Transcript PowerPoint bemutató
DANUBE 2014-2020
preparation of a transnational cooperation programme
DANUBE – EUSDR cooperation
State of play
20 May 2014 - Budapest
Content
DANUBE
2014 2020
(0) Introduction: transnational co-operation
(1)
DANUBE programing: late start; eight DPC meetings ; more than halfway on the road (2) EUSDR support: (1)
(2)
(3) undefined needs; many stakeholders in a constantly developing setup; different understandings in means of support
in the focus since DPC3
; constructive approach; NCP involvement in DPC; making first contacts Shaping elements of a transnational programme priority; EC proposals;
cross-group stakeholder discussion
(Budapest Jan 2014); collection of information on relevant models;
(3)
Towards mutual support: development of managable options on concrete details; further discussions between stakeholder groups; DPC decisions in course of OP preparation
Transnational cooperation programmes
in Europe (2000-2006)
DANUBE
2014 2020 Northern Periphery Baltic Sea North Sea North-West Europe Atlantic South-West Europe Western Mediterranean Central Adriatic Danubian South East Europe (CADSES) Alpine Archimed
Transnational cooperation
basic characteristics
DANUBE Number
PROGRAMME
13 overlapping programme areas 6-15 countries per programme
PROJECT
10-15 project partners and observers Roughly 100 project per program (SEE)
Structure
Monitoring Committee (representatives of the partner states) is the main decision-making body of the programme
Finances
100-300 million euro programme budget for 7 year programme periods 94 % spent on projects 6 % on programme implementation
Topics/ type
Programme priorities defined by partner states based on EU directives and needs of the programme area „Lead partner” principle: one partner takes legal responsibility for the partnership. Partners certify their costs at national level and report together to the programme 1-3 million euro project budget spent in 2-3 year long cooperation projects „Soft” projects: joint development of ideas, concepts, plans, solutions, preparation of future investments – no direct infrastructure development
2014 2020
Transnational cooperation programmes
in the Danube area 2000 -> 2013
2000-2006: INTERREG II B CADSES
DANUBE
2007-2013: EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL COOPERATION (ETC) SOUTH-EAST EUROPE CENTRAL EUROPE 2014 2020
Transnational cooperation programmes
in the Danube area 2014 - 2020
2007-2013: ETC I. SOUTH-EAST EUROPE
DANUBE
DANUBE 2014-2020: ETC II.
Adriatic Ionian
Albania; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croatia; Cyprus; Fyrom; Greece; Italy; Malta; Montenegro; Serbia; Slovenia; Austria (not whole territory)
Balkan-Mediterranean
Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece
2014 2020
Thematic priorities
of the South-East Europe programme (2007-2013)
DANUBE 1.
2007-2013 transnational cooperation programmes were concentrating on EC defined priority areas, in line with the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas: Innovation, Environment, Accessibility and Sustainable Growth Areas Priority axis FACILITATION OF INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Areas of intervention 1.1: Develop technology and innovation networks in specific fields 1.2: Develop the enabling environment for innovative entrepreneurship 1.3: Enhance the framework conditions and pave the way for innovation
2.
3.
4.
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENT OF THE ACCESSIBILITY DEVELOPMENT OF SYNERGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AREAS 2.1: Improve integrated water management and flood risk prevention 2.2: Improve prevention of environmental risks 2.3: Promote cooperation in management of natural assets and protected areas 2.4: Promote energy and resource efficiency 3.1: Improve co-ordination in promoting, planning and operation for primary and secondary transportation networks 3.2: Develop strategies to tackle the "digital divide" 3.3: Improve framework conditions for multi-modal platforms 4.1: Tackling crucial problems affecting metropolitan areas and regional systems of settlements 4.2: Promoting a balanced pattern of attractive and accessible growth areas 4.3: Promoting the use of cultural values for development
2014 2020
Thematic priorities
2014-2020: Concentration needed
DANUBE
• • Art. 5(2), draft ETC Regulation: Thematic concentration
…
up to 4 thematic objectives shall be selected for each transnational cooperation programme
…
At least 80% of the ERDF allocation to each cross-border cooperation and transnational programme shall be concentrated on up to 4 thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of CPR (Council Agreement) Up to 5 thematic objectives, substantial proposals for additional investment priorities (EP amendments) Art. 6(b), draft ETC Regulation: Investment priorities
…under transnational cooperation: development and implementation of macro-regional and sea basin strategies (within thematic objective 11: enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration)…
2014 2020
Thematic priorities
2014-2020: EC proposed Thematic Objectives
DANUBE
1.
