DRAFT

European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) Reference Document

After the meeting organised with Managing Authorities of structural funds operational programmes (OPs), Priority Areas Coordinators, National Contact Points and theCommission in Riga on 11th March 2010, it was decided that the Commission will prepare a Reference Document concerning the following issues:

  • Reporting (what contents to include in the Annual Implementing Reports of OPs)
  • Labelling of OP projects and actions
  • Access to Finance
  • Selection criteria for projects in the OPs
  • How to coordinate better the work with major infrastructure projects (Transport and Energy).

The Commission set up several working groups to this purpose. It rapidly appeared that the issueconcerning access to finance is a complex one, and that the diversity of cases and situations does not allow drafting a helpful and user-friendly document. However, the Commission will keep on reflecting on this issue with the Laboratory Group with a view to delivering practical advice in a near future.

As for the other questions, the managing authorities of the structural funds programmes will find hereinafter some clarifications aiming at helping them, hopefully, in the implementation of their programmes.

It must be made clear that the present document does not pretend to reply to all the questions the managing authorities will be faced with, and that nothing will replace the knowledge and the experience of the partners and the responsible bodies on the ground.

The Commission easily acknowledges that coordinating objectives and projects both at programme level and at Strategy level is quite challenging. But it also reckons on the growing feeling of ownership of the Strategy throughout the Baltic region and its partners, to gradually allow them for sharing a common vision and common objectives on both the Strategy and the programmes, and to progressively facilitate their implementation.

1. Reporting: annual implementation reports of the structural funds programmes and the European Union strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)

Article 67 of Council Reg.1083/2006 states that by 30 June each year, the managing authority shall send the Commission an annual report on the implementation of the operational programme, and it enumerates the information required.

The structure of this report and the detailed information it should contain are described in annex VI of Commission Reg. 846/2009[1].

Eight member-States are directly involved in the implementation of the European Union strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR), namely Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. They have been invited to mobilize structural funds operational programmes to that purpose.

In this respect, the geographical units in DG REGIO of the countries concerned have sent them guidance notes and practical suggestions in order to help them facilitate the concrete implementation of the EUSBSR, through the funding of projects mentioned in, contributing to, or in line with, the strategy. A methodology for quantifying the contribution of the Operational programmes (OPs) by a labelling system can be found in the next chapter.

Some Member-States have already taken concrete measures to try to identify or better align the use of structural funds with the objectives of the strategy and to make a specific follow-up of the contribution of their programmes to the strategy (EUSBSR labelling of projects, specific selection criteria etc.), some others are still considering the way they will contribute to reaching them.

All of them[2] have already decided that they would include, in a way or another, information relating to EUSBSR in their programmes annual implementation reports.

In any case, this will have an impact on the content of the annual implementation report.

The aim of this note is to give indications to programmes managing authorities on how they should address the issue of reporting on EUSBSR in the OPs, based on the template described in annex VI of Commission Reg. 846/2009, and without adding any "bureaucratic layer" to this regulatory exercise.

The managing authorities of the programme are invited to add, in the annual implementation report, a special section dedicated to EUSBSR where the contribution of the different activities under each priority of the OP to the relevant Priority area and sub priorities of the strategy and its Action Plan are described. In this case, the same template already provided in annex VI of Commission Reg. 846/2009 could be followed "mutatis mutandis" for this section as for the rest of the programme, but only the relevant sections should be filled in.

The annual implementation report should, as far as possible, contain the following information:

1.1. Quantitative information

Without applying a common methodology for quantifying the contribution of the OPs to the EUSBSR Action Plan implementation, it will be very difficult to get quantitative and comparable data in terms of financial amounts and possibly quantified indicators, in particular since information is only requested at priority axis level of the OPs. Furthermore there is no direct correspondence between the content of the priority axes of the OPs and the priority areas of the EUSBSR Action Plan.

The only solution is that managing authorities of the programmes introduce specific quantified and/or financial indicators related to the strategy or to projects contributing to the strategy. So, they are invited to set up a labelling process at the appropriate intervention level in order to allow the collection of specific statistics and the reporting on the OP contribution to the Strategy.

In this respect, sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of subchapter 2.1 (achievement and analysis of the programme) in chapter 2 of annex VI of Commission Reg. 846/2009 should contain the following information:

"For operational programmes implemented in countries concerned by EUSBSR (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden) provide financial and physical indicators resulting from the introduction of specific system for quantifying contribution of the OPs to the strategy"

The quantitative reporting should indicate the first achievements and progress measured, if it is already the case, by coherent quantified financial and if possible physical indicators. Even though there will not be so many projects achieved by the end of 2009, the managing authorities should indicate, for each priority of the programme, the financial amounts, number and percentage of projects selected for ERDF funding and currently achieved or underway that are contributing to the EUSBSR Action Plan implementation.

