- 1 -
European Economic and Social Committee
ECO/329Common Strategic Framework
Brussels, 15 June 2012
WORKING DOCUMENTof the
Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion
on the
Common Strategic Framework on Cohesion: 2014-2020
(own-initiative opinion)
______
Rapporteur: Mr Mallia
Co-rapporteur : Mr Gruber
______
To the members of the Study Group on Common Strategic Framework
(Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion)
N.B.:This document will be discussed at the meeting on 20 June 2012 beginning at 10 a.m.
Document submitted for translation: 5 June 2012
Administrator: Marco Thyssen
ECO/329 – R/CESE 1393/2012
- 1 -
Study Group on / President: / Mr Cedrone (IT-II)Common Strategic Framework
Rapporteur: / Mr Mallia (MT-I)
Co-rapporteur: / Mr Gerfried Gruber(AT-III)
Members: / Mr Baráth (HU-III)
Mr Croughan (IE-I)
Mr Dandea (RO-II)
Mr Kittenis (CY-II)
Mr Krawczyk (PL-I) (Rule 62 -Komorowski)
Ms Mendza-Drozd (PL-III)
Mr Pariza Castaños (ES-II)
Mr Vardakastanis (EL-III)
Mr Vértes (HU-I)
Expert:
Mr David Muscat (for the rapporteur)
On 25 April 2012, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Article 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on the
Common Strategic Framework on Cohesion: 2014-2020.
The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on ….
At its... plenary session, held on … (meeting of...), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by... votes to... with... abstentions.
*
**
1.Conclusions and recommendations
(To be completed after the first study group meeting)
2.Introduction
2.1The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) are the five "structural" EU Funds managed by the Member States and the Commission.
2.2The implementation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the 2007-2013 programming period has been criticised in that the limited funding available was fragmented on many projects thus diluting the effectiveness of the actions. The EESC has often made this point in a number of opinions related to Structural Funds[1].
2.3The Commission is thus proposing that these Funds, which are assigned clear policy objectives by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), can better pursue these objectives through a closer coordination in order to avoid overlap and maximise synergies, a full integration into the economic governance of the European Union, and a contribution to the delivery of the Europe 2020 objectives by engaging national, regional and local stakeholders.
2.4This is a positive development which should lead to a more effective Cohesion Policy resulting in the policy achieving a greater impact. Such a development is thus strongly supported by the EESC.
2.5A Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) for the Funds is being proposed by the Commission, with a key element being the adoption of Partnership Contracts which will set out the commitments of the partners at national and regional level linked to the Europe 2020 objectives and the National Reform Programmes.
2.6With the aim of facilitating the development of the Partnership Contracts and Operational Programmes, the adoption of a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) is also being proposed by the Commission to increase coherence between the five Funds in terms of the policy commitments made in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy and investments on the ground.
2.7The CSF seeks to improve coordination and secure the more targeted use of European funds. It is expected to improve coordination between the different EU funds by focusing the national and regional authorities' activities on a limited set of common objectives.
2.8However clear guidance is needed on how the CSF Funds can most effectively target growth in the Partnership Contracts and Operational Programmes.
2.9Furthermore it is not clear whether the CSF is to be considered as an exhaustive "instruction manual" explaining in detail the practical operation of the Common Provisions Regulation or whether is it meant to simply act as a guide. The title of the Commission working document refers to "elements" thus suggesting a non-exhaustive nature. Further clarification is required on the matter.
2.10The CSF builds on the 11 thematic objectives that are identified in the CPR. For each of the thematic objectives, the CSF identifies the main Europe 2020 targets[2] and policy objectives that should be addressed by Member States in their Partnership Contracts, as well as the key actions corresponding to investment priorities and Union priorities.
2.11Other elements cover the linkages with the governance process of European semester, the coordination and integration of the CSF Funds, horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds, the development of Partnership Contracts and programmes to address the territorial challenges of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and priorities for cooperation activities.
3.Launching and adopting the CSF
3.1The EESC questions the chosen approach of the Commission in launching the CSF. The Commission proposes the CSF as a staff working paper containing "elements for a CSF" rather than through a formal communication or proposal. Given the importance of the CSF, this approach is at best dubious and delivers the wrong political message.
3.2Furthermore, the European Commission proposes that it shall be empowered to adopt the CSF as a delegated act in accordance with Article 142 of the TFEU. To date, discussions on the CPR have revealed that the Council, the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions have all rejected the idea of such a delegated act.
3.3The consensus view emerging is that the CSF should in fact become an Annex to the CPR text, thus allowing the co-legislators to contribute to the content of the CSF-text to be adopted. It should be implemented in line with Article 177 of the Treaty so that all the EU Institutions can play an active role in its approval.
3.4The EESC fully agrees with this view.
