European Regional Policy 2007-2013: Regional Competitiveness Objective

From Objective 2 to Regional Competitiveness: Experiences & Lessons

Turin, 15-16 September 2005

Professor John Bachtler

European Policies Research CentreUniversity of Strathclyde, Glasgow

2

European Policies Research Centre

specialises in comparative research on public policy throughout Europe

focus on monitoring and analysis of regional development policies at European and national levels

policy advice and exchange of experience through two networks:

– EoRPA (European Regional Policy Research Network) - national government departments responsible for regional policy – 10 countries

– IQ-Net (Improving the Quality of Programme Management) – regional and national Structural Fund programme management authorities from 12 Member States www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/iqnet/

3

IQ-Net partners – regional and national programme management authorities

United Kingdom• North-East England• ODPM • Wales (WEFO)• Western Scotland (SEP)

Spain• País Vasco

Sweden• Norra Norrland • Norra

Germany • North-Rhine Westphalia

• Saxony Anhalt

Finland• Western Finland Alliance

•Ministry of the Interior

France• DATAR/CNASEA

Austria• Lower Austria• Styria

Belgium• Min of Flemish Community

Denmark• North Jutland/Nat Agency

Italy• Lombardy • Tuscany• IPI/MAP

Hungary• National Office for Regional Development

Greece• Min of Economy & Finance

4

From Objective 2 to Regional Competitiveness: Experiences & Lessons

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness issues: review of trends

Programme management and delivery: strengths and weaknesses

Looking forward: pressures and opportunities

Looking forward: questions and issues

5

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness:review of trends

Relationship between Structural Funds and Lisbon

Priorities for support– business competitiveness– employment– knowledge economy and innovation– sustainable development– accessibility

6

Objective 2 programmes and Lisbon:shared objectives

some congruence between the objectives of the Lisbon agenda and Structural Funds objectives (economic growth, high employment, low unemployment, environmental sustainability)

most Lisbon investment themes are present in SF programmes (employment, IT infra, R&D, HRD, business development, social inclusion, environmentally sustainable development)

share of SF support allocated to fields directly relevant for Lisbon is high in O2 regions, frequently above 50% (much less in O1 regions – 18-33 percent)

Source: Danish Technological Institute

Objective 2 region Share of funding relevant for Lisbon objectives (% )

Denmark – Bornholm 80 Finland – Satakunta 85 France – Aquitaine 83 UK – Western Scotland 68

7

Objective 2 programmes and Lisbon: differences and tensions

Source: Danish Technological Institute

Differences Lisbon Agenda Structural Funds Spatial dimension of objectives Insignificant Very significant Character of objectives Broad and operational Broad Formulation of operational objectives Centralised Decentralised Governance instruments Weak Strong Significance of physical infrastructure Low High

Tensions– economic growth vs economic and social cohesion– different priority to higher aggregate EU rate of growth– important spatial dimension to Structural Funds– Structural Funds decentralised, Lisbon is top down– prioritisation of investment

8

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness: business development

Trends – shifts from……– general business investment support (often through grant schemes), especially for

new start-ups and SMEs– provision of premises, creation or equipping of business centres– site (re)development / rehabilitation

......towards more support for– inter-firm cooperation / business networks– advisory/counselling services to business (esp. strategic planning, internationalisation)– integrated, multi-service business support within business centres– targeted start-up support (university graduates, young entrepreneurs, women,

innovative activities, employment-intensive growth areas)– micro-enterprises and community enterprises– access to finance

Problems with business demand because of downturn in the business cycle

9

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness: employment

Trends – shifts from……– general skills-based training measures (employed / unemployed)– sector-specific training programmes– investment in the training infrastructure

......towards more support for– targeted training on specific groups eg. women, youth, disabled, immigrants (ltd)– development of new training methods (ICT teaching techniques, distance learning, HRD management)– training related to innovation and ICT

Community development remains important for urban programmes – mix ofsocial, employment and economic measures – more cross-cutting approaches

