Main conclusions of the studies and analysis carried out by Interact, discussion of 2020+

27 March 2017 | Central European Initiative, Trieste, Italy

@InteractEU

Studies onmacro-regional strategies

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

• 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

Study on cooperation

methods for the EUSBSR

...

Misunderstandings regarding macro-regional

cooperation

Conclusions

• The notion of ‘contribution to macro-regional strategies’ has not been properlydefined;

• 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.

Recommendations

Conclusions

• 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.

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 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.

Study on cooperation methods for the EUSDR

Aim

• 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.

Main tasks within the study

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, structuresor 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 Co-

operation 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 provisionsrequiring 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 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;

o 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 examplesfor 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 macro-

regional 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 rightmomentum 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 macro-

regional 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 territorialcooperation 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