Annexes to COM(2016)805 - Implementation of EU macro-regional strategies - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2016)805 - Implementation of EU macro-regional strategies.
document	COM(2016)805
date	December 16, 2016

agreement on a work plan with a specific timetable and ensuring contacts between project promoters, programmes and funding sources. It would also involve providing technical assistance and advice as appropriate. Financial and operational support provided by the Facility Point should help overcome some of these difficulties.

While challenges and opportunities offered by the strategy remain relevant on the whole, Adriatic-Ionian countries are confronted with a major refugee and migration crisis which is likely to affect the region. This could be addressed through the EUSAIR in a coordinated and pragmatic way.

Transport and energy priorities should be adjusted to complement – and not duplicate – initiatives taken in other high-level cooperation fora (e.g. the ‘Berlin process’ or the Energy Community).

Ensuring funding alignment with the strategy’s priorities is essential. Further efforts must be made at administrative level to provide projects with the necessary financial support through available regional, national or EU programmes.

6. The EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP)

6.1 Results

EUSALP implementation started in the first half of 2016. This was done quite quickly due mainly to the high level of political and economic cooperation in the area. The regions, the participating countries (of which two non-EU, Switzerland and Lichtenstein), the Alpine Convention and the Interreg Alpine Space programme have all contributed to defining the concept of the strategy, whereas the Commission has defined the steps to finalise and endorse it. The strategy has also been met with strong interest in the European Parliament, where an informal group was created (‘Friends of EUSALP’).

Conclusions on the strategy’s implementation cannot yet be drawn. However, the governance structures and rules were broadly agreed prior to its official launch in Brdo in January 2016. The first Action Groups meetings resulted in an agreement on further working methods and a work programme identifying thematic topics (e.g. improving the value chain of alpine wood, focusing on climate change adaptation or defining future common space for dual-vocational education). A Board of Action Groups Leaders will be established to ensure the permanent exchange of knowledge and experiences among the groups.

The Interreg Alpine Space programme will support the strategy’s implementation with a dedicated strategic project (AlpGov).

6.2 Challenges

The quick start of implementation has raised many expectations among stakeholders. In 2017, the Commission will carefully consider the balanced composition and stability of the Action Groups to ensure efficiency. It will also monitor whether all groups are able to develop and implement projects and will recommend appropriate changes. The embedding of EUSALP objectives in relevant ESIF programmes should also help.

It is crucial to secure the full implementation of the macro-regional governance objective, which calls for new solutions for ‘institutional embedding’ to avoid duplication with existing structures and to ensure appropriate coordination mechanisms across actors and priorities. The development of the stakeholder platform is also challenging as it aims to involve interested stakeholders, including civil society at large, and strengthen their participation.

7. The way forward

After seven years of implementation, MRS are producing their first results, but have not shown their full potential yet. The benefits would be much greater if the Member States who initiated these processes of cooperation would retain greater responsibility. Areas where continued effort is needed relate to the effectiveness of the governance systems, the focus on results, funding and relation with non-EU countries. Issues need to be considered in the context of the post 2020 reform of cohesion policy.

Improving effectiveness

The success of the strategies depends on sound implementation in the years to come, as well as on readiness to adjust to changing circumstances, for example, the migration crisis. There needs to be further progress in the governance of MRS. This requires, in particular, that:

each strategy regularly assesses the effectiveness of its governance system in line with the Commission’s report on Governance of 2014 and makes any necessary adjustments;

sectoral ministries make a stronger commitment to achieving the MRS objectives; this implies a periodic rotation of thematic area coordinators;

close cooperation is ensured between steering groups members and the managing authorities of programmes supported by ESIF or other instruments;

the links between MRS are strengthened to exploit synergies and learn from each other with the support of INTERACT.

Focusing on results

MRS need to adapt to the demand for a stronger focus on performance which characterises the current cohesion policy framework. In this respect, it is strongly recommended that the following actions are taken:

set up or consolidate a sound monitoring system, with the support of the Commission and the ESPON programme, to report on progress and support their strategic orientation; the Danube Reference Data and Services Infrastructure can support the establishment of a sound monitoring system;

improve the quality of projects and processes and ensure the sustainability of their results, as well as the link between project results and policy actions;

increase awareness at all levels and improve the communication of the strategies’ added value and results, including by using the annual fora to carry out a critical review of the strategies;

further explore thematic platforms (e.g. S3 platform or climate dialogue platform) to increase the strategies’ thematic focus.

Beyond funding

Strategies do not have a dedicated budget of their own. Therefore, they require a more coordinated use of available funding streams at different levels.

In this regard, it is important to continue the current dialogue between ESIF programme managing authorities and key MRS implementers to align funding in the most appropriate and cost-effective way. Initiatives like the establishment of the ERDF managing authorities’ network in the Baltic should be explored by other macro-regions. Furthermore, EU funds or other financing tools, including financial instruments should also be considered to support MRS priorities and actions. Synergies with the European Fund for Strategic Investments should also be explored, in particular for bankable projects.

Relations with non EU countries

MRS have become an important instrument in the relations between EU Member States and their external neighbours, both with accession countries and parts of the Neighbourhood Policy (Eastern Partnership) and the Northern Periphery and the Arctic region. They can foster regional development and cohesion with these countries and nurture the relationships that the EU develops on its external borders.

Conclusions

Reducing regional disparities is as much a goal of MRS as is the creation of synergies for growth and employment in the regions concerned. Macro-regions can help shape an integrated view on the future of the European territory. They can become an important instrument in the pursuit of territorial cohesion across different policy areas, and can also inspire similar approaches as the EU Urban agenda. They call for closer links between EU policy areas and EU funds.

In order to untap their potential to the benefit of European citizens, links between MRS and cohesion policy should be further explored in terms of targeting strategic sectors, coordinating EU policies and instruments.

In this regard, there are a number of questions which need to be addressed in the light of the future reform of cohesion policy. These may include:

• How can the synergies and complementarities between MRS and relevant national or regional programmes supported by the ESIF be strengthened to maximise impact?

• Should transnational programmes be (functionally) further aligned with MRS or other transnational cooperation frameworks and initiatives?

• How the governance system of MRS, including the respective roles of all relevant actors, could be further improved?

(1)

   Conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, 27 October 2009 and Conclusions of the European Council, 29-30 October 2009.

(2)

   Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, 13 April 2011 and Conclusions of the European Council, 23-24 June 2011.

(3)

   Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, 29 September 2014 and Conclusions of the European Council, 23-24 October 2014.

(4)

   Conclusions of Council, 27 November 2015 and the European Council, 28 June 2016.

(5)

   Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on (the European Structural and Investment Funds) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320); point 31 of Article 2.

(6)

   INTERACT is an EU-wide programme co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund designated to provide support to the managing authorities of Interreg programmes as well as MRS.

(7)

   COM (2014) 284 final.

(8)

   Danube ministers meeting, Conclusions on effective waterway infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance on the Danube and its navigable tributaries, Rotterdam, 20 June 2016.