4.Linking Cohesion Policy to Europe 2020
4.1The Europe 2020 strategy was agreed with the aim of stimulating smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The strategy provides for EU targets for research and innovation, climate change and energy, employment, education and poverty reduction for 2020, to be translated into national targets.
4.2The positive contribution that the CSF Funds can make towards achieving Europe 2020 headline targets is clear and therefore it is logical that the policy objectives and targets of the CSF Funds are aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy. Through the identification of key actions for each Fund, the CSF explains how the Funds will contribute to the goals set by the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives.
4.3However the CSF Funds can also provide an important contribution towards the achievement of other strategies and policies in the EU such as for example the Strategy for Equality between Women and Men 2010-2015, the Energy Strategy for Europe and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020.
5.The thematic approach
5.1The EC's proposals for thematic concentration as a means to reduce fragmentation of efforts are welcome. A strong coordination of efforts between the various CSF Funds is needed.
5.2It is however unclear as to which Fund is expected to play a key role in the achievement of the key targets and objectives set for each thematic area. For example within the thematic area of "Promoting climate change adaptation and risk prevention and management" it is unclear whether it is the ERDF or the EAFRD which should play the leading role. It is suggested that it is left to the individual Member States in accordance with their individual needs to decide the "weighting" of each fund under each thematic area.
5.3While the main objectives set out in the CSF are valid, flexibility must play an important role. Operational programmes for regional funds need to take account of local and regional interests. It must be possible to allocate funding to specific regional priorities. The EESC is of the firm view that the principle of subsidiarity must continue to play a central role in the implementation of the EU’s Cohesion Policy.
5.4The individual thematic objectives indicate which key actions will be undertaken under the specific funds but the complementarity aspect needs to be clarified as it is not apparent which instruments proposed under the various funds and actions actually complement each other.
5.5Other specific themes that should be included in addition to the current 11 themes are:
- Enhancing accessibility;
- Capacity building of stakeholders in cohesion policy[3];
- Meeting the demographic challenge.
These new thematic areas should be included in the CPR.
6.The European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund
6.1The EESC has already put forward its detailed views on the two funds in its opinions "European Regional Development Fund"[4] and "Cohesion Fund"[5].
6.2The ERDF has been earmarked to contribute to all the 11 thematic objectives identified within the CSF; the ERDF is expected to focus on investment which is linked to the context in which firms operate and to the provision of services to citizens in certain areas such as energy, on-line services, education, health, social and research infrastructures, accessibility, quality of environment.
6.3The exact impact of this identified "focus" is unclear. Is preference to be given to one area of focus over another, or will this be up to each Member State to decide? The EESC firmly favours the latter approach as this allows for country/region specific approaches to be adopted.
6.4The EESC is concerned about the proposal to exclude large enterprises from eligibility for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Large enterprises are important sources of R&D and are central to the creation of important industrial clusters. Above all, large enterprises are an important source of job creation.
6.5Given that the level of resources cannot be increased in any significant way, the EESC believes there is a further potential in defining clearer objectives and ensuring that the proposed investment priorities are more precisely linked with the objectives[6].
6.6The Cohesion Fund has been earmarked to contribute to 4 thematic areas relating to the environment, sustainable development and transport (TEN-T).
6.7To avoid past mistakes of spreading the Cohesion Fund over too many projects, the EESC wants to once again reiterate its call for a greater concentration on larger projects which are expected to have a greater impact in reducing disparities between Member States.
7.The European Social Fund
7.1The ESF has been earmarked to contribute towards four thematic objectives: employment and labour mobility; education, skills and lifelong learning; promoting social inclusion and combating poverty as well as administrative capacity building. It is however also expected to contribute to the other thematic objectives as well.
7.2This is in line with the views of the EESC expressed in the Opinion "European Social Fund[7], which expressed the view that the ESF should be the preferred instrument for implementing the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly with regard to employment, education, social inclusion and combating poverty. This view is especially relevant in the current scenario of rising unemployment and an unprecedented loss of jobs.
8.The European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development
8.1Against the background of the CAP-reform towards 2020, the proposal for a MFF 2014-2020 and the current economic situation, the EC presented a proposal for a new EAFRDRegulation[8]. The new EAFRD endorses the priorities of the Strategy "Europe 2020", is based on the proposal of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and is in line with the economic governance framework of the EU.
8.2In its opinion on the CAP-reform package[9] the EESC welcomed the proposed closer alignment of the CAP with the Europe 2020 strategy and the sustainability strategy for rural development.
8.3It is important that Member States are able to set their priorities in a flexible manner in order to find a balance between endorsing the targets of the CAP and enhancing the Europe 2020 strategy. Coherence between the two pillars has to be guaranteed at all times.
