Minutes of the 3 rd meeting. of the 'Stakeholder Dialogue' Working Group. under the Coordination Committee of the Funds. Barcelona, 27 and 28 May 2010

Transcription

1 Final version of 12/07/2010 COCOF 10/0010/01-EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Policy Coordination The Director Minutes of the 3 rd meeting of the 'Stakeholder Dialogue' Working Group under the Coordination Committee of the Funds Barcelona, 27 and 28 May 2010 Mr Rudolf Niessler (DG Regio, Director for policy coordination) opened the meeting and welcomed the delegations. First of all, he expressed the Commission thanks to the Spanish presidency for their valuable support in the organisation of the meeting and for the project visits. Mr Vincente Rodriguez Saez from the Spanish delegation presented the programme of the two day event. Then the Chairman continued with some preliminary remarks on: v the forthcoming adoption of the modifications of the General Regulation (late June) and the ERDF one (mid June); v the seminar "Train the trainers" to be held on 17 June with a special workshop on the simplified costs issue; v the new simplified format for Member States reporting, ready for the submission of the Annual Implementation Reports; v the meeting with the stakeholders, namely representatives of beneficiaries, to be held on 25 June, in the context of "better regulation" and the "action programme for reducing administrative burdens"; v the proposal to organise a peer review on gender streaming at the October COCOF meeting; v the discussion on the European Union Solidarity Fund foreseen at the June COCOF meeting on the basis of a questionnaire already sent to the Member States. On the latter, several Member States wondered if the Commission had already specific plans for discussion in the Council. In the meantime, some Member States expressed reservation on the idea to discuss this issue in a Committee dealing with cohesion policy. The Chairman indicated that given the lack of progress with its 2005 proposal, the Commission was currently reflecting on the best way forward. The discussion foreseen should identify possible margins for the improvement and the simplification of the implementation of the Solidarity Fund. A proposal for the modification of the Regulation could possibly be presented by the Commission. This has to be also discussed with the Presidency. The Chairman recalled

2 that the EUSF is under the responsibility of DG Regio and that for disaster recovery and reconstruction there were close links and possible complementarities of the Structural Funds and the EUSF. Moreover, the Structural Funds have an important role to play in supporting prevention actions. Finally, he apologised for the delay with which the documents were sent to delegates. Internal discussions in the preparation phase of these notes took time, even more than expected. However the rule of having a supplementary session of discussion would be applied if needed. 1. Approval of the draft Agenda: The draft agenda was approved without any modification. 2. Revised guidance note on eligibility of energy efficiency and renewable energies interventions under the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund ( ) in the building sector including housing: The revised guidance note was presented by Mrs Myrto Zorbala (DG Regio, Unit D1) with the support of a powerpoint available on Circa. It was explained that the objective of this revision was to align the note to the provisions Regulation (EC) No 397/2009 amending Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (ERDF) on the eligibility of energy efficiency and renewable energy interventions in the housing sector, and to the amendment of the General Regulation facilitating the use of the financial engineering instruments for energy efficiency and renewable energy in buildings, including existing housing. During the discussion, Member States expressed concerns as they considered that some recommendations went beyond the regulatory provisions. They wanted to avoid any legal problems because of optional requests. Finally, they asked for some clarifications, in particular on the table in annex and on the need to modify OPs. Mrs Zorbala replied that the Commission services did not want to go beyond the Regulation but tried to provide recommendations on the key issues related to this kind of interventions, including the use of codes. She insisted on the fact that Article 7.2 would not apply once Article 7.1.a would be entered into force. However previous energy investments in the housing sector decided under Article 7(2) would remain valid. In addition, there is no need for eligibility date if no OPs modification is foreseen. She explained that the purpose of the table in annex was to provide an overview of the evolution of this issue since the beginning of the programming period and of the current regulatory provisions, even if some of them are not covered by the guidance note itself. The Chairman thanked the delegations for their interventions and invited them to express 2

3 3. Revised guidance note on major projects / aid schemes and the automatic decommitment rule for the period : The revised guidance note was presented by Mrs Myrto Zorbala (DG Regio, Unit D1) with the support of a powerpoint available in the Circa database. This guidance note was presented and discussed in the COCOF in 2008 and already revised once in April 2009 to take into account the flexibility introduced by the Recovery Package launched by the Commission (i.e. possibility to declare expenditure before a MP is submitted to the Commission). This second revision is made in order to align the note to the amendments brought to the General Regulation (Article 94) that have repercussions on major projects. The scope of the revision is therefore limited to reflect the more flexible approach for the period of interruption of major projects. During the discussion, some Member States asked for clarification on the situation of projects which would not be major projects anymore after the adoption of the regulatory revision, on the modification of the state aid regime and on the implementation of the de-commitment rule. Mrs Angela Martinez Sarasola (DG Regio, Deputy Head of Unit D1) confirmed that no decision would be taken by the Commission for projects which would not be a major project. For the provisions of Article 39 and 94, it is the date of presentation which counts. Member States have to stop the procedure for projects which will be under the threshold of EUR 50 million. If there is a strong request from the Member State, the Commission could envisage an adoption referring to Article 94. Finally, no submission is possible before the entrance into force of the modification. Therefore Article 94 is not applicable. Mrs Zorbala indicated that there was no change for the state aids. For State Aids only tranches adopted before the decision are taken into consideration, while for Major projects the year of submission is taken into account for the de-commitment rule (N +2/N+3). The Chairman thanked the delegations for their interventions and invited them to express 4. Modification of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) N 1826/2006: The Chairman gave the floor to Mrs Lucie Zackova (DG Regio, Unit D1) and Mr Antonio Gonçalves (DG Regio, Deputy Head of Unit D3) to present this second modification of the Implementing Regulation with the support of a powerpoint available on Circa. Mrs Zackova recalled that the first modification entered into force in September 2009 and involved mainly the simplification measures stemming from the discussions in the Simplification Task force. This modification is necessary because of the changes made in the General and ERDF Regulations. Several implementing rules must therefore be adapted. This modification has two objectives: It is necessary to do textual adaptation in the several parts of the IR (Art. 43, 44 and 45), Annex XVIII, Annexes XX to XXII. In addition, the Commission considers necessary to clarify the rules regarding: the use of guarantees; 3

