European Territorial Cohesion and regions with geographic specificities

1. European Territorial Cohesionand regionswith geographic specificities Brussels, 08/12/2011 Sabrina Lucatelli DG REGIO – Policy Analyst Unit C2 Urban Development, Territorial Cohesion

2. European Territorial Cohesionand the Islands • Policy contexte • Four key areas for fostering Territorial Cohesion • A reinforced territorial approach … • The Cohesion Policy regulation proposals

3. Policy context • LisbonTreaty: Territorial Cohesion as sharedcompetence of EU and MS • Art 174: « …particular attention shallbepaid to (…) regionswhichsufferfromsevere and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmostregions (…) and island, cross-border and mountainregions» • Green paper on Territorial Cohesion • Future Cohesionpolicy: 5th report on Cohesion • EU Parliament – Intergroup on Mountains, Islands, SparselypopulatedRegions • Territorial Agenda 2020 • New EC RegulationsProposals

4. Geographical and demographic specificity does not necessarily constitute a problem in itself • Statistics suggest that these territories are far from being homogeneous • Majority of respondents to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion refused an automatic attribution of additional support • Elements like good governance, integrated territorial development and making the best use of the region's own territorial capital are considered crucial elements for successful territorial cohesion

5. 5th report on Cohesion • Territorial Cohesionreinforces: • Access to services • Broadband, health, education, banking… • Environmental sustainability • Climate change, renewable energy, environmental protection • Functional geographies • Metropolitan, remote rural regions, mountain regions • Territorial analysis • At NUTS 3, LAU2 and grid level (ESPON, Urban Audit, Urban Atlas …) • In some cases geographical or demographicfeatureintensifydevelopmentproblems. (…) It willbenecessary to developtargeted provisions (…), withoutmultiplying instruments and programmes

6. Results of the Public Consultation on the Cohesion Policy • Many contributors put the emphasis on promoting territories with particular characteristics, especially those facing specific geographical and demographic challenges • Some Member Countries called for a greater role for cohesion policy for supporting rural areas and urban-rural linkages • A large majority of contributors welcomed the idea of extending the common strategic framework to different funds • Many drew attention to the common objectives of Cohesion funds (ESF and ERDF), the European Agricultural Funds for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)

7. EC Proposals for 2014-2010 Cohesion Policy: Objectives • Deliver the Europe 2020 strategy objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth • Focus on results • Maximise the impact of EU funding

8. Proposed EU budget 2014-2020 "Ambitious but realistic" proposals issued by the Commission in June 2011 for a Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 926 millions extra allocation for outmost regions and specific territories Cohesion Policy 33% (€336 billion) Other policies (agriculture, research, external,…) 63% (649 billion) Connecting Europe Facility 4% (€40 billion)

9. Common Strategic Framework Partnership Contract More coherent use of available EU funds Operational Programmes • Coherence with National Reform Programmes • Coordination: cohesion policy, rural development, maritime + fisheries funds • Objectives and indicators to measure progress towards Europe 2020 targets • Effectiveness: introduction of a performance framework • Efficiency: reinforcement of administrative capacity

10. A Reinforced Territorial approach • The CSF identifies: • key territorial challenges (urban, rural, coastal and areas with particular features etc.) • priority areas for cooperation (taking into account macro regional and sea basin strategies) • coordination mechanisms among the CSF funds and with other relevant Union policies and instruments

11. Territorial approach • The Partnership Contract sets out an integrated approach to territorial development including: • the mechanisms at national and regional level that ensure coordination between the CSF Funds and other Union and nationalfunding instruments and with the EIB • the arrangements to ensure an integrated approach to the use of the CSF Funds for the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features • a list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development are to be implemented and an indicative annual allocation for these actions at national level • an integrated approach to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or of target groups at highest risk of discrimination or exclusion, with special regard to marginalised communities, where appropriate, including the indicative financial allocation for the relevant CSF Funds

12. Territorial approach • The operational programme should set out its contribution to the integrated territorial approach defined in the PC including: • the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, theEAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national fundinginstruments, • a planned integrated approach to the territorialdevelopment of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areaswith particular territorial features; • the list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urbandevelopment will be implemented; • the identification of the areas in which community-led localdevelopment will be implemented; • the arrangements for interregional and transnational actions; • where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventionstowards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies; • contribution to the integrated approach to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affectedby poverty or target groups at highest risk of discrimination or exclusion.