8.4It is as yet unclear, how some provisions of the EAFRD-Regulation will fit together with the pursued “streamlining” of measures and financing. Article 65 of the EAFRD-Regulation for example excludes explicitly payments by other funds, if there is already a co-financed measure within EAFRD.
8.5Currently it is uncertain to what extent priorities of the EAFRD will fit into those of the CSF. In addition, there is no detailed earmarking for projects and financing in rural areas, except for cross-over issues as LEADER and climate change.
8.6The EAFRD foresees a minimum share of 25 % for measures related to environment and climate-change, which the EESC appreciated. However, a dedication of 20% for climate-related measures seems to be too high in this respect and therefore this needs to be further elaborated in the CSF.
9.European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
9.1On 2 December 2011, the EC adopted the proposal for a Regulation, establishing – in line with the MFF and the strategy EU 2020 – a new fund, constituting the financial framework for the Common Fishery Policy (CFP) and the Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU 2014-2020.[10]
9.2The proposed key actions can in principle be supported.
9.3As with the EAFRD the CSF should assist in matching the objectives in a flexible manner, while keeping coherence between the specific targets of the CFP and those of EU 2020.
9.4Special attention is needed to help developing a sustainable aquaculture. Hereby the CSF could bring more transparency in possible conflicts between EU-policies, like for example the Water Frame Directive and animal hygiene provisions.
10.Horizontal principles and policy objectives
10.1The CSF sets out the promotion of equality between men and women and non-discrimination and sustainable development as two horizontal principles that should be applied across all funds and hence within all operational programmes. The EESC supports these principles and encourages the effective analysis of all project proposals and the effective monitoring of all programmes to ensure that these principles are well embedded.
10.2The EESC believes that another horizontal principle that should be applied is that of "Communicating Europe". Given the general undermining of and loss of faith in the European Project, the need to communicate the importance of having a European Union must be given prime importance and all actions undertaken by the Funds must also communicate the importance and costiveness of Europe.
11.Integrated approaches to the delivery of the CSF Funds
11.1The EESC is pleased to note that the European Commission places emphasis on the need for an integrated local development. The two mechanisms, Community-led local development (CLLD) and Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) should facilitate this process.
11.2The CPR also introduces new mechanisms to encourage the development of integrated operations - Integrated Operations and Joint Action Plans. The distinction between the two mechanisms is however not clear and therefore more elaboration is required.
12.Need for flexibility, simplification and momentum
12.1The October 2011 Cohesion Policy proposals have been written largely against the backdrop of the current economic and financial crisis. It is unlikely that the draft CSF covers all eventualities the Union will face between now and 2020. The document must therefore be written in such a manner as to be evolutionary and allow for future circumstances to be absorbed.
12.2At present it is envisaged that the European Parliament and the Council may ask the Commission to submit a proposal to review the CSF when there are major changes to the EU 2020 strategy. This in our view is too restrictive. The EESC believes that there should be the possibility to adapt the CSF to changing circumstances especially if there is a significant change in the socio-economic environment which warrants an EU wide response.
12.3Similar flexibility should exist for the Member States to adapt their national programmes to a wider range of circumstances than only the thematic objectives of the policy.
12.4The EESC calls on the Commission to introduce a mandatory review of the CSF at the end of the second year of implementation following which recommendations for changes must be made within six months thus allowing for recommended changes to have an impact during the second half of the 2014 - 2020 programming period.
12.5The EESC has consistently argued for a reduction of the administrative burden and increased simplification especially when it comes to the utilisation of EU Funds and programmes. Whilst the EESC acknowledges the efforts made by the Commission in this direction much still remains to be done.
12.6The CSF should lead to a real reduction of administrative burdens and costs both for beneficiaries and implementing authorities, in order to give an added value. The required higher intensity of coordination at Member State, regional or local level requested by the CSF could however lead to an increase in the administrative burden on the managing and implementing authorities which in turn could also result in added burdens and complexities for beneficiaries. This must be avoided at all costs and a thorough analysis of the current and new administrative procedures must be carried out by the Commission prior to actual implementation.
12.7It is important to maintain momentum in the progress of the discussions on the CSF with the aim of assuring that agreement, at least on the main elements of the CSF is reached in good time to enable Member States to start the groundwork required for the drafting of the OPs.
13.The partnership contract approach
13.1Consultation with the relevant stakeholders in the drawing up of the Partnership Contracts will be crucial in ensuring that the thematic objectives are translated into concrete actions and targets for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
13.2Partnership Contracts should translate the elements set out in the CSF into their national context and set out firm commitments for the achievement of the priorities laid down in the regulations governing the CSF Funds. So that the partnership principle can be applied in practice, a bottom-up approach must be pursued in the decision-making process, with the views of civil society properly taken into account prior to the signing of Partnership Contracts by the EC and the Member States.