4 and as regards eligible expenditure in housing projects for marginalised communities following the modification of the ERDF Regulation. During the discussion, several issues were expressed by the Member States, such as the difficulty to implement the provisions of the new Article 46.a. as an ex-ante evaluation is not really applicable and market conditions are very changeable, the authority which would approve the methodology proposed, the compatibility of the use of guarantees with provisions already in place at national level and the opportunity to use the foreseen modification of Article 45 to improve provisions for enterprises. The Chairman indicated that the debate on Article 45 has evolved within the Commission services and with the Member States. However he is ready to discuss the line to take. As regards, Article 46.a, some similar provisions already existed in the previous programming period. Being eligible for reserves of loans guarantees is vital to tackle the negative impacts of the crisis. The pattern has drastically changed with the economic and financial crisis. There is no new obligation for operations already launched but there is a need to develop a common understanding for the purpose of guarantees. For that purpose, a provision is needed to make clear how funds dedicated to this measure will be managed. Mr Gonçalves mentioned that Article 46.a was dully justified with a view to avoid a "one to one approach" when setting-up guarantee funds. That would not be in line with market practice and not a reasonable practice neither. Guarantees are a form of insurance with a multiplying effect.. There is no specific provision foreseen for venture capital or micro-credit (already included). It was mentioned that the Jeremie Networking Platform will meet on 22 June. Under Article 43, a strategy for investment must exist covering targets, risk level, etc. A business plan has to be provided. Mr Vincenzo Baccaro (DG Regio, Unit B3) indicated that Article 44 of the General Regulation provides the legal basis for the proposal of Article 46.a. He recalled that it is not an eligibility rule and similar methodologies apply at national level. There is no retroactivity foreseen. On the risk assessment, there is no role for the Commission, and in particular to approve the methodology. Mr Gonçalves added that the value of guarantees at closure should correspond to loans really attributed to SMEs. He specified that no risk analysis would be made by the Commission at the closure. The risk assessment must be done by the managers of the guarantee funds. This assessment can be updated in the course of the programme implementation. At the request of some Member States, the Chairman confirmed that a specific session dedicated to this issue of guarantees would be added at the Jeremie Networking Platform meeting. He insisted on the fact that the Commission was perfectly aware of the differences in the market but this was not the role of the Commission to address this situation. The provision constitutes a very effective instrument. Mrs Zackova indicated that for the Annual Implementation Report via SFC 2007, columns a, b, c and d are the same. The implementation rate is calculated by the SFC 2007 system. The Chairman thanked the delegations for their active participation and invited them to express 4

5 5. Revised guidance note on major projects in the programming period : thresholds and contents of Commission decision: The revised version of the guidance note was presented by Mr Philippe Kaprielian (DG Regio, Unit D3) with the support of a powerpoint available on Circa. He pointed out the modifications of the note following the revision of the Regulation. During the discussion, Member States expressed comments such as the need to publish information on non-approved projects and the possibility to co-finance projects via several OPs. In particular, Member States expressed concern on the monitoring of environment projects between 25 and 50 million total cost. Mr Kaprielian indicated that the section on information to publish on environment projects between 25 and 50 million before their approval at national level could be revised following the MS comments and confirmed that annual implementation reports have to contain some information on the monitoring of these projects. Mrs Angela Martinez Sarasola (DG Regio, Deputy Head of Unit D1) added that the Commission significantly increased the resources available to JASPERS (Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions) by 25% from 2009 onwards, to help Member States in the EU 12 to prepare major projects. EIB agreed to increase its contribution to JASPERS by an equivalent percentage. However the Commission did not delegate the monitoring of major projects to JASPERS. The Chairman thanked the delegations for their interventions and invited them to express 6. Presentation of national strategic reports: The Chairman thanked the delegations of Ireland and Sweden for accepting invitation to present their national strategic report. - Irish Strategic Report: The Chairman gave the floor to Mr Barry Harrington from the EU Structural Funds Policy Unit of Department of Finance, to present the Irish Strategic Report (with the support of a powerpoint available on Circa). Mr Barry Harrington outlined how Ireland's National Strategic Report was prepared in accordance with Article 29 of General Regulation n 1083 of The Department of Finance convened a meeting with all relevant stakeholders to discuss the approach. Once a common approach was agreed a draft report was prepared and given to the Ireland Geographical Desk for comments and observations. Once all comments and observations were incorporated, the report was submitted in advance of the 31st of December deadline. The report illustrated the changed economic circumstances in Ireland since the NSRF was agreed in March Under the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective Ireland's total committed and incurred expenditure was 51.8% or million at 31/12/2009 with total declared to the European Commission of million or 21.8% as at 31/12/2009. The report outlines the modifications to the ERDF co-financed Border, Midlands and Western Operational Programme 5