2.
strengthening research, technological development and innovation; enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication technologies; 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF); supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors; promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management; protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures; promoting employment and supporting labour mobility; promoting social inclusion and combating poverty; 10. investing in education, skills and lifelong learning; 11. enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration.* ETC* development and coordination of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies (tn)
2014 2020
DANUBE – EUSDR cooperation
& summary (1) DANUBE programing: late start; eight DPC meetings ; more than halfway on the road
(2) EUSDR support:
(1) undefined needs; many stakeholders in a constantly developing setup; different understandings in means of support
(2)
(3)
in the focus since DPC3
; constructive approach; NCP involvement in DPC; making first contacts Shaping elements of a transnational programme priority; EC proposals;
cross-group stakeholder discussion
(Budapest Jan 2014); collection of information on relevant models; (3) Towards mutual support: development of managable options on concrete details; further discussions between stakeholder groups; DPC decisions in course of OP preparation
DANUBE
2014 2020
Relation to EUSDR in Danube programming
Meetings of the Programming Committee
DANUBE
3.
Points of discussion / Milestone /Results
The supportive links between the Danube Programme and the Danube Strategy were analyzed
18-19 April Belgrade Meeting with the PACs
PACs specified their expectations and concerns. The PC agreed to develop a concept to be discussed at the next PC meeting.
21 May Ljubljana 4.
5.
6.
Modalities of financial support to EUSDR PACs have been tackled at the meeting Further discussions on main cornerstones of financing the PACs took place, seeking compromise between different positions Presentation of a possible structure and tools of a programme priority based on objective 11.b.
25-26 June Bucharest 9-10 October Stuttgart 10-11 December Zagreb 2014 2020
Thematic Objective 11
in the regulations
DANUBE
1299_2013_ETC art 7.
Investment Priority: enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration by developing and coordinating macro-regional and sea-basin strategies;
2014 2020
Relation to EUSDR
as agreed at the 3rd meeting of the Danube PC (18 April, 2013)
DANUBE
The Danube Programme is considering to support the governance of the EUSDR and other activities for institutional capacity building through one priority axis based on TO11. Other TOs support the implementation of EUSDR through projects in different thematic fields.
The other 3 / 4 priority axis/TOs will be selected based on the need of the transnational area considering the objectives of the EUSDR but without making direct references to project / initiatives (no projects in the OP).
Projects will be selected according to sound and agreed selection criteria in line with the Structural Funds
’
regulations.
2014 2020
Potential instruments
proposed by the EC to the DPC for consideration (December 2013)
DANUBE
1. Facility for direct support to EUSDR governance
Each of the eleven priority areas of the Danube Region Strategy are managed by two Priority Area Coordinators (PACs). The aim of this element of the priority is to provide a stable source to fund activities of the PACs on a longer run.
2. Seed money/project development fund facility
This instrument is providing support to all project developers in the thematic fields of the Strategy. Small scale financial assistance would be available for EUSDR-relevant project ideas.
3. The EUSDR Focal Point
It is an independent structure (project?) aiming to provide general and specific support on EUSDR to the work and cooperation of EUSDR stakeholders.
2014 2020
Important preliminary remarks
about the Budapest (24 Jan 2014) meeting
DANUBE
Aim of the meeting:
Outlining options for solving open questions;
Sharing a common
understanding on programme support to PACs / NCPs
Limitations:
The meeting had a fully informal nature Time -> focus only on TO11b
(NO other TOs, EUSDR projects or action plans), NO labelling issues, NO general governance concepts)
Different understanding -> informal open dialogue needed Many participants -> facilitated dialogue
an opportunity to speak for everybody
2014 2020
Session 2
open issues
DANUBE
What are the open issues?
30 minutes brainstorming in plenary facilitation by INTERACT
In relation to T.O.11b activities for the EUSDR, i.e. current TA budget and TAF, what are needs / expectations / open issues
TO PACs
- What activities did we cover with TA? What others would we need?
