of the new Programme 2014-2020 – The main geographical foci – Including Resources – Strategic Direction – The UK direction
  4. 4. KEY BACKGROUND WORK • The Barca Report 2009 ● EU2020 ● launch 2010 5th Cohesion Report 2010
  5. 5. The Barca Report 2009 need for significant change - primarily place based - more strategic direction - concentration of limited priorities - more evaluation/output related - transitional regions
  6. 6. Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion ‘Cohesion policy should continue to play a critical role in these difficult times, in order to deliver smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, while promoting harmonious development of the Union and its regions by reducing regional disparities.‟
  7. 7. Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion KEY RESULTS  Reinforcing Strategic Programming  Increasing thematic concentration  Strengthening performance through conditionality  Improving evaluation  New financial instruments
  8. 8. Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion KEY RESULTS  Reinforcing partnership  Reducing Administrative burden  Architecture of Cohesion Policy
  9. 9. LOBBYING
  10. 10. LOBBYING 1. Compulsory urban earmarking in the mainstream programmes. r 2. Tackling the realities in all our cities 3. Cities at the table: strengthening multi-level governance beyond the regions 4. Thematic concentration supporting new partnerships 5. Financial engineering to design instruments with direct access for cities 6. Conditionality: keeping it urban and integrated
  11. 11. THE NEW PROGRAMME  Agreed budget  Regulations for the whole programme  Regulations for ERDF  Regulations for ESF  Regulations for the Cohesion Fund
  12. 12. THE NEW PROGRAMME – How the Commission Sees it – 10 key elements Appropriate levels of investment in the regions 2. Targeted growth 3. Accountability and results 4. Pre-conditions for funding 5. Coordinated action 6. Simplification of procedures 7. Expanded urban dimension 8. Cross-border cooperation 9. Consistency and coherence 10. Financial instruments 1.
  14. 14. THE NEW PROGRAMME Three main geographies Less Developed Regions – equivalent to Convergence  Transition Regions – these are NEW  More Developed Regions – equivalent to Competitiveness Plus  Cohesion Fund  Territorial Co-operation 
  15. 15. How will funding be allocated?
  16. 16. The New Progamme – ERDF and ESF Allocations
  17. 17. More coherent use of available EU funds The Golden Thread 2007-2013 2014-2020 Lisbon Agenda EU2020 Regulations Regulations Community Strategic Guidelines Common Strategic Framework National Strategic Ref Frame Partnership Contract Operational Programmes Operational Programmes WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? │ 19
  18. 18. The Golden Thread WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? EU2020 Far more detailed than Lisbon strategy – 7 flagship programmes underneath each with targets Common Strategic Framework Co-ordinates ERDF, ESF EAGFF etc – one set of rules Partnership Contract Much more detailed than the NSRF,. With national targets and meeting key areas as outlined in the National Reform Programme Operational Programmes More focussed, ex ante conditions – e.g.need smart specialisation strategy │ 20
  19. 19. A menu of thematic objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. │ 21 Research & innovation Information and communication technologies (ICT) Competitiveness of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) Shift towards a low-carbon economy Climate change adaptation & risk prevention and management
  20. 20. A menu of thematic objectives cont. 6. Environmental protection & resource efficiency 7. Sustainable transport & removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures 8. Employment & supporting labour mobility 9. Social inclusion & combating poverty 10.Education, skills & lifelong learning 11.Institutional capacity building & efficient public administrations
  21. 21. Concentrating resources to maximise impact Concentration of ERDF and ESF │ 23
  22. 22. European Social Fund (ESF) 2007-2013 2014-2020 Share of ESF within Cohesion Policy budget 25% 22% Of total Structural Fund support (ERDF & ESF), ESF will represent:  25 % in less developed regions  40 % in transition regions  52 % in more developed regions │ 24
  23. 23. Ex Ante Conditionality - Smart Specialisation – new mantra
  24. 24. Smart Specialisation – new mantra  The European Commission wants national and regional authorities across Europe to draw up research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation.  Smart specialisation means identifying the unique characteristics and assets of each country and region, highlighting each region’s competitive advantages, and rallying regional stakeholders and resources around an excellence-driven vision of their future.  It also means strengthening regional innovation systems, maximising knowledge flows and spreading the benefits of innovation throughout the entire regional economy.
