Contribution of the 11 Districts of the Lüneburg Convergence Area, Lower
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Landräte-Konferenz Lüneburg-Stade Dr. Theodor Elster Landrat des Landkreises Uelzen Director-General Dr D. Ahner Directorate General Regional Policy European Commission B - 1049 Brussels Lüneburg, 19 January 2011 Consultation on the results of the 5th Cohesion Report Contribution of the 11 districts of the Lüneburg convergence area, Lower Saxony (Germany) Districts Celle, Cuxhaven, Harburg, Lüchow-Dannenberg, Lüneburg, Osterholz, Rotenburg/Wümme, Soltau-Fallingbostel, Stade, Uelzen and Verden Dear Dr Ahner, We were very interested in reading the Fifth Cohesion Report on economic and social cohesion, which the European Commission presented on 10 November 2010. The findings illustrate once more the great importance of European cohesion policy for the European integration process and the development of the regions. The community of the 11 districts making up the Lüneburg convergence area (NUTS 2, Lower Saxony) welcomes the proposed orientation of this policy. As the only western German convergence area, and in the light of the experiences gained over the course of the current funding period, we have discussed the report and the conclusions in detail at various levels. On this basis, we would briefly like to draw your attention to a few points which we consider important to the further discussion. We will send our contribution electronically to the responsible division C1 in both German and English. We would very much like to be involved in the further process, and would appreciate the opportunity to contribute during the drafting phase of the new regulations. Yours sincerely, (Dr. Elster) Veerßer Straße 53, 29525 Uelzen – Postfach 1761, 29507 Uelzen – Telefon 0581-82-0(201) – Telefax 0581-82485 Consultation on the results of the Fifth Cohesion Report Contribution from the districts of the Lüneburg convergence area, Lower Saxony (DE) Preliminary remarks With its Europe 2020 strategy, the EU Commission has created a framework which gives a good reason for hope that the key challenges of this decade can be met effectively. The Cohesion Report – like the Commission Working Document “Regions 2020” before – highlighted the diverging levels of development in the regions and showed how differently they are affected by major challenges, regardless of whether they are located in more or less developed Member States. The key goals verbalised in the strategy can only be endorsed. They are clearly quantified, but also come across as extremely ambitious, even for many of the more developed regions. Reaching these goals will mean that the individual local and regional stakeholders will have to mobilise all their endogenous strengths and ideas to the maximum degree. In this respect, too, the clear upgrading of local and regional participation when it comes to setting up and implementing programmes seems both consistent and vital. Additional to these preliminary remarks, we would like to present the following views on the four topic fields in the report: 1. Enhancing the European added value of cohesion policy The division of responsibilities between Commission, Member States and regions in programme planning and implementation has essentially proven effective so far. However, local responsibility and influence should be clearly defined and laid out in the new regulations. Only hereby the endogenous potential can be fully mobilised in the proposed development and investment partnerships. Thematic concentration at local level appears absolutely worthwhile. However, this should not be imposed at regional or national level as it does not allow the strongly diverging factors within the Member States and the regions to be addressed in a targeted and optimal way; flexibility is required here. Conditionality and incentives can contribute to the added value of cohesion policy, but will only unleash their full effect if the local stakeholders are able to identify wholeheartedly with the goals and participate fully in programme planning and implementation. The proposal for an obligatory concentration on the topic of “innovation” is very much welcomed, but should be based as far as possible on a broad concept of innovation if the key goals of the strategy are to be reached; the increase of participation in the labour market cannot be linked to the excellence or size of projects, or exclude certain areas from, say, investment promotion. Tourism and culture can also make an important contribution to development and are very important for rural areas in particular. New financial instruments may appear interesting in view of strained budgets, but sufficient incentive must remain if the individual stakeholders are to recognise the benefits and orientate their activities towards the Community strategy and its key goals. 2. Strengthening governance We recognise that towns play an important role in, for example, increasing the capacity for innovation and competitiveness in the regions. However, this applies not only to what are known in German as “Oberzentren” (“high-order centres”) and metropolitan regions, but at least as much to towns which act as “Mittelzentren” (“middle-order centres”). These middle-order centres play an important role in rural areas in particular in terms of the institutions and infrastructure relevant to innovation and competitiveness, but also to the impact of demographic change – generally without causing particular problems (social, ecological or otherwise) for their surrounding areas. When it comes to the coordinated interaction needed between urban and rural areas, therefore, we see particular value in a flexible separation of programme planning, particularly in the case of Seite 1 von 2 Consultation on the results of the Fifth Cohesion Report Contribution from the districts of the Lüneburg convergence area, Lower Saxony (DE) Lower Saxony and our area, which is located between three metropolitan regions and thus has contact with three Federal States and three programme planning areas. In the field of governance, too, local responsibility and influence play a key role in the widespread acceptance and successful implementation of the ambitious key aims of the strategy. By drawing up local development concepts on the basis of partnership – in line with the LEADER approach, including its earmarking process – we expect the highest level of acceptance and the greatest success when it comes to implementation. In order to unleash and fully exploit the creative potential of local stakeholders in the long term, the regulations and the programmes should contain explicit experimentation clauses which allow rigid ties to directives to be loosened. 3. Streamlined and simpler procedures We strongly welcome the Commission’s call for procedures to be streamlined and simplified. For local stakeholders, however, it is not enough if, say, the responsibility for proper control is only transferred to another administrative level and results in the process become disjointed rather than simpler. A situation where basic issues of funding are handled differently in the various funds is difficult to justify and gives rise to misunderstandings among the project managers. The inconsistencies regarding eligibility for assistance with value added tax are a prominent example. When it comes to striking a balance between the active inclusion of local stakeholders and the simplest possible procedures, we see the concept of regionalised partial budgets (“Regionalisierte Teilbudgets”; RTB), as developed and successfully practised in Lower Saxony, as a model solution. Here, funds are managed by the Government of Lower Saxony or the NBank on behalf of the Government of Lower Saxony, while responsibility for funding lies with the local authorities. This division of responsibilities can lead, among other things, to a clear increase in the added value of cohesion policy, as an example from one of the regional districts shows. Looking at the funding resources spent on one new job there, it is notable that, when allocated via a RTB, these amount to just one quarter of those used by the Joint Task of ‘improving the regional economic structure’ (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur"). 4. Architecture of cohesion policy The basic architecture of cohesion policy, as portrayed in the Cohesion Report and the Commission Communication with conclusions, is welcomed. It seems vital to continue to offer comprehensive support if all regions in Europe are to endorse the aims and priorities of the Community, and contribute and realise their individual potential. Despite the various shortcomings, differentiating between the less and more developed regions according to GDP per capita appears to be simple, transparent, and ultimately the most sensible solution. For regions which are situated between 75 and 90% of the GDP per capita, an appropriately resourced special instrument should be created. This could initially involve a higher level of funding which would be reduced based on results. With such an instrument in place, the Cohesion Fund would appear dispensable. *** Seite 2 von 2.