Download Cohesion policy framework for integrated, sustainable

Cohesion policy framework for
integrated, sustainable urban development
A policy background for post-2020 discussion
Marton Matko, policy advisor
WG IUD, WG MA 22-24 March, Brussels
What is cohesion policy / ESIF?
Cohesion policy / ESIF is:
ERDF
• An EU wide investment policy to
achieve Europe2020 objectives
• Solidarity-based policy to reduce
development disparities among
regions (Article 174 TFEU)
• Set of common rules for the 5 funds
introduced in 2014-2020 -> ESIF
• Close to 45% of the total EU budget
(33% cohesion policy, 10% Rural dev)
ESF
EAFRD
CF
EMFF
Cohesion
policy
ESI Funds
What does cohesion policy aim to achieve?
• EU2020 Strategy objectives (5 headline targets)
• Employment: 75% of people age 20-64 in work -> boost growth and job creation
• Climate and energy: GHG -20% (1990 levels), 20% of energy from renewables, 20%
increase in energy efficiency -> transition to a low carbon economy
• Research and development: 3% of EU GDP to be invested in R&D
• Education: 40% of age group 30-34 with completed higher education, reduce school
dropout rate to 10%
• Poverty: 20 million less people in or AROPSE -> Tackle poverty and social exclusion
• Reduce disparities among regions
• more than fourfold GDP@PPS difference between poorest (BG, RO, PL, HU) and richest
• Compensate for natural or demographic handicaps
• Access to SGEI, reduce isolation in remote areas (islands, mountains, outermost areas)
Where is cohesion policy implemented?
Eligibility
-
All EU regions eligible for funding
(272 NUTS2 regions in 28 MS)
Amounts and conditions depend
on level of development
-
Less developed (<75% of EU avg GDP)
Transition (75-90%)
More developed (>90%)
Cohesion Fund eligibility at MS level
(90% of EU GDP)
Where is cohesion policy implemented?
• Concentrated: half the MS
take 90% of budget
• Main beneficiaries are large
and E-European MS
But..
• Enormous differences in
per capita support
• EE 3.400 vs NL 111
EUR/capita
How does it work?
• 7-year programming periods (2014-2020, 2020+?)
• Shared management (COM / MS + regions)
– COM: adopts partnership agreements (ESIF) and operational
programmes and their amendments, follows implementation, pays
certified expenditure, reports to EP
– MS/Region: launches calls, grants funding, checks expenditure,
pays grants, performs audits, monitors progress, evaluates impact
• Rules and procedures
– EU regulations (CPR+common strategic framework, fund specific),
delegated/implementing acts, interpretation (+ guidance)
– national regulations, implementing acts
• Management and control system (MA/IB, CA, AA)
What is new in 2014-2020?
• Thematic concentration
– Obligation to devote certain part of budget to priority areas
(ERDF TOs -1-4, ESF TO9)
• Ex-ante conditionalities
– General/sector specific strategy or legislation as precondition
• Performance framework
– Access to a part of budget linked to achievement of milestones
• Integrated approach to territorial development =
the urban dimension of cohesion policy
What does cohesion policy invest in?
• Funding structure focused on 11 thematic objectives and
50+ investment priorities
ERDF
Smart growth
TO1 TO2 TO3
R&D
Sustainable growth
Inclusive growth
TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 TO8
ICT SME <CO2
Thematic concentration
CF
CC
TO9 TO10 TO11
ENV MOB EMPL SOCi EDU ADM
ESF
What types of investments does it support?
Urban and territorial dimension of CP 2014-2020
The integrated, place-based approach
Why?
• to help address territorial challenges in their complexity through CP
•
to help align specific local development needs with the thematic priorities of CP
•
to promote multi-level governance (empowerment and cooperation)
How?