TO NCPs
- What role do we have in the DR MC in relation to EUSDR activities?
- What did we learn from TAF and want to keep for DR support?
- Do you need support within T.O.11b? What?
- What/how coordination among PACs should work? «Technical Point»?
- Do we need “Technical Point” support?
TO DPC
- How much money do we have for T.O.11b? – What results/outputs do we monitor?
- Will our JS run EUSDR seed money? What options?
- What and how shall a “technical point” run? Other options?
2014 2020
Results of the informal group sessions
on support to EUSDR governance
Questions To PACs: What activities did we cover with PAC TA? What others would we need?
DANUBE
Relevant outcomes
- Project preparation meetings - Meetings between PACs (bilateral-pillar) - PACs and their staff’s cost related to supported activities ensuring continuity - REMINDER: PACs will report and be accountable to DRP on 11b achievements, NOT on EUSDR achievements (action plan) - Regional assessment and feasibility studies - The list of activities proposed by EC needs to be extended
2014 2020 To NCPs: What role do we have in the DR MC in relation to EUSDR activities?
- Strategic interface should be established between EUSDR and the transnational programme – one rather than two (to keep the structure simple and streamlined there should be no separate bodies that PACs and technical point should report to and/or to provide the strategic interface between DRS structures and strategic decisions and the transnational programme)
DPC: How much money do we have for T.O.11b? – What results/outputs do we monitor?
- According to EC proposal, TO11b ca. 10% of Danube Programme budget - Regarding PAC support, activities are to be financed - based on planning, project line, reporting as simple as possible - no exceptions for PAC support with regard to the general rules for other beneficiaries - it is necessary to understand the tasks of the PACs and their related activities - 100.000 EUR/priority area should be considered as a baseline, exact allocation should be decided based on the information to be provided by the EC
Results of the informal group sessions
on Seed Money
DANUBE
Questions To PACs: What did we learn from TAF and want to keep for DR support?
Relevant outcomes
- Both TAF-DRP and BSR Seed money models might have advantages and shall be used; (the BSR seed money is a proved framework, TAF must be assessed as well in terms of efficiency after delivering outputs); - Easy procedures should be assured (e.g. providing services, instead of grants like the TAF-DRP) - SEED money has a risk capital nature: maybe no “harvest”, i.e. the project will not be further financed, but this should not have any consequence.
- REMINDER: This kind of support to all PAs has to be strengthened, because there is no guarantee that all PAs will be covered in the T.O.s of the programme
2014 2020 To NCPs: Do you need support within T.O.11b? What??
- EUSDR governance (rather than the NCPs) might need some limited support from the transnational programme (also via the technical point) seed money: preferred to be a flexible facility taking the BSR example into account while managed
DPC: Will Danube Programme run EUSDR seed money? What models to consider?
- seen as an option - objective is to support project generation for EUDRS, as well as for Danube Programme - a kind of „risk fund” - options need to be further analysed
Results of the informal group sessions
on EUSDR Focal Point
DANUBE
Questions To PACs: What/how coordination among PACs should work? «Technical Point»?
To NCPs: Do we need “Technical Point” support?
DPC: What and how shall a “technical point” run? Other options?
Relevant outcomes
- Preference to call it “Focal Point” - Task should be based on good working examples (e.g. RCC Sarajevo); - About 4 people might be considered (to be determined after the definition of tasks) - Profile to be defined better, is knowledge on all financing sources/all themes realistic?
- Support info flows and communication among NCPs – PACs (meeting etc.) - REMINDER: This kind of support to all PAs to be strengthened , because not all PAs will be covered in the T.O.s of the programme - service not structure - help preparing facilitating the tasks, but not delegating and reducing ownership - support annual forum - technical point reporting to the single strategic interface (to be established by DRS governance process) - important to clearly define and distribute the support between the various PAC support and TP to avoid duplication - prioritise possible tasks and identify costs to see what can be realistically provided - it is an interesting initiative, it might be supported but details should be clarified (e.g. exact role and tasks; what is feasible from TO 11b budget; additional financial support from EC) - there might be overlaps with the other structures of the Strategy and the Programme (should be clarified) - more information needed on the division of roles (i.e. independent from JS)
2014 2020
DANUBE
2014 2020
Thank you for your attention!
Béla HEGYESI
+36 30 475 85 73