Transcript Document

Czech Republic and Future of Cohesion Policy
Prague, 29 November 2010
DRAFT POSITION OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
ON THE FUTURE OF COHESION POLICY
AND
THE FIFTH COHESION REPORT
by Fabrizio Barca*
* Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance. Special Advisor to the European Commission
A MUCH NEEDED REFORM
 The EU is facing today multiple challenges:
1. maintaining/strengthening its comparative advantages in the global competition
and bouncing back from the crisis;
2. designing an exit strategy from deteriorated public finances without depressing the
economy;
3. fulfilling its promise to all EU citizens that they will be given adequate social and
economic opportunities (social inclusion) wherever they live in the Union.
 Several steps need to be taken to tackle those challenges:
 Member States need to improve the effectiveness of public spending;
 Member States also need to push foreword structural and institutional reforms and
to concentrate their policy efforts on the common measurable objectives of Europe
2020;
 At EU level the Single Market must be re-launched:
 And the EU budget must be made much more effective.
 In this context, a reform and modernization of cohesion policy is a “must”.
2
THE COMMISSION HAS LAUNCHED THE REFORM
 The Budget review (BR) and the Commission Communication on the “Future of
cohesion policy” (CC) have launched the reform. It is centered on 3 drivers
 CONCENTRATION
Greater concentration “can be achieved by identifying a limited number of
priorities of European importance, linked through the Europe 2020 Strategy to
sectoral policy objectives”: a menu of thematic priorities (BR);
 CONDITIONALITIES
“For each thematic priority CSF would establish the key principles which
interventions should follow”. “Binding conditionality in the area directly linked to
cohesion policy would be agreed with each Member State and/or Region” (CC)
 MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES
The “targets to be achieved would be expressed in terms of “measurable…
outcome indicators”. “Much greater use [should be made] of rigorous methods in
line with international standards, including impact evaluation” (CC)
3
MEMBER STATES, REGIONS AND ALL PARTNERS NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE
 The European Commission has responded to the strong request for change. In
doing so it has been innovative but not adventurous. The proposal of reform is
“based on strengths of the existing well-proven model” (as Czech Republic
asked in the October document) and makes use of tools which have been tested
in Europe (in other policies) and all over the world.
 But the final result is still unsure. The reform upsets established patterns,
threatens all public and private actors that have carved in the policy a niche for
extracting rents, and calls for an investment in human resources by all sides.
 Whether the design of cohesion policy will be truly improved will strongly
depend:
 on the quality and openness of the debate that will now start,
 on the capacity of Member States and Regions to rise to the challenge
and contribute to the detailed shaping of those proposals.
 The “preliminary position paper” of the Czech Republic on the future of cohesion
policy offers a very interesting opportunity to explore how far the position of an
important Member State matches that of the European Commission. And to
establish the ground for a fruitful debate.
4
MATCHING POSITIONS
Czech Republic
European Commission
A DEVELOPMENT POLICY
 “CP is a development instrument”
aligned with the EU 2020 strategy
 “Development contract”
 “alignment … with Europe 2020”
FOCUSSED ON LESS DEVELOPED REGIONS
 “however, the primary mission [is]
reducing disparities”
 keeping the current “eligibility
criteria”
 understanding the necessity of
“transition mechanisms”
 “all regions” eligible, but “differentiation
[according to]… GDP per capita”
 “soften the transition”
5
MATCHING POSITIONS
Czech Republic
European Commission
A MULTISECTORAL COORDINATED FUND
 “integrated approach”
 no to the CP “sectorization”
 “preservation [of ESF] within the
architecture of CP”
 “strengthening coordination of CP with
other EU and national policies”
 agreement “on common interpretation
across DGs of the European
Commission”
 CSF “would cover CF, ERDF, ESF, EAFRD, EFF”
 ESF “refocused”, with “greater visibility and
predictable funding”
 “coordinated approach with all relevant EU
policies”
 PLUS a stronger coordination with sectoral DGs
 “setup task forces with geographical units,
relevant sectoral DGs and experts”
CONCENTRATION (AND FLEXIBILITY)
 “concentration on a limited number of clearly
defined priorities” with a “sufficient degree of
flexibility… [in] defining policy mix”
 “preserving” the possibility to finance “basic
infrastructures”
 extending eligibility of CP to “research and
development infrastructure”
 “negotiations with the EC [is] a crucial stage”
 “concentration on a small number of priorities”
and on a list of thematic priorities”. “certain
priorities would be obligatory”
 “the contract will be the fruit of the discussion
between MS and the EC”. Conditionalities will be
“agreed”.