6 and to the ESF co-financed Human Capital Investment Operational Programme. Three examples of good practice were cited, the ERDF co-financed National Broadband Scheme with an EU contribution of approx 36 million, ERDF co-financed Gateways and Hubs scheme which has an EU contribution of 28 million and an ESF co-financed Third Level Access Activity with an EU contribution of 9.5 million. Ireland's National Strategic report contains a chapter on the future of Cohesion Policy which outlines the need for simplification of the administrative burden, simplification and proportional financial management and control arrangements and the need for a concentration on the key objectives of the EU2020 strategy. Ireland's National Strategic report and other documents are available on: - Swedish Strategic Report: Then the Chairman gave the floor to Mr David Kallstrom from the ministry of enterprise, to present the main conclusions of the Swedish Strategic Report (with the support of a powerpoint available on Circa). Sweden is facing a rather low turn-out as regards new enterprises in a EU27 perspective. Furthermore, the job growth is low in a EU27 context. Sweden is facing challenges: cold climate, vast land with sparsely populated areas and long distances to internal markets. Under the NSRF SE has one national OP for ESF with eight regional plans and eight regional OPs for the ERDF. Both ESF and ERDF cover the whole country. The largest share of the funds is devoted to the 3 northern regions. SE is also a partner country in the European territorial cooperation. We participate in six cross-border, three trans-regional and four transnational programmes. Sweden has a total envelope of approx Meuro from the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF). As an example, one quantified objective in the eight regional OPs (ERDF) is to create new jobs. Sweden has several tools to facilitate the learning process in the implementation. One example is the on-going evaluation. Conclusions from the evaluators: The overall picture is that the implementation of the eight regional OPs as a whole follows the intentions and the objectives of the programmes. 7. Presentation of the modification of the comitology rules after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty: Mr Bruno Cassette (DG Regio, Unit D1) made a powerpoint presentation available on Circa with the purpose to present an overview of the similarities and innovations from the past period under the comitology decision of He mentioned that further discussions would come in the COCOF as once the new regulation on implementing acts will be adopted (probably early next year), the Committee will have to adapt its own rules of procedure accordingly. As there was no other point on the Agenda, the Chairman thanked the Member States for their active participation in the meeting and invited them to the next meeting to be held on 29 and 30 June in Brussels. He closed the meeting. * * * 6

7 8. Sites visit: On 28 May, the delegates as well as the services of the Commission visited two projects cofinanced by the European Union in the Technological Park of the Mediterranean in Barcelona: Institute of Photonic Science (ICFO): The "Institut de Ciències Fotòniques" (ICFO) is an independent, non-profit, permanent research center established by the Government of Catalonia, Department of Universities and Research, and by the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. ICFO was launched in March 2002, with the mission to conduct wide-scope, basic and applied research in several branches of the Sciences and Technologies of Light, at the highest international level. ICFO is a young, fast growing research institution that aims at advancing the limits of scientific and technological knowledge in optical sciences. One of ICFO's main missions is to train PhD students through courses, seminars, accessibility to cutting-edge experimental infrastructures, and the tutorage of researchers that are among the best in the world in their field. This training addressed to talented students will equip them with unique capabilities that will help them become future leaders, either in the academic or in the industrial world. When at full size, the centre will employ more than 300 people and occupy about 9000m 2. It s located in the Technological Park of the Mediterranean, in Castelldefels. The ICFO will receive EUR 8,85 million since the programming period. Technological Center of Telecommunications of Catalonia (CTTC): The "Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya" (CTTC) is a non-profit research center, with a professional scientific management, a critical mass of researchers and projects, real possibilities of growing and establishing durable links with the industrial and business sectors, and the capacity of driving technological projects, both national and international. The CTTC started its activities in December 2001 as the first research institute and technology center in Spain devoted to physical layer technologies for communications systems. It s located in the Technological Park of the Mediterranean, in Castelldefels. The CTTC has received EUR 5.05 million in the programming period. The scientific activity of CTTC focuses on five research areas oriented to the major transport technologies for digital communications. Wireless communications, Optical Networking, Access Technologies, Communications Subsystems and IP Technologies areas face the current major research trends in wired, optical and wireless communications systems. Presentations of these projects are available in the Circa database. * * * * * 7