1.2. Qualitative analysis

The adoption of EUSBSR is impacting the context of the operational programmes implementation in the countries and regions concerned. With the endorsement of the EUSBSR by the national governments, the managing authorities have to consider how the funding of their programmes can also contribute as much as possible to the implementation of the EUSBSR priorities.

The qualitative analysis part should therefore describe the operational programme's contribution to all or part of the EUSBSR 15 priority actions (presented in the action plan of the strategy).

The qualitative analysis of the report should, at least, detail:

  • the way, and to what extent, the managing authority or the monitoring committee of the programme has taken onboard the endorsement of the EUSBSR by their national government and the resulting new policy context (e.g. specific initiatives taken and/or participation to coordination actions at national level with National contact point, other sectoral ministries, Priority area coordinators, flagship project leaders, etc.), as well as the significant problems encountered and the measures taken to overcome them. If any problems still need to be solved, they should also be mentioned;
  • the measures taken by the managing authority or the monitoring committee to adjust the monitoring of the programme to this new context (e.g. evaluation of existing "labelling" system of projects, evaluation of projects, new selection criteria, new actions or modification of priorities or actions, adaptation of statistics system, modifications in the partnership of the programme, new relationship set-up with priority area coordinators, etc.);
  • the priorities components of the programme that are relevant for the strategy, and when possible the priority areas of the strategy they refer to, as well as the way they contribute to its objectives; the managing authorities can provide any information and qualitative analysis illustrating the contribution to the strategy;
  • the managing authorities are also invited to give some examples of emblematic projects funded under the OP for each of these priorities. They should also mention if some flagship projects (or sub-projects of flagship projects) identified in the action plan of EUSBSR are supported by the operational programme;
  • the complementarity with other national, regional or international instruments, when relevant . In some cases, or for some projects, new mechanisms of coordination with other programmes or instruments may have been put in place.
  • the way technical assistance of the OP has been used for specific purposes linked to the implementation of the strategy and of the action plan (meetings, training sessions, information, etc.);
  • the measures taken as regards information and publicity related to EUSBSR. Examples of good practices, good projects and significant events could be shortly described.

1.3 Procedure of follow-up

As soon as they have received the annual implementation report, geographical units will send the information concerning EUSBSR to territorial cooperation unit (E1) in DG REGIO, with a quality assessment and their comments if needed. If they think it useful to ask to managing authorities for complementary information about EUSBSR, they will keep unit E1 informed about it.

When unit E1 has completed the drafting of the annual report on EUSBSR (mainly based on programmes annual implementation reports and priority area coordinators reports), DG REGIO geographical units as well as other DG concerned in the Commission will be consulted. The first draft report for 2009 should be presented in the annual stakeholders' conference in Tallinn on 14-15 October 2010. The comments resulting from this presentation will also be included in a section of the report.

2. Guiding principles and criteria for labelling EUSBSR project under convergence, competitiveness and territorial cooperation Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund programmes as contributing to implementation of EUSBSR

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to the Managing Authorities concerned as regards “labelling” of project financed from Structural Funds programmes which contribute to the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (The Baltic Sea Strategy). The need to identify these projects stems from the fact that the Baltic Sea Strategy has been approved only after the Structural Funds operational programmes have been negotiated and adopted. Taken into account that no separate financial mechanism exists for the strategy, the contribution of Structural Funds mainstream programmes should be acknowledged and demonstrated.

It should be noted that the Baltic Sea Strategy is covering the territory of eight EU Member States (the territory of Germany and Poland is covered only partly), so the geographic scope of the Strategy varies by priority areas. It should be also noted that the approach to identify Baltic Sea Strategy related projects would differ in case of sectoral operational programmes and regional operational programmes.

  • At the meeting held in Riga in March 2010 the Managing Authorities agreed on the importance of identifying the projects which are contributing to the goals of the Baltic Sea Strategy in mainstream programmes under Convergence, Competitiveness and territorial Cooperation objectives and found that a harmonised approach to labelling and reporting is needed.
  • Such a method should provide comparable results for programmes and the Member States concerned, and allow reporting on the work done in implementing the strategy. It was agreed that the European Commission will provide such methodology.

The Commission considered also the possibility of using the intervention codes (similar to the reporting on Lisbon Strategy), but found that results in this approach would be unreliable. As an example, the Priority area 11 "To improve internal and external transport links" could comprise altogether 17 intervention codes and could lead to the identification of projects that do not have any linkage to the Strategy.

