Territorial cohesion: reinforcing coordination

1. Territorial cohesion: reinforcing coordination 02.07.2010. Gábor Novotny, DG REGIO, Unit C2 (Urban development, territorial cohesion)

2. The cardinal messages Reinforced territorial dimension in the design and implementation of public policies at all levels • Territorial cooperation as a clear EU asset (1st seminar) • Need for functional approaches – territorial programming (2nd seminar) • Coordinated public policies at and between different levels (3rd seminar – 2 July) • Reinforced knowledge base (present in all seminars) • Better account of territorial impacts

3. Outline • Coordination – a central element of territorial cohesion • The importance of cross-sectoral coordination • Aiming for policy synergies • Synergy of funds • The role of the regional and local levels • Institutional changes? • EU territorial strategy/guidance? • The role of the knowledge base • Assessing territorial impacts

4. I. Coordination of policies with territorial impacts

5. Improved coordination – a central element of territorial cohesion • Several levels of government affect a single territory • At each level bringing together interests of different sectors, of public and private actors • Creating/optimising synergies + avoiding conflicts on the ground • Reducing costs of non-co-ordination of EU-policies (LU, ARL, Eurochambers, Business Europe); increasing efficiency • No subordination of policies to each other (EP) • BUT financial intruments (incl CP)– not to remedy negative effects of sectoral policies (EP, CPMR, CEMR, ARL, HU)

6. Improved coordination – a central element of territorial cohesion • Clear demand for more consistency between EU policies with territorial impacts: • cohesion, neighbourhood, transport, agriculture, environment, energy, employment, maritime, competition, research • Regulatory policies! – Not only budgetary policies have territorial impacts • Coordination of territorial aspects in all stages of policy development cycle (conception, ex-ante evaluation, implementation, ex-post evaluation - ES, CY, FR)

7. Aiming for policy synergies • More synergy in territorial policies  Rural development (CAP 2nd pillar) with regional policy • Policies at external borders + at the interface between land and sea • Coordinating social policy with a territorial focus (education, training, poverty, exclusion, health inequalities - AER) • TEN-T road construction ↔ Environment (Noise) + Climate change • Growth-Green conflicts  regional development ↔ environment (Natura 2000) • Green-Green conflicts  renewable energy ↔ environment

8. Green-Green conflicts

9. Aiming for policy synergies • CAP’s 1st pillarterritorial disparities • Competition and internal market ↔ regional policy • public procurement ↔regional policy support for inter-municipal cooperation to provide services more efficiently • RTDI policies ↔ territorial cohesion • “competitive research excellence versus territorialised balanced excellence” (Border, Midland and Western Region)

10. Synergy of funds • Call for improved integration of funds (EESC): • Harmonisation and simplification of the management rules of funds (e.g. ERDF, ESF, EFF, EAFRD, Life, TEN-T …) - complemetarity, eligibility (FR) • EAFRD + SF mentioned the most • Plurifund (IT, ARL, EUROMONTANA, UK regions) ↔ monofund OP • Single fund/Joined up delivery of funds at regional level (UK associations and regions) • Integrated or Single Operational Programmes (EL, COSLA, CY – publication of joint calls)

11. Best coordination: at the level of implementation often the local (Cities for cohesion) Local level – general competence Contradictory regulatory approaches clearly perceived Citizens and the EU  the liability of local politicians BUT decentralised, spatial development policy can only be as coherent as the national and European policy (Upper Rhein, DE - Länder) Coordination of policies at subnational levels?

12. The role of regional and local stakeholders • Increasing interdependencies + new challenges require good coordination between levels • Opening up EU pre-legislative process and consultation for the regional and local level an important tool for assessing territorial impacts! • “Contrat de territoire”? (regional programs supporting infra-regional development – condition: Integrated area specific development plans) • Cohesion Policy – integration of various policy goals in a multi level programming framework  an optimal vehicle to deliver coherent answers to the needs of territories!

13. Proposed institutional changes • General Affairs Council (FR,SK) /Stable council formation (EP,IT,SK,LU) as a forum for integrating territorial cohesion aspects into other EU policies • Dedicated DG or Secretary General to coordinate (PL), specific internal and cross-DG coordination units (AT, Cities for Cohesion) • Everything is already there (DE federal) – inter-service consultation is enough • Reinforced inter-service work (UK, BE, HU, RO, AT,COPA COCEGA,EUROCITIES,ARL,EUROCHAMBERS etc.) Inter-service Group on Territorial Cohesion • Offering added value for sectoral policies as well  more effective sector policies if territorial aspects on board

14. EU visions/strategies/guidelines for policy coordination? • No (DE) - Enough orientation in ESDP, TA and Leipzig Charter + integrated territorial development concepts of MS + regions • Yes (EESC, PT, SK, HU, CY, PL, BE, Upper Rhein, METREX) • Integrated multi-sectoral strategy of territorial development of the EU (PL) • A territorial perspective to the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies (BE) now Europe 2020? • Comprehensive EU strategy for regions with specific geographical features (EP) • Strategic guidelines for cohesion, rural and fisheries policies (EE) or for coordinating sectoral and territorial policies (LV)  a Single Strategic Framework post 2013? • Baltic Sea Strategy: a good example (PL, SF, EE, LT; SE: face up contradictions between social, economic and environmental sustainability)

15. II. Knowledge base

16. Evidence from the ground… • … to enable tailored strategies: • “basis for EU DGs to develop policies which are place sensitive and consistent with each other and with MS policies” (UK) • “looking at the map before implementing policies” (CoR + HU, MT) • Majority support for assessing territorial impacts • BUT No new territorial impact assessment procedure no further red-tape • rather fine-tuning of existing tools reinforcing territorial dimension in general impact assessment guidelines • “to re-orientate reforms to take into account their impact and • to enable territories to anticipate the consequences of the reforms” (FR) • On-going work in the inter-service group on the territorial dimension and impact of EU policies

17. Evidence from the ground… • The limitations of the EU level! No capacity for detailed analysis! • The role of MS! Concrete impact of EU legislation  MS transposition/application (SI, SE)! • The limitations of the regional-local level - Administrative burden of territorial monitoring (Upper Rhein) • a collective effort is needed (at and between levels EU-MS-regional-local) • URBACT, INTERACT, Urban Audit, Urban Atlas • Territorial Agenda actions  Action 2.2 under the 1st action program – sharing best practice on impact assessment • Coordinating methods and definitions of REGIO, AGRI, EUROSTAT work on urban-rural definition • ESPON projects on territorial impact assessment (methods)

18. Potential regional impacts of climate change • Complex index (aspect of flood risk, draught hazard, vulnerability of agriculture, fisheries and tourism) (Regions 2020 study) • Need for coordinated action to address global challenges

19. „Let‘s turn diversity into an asset“Thank you for your attention!gabor.novotny@ec.europa.eu