 PLUS extending/homogenizing eligibility criteria
6
MATCHING POSITIONS
Czech Republic
European Commission
A PLACE-BASED APPROACH
 “development model on place-based
approach”
 “strengthening territorial cohesion
[also]… on the level of local selfadministration units”
 PLUS reinforcing partnership
 reinforcing “local development
approaches”
 developing “an ambitious urban agenda”
 “Programs could be designed and
managed … at the level of groups of
towns…”
 “reinforcing partnership” HOW?
A NEW METRIC OF RESULTS
 “setting up of measurable
objectives and relevant indicators”
 “measurable parameters of results”
 “ex-ante setting of clear and
measurable targets and outcome
indicators”, satisfying given requisites
 “submission of accurate information on
indicators and progress towards targets
central to the annual reports”
7
MATCHING POSITIONS
Czech Republic
European Commission
CONDITIONALITY
 disagreement on “decreasing contribution … as
a result of delay in the transposition of directives
in the area of the single market”
 de facto support of a conditionality principle (“the
following analytical steps should be consistently
taken …”) on “drafting and preparing future
programmes”
 CP is an “instrument … also contributing to
structural reforms in individual MS and Regions”
 PLUS: therefore conditionality principles are
needed
 “the CSF would establish key principles
for interventions” “to ensure effective use
of resources” and “leaving room for
adaptation to national/regional contexts”
 conditionality principles must be
“enforceable, non-prescriptive, credible,
shared
 Both MS/R and the Commission would
assess if and what is needed to
implement conditionalities principles
 “specific binding conditionality would be
agreed with each MS / Region”
INSTITUTION AND CAPACITY BUILDING
 “CP funds should also be used for
strengthening the efficiency of institutions and
professionalization of public administration”
 conditionalities “would be completed by
support to develop administrative and
institutional capacity”
 “to support implementation of preconditions, CP could provide MS with
greater means to target support on specific
institutional and structural reforms”
8
MATCHING POSITIONS
Czech Republic
European Commission
IMPACT EVALUATION
 “greater use of rigorous methods in line
with international standards”
 “whenever possible, impact evaluations
would be designed at an early stage”
 “on-going evaluation would become a
obligation”
 “emphasis on results of evaluation””
 PLUS investing in adopting impact
evaluation
ADDITIONALITY
 “simplification and clarification" of
additionality
 defining and assessing “the principle of
additionality… [by] using indicators
already provided in the Stability and
Convergence Programmes”
9
MATCHING POSITIONS
Czech Republic
European Commission
SANCTION/INCENTIVES FOR MACRO PERFORMANCE
 support to “macro-economic conditionality
(link between SGP and CP) only if equal and
symmetric impact on all MS is ensured”
 suspension on cancellation of future
appropriations linked to “non-compliance
with the rules of the SGP”
 “application of sanctions to cohesion
policy needs to meet two pre-conditions:
a) sanctions are necessary to ensure
effectiveness of CP, b)… equal and fair
treatment of all MS”
INSTITUTION AND CAPACITY BUILDING
 end 2012: CFS and Regulation
 end 2013: Operational Programmes
 PLUS simultaneity of approval of
Financial Perspectives and strategic parts
of Regulation
 PLUS simultaneity of presentation and
approval of DC and OP
10
THE WAY AHEAD
 Matching between the proposal of the European Commission and the
position of Czech Republic is, in general, remarkable
 Still, a great amount of work needs to be done:
 to clarify positions where ambiguities or doubts exist,
 to explore alternative ways in which some planned changes can be
implemented,
 to turn some general ideas into operational tools
 The Commission has clearly shown that it is not planning to move forward
by “dumping” on Member States, Regions and all partners some pre-cooked
Regulations. On the contrary, it has opened a technical debate on some
fundamental principles, imposed by the challenges of the Union.
 Now, it is first of all up to Member States, coherently with their own
vision, to rise to this challenge on both a political and technical level.
11