Studies on macro-regional strategies Main conclusions of the studies and analysis carried out by Interact, discussion of 2020+ 27 March 2017 Central European Initiative, Trieste, Italy @InteractEU
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
Study on cooperation methods for the EUSBSR 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...
Misunderstandings regarding macro-regional cooperation The notion of contribution to macro-regional strategies has not been properly defined; 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. Conclusions
Recommendations 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. Conclusions
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 on cooperation methods for the EUSDR 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. Aim
Main tasks within the study 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. 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, structures or 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 Cooperation 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 provisions requiring 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 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; 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 examples for 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 macroregional 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 right momentum 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 macroregional 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 territorial cooperation 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)
Cooperation works www.interact-eu.net Contact: joerg.mirtl@interact-eu.net