Transcript Diapositive 1 - Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions

TERRITORIAL COHESION
AND NATIONAL-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP
for the programming period 2007-2013
Benchmarking Seminar on
The Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective,
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),
The Regional State Aid Provisions (RSA).
South-Finland on a Way to be a Most Competitive
Region in Europe
Esa Halme
Executive Director, Regional Council of Päijät-Häme
31 May 2006 - Brussels
Introduction
National level
(parlamentary election)
Regions
State (nominated Council
offices
from locally
elected)
Money and mandate
Local level
(local election)
Päijät-Häme
The Regional Competitiveness and
Employment Objective
General information
National financial allocation
- No decision, preliminary work with 40% EU / 60%
national
State of play of the NSRF
- Participation from all NUTS-2 areas and widely from
different groups of interest and ministries
- Major decisions made by responsible ministries
The Regional Competitiveness and
Employment Objective
1. National-regional partnership
-
Dialogue: involving regions in the negotiations between the European Commission
and Member States when designing regional policy,
-
ERDF; 1 Region from every NUTS 2 area, ESF;
Limited regional participation and only extensions to
national policies possible, role of regional strategies
minimal.
-
Participation of regions in drafting the NSRF: form, partnership
arrangements, governance, ERDF/ESF resources, outcomes.
-
Regions had sufficient role in drafting NSRF and a key
role in preparing ERDF programs and in implementing
it. Governance questions open, but in good line. ESF
much too centralistic and regions role is limited, but
final decisions are still open.
The Regional Competitiveness and
Employment Objective
2. “Territorial cohesion” dimension
(statistics/cartography)
-
Methodology for regional breakdown:
-
South-Finland,
regions
eligible under the Objective (EFRD/ESF funding under
general terms or for specific territorial characteristics);
amounts of funding/ surface area and population covered.
-
-
South-Finland
-
-
65% priority territories, 27% of South-Finland
25% thematic,
5% largest Cities (Helsinki and Turku),
5% for future decision
territorial coverage 27% of population
Comparison 2000-2006/2007-2013:
-
Former obj. 2 areas; - 50%, obj 1 area +/- 0%
ESF nationalized
Lisbon goals not visible enough
The Regional Competitiveness and
Employment Objective
Priority territories
• Low
GDP/inhabitant
• High
unemployment
• High removal
• Low education
level
Impact
ERDF/ESF distribution and on
funding rates
50%/50% share
between ERDF and
ESF in NUTS-2
from 20%/80% to
75%/25% ERDF and
ESF in NUTS-3 level
The EAFRD, Allocation
Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of the farm
and forestry sector (Finland xx%)
Axis 2: Improving the environment and the
countryside (Finland xx%)
Axis 3: Quality of life in rural areas and
diversification of the rural economy
(Finland xx%)
Axis 4: LEADER (local development in rural areas)
(Finland xx%)
Responsible national authority Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)
The EAFRD
1.
The national-regional partnership
Start phase one year ago – promised as follows
-
-
-
Wide involving regions in the negotiations between the European
Commission and Member States when designing the EAFRD over 250
people in Päijät-Häme (nuts 3)
Participation of regions in drafting the NSP and delivering the EAFRD:
form - open, partnership arrangements - all in executive group,
resources - MAF-local, outcomes - objectives.
Impact of Leader approach will be participate activator in new
diversification
Then: No contact – no information since start phase – if the
case is like 7 years ago, nobody from local level will be
listened and regional strategies will be forgotten.
The EAFRD
2. “Territorial cohesion” dimension
Methodology for identifying rural areas: Case – Päijät-Häme
• RA near cities (Päijät-Häme pop. 56664), not noticed
when sharing the EAFRD assets to areas, even though it
is an area for activities, major drawback!
• basic RA (P-H pop. 35531)
• sparsely inhabited RA (P-H pop. 8389)
• CAP-subvention +42 M€ 2007-2013, but
• RA development -104 M€ 2007-2013 in Finland
• Axis 3 is important for actions for the development of the
rural economy
Development of Finlands EU-income and EU-payments
2006 vs. 2007-13 average (estimate)
Netto
Netto
Finlands payments to EU
Other EU-funding (R&D,
TEN…)
CAP
Rural development
Structural funds
From EU 2005, To EU 2005, from EU ,
2007-13
to EU
2007-13
The EAFRD
2.1 Chosen territorial criteria axis 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
diversification to non-agricultural activities
support for micro-enterprises
tourism
Improvement of the quality of life - basic services
village renewal and conservation
upgrading of the rural natural and cultural
heritage
The EAFRD
2.2 Connection with potential integrated
rural development plans at regional level
REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
REGIONAL URBAN
LANDUSE PLAN
(includes rural areas)
MEASURES FOR NEXT 4 YEARS
1+1 YEARS
Plan of implementation
REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN
Impact of Leader approach
20-30 years
Coherence / integration of the strategies?