The extent to which the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund could contribute to attaining the goals of the Baltic Sea Strategy priority pillars and priority areas differs considerably, It should be noted that the potential for Structural Funds intervention is highest in case of priority pillar I “To make the Baltic Sea region and environmentally sustainable place” which inter alia encompasses the interventions in the waste water sector, which is an area where Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund massively intervene in Objective 1 countries. Similar situation is in the priority pillar III “To make the Baltic Sea an accessible and attractive place” which also comprise the interventions in the transport and energy sector, including BEMIP projects and some large scale transport projects in Poland, which are explicitly mentioned in the Baltic Sea Strategy.

On the contrary, in case of the priority pillar IV “To make the Baltic Sea Region a safe and secure place”; the potential for Structural Funds intervention seems to be very low and limited.

In the preface to each of the four priority pillars of the Baltic Sea Strategy there is a short section listing also some examples of projects already funded by the EU, these projects could also serve as guidance for Managing Authorities in an effort to identify the relevant Baltic Sea Strategy related projects.

The approach finally taken by the European Commission took into consideration the following main factors for determining the connection to the strategy:

Potential activities falling under the OPs

Territoriality aspect, i.e. the geographic area to be covered

Transnational component, where relevant

The guidance is given in the attached fiches, covering all priority areas.

Furthermore, the Commission proposes to use horizontal criterion "Excellence" in the labelling. This should be taken into account additionally to all other proposed criteria. We encourage the Managing Authorities to identify not the largest possible number of projects, but the projects that:

  • Are considered to be good practice;
  • Have innovative character;
  • Include international cooperation elements;
  • Have high visibility in their preparation and/or implementation.

1

C:\Documents and Settings\kiryljo\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK96A\2 consolidated reference document 2010-05-26.doc

Priority Area 1 / To reduce nutrient inputs to the sea to acceptable levels
Strategic and cooperative actions /
  • Implement actions to reduce nutrients
  • Promote measures and practices which reduce nutrient losses from farming and address eutrophication
  • Establish and restore more wetlands
  • Set up the BONUS 169 scheme
  • Facilitate cross-sectoral policy-oriented dialogue

Flagship projects / 1.1. Remove phosphates in detergents in countries where this is not yet the case as recommended by HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
1.2. Cleaner waste water
1.3. Analyse results of pilot actions
1.4. Putting best practices in agriculture into work
1.5. Full implementation of the Water Framework Directive in order to maximize the environmental benefits for the Baltic Sea
1.6. Cooperate with Russia and Belarus on a comprehensive regional pollution risk assessment
Other possible types of Projects /
  • Wastewater treatment facilities discharging cleaned wastewater directly or indirectly into the Baltic Sea, as long as HELCOM Recommendations 28E/5 and 28E/6 are complied with;
  • R&D projects to study eutrophication and its effects, means to improve the removal of these from wastewater, possibilities to reduce the use and waste of these substances in agriculture and domestic use etc..
  • Projects in agriculture and rural development which aim to reduce the use of nutrients and to protect the water bodies from the inflow of nutrients;
  • Projects aiming at establishing and restoring wastelands to stop nutrients leaking into the Baltic Sea;
  • Projects raising the awareness of the public regarding these issues, training of agricultural workers if needed for reduction of the use of fertilizers.

Potential for Structural Funds interventions / High
Territoriality
/ geographic area to be considered/covered / Baltic Sea river basin area
Explicit Transnational cooperation component / Non mandatory
Priority Area 2 / To preserve natural zones and biodiversity, including fisheries
Strategic and cooperative actions /
  • Implement the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
  • Reduce the negative effects of fishing on the Baltic ecosystem

Flagship projects / 2.1. Create marine protected areas
2.2. Restrict the introduction of new alien species by ships
2.3. Establish measures to facilitate migration and reproduction of migratory fish species
Other possible types of Projects /
  • Projects in favour of reducing negative effects of fishing on the Baltic ecosystem: EUSBSR-benefitting criteria: Projects should aim at the completion of the designation of a network of marine protected areas (NATURA 2000) in the Baltic Sea
  • Projects in favour of reducing negative effects of sea-bound transport on the Baltic ecosystem: EUSBSR-benefitting criteria: Projects should aim to restrict the risk of introduction of new species by ships (examples: support for onboard treatment, installation of ballast water reception facilities in all main of the Baltic Sea Region)
  • Projects in favour of protecting the aquatic fauna and flora: EUSBSR-benefitting criteria: Projects should aim at the rehabilitation of inlandwaters (including migration routes) running into the Baltic Sea.

Potential for Structural Funds interventions / Medium
Territoriality
/ geographic area to be considered/covered / Only Baltic Sea Coastalregions
Explicit Transnational cooperation component / Non mandatory
Priority Area 3 / To reduce the use and impact of hazardous substances
Strategic and cooperative actions /
  • Implement actions to reduce hazardous substances
  • Restrict the input of hormone-like substances
  • Continue the research on hazardous substances

Flagship projects / 3.1. Reduce and restrict the use of the most hazardous substances