Common Strategic Framework (CSF)

1. Common Strategic Framework (CSF) Dr Anna Hadyńska Expert for the CSF Marshal’s Cabinet Marshal Office of the Wielkopolska Region anna.hadynska@umww.pl

2. Mr Marek Woźniak istheCoR’srapporteur for the CSF opinion Our main political objective is to ensure that the CSF is a useful tool for LRAs when preparing the programming of the funds covered by the CSF together with their national governments.

3. The draft opinion of the CSF was prepared through an extensive process of consultation: • a stakeholder consultation with regional offices and EU associations of local and regional authorities (LRAs) on 7 May, • an exchange of views in COTER on 11 May, • a CoR consultation through the Europe 2020 monitoring platform, • and several bilateral meetings with representatives from the institutions

4. Following the cohesion policy proposals of 6.10.2011, the Commission presented its Staff Working Document "Elements for a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) 2014 to 2020", which applies to five funds: the ERDF the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the EAFRD and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

5. The CSF aims to facilitate the development of partnership contracts and operational programmes, and of increasing coherence between the CSF-funds, the policy commitments made in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy and investments on the ground.

6. The CSF should therefore establish the key areas of support, territorial challenges to be addressed, policy objectives, priority areas for cooperation activities, coordination mechanisms with the economic policies of Member States and the EU. The opinion points to the possibility to realise the significant added value of the CSF by means of the new method of combining and allocating all the funds, as well as the procedure for assessing results. The CSF must be a broad-based instrument in the regulatory framework of structural policies.

7. General comments • CoR fully supports the recommendation of the EP and Council that the CSF should be adopted as an annex to the CPR rather than as a delegated act. This is also the only way for the CoR to be formally involved in this legislative work. • CoR calls for the CSF to continue to have the character of indicative guidelines as regards key actions, so as to cater for the diversity of EU regions' territorial needs.

8. it should be much more detailed and concrete with regard to coordination mechanisms so as to facilitate implementation. Keyactions • Key actions should not override, restrict or be inconsistent (as often the case) with the investment priorities set out in the individual funds' regulations

9. They should rather be an open/non-exclusive list of the most effective actions to achieve these investment priorities • The absence of coherence between the 11 thematic priorities of the CPR and the 6 priorities of the EAFRD and EMFF • and the lack of bridges between thematic priorities, as for instance between supporting employment (thematic objective 8) and investing in science, skills and lifelong learning (thematic objective 10), are very much regrettable.

10. Coherence and consistency with EU economic governance • the funds covered by the CSF must play a key role in supporting the Europe 2020 strategy but this does not mean that EU's Treaty obligations with regard to economic, social and territorial cohesion should not be honoured, • calls for local and regional authorities, taking account of national competences, to be involved in any revision of the CSF which would have to be carried out on the basis of the annual cycle of multilateral supervision (European Semester).

11. Reinforcing coordination and integration The objective should be to foster an integrated multi-thematic approach, linking mutually complementary key actions from different funds, but itis a pity that the Commission has not gone further in spelling out such complementarities. Theopinion appreciate the emphasis placed on the link between the Funds covered by the CSF and other EU instruments such as the Horizon 2020 or the LIFE programme and very much share the guidelines put forward.

12. Encouraging integrated approaches to the delivery of the CSF Funds: theopinionhighlightsthat the definition of the new territorial development mechanisms requires further specification, as a number of provisions regarding their principles and aims, are currently missing. • We have observed a total absence of reference to integrated territorial investments, integrated operations or joint action plans in the annex to the SWD (list of key actions). Community-led local development is mentioned, but only at 2 occasions.

13. Horizontal principles and policy objectives • Theopinionstrongly supports activities to promote the horizontal principles proposed by the EC (promotion of gender equality and non-discrimination, and sustainable development) but wonders why the third horizontal principle proposed in the CPR (multilevel governance and partnership) is not mentioned at all. • CoRunderlines that some important horizontal policy challenges are missing in the Commission proposal, notably demographic change, climate change and sustainable urban development.

14. Meeting territorial challenges of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth • Opinionstresses that the territorial challenges set out in the document refer only to urban, rural, coastal and fishing areas, as well as to areas with particular territorial features, which is an oversimplification. Regrets the lack of references to rural areas in relation to the activities of other funds covered by the CSF than the EAFRD. In line with the Treaty, rural areas should be a common concern to all funds!

15. Priorities for cooperation activities Theopinionregrets that the CSF does not provide for any mechanism for coordinating international cooperation activities financed under the ERDF and the ESF. CoRpoints out that it would be worthwhile broadening transnational territorial cooperation under the ESF to include interregional and border cooperation.

16. Thank you