1 / 16

European Territorial Cohesion and regions with geographic specificities

European Territorial Cohesion and regions with geographic specificities. Brussels, 03/02/2011 Wladyslaw Piskorz DG REGIO – Head of Unit Unit C2 Urban Development, Territorial Cohesion. European Territorial Cohesion and the Islands. Policy context

kyne
Download Presentation

European Territorial Cohesion and regions with geographic specificities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. European Territorial Cohesionand regions with geographic specificities Brussels, 03/02/2011 Wladyslaw Piskorz DG REGIO – Head of Unit Unit C2 Urban Development, Territorial Cohesion

  2. European Territorial Cohesionand the Islands • Policy context • Four key areas for fostering Territorial Cohesion • Timeline

  3. Policy context • Lisbon Treaty: Territorial Cohesion as shared competence of EU and MS • Art 174: « …particular attention shall be paid to (…) regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost regions (…) and island, cross-border and mountainregions.» • Green paper on Territorial Cohesion: « Turning territorial diversity into strenghts » • Future Cohesion policy: 5th report on Cohesion • Territorial Agenda 2020

  4. Geographical and demographic specificity does not necessarily constitute a problem in its self • 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 • Element like good governance, integrated territorial development and making the best use of the region's own territorial capital are considered crucial element for successful territorial cohesion

  5. Nevertheless cohesion policy ask Member States a special attention for specific territories • In 2007-2013 about 2 % of Structural Funds went in favor of mountain areas in both objectives 1 and 2 regions: 7 billion Euros (1 billion each year); • 700 millions Euros of FEDER has been invested in territorial cooperation for mountain areas.

  6. 5th report on Cohesion(1) • Territorial Cohesion reinforces: • 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 …)

  7. 5th report on Cohesion(2) • Policy Conclusions: • Include reinforced territorial and urban dimensions • « In some cases geographical or demographic features intensify development problems. (…) It will be necessary to develop targeted provisions (…), without multiplying instruments and programmes. »

  8. Four key areas for fostering Territorial Cohesion • Strategic programming and governance • Cooperation between territories • Coordination of policies • Evidence based policy making

  9. 1. Strategic programming and governance(1) with a territorial/urban dimension: “Common Strategic Framework“, including a territorial chapter: priorities for urban dimension, local development, functional geographies (mountains is possible!) “Development and Investment Partnership Contracts", including a territorial chapter: territorial set up; list of cities where integrated actions are foreseen; urban-rural functional interdependencies… …areas facing specific geographical or demographic problems (mountains).

  10. 1. Strategic programming and governance (2) Operational programmes, with reinforcedterritorial dimension describing urban system of the region,cities concerned by urban actions functional geographies: urban rurallinkages areas with specific geographical or demographic features; possible arrangements: modulation of co-financing rates; wider menu; specific priorities addressing mountains,…) Greater flexibility in and across programmes: multi regional (metropolitan, river basins, mountains…),…

  11. 1. Strategic programming and governance (3) Reinforcing partnership: improve involvement of local actors and cities in the design and implementation of OPs Experimental approach for integrated local development in diverse contexts (urban, rural, urban-rural …), based on URBAN and LEADER experience; in close cooperation between diverse community instruments More sub-delegation; global grants; support to local partnerships…

  12. 2. Cooperation between territories: • Cooperation in strategic policy documents (CSF, partnership contracts…) • Reinforced link between transnational co-operation and macro-regional strategies (when relevant) • In macro-regions and cross-border regions , better coordination across borders (mountanious or maritime), of legislation, strategies and funding; within multi-level governance; eg EGTC • Interregional co-operation: support to EU networking on territorial and urban issues (Interreg C, URBACT…)

  13. Example of Territorial Cooperation • Program of transnational cooperation Alpin space (ERDF: 98 million €), focused on innovation, accessibility and management of natural and technological risks • Tran border cooperation program France-Spain-Andorra (ERDF: 168 million €) that is contributing to the economic, social and institutional integration of Pyreneans

  14. 3. Coordination of policies Horizontal coordination at each level; vertical coordination between levels • Improved alignment and coordination of funds; “Common Strategic Framework” for ERDF, EAFRD, EFF, ESF; national Contracts describing coordination with other policies • A better coordination with state-aid regulations allowing the granting of aid to promote the economic development of certain areas • Reporting aligned with the EU2020 governance cycle; regular debate in relevant Council formations, including Territorial and Urban monitoring • Inter Service Groups: Urban Development, Territorial Cohesion; possibility to discuss sectoral policies : state aids, SGEI,…, • Better use of existing EC Impact Assessment Guidelines, to take territorial dimension into account • Territorial Impact Assessments in MS

  15. 4. Evidence-based policy making • Ability to measure diverse assets as well as constraints of territories (eg: access to services, environmental sustainability,…) • Need to go below NUTS 2 • Encouraging use of existing data and analysis: ESPON (eg: priority 1: Geospecs; priority 2: Tedi, Euro-islands) • Refined data sets and new territorial indicators, in close cooperation with national Statistical Offices. • Also prospective studies (eg Regions 2020), territorial scenarios, spatial visions…

  16. Timeline • 11 November 2010 – 31 January 2011: consultation • 31 January/1 February 2011: Cohesion Forum • Spring 2011: Proposal on future financial perspectives • May 2011: approval of Territorial Agenda 2020 • Summer 2011: Legislative proposals • End 2012: Adoption of budget post 2013 and legislative package • 2013: Finalisation of new programming documents • 2014: Entry into force • In 2011, HU and PL presidencies (new Territorial Agenda, discussions on Cohesion Policy): an opportunity to design the new shared competence on Territorial Cohesion!

More Related