• PLANNING: requesting long-term and integrated urban/territorial strategies
•
PARTNERSHIP: by fostering horizontal and vertical cooperation (urban-rural, LAGs)
•
FLEXIBILITY: allowing to combine different sources of thematic funding to support the
implementation (ITI, CLLD)
•
INCENTIVE: earmarking resources in pursuit of these objectives (SUD Article 7)
•
OWNERSHIP: giving more responsibility to the local level (SUD Article 7, CLLD)
The urban dimension of cohesion policy
• Sustainable urban development (ERDF Art 7)
–
–
–
Integrated urban development strategies => ca 800 cities involved
Earmarked funding (min 5%) => 15 billion euros
Delegated powers = cities responsible for project selection
• Urban innovative actions (Art 8)
–
–
funding for experimentation, 370 m euros, themes linked to urban agenda
First call: 16 of 18 winners are EUROCITIES members
• Urban development network
–
Capacity building, networking and sharing knowledge for Art7 and UIA cities
• URBACT
–
EU-wide learning programme for cities via thematic networks
• Territorial instruments
–
–
ITI: combining different funding sources to implement integrated strategy
CLLD: to empower local communities to implement their local strategy
• “Urban” investment priorities in ERDF TOs
–
E.g. brownfield regeneration, deprived communities, multimodal urban mobility
There is no single model to implement SUD
major EU-wide differences in…
• Nature of urban network/ social geography
Degree of urbanisation, mono-/policentricity,
most pressing urban challenges
• Level of decentralisation
devolved competencies, local fiscal autonomy
• Urban policy traditions
e.g Politique de la ville (FR), Soziale Stadt (DE)
• Programming constraints
(e.g. thematic concentration, OP structure)
…have a strong impact on
• territorial scope of strategies
• Sharing of power across national/
regional/local level (delegation of tasks)
• Availability of funding to match
development needs, integrated approach
Administrative city
(most MS)
Neighbourhood
FR
Metropolitan area
CZ, HR, PL, RO, SK
If Mondrian and Kandinsky worked for DG REGIO
Use of ERDF by type of territory and by territorial instrument
Rural areas
thinly populated
Small urban areas
intermediate density
ITI
12 bn
6%
SUD
Art 7
ERDF
14.5 bn
7.8%
CLLD
1.1 bn / 0.6%
ERDF
196 billion
Large urban areas
densely populated
Cohesion policy support delivered via ITI
ERDF, ESF and CF allocation by MS
Programming results
20 MS use ITI
15 MS to deliver SUD
13 MS for other territories
Total of EUR 13.8 billion
ERDF 11.8 bn
ESF 1.7 bn
CF
0.3 bn
12 MS use both funds
Concentration
80% by 9 MS
28% by PL alone
60% for SUD Article 7
Cohesion policy support to CLLD
ERDF and ESF allocation by MS
Programming results
18 MS apply CLLD in CP
EUR 1.8 billion
ERDF 1.1 bn (0.6%)
ESF 0.7 bn (0.8%)
For comparison:
EAFRD 6.9 bn (7%)
EMFF 0.5 bn (9%)
14 MS use both funds
 GR, HU, PL, PT, SE via
multi-fund OP
Concentration
92% by 9 MS
25% by CZ alone
ERDF support to SUD (Article 7)
Share of ERDF budget (%) by MS and delivery mechanism
Half of MS spend more than 7.5%
•
•
•
•
CY and BG 20%+
BE 15%+
RO 11%
IE, FR, LV, CZ, NL, HU, DE 8-10%
Preliminary conclusions: positive results
•
ITI proved to be a flexible instrument which enables addressing diverse and
complex urban and territorial challenges via combining various sources of
funding.
•
SUD (Article 7 ERDF) seems to have met real demand from Member States
who allocated 50% more resources than required by the ERDF Regulation.
•
SUD seems to have provided financial incentive to shift to a metropolitan
area approach in urban development in some Member States
•
ITI used for SUD provides on average twice the scope of thematic funding
compared to a priority axis
Benefits, challenges and questions for future
• Benefits
– Territorial approach, tailor made solutions
– Local ownership, easier access to all
• Challenges
– Dispersed, audit-driven management system
• creates overregulation
• Slow start-up and progress
– Procurement and state-aid issues
• What will come after 2020?
–
–
–
–
Reduced budget (Brexit)
New, fewer priorities, what are these? SDGs?
EFSI (financial engineering) to take over ESIF (grants)?
Differentiated treatment of MS?
Foundations for a policy input
Statement on future cohesion policy (March 2017)
•
•
•
•
•
•
CP to remain expression of EU solidarity
Recognition of the growing role of cities
Strengthened partnership principle
Stronger territorial and functional area approach
Simplified rules, subsidiarity, proportionality
Reflection of outcomes of the urban agenda
Prospective timeline
for post-2020 cohesion policy
Proposal on
next MFF
CP legislative
proposal
EP elections
Cohesion
Forum
Cohesion
report
Brexit
negotiations
Impact assessment
Legislative
negotiations
with public consultation
2017
Mar
Apr
Statement
CP 2020+
Policy inputs
from WGs
May June 26-27
Autumn
Advocacy activities
Consolidated policy paper
Publish policy paper
2018
2019
2020
2021