13. Integrated programming and delivery (1) • Territorial programming – defining programme areas to address territorial needs, functional geographies Integration through: • Joint programming – integrated planning and development of programmes under cohesion policy and other EU and national instruments • Multi-fund programmes – operational programmes combining ERDF and ERDF (and CF) to facilitate joint planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation • Cross-financing – not a territorial element, but can facilitate implementation where moderate intervention from ESF or ERDF would be needed to complement the main investment

14. Integrated planning and delivery (2) • Community-led local development – facilitates the implementation of bottom up local development initiatives financed from several EU instruments (elaborated LEADER approach) – option for ERDF, ESF, compulsory for EAFRD, EMFF • Integrated territorial investment – a delivery mode,which entails the implementation of parts of several priority axis as a “bundle” to ensure integrated territorial investment – option for ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund

15. Community led local development Community led bottom-up local development: • A focus on specific sub-regional territories: can be urban, rural, coastal, cross-border etc, but must be implemented by the local community; • requires balanced representation of all interests in the local action group – cannot be implemented by the municipality alone; • Is based on sub-regional and multi-sectoral local development strategies selected jointly under the responsibility of the relevant managing authorities; • can be financed from several EU instruments in parallel; • where several EU instruments are used, management costs can be covered from the “lead Fund” only; “lead Fund” will be designated depending on the activities foreseen and the area in question; • local development groups take over some of the tasks of the MA -project selection under the local development strategy

16. Integrated Territorial Investment • Can be used when an urban development strategy or other territorial strategy requires integrated investment under more than one priority axis or operational programme • Envisages that parts of the priority axes identified will be implemented in a joint manner – this can involve the delegation of implementation tasks to a local government and NGO or another entity • Unlike community-led local development ITI: • can be implemented top-down; • can be implemented by the MA, a single local government (e.g. city) or other entity – no community involvement required • OP should identify the ITIs planned and set out an indicative financial allocation for each ITI

17. Art 10 of regulation proposal on specific provisionconcerning European Regional Development Fund • Operational programmes co-financed by ERDF covering areas with severe and permanent handicaps: • Islands Member States eligible under Cohesion Fund, and other islands except those on which the capital of a Member State is situated or which have a fixed link in the mainland; • Mountains areas as defined by the national legislation of the Member State; • Sparsely (less than 50 inhabitants per square kilometre) and very sparsely (less than 8 inhabitants per square kilometre) populated areas shall pay particular attention to addressing the specific difficulties of those areas

18. Specificities for territorial development in ETC programmes A) Content of Cooperation programmes: a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No./2012 where appropriate; B) Community local development: Possibility in cross border programmes C) Integrated territorial investment, Art. 10 ETC regulation Intermediate body designated to carry out the management and implementation of an ITI has to be joint body (EGTC or legal body set up by public authorities from at least two participating countries)

19. Study on the relevance and effectiveness of ERDF and Cohesion Fund (CF) support to regions with specific geographical features – islands, mountainous and sparsely populated areas Overview of the six NUTS 3 case study regions (Denmark, France,, Greece, Spain, Sweden, UK) RELEVANACE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ERDF SUPPORTHOW AND IF NUTS 3 AREAS ARE CONSIDEREDINFRUSTRUCTURE VS SOFTER INTERVANTIONFUNDS COORDINATION/INTEGRATION CAPACITIES AT LOCAL LEVEL (ESPECIALLY WITH eaFrd)