1

Integration between regional and rural development policies in the Italian National Strategic

Regional Framework

Bruxelles, 1st October 2009

Sabrina Lucatelli (Evaluation Unit) Department for Development Policies and Cohesion

Italian Ministry of Economic Development and Cohesion

2

Some key principles for the new programming…

• Unified Programming (EU and National Resources)

• Cohesion and Competitiveness objectives defined on the basis of lessons from experience

• Priority of intervention and thematic concentration

• Citizen-centered and strong focus on essential services

• Links and complementarities with national ordinary policies

• Governance and institutional capacities

… laid down in NSRF guidelines and implementation rules

3

Strategy and Priorities1. Human resources

2. Research and innovation for competitiveness

3. Energy and environment

4. Social inclusion, quality of life and security

5. Natural and cultural resources

6. Transports

7. Competitiveness of productive systems and employment

8. Cities and urban systems

9. Internationalization

10.Governance and competition

Rural Areas and Rural Objectives within each priority;

Coordination with Rural Development Policy

4

National Regional Strategy and Territorial Dimension

•Separation of Funds (structural and diversification rural development measures where a part of Operational Programmes for Southern Regions)

•Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion: – taking into consideration rural needs– diversification and improvement of collective services– integration between regional policy and rural development

policy

•Considering rural areas necessities within different NSRF Priorities

Coordination between the definition of Rural Development and Regional Policy National

Strategies

5

Lessons from 2000 - 2006 Period(Objective 1 Regions)

• A strong need of Integration between Regional Policy and Rural Development Policy at local, regional and central level

• Policy mainly concentrated on agricultural competitiveness objective, not clear and general understanding of effects on a major dynamism of the agri-food sector

• Need to invest more and with more innovative tools on rural diversification

• Need to improve local partnership and to extend the participation of different actors to the local “rural voice”; Improving local partnership

• Diversification and more innovative rural intervention through Place Based Integrated Tools (Leader and Integrated territorial projects)

6

Integration: a complex and tiring process!

•Participation of MISE Officials to the Rural Development Negotiation Process

•

•Participation of MIPAAF Officials at the 8 Thematic Tables to negotiate the National Strategic Regional Framework with Regions and the socio-economic Partners (Research and Innovation; Human Capital and Local Development; Environmental Issues)

•At Present, Participation of Regional Officials to the National Rural Networks and to the Permanent Rural Development Table

What the Result of such a Coordination Process?

A “Common” – linked - Strategy between Regional Policyand Rural Development Policy in favour of theDevelopment of Rural Areas

7

In the current programming period coordination is facilitated by the

National Rural Network • The NRN is a programme to promote implementation of rural

development policies in Italy during programming 2007 -2013 creating a network between different Administrations and Organisations working in the field of Rural Development

• The programme (16 actions) promotes the creation of a new model of rural development to pursue three global objectives:

1. Improvement of governance systems2. Strengthening of the managerial and planning capacities3. Diffusion of good practices and knowledge.

• NRN establishes a system of relationships among various Institutions; between economic activities and productive sectors; within economic activities at inter-sectoral level; between public and private sector; between national rural actors and other international partners.

• The financial budget for the implementation of the NRN amounts to 82.9 M €, (50% funded by the EAFRD and 50% by national funds)

8

Two main Objectives for Rural Areas in Regional Policy

1. Improving Socio-Economic Conditions of Rural Areas to facilitate agri-business and other economic activities

Facilitating rural areas capacities of attracting qualified human capital and companies

Improving marketing of agri-food products

- collective services; transportation; ICT; logistics; education and training

2. Improving rural areas’ attractiveness through local economy’s diversification and quality of life improvement:

- Diversification into activities related to agriculture (agri-tourism; social agriculture; educational farms)

- Diversification into tertiary activities (alternative energy businesses; tourism; cultural heritage activities; small social and health services activities

Place-based programming tools

9

Coordination Mechanisms between regional policy

and rural development policy• Ensuring properly governance coordination systems

when managing programmes: regional level;• Ensuring coordination at Central level (What the

best solution?) – Rural Proofing• Using different funds within integrated territorial

projects;• Financial primes for projects reinforcing integration

between these two policies• Evaluating effects of both policies in Specific Areas• Using Evaluation as a Tool of Coordination

What is happening at regional level?

10

The Evaluation Unit implemented two Research Projects:

A) An analysis of the way in which rural priorities are translated in Regional Programmes, and of existing coordination mechanisms (extension of the analysis to programmes’ implementation and to rural development programmes);

Following OECD Rural Review Questionnaires

B) A reclassification – on the basis of territorial criteria – of all the 2007-2013 Structural Funds categories of expenditure selected in all the programmes approved by the EC within the NSRF:

To Estimate (Ex Ante!) resources programmed in favour of rural areas!

