Position Paper on the Future of Cohesion Policy 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Position paper on the future of Cohesion Policy 1 POSITION PAPER economic, social and territorial cohesion: future of cohesion policy Euregio Scheldemond (a crossborder partnership of the provinces of East-Flanders/BE, West- Flanders/BE and Zeeland/NL, see annex 1) would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity, given through the consultation on the Fifth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, to give input for a future cohesion policy. Executive summary; A 10 point program for the future of cohesion policy 1. Euregio Scheldemond strongly welcomes that the 5th Cohesion Report foresees the continuation of a robust European cohesion policy for all regions 2. Development and investment partnership contract should not lead to complicated decision making processes and moreover have to be made with the involvement of regions. 3. Thematic concentration can be achieved by smart specialization proposed by regions themselves. 4. Euregio Scheldemond is opposed to making a lot of priorities obligatory. While innovation and the EU2020 strategy should be at the heart of cohesion policy, it should not be the only priorities. 5. Euregio Scheldemond welcomes a 10 year programming period but only if there is a review of the program and priorities after 5 years. 6. Euregio Scheldemond strongly opposes the concept of macro-economic and institutional conditionality. In no way should regions be punished for the failure of their national governments. 7. Incentives can be used to mobilize stakeholders to develop common strategies and clusters of excellent projects. 8. Big cities and metropolitan areas are not the only source of innovation. Clusters of towns and cities should be able to design and manage cohesion programs, and we would like to see this principle expanded to any group of (cross-border) municipalities holding common concerns. 9. The audit process can be greatly simplified by using lump sums and standardized calculation of costs and creating one list of costs which are (in)eligible for funding. 10. Concerning for example new forms of financing such as revolving funds, the European Commission should help regions by leaving less room for ambiguity in implementing regulations. Ambiguity often leads to harsher and stricter implementation rules because of the fear of sanctions. Position paper on the future of Cohesion Policy 2 Questionnaire 1. How could the Europe 2020 Strategy and cohesion policy be brought closer together at EU, national and sub-national levels? Firstly, the most import way of delivering the EU2020 strategy is by ensuring that all regional governments are mobilized to deliver the EU2020 strategy. In that respect Euregio Scheldemond strongly welcomes that the 5th Cohesion Report foresees the continuation of a robust European cohesion policy for all regions in the EU. Secondly, cohesion policy and the EU2020 must take fully use of the partnership principle; interventions have to be defined by the regions themselves, in coordination with the relevant stakeholders. 2. Should the scope of the development and investment partnership contract go beyond cohesion policy and, if so, what should it be? The development and investment partnership contract should be further elaborated and it must be ensured that they do not further complicate the decision making process. What is worrying however, is that these contracts are foreseen between the EU and the Member states, largely ignoring the partnership principle. We believe that a mechanism should be foreseen to get the regions on board in establishing the contract. At any rate these new contracts should cover only EU funds, not domestic funds. 3. How could stronger thematic concentration on the Europe 2020 priorities be achieved? Stronger thematic concentration can be used by linking a small number of European priorities to regional smart specializations. Regions themselves should be able to choose; they know with which challenges and opportunities they can best contribute to the EU2020 strategy and other European challenges. Following a challenge put forth by Member of European Parliament Lambert van Nistelrooij to choose our smart specializations; Euregio Scheldemond has chosen its smart specializations: sustainable energy in ports, biobased economy and ambient assistant technologies. We are already starting preparations for major innovation projects within these fields – also for other programmes than Interreg, such as the Framework Programme. At the same time we believe some room should be left to take on opportunities and challenges which cannot be met by innovation alone; watermanagement in times of climate change, aquaculture, agroclusters and demographic changes (for example depopulation). Also, it should be possible to review the priorities chosen. In that respect we welcome the idea of a 10 year programming period, but only if there is a review after 5 years. 4. How could conditionalities, incentives and results-based management make cohesion policy more effective? Euregio Scheldemond strongly opposes the concept of macro-economic and institutional conditionality. In no way should regions be punished for the failure of their national governments, whether it be on implementing reforms or on the Stability and Growth Pact . Moreover, we would like to point out that in the case of cross-border and transnational programs, conditionality would Position paper on the future of Cohesion Policy 3 spill over across the border, effecting regions in countries which didn’t do anything wrong, and thus hijacking the implementation of projects. In respect to incentives, Euregio Scheldemond is of the opinion that these could be used to make cohesion policy more efficient. By using additional resources to fund clusters of excellent projects. Incentives could trigger cooperation between governments, research and technology organizations and companies to develop common thematic strategies and implement these through clusters of projects. The funding of the implementation of such strategies would result in better focus, mature projects and engagement from the field. Moreover it would lead to less problems with the N+2 principle. 5. How could cohesion policy be made more results-oriented? Which priorities should be obligatory? By using the above mentioned bottom-up strategies cohesion policy would become more results- orientated. Euregio Scheldemond is opposed to making too much priorities obligatory. This would limit the region’s unique ability to identify area-specific challenges and opportunities and brokering between relevant stakeholders. However, an argument can be made to oblige that a certain amount of resources goes to innovation projects. However we would like to guard that a narrow or “hard” definition of innovation is being used. Moreover, we would like to point out that some challenges (watermanagement in relation to climate change, safety, answers to demographic challenges such as depopulation) cannot be met with innovation alone, and require more traditional projects. 6. How can cohesion policy take better account of the key role of urban areas and of territories with particular geographical features in development processes and of the emergence of macro- regional strategies? The 5th cohesion raport singles out urban areas as engines of growth, and meeting places for creativity and innovation. Euregio Scheldemond would like to stress that big cities are not the only places where economic growth and innovation is possible. Clusters of smaller cities with much interaction also deliver growth and innovation. In the province of Zeeland, the medium-sized cities of Middelburg, Vlissingen, Goes and Terneuzen are directly bordering eachother. Because of a lot of interaction between them, there's a good climate for innovations. The same can be said for the West-Flemish cluster of Bruges, Zeebrugge, Knokke-Heist and Ostend. East-Flanders has one big city (Ghent), which is by itself a regional engine of growth, but can 'deliver' even more in connection with smaller bordering cities such as Sint-Niklaas, Aalst and, across the border, Terneuzen. Moreover, a too narrow focus on cities could unintentionally but surely run counter to achieving social, economical and territorial cohesion. A lot of European rural areas are confronted with an ageing population, the migration of young entrepreneurs and even depopulation. A focus on cities or metropolitan areas could accelerate this trend. Instead of focusing on the financial support for cities and metropolitan areas, cities could be used as nodes to establish better links between the urban, the rural and the peri-urban areas. Euregio Scheldemond suggests another way to use the key role of urban areas than explicitly focusing finances on cities. In the Flemish and South-Dutch Objective 2 programmes provinces and Position paper on the future of Cohesion Policy 4 cities have contact-officers as direct partners for people that want to start projects. This lowers the treshold and helps in implementing a place-based approach. Amongst territories with particular geographical features we also share border areas. Euregio Scheldemond stresses the importance of substantial funding for crossborder cooperation. Crossborder cooperation helps border areas become transition zones so EU-wide territorial cohesion can be established. Interreg is the most recognizable 'truly European' part of cohesion policy, for citizens. Macroregional strategies can in some cases have an added value. In the Baltic and Danube areas there is no long tradition of crossborder