  25. 25. Smart Specialisation – new mantra RATIONALE  To develop and implement strategies for economic transformation  To respond to economic and societal challenges  To make regions more visible to international investors  To improve a region‟s internal and external connections  To avoid overlaps and replication in development strategies  To accumulate a „critical mass‟ of resources  To promote knowledge spillover and technological diversification
  26. 26. European Social Fund (ESF) Fully in line with the Europe 2020 strategy  Promoting employment & supporting labour mobility  Investing in education, skills & life-long learning  Promoting social inclusion & combating poverty  Enhancing institutional capacity & efficient public administration │ 28
  27. 27. European Social Fund (ESF) Reinforced social dimension  20 % of ESF allocations for social inclusion  Greater emphasis on fighting youth unemployment  Mainstreaming & specific support for gender equality & non-discrimination │ 29
  28. 28. Simplification Common rules - funds covered by Common Strategic Framework  Cohesion Policy, rural development and maritime & fisheries policy Option of multi-fund programmes  ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund │ Streamlined delivery system  Harmonised rules on eligibility and durability  Greater use of simplified costs  Linking payments with results  e-Cohesion: “one stop shop” for beneficiaries  Proportional approach to control 30
  29. 29. Reinforcing Territorial Cohesion Focus on sustainable urban development  At least 5 % of ERDF resources – expectation that decision making is devolved down Creation of urban development platform  Networking between cities and exchanges on urban policy Innovative actions for sustainable urban development  Subject to a ceiling of 0.2 % of the annual funding │ Areas with specific natural or demographic features  Additional allocation for outermost & sparsely populated regions 31
  30. 30. An investment-oriented policy Promoting the use of innovative financing instruments  Extending scope to all areas of investment  Clearer regulatory framework  10 % bonus for innovative financing instruments & community-led development  A range of options offering flexibility to programme managers Maximum co-financing rates  75-85 % in less developed and outermost regions  60 % in transition regions  │ 32 50 % in more developed regions
  31. 31. New Partnership Delivery Mechanisms „The multiple challenges confronting Europe – economic, environmental and social – show the need for an integrated and territorial place-based approach to deliver an effective response.‟ Integrated Territorial Investment Community-Led Local Development
  32. 32. New Partnership Delivery Mechanisms – Integrated Territorial Investment
  33. 33. Cohesion Fund – much the same Supports Member States with GNI/capita < 90 % of EU27 average Investing in environment  Climate change adaptation and risk prevention  Water and waste sectors  Biodiversity including through green infrastructures  Urban environment  Low carbon economy Investing in transport  Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T)  Low-carbon transport systems and urban transport │ 35
  34. 34. The New Progamme – Cohesion Fund Allocations
  35. 35. Role of Partnership Contract/Agreement An Agreement between member state and EC  Outlining the issues that need tackling  The number of Operational Programmes (regional/National)  The broad types of intervention  The governance arrangements (including delegation)  Ex ante Conditions  The outputs/targets Draft Bulgarian Partnership Agreement
  36. 36. What’s the Impact in the UK  Less Developed Regions  Transition Regions  More Developed regions  Cross Border Co-operation  Transnational Co-operation  Youth Employment Initiative  Total €2,4bn € 2.6bn € 5.8bn € 0.6bn € 0.25bn € 0.2bn € 11,8bn
  37. 37. UK REGIONS
  38. 38. What’s the UK’s thoughts  Consultation on developing ideas  Working on the draft partnership contract at the moment – been ongoing for over 12 months  Are refusing to consult on draft partnership contract document  Will be consulting on the Operational Programmes (OPs)  Will be England ERDF and ESF OPs
  39. 39. HMG’s GROWTH PROGRAMME ORGANISING PRINCIPLES Complex EU funds packaged as a coherent and consistent programme National and local priorities aligned Variable geographies BETTER FOCUS HIGHER IMPACT Local decision making and drive Common A single set of standards and INCREASED targets and transparent GROWTH milestones accountabilities across England EU regulatory Lower cost & requirements simplifies met and financial administration risk minimised
  40. 40. INITIAL DELIVERY ARRANGEMENTS THOUGHTS NOTE THIS IS ENGLAND ONLY Growth Programme (ERDF, ESF & EAFRD) Rural Development Programme (EAFRD) Co-financing Organisations Local Growth Teams LEPs Community Led Local Development, including Leader and FLAGs Projects Maritime and Fisheries Programme (EMFF)
  41. 41. Role of Local Enterprise Partnerships  There are no regional organisations left to deliver the funds (except London)  So national ERDF and ESF programmes are proposed  Every LEP is putting forward its overall strategy and its European funding strategy  Some LEP‟s might want ITI‟s but CLG against  Namely Core Cities, London and Cornwall?
  42. 42. Timetable from Now      Draft Partnership Agreement submitted to EC Hopefully to be agreed shortly Drafting Operational programmes – Consulting in April 2014 Hope to be agreed autumn of 2014 But currently behind schedule
  43. 43. Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Draft submitted October 7th 2013 Final version January 31st 2014 Awaiting comments from BIS/DCLG £238m allocation (plus £19m YEI) Chosen 6 priorities • Innovation and R&D £30m • Stimulating Business and Enterprise £45m • Low Carbon and Resilient Places £35m • Promoting Employment and Mobility £36.5m • Promoting Social Inclusion and Employability £36.5m • Skills for Growth and Entrepreneurship £36,5m
  44. 44. Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
  45. 45. GREATER BIRMINGHAM AND SOLIHULL LEP ISSUES A Complicated Picture • Straddling a transition and a more developed region • A young partnership with little history of working together • Want an ITI –i.e. delegated powers but CLG not keen • Trying to co-ordinated with neighbouring LEPS • Overlap LEP issues
  46. 46. Role of LEPs - Issues
  47. 47. Role of Local Enterprise Partnerships Issues  Many more LEPs than regions so may be difficult to deliver – might not be cheaper  These are not full partnerships – made up of businesses and local authorities – will need to bring in further partners – partnership principle  Seeking to write the national Ops on the basis of 39 LEP plans – how is this possible
  48. 48. Role of Local Enterprise Partnerships Issues • Co-ordination of national policy say on Smart Specialisation with LEP based work will be problematic • Disagreement with the Commission over LEPs – over the issue of delegated powers. • Many LEPs lacking in expertise and resources to deliver these programmes
  49. 49. Conclusions  Clear that new funding programmes offers – Greater Simplification – Greater focus on key priorities – Greater co-ordination between funds – Still significant funds for the UK – More devolved delivery proposed – but uncertain how it will work in the UK