Categories of expenditure are established by the EuropeanCommission. The complete list is available in the Annex to EU Reg. 1083/2006. Each Programme co-funded by Structural Funds must select its own categories of expenditure from this listand all the projects financed are classified in a specific category

11

The analysis of ERDF & ESF ROPsA COMMON SCHEMECOMMON SCHEME of analysis to understand:

whether there is a territorial approach referring particularly to rural in the context analysis;

whether there is an objective for developing rural areas to be found in the high strategy;

if there are specific objectives for rural areas in the priorities and axis of the ROPs;

how considering that both the NSF and the NSP foresee the integration of the two policies, the same is realised in the ROP;

Whether, regard to ROP implementation, there are specific mechanisms foreseen to ensure a co-ordination with the RDP;

whether the common evaluation plan at regional level for ROP, RDP and national policies includes some evaluation research with a territorial approach

12

Main Project’s Results• Quite sophisticated socio-economic analysis, individuating

rural necessities but …

• Very few cases of explicit rural development strategic objectives (and corresponding financial resources)

• Major attention to competitiveness aspects, rather than investments to improve public goods and services

• Rural Areas issues within different priorities: classic and innovative themes

• Classic Areas of Intervention: - Water and Irrigation - Sustainable and Environmental Valorisation- Tourism and Cultural heritage- Transportation and Accessibility

• New Areas of Intervention: Socio-Health Services (Services Targets in Southern Regions); Energy (agro-energetic resources); Logistics; Information Technologies and Digital Divide’s overcoming.

13

Operational Regional Programmes and Rural Areas

Territorial Dimension in EDRF Programmes of some Italian Regions

Regions Context Analysis

General Strategy

Axes and Priorities

Integration with RDP

Objectives

Coordination

Mechanisms

Research Evaluations with

Territorial Approach

Calabria 2 3 3 2 2 2

Emilia Romagna 1 1 1 2 2 2

Lazio 1 2 2 3 2 1

Liguria 1 2 2 3 3 2

Puglia 3 2 2 2 2 1

Sicilia 2 2 3 2 2 1

Umbria 3 2 2 3 3 2

Veneto 2 2 1 2 2 1

0 = ABSENT 1 = LOW 2 = ENOUGH 3 = STRONG

14

Mechanisms of Coordination• All Programmes contain criteria to mark out EDRF and EAFRD

interventions

• Coordination Mechanisms at different governance levels!:

- At Political Level: Cabina di Regia (Valenza Politica) - At strategic level: A Common Strategy through the Unitary

Programming Document and/or the Regional Development Plan(Calabria, Puglia)

- At Operational Level: Co-ordination at Regional Presidency Level (Puglia and Liguria), at Programming Department level

or through special Working Groups (Lazio; Umbria). - Decentralisation of coordination: Emilia Romagna

and “Integrated Plans at Provinces level” case - Generally, It exists a Common Evaluation Plan (How is

this a real tool?)In one case it exists a Common Fund for Evaluations Activities(Liguria!) - Very Little Cases of inter-fund Integrated Territorial Projects

(the difficult case of Umbria Region)

15

How many Regional Resources planned in favour of Rural Areas?

Classification – on the basis of territorial criteria – of all the 2007-2013 Structural Funds categories of expenditure selected in all National, Regional and Interregional Programmes approved by the EC within the National Strategic Regional Framework (Operational Programmes, within the following categories:

explicit rural interventions (renewable energy, regional and local transportation, and promotion and valorisation of natural resources);

horizontal interventions, non-place-based (research and development expenditures, SME incentives, waste management, environmental control and human capital improvement);

explicit urban interventions (major infrastructures such as main highways, main railways, ports and airports; city transportation systems);

interventions potentially devoted to both urban and rural areas (the valorisation of cultural heritage; and social services (social and health infrastructures; secondary transportation investments).

16

Financial Analysis ResultsConsidering total EU and national co-funding

– Explicit rural interventions and interventions potentially devoted to both urban and rural areas account for about 43% of total EDRF and SF programmes’ resources, 55% taking into account just EDRF (Horizontal nature of SF Programmes);

– Total Contribution of Regional Programmes to the Development of Rural Areas can be estimated at 18% of total allocated resources … about 10 billion euros!

Interventions potentially devoted to both urban and rural areas have been imputed for 70% to Urban Areas

But this is just an analysis on planned resources

17

How to improve integration in the future?

A Common Framework of rules and a Common Timing (not approving rural development programmes before regional ones …)

The European Commission can play a stronger role in boosting integration between different programmes – at programme approbation level

Not discourage innovative tools!

There should be a major emphasis on economic diversification and social services priorities in rural development programmes …

This should be linked to a major commitment of regional programmes for rural areas (not just through good territorial analysis). A financial reserve for the future?

Improving common territorial analysis tools (maps) and more evaluation with territorial approach→ Rural Areas within Rural Development Programmes

Evaluation can play a fundamental role for integration (A Comprehensive Evaluation Plan and Inter-Funds Evaluations)