1 / 16

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND NATIONAL-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP for the programming period 2007-2013

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND NATIONAL-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP for the programming period 2007-2013. Benchmarking Seminar on The Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective, The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), The Regional State Aid Provisions (RSA).

mabyn
Download Presentation

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND NATIONAL-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP for the programming period 2007-2013

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. TERRITORIAL COHESION AND NATIONAL-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP for the programming period 2007-2013 Benchmarking Seminar onThe Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective,The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),The Regional State Aid Provisions (RSA). Director Ulf Johansson Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions

  2. INTRODUCTION The Swedish setting 350 years of strong, centralised government (the “Unity State”) 450+ very independent national agencies (so who is really in charge?) 290 local authorities with a far reaching self government A renewed regional level is emerging (15 out of 21 counties have assumed a larger responsibility for regional development) The EU is a cooperation between heads of states Sweden according to the map Sweden according to the Government

  3. INTRODUCTION The fields of tension • Democracy – Efficiency • Government – Governance • Inward - Transparency • Status quo – Change A new mindset is slowly emerging. But will it lead to necessary reform?

  4. The Regional Competitiveness and EmploymentObjective General information National financial allocation ERDF/ESF 1 676 M€ Sweden’s national approach; • Reduce the budget! (Max 1% of GDP) • “Old Europe” member states can take care of their own regional development funding. (Reveals an aid perspective on EU cohesion) Regions and local authorities; • Value added from the EU dimension can’t be denied. • A re-nationalisation of the cohesion policy is totally unacceptable

  5. The Regional Competitiveness and EmploymentObjective General information State of play of the NSRF • Delayed 30+ days due to infighting within the Government where two approaches meet. The regions have been deeply involved in the battle… • Still not adopted, which will most probably cause implementation problems • A mixed approach … Minister for Communications and Regional Policy - Decentralise! - Improved dialogue! - Focus on results! • Ministers for Employment and Finance • - Preserv the centralised system • Business as usual! • - Focus on control!

  6. The Regional Competitiveness and EmploymentObjectiveNational – regional partnership Dialogue • Dialogue between the regions and the national government when designing regional policy • A positive break through! A round table – the National Focus Group • No dialogue in Member State negotiations with the European Commission

  7. The Regional Competitiveness and EmploymentObjectiveNational – regional partnership Participation of regions in drafting the NSRF • Informal dialogue for about one year. • No formal partnership • Meetings between minister responsible for NRFS and groups of regions. • ERDF/ESF resources seen as separate entities. The regions wanted another, united approach. • Managing and steering of ERFD and ESF separated. However included in the same NSRF. • The drafting of the NRFS done entirely by the ministry, no transparency.

  8. The Regional Competitiveness and EmploymentObjectiveNational – regional partnership Region Region Region A step forward! Region Region National Focus Group Region Region Region Region Region

  9. The Regional Competitiveness and EmploymentObjective “Territorial cohesion” dimension The map • NUTS II-level basis for the map – the result will most probably be eight, not very functional regions • Compared to the recent period slightly more emphasis on political influence. • In regions with a political mandate to manage regional development -> programming and project pipeline will be the responsibility of politicians. A small curiosity for a country claiming to be a democracy: A majority of the County Administrative Boards (civil servants appointed by the State) have publicly been opposing increased political influence and claimed that they will do a better job.

  10. The EAFRDGeneral information National financial allocation • 780 M€ (national co-financing 732 M€) Responsible authorities • Ministry of Agriculture • National agricultural agency • The county administrative boards (civil servants appointed by the national government)

  11. The EAFRDGeneral information State of play of the EARDF • The strong “agri” lobby wants to preserve strong focus on axis one and two • The regions wanted increased focus on axis three (Current proposal 10%) and the NSP to be coordinated with NSRF. • Not yet adopted. Minister for Communications and Regional Policy - Decentralise more - Coordinate more - Allocate more resources to rural development • Minister for Agriculture • - Need for centralised system • Business as usual! • - Focus on control!

  12. The EAFRDThe national – regional partnership • Regions not involved in the negotiations between the European Commission and Sweden when designing the EARDF • Informal dialogue on demand by the regions. No participation of regions in drafting the NSP and delivering the EARDF • Contrary to Swedish statements in Brussels, very little (if any) shift towards rural development - Impact of Leader approach still uncertain (included in the 10% of axis three).

  13. Regional State Aid provisionsGeneral information State of play State Aid • No maps ready and most decisions will be taken this autumn. • Currently 15,9% of the population eligible. The Swedish Government refuses to state whether their ambitions reach further than the EU 15,3% ceiling or not.

  14. Regional State Aid provisionsGeneral information State of play State Aid • No dialogue or active regional participation in reality, especially not in the negotiations between the EC and Sweden when selecting the zoning procedure • Questions have been asked to some regions on their view on state aid as such. • The Swedish Government sees state aid as something that should be abolished and treats it currently as a state secret. Refuses to give information on the subject.

  15. Conclusion Compared with the previous period … • Increased political influence on regional level • The strong sector approach preserved • We are still struggling to increase the element of learning within the system Lessons to be learnt … • A 350 year old system takes time to change … • Those advocating status quo have a strong say, those who want a new paradigm need to prove that it will deliver more

  16. For additional information www.skl.se www.industry.ministry.se www.agriculture.ministry.se

More Related