Regional State Aid provisions
General information
- State of play of the
eligibility map for 20072013
- State of play of
negotiations between the
Commission and Member
States:
- In progress, no
problems so far
SUPPORT AREA I
SUPPORT AREA II
SUPPORT AREA III
Conflict zone
Regional State Aid provisions
1.The national-regional partnership
Dialogue: involving regions in the negotiations
between the EC and Member States when
selecting the zoning procedure;
“No official role, it is a political game played by
a minister and his cabinet and will be in future
negotiations”. (comment from a local operator)
Active participation:
Role of the regions in future negotiations and
the zoning procedure.
types of RSA provisions
• Aid for
investment
• Aid for
development
• Aid for operating
environment
projects of
enterprises
R&D/GDP, REGIONS 2002
1 Uusimaa
2 Itä-Uusimaa
3 Varsinais-Suomi
4 Satakuntaliitto
5 Pirkanmaa
6 Häme
7 Päijät-Häme
8 Kymenlaakso
9 Etelä-Karjala
10 Etelä-Savo
11 Pohjois-Karjala
12 Pohjois-Savo
13 Keski-Suomi
14 Etelä-Pohjanmaa
15 Pohjanmaa
16 Keski-Pohjanmaa
17 Pohjois-Pohjanmaa
18 Kainuu
19 Lappi
01234567-
19
R&D
Corridor
of Finland
17
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
18
16
12
11
14
15
13
10
5
4
7
3
6
1
8
9
2 2
The Regional Council of Päijät-Häme
amounts and rates of funding
• No decisions made concerning the amount of the funding
National Support Areas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
%
SUPPORT AREA I
Max. level 1)
Recommended level 2)
SUPPORT AREA II
Max. level 1)
Recommended level 2)
SUPPORT AREA III
Max. level 1)
Recommended level 2)
LARGE COMP.
MEDIUM COMP.
%
SMALL COMP.
%
15
10
25
20
35
30
10
5
15
10
25
20
-
10
7,5
20
15
1) Max. Level. Means a cumulative limit including all public support to an investment.
2) Recommended level is a level of support, that should be used in case no specific
regulations.
Identification of rural areas
• No special criterias
• Density of population low
• GDP/inhabitant and level of education lower
Comparison 2000-2006/2007-2013
• Aid for development on current level
• Aid for investment for medium size
enterprises – 5%
The Regional State Aid provisions
Types of criteria
• GDP/inhabitant
• unemployment rate
• net migration
• income level
• education level
• population
No subnational or regional weighting excluding
population density (under 12,5)
Impact on RSA funding rates
• Chosen criterias correlate with the funding areas
importance
Worlds Most Competitive
and Dynamic Knowledgedriven Economy...
R&D
Knowledge
Education
Accessibility
Infrastructure
Regional Policy
ERDF
4 Freedoms
(globalized)
Environmental Policy
Governance
Democracy
Social Policy
ESF
Cohesion Policy
ERDF
Rural Policy
Employment Policy
ESF
Agricultural Policy
Possibility to influence through EU-means
Conclusion
FINLAND
• There is room for good cooperation with national level and regions,
but that needs active work. ESF and EAFRD had hardly any local
cooperation but ERDF worked quite well.
• Simplified administration is needed (fewer operators)
• Regions have bigger interest to Lisbon goals than national level. (In
South-Finland regions preliminary goal is over 90% to Lisbon)
• European policy should be more European (an extension to a national
policy should not be accepted)
• Democratic processes and decision-making should have more central
role to ensure approval among people
Europe
• Regions and citizens need stronger status (constitutional agreement?)
• Regions and Commission need more formal and direct relationship.
• Regional policies is needed through all Europe
• All EU instruments should target to same goals
TERRITORIAL COHESION
AND NATIONAL-REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP
for the programming period 2007-2013
Benchmarking Seminar on
The Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective,
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),
The Regional State Aid Provisions (RSA).
www.paijat-hame.fi
[email protected]
31 May 2006 - Brussels