Problem of some programmes (c.40%) being without ESF component

10

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness: innovation & the knowledge

economy

Trends – shifts from……– investment in RTD infrastructure (science parks, technology centres,

university facilities)– incentives for business R&D and innovation– business-research links

......towards more support for– integrated support (regional innovation system approach) – research services, entrepreneurship, training, business advice– broadening of business-research links innovation networks– ICT: access/use by businesses (e-commerce), communities, public sector– access to specialist finance (risk capital, venture capital, seed capital)– environmental RTDI– human capital – training of researchers

11

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness: sustainable

development

Trends – shifts from……– environmental infrastructure projects eg. waste-

processing– clean-up and rehabilitation of derelict /

contaminated sites– protection /enhancement of areas of ecological

interest

......towards more support for– company-based environmental and energy

management– development of green areas, outdoor space,

natural parks, protected areas– investment in renewable energy sources– sustainable development management/monitoring

projects– preservation of biodiversity / wildlife

12

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness: accessibility

Trends – shifts from……– basic transport infrastructure – road and rail

networks, ports, telecoms

......towards more support for– secondary infrastructure links (feeder roads,

bottlenecks, missing links)– development of multimodal and intermodal

transport facilities– logistics projects to improve use of

physical/ICT infrastructure– improvement of transport-related services

(eg. port services)– information exchange networks (eg. joint

municipal computer systems)

13

Objective 2 programmes and regional competitiveness: overall trends

More strategic approach to interventions

Better integration of support – linking interventions together eg:– RTDI – technology centre facilities, with technology transfer, brokerage,

access to finance, training, community awareness etc– Human resources – competence development combined with interfirm

cooperation, ICT

Greater targeting – identifying and addressing gaps in the system; focusing support on specific groups

Territorial focus – in some programmes

Investing in capacity to support/manage interventions

14

Programme management and delivery

Implementation of Structural FundProgrammes - strengths and weaknesses:

management

delivery – project generation, selection, appraisal

monitoring

15

Programme management - trends

Shift in programme management responsibilities towards the regions

Delegation or decentralisation of aspects of programme delivery to regional and local intermediaries

Streamlining of administration eg. use of measure managers

Use of larger or framework projects

Better information exchange within programme networks

16

Programme management - challenges

Strategic constraints: – fragmentation of eligible areas – relationship between EU and domestic policies

Coordination problems increasing – vertically and horizontally

Mixed record on ERDF:ESF coordination

Need for investment in capacity building - resources inadequate for coordination / implementation

Involvement of the private sector

17

Project delivery - trends

Improved implementation systems – more rigorous project selection procedures, better financial control and evaluation and improved monitoring systems

Emphasis on project quality and stronger underlying strategic rationale (legacy)

Better communication with partners (part driven by publicity and communication) – increase in intensity and sophistication of communication

Progressive shift to ‘pro-active management’ – part driven by strategic ambitions, part defensive to avoid problems with n+2

18

Programme delivery - challenges

Standard measures going well, but difficulties with implementing more innovative types of measures

Impact of n+2 – pressure to spend has impact on project quality in some MS

Over-ambitious systems - problems of over-complex project application, selection and monitoring systems

Accessibility problems, eg. measures structured to suit administrative bodies rather than beneficiaries

Under-used/exploited area is project follow-up and aftercare

Poor integration of environment into project application process in some programmes

19

Programme monitoring

Step change in quality of monitoring – ambitious measures to improve:– monitoring infrastructure– indicator frameworks– monitoring practices– capacities

Despite investment, monitoring remains a weakness in many programmes related to:– partial and unreliable data from beneficiaries– differences in interpretation among implementing

bodies– systemic problems

20

Looking forward: external pressures

Less money

New thematic priorities

No EU-level geographical targeting

New financial management arrangements

21

Looking forward: internal pressures

Evolution of added value since 1989 suggests the need to rejuvenate some Objective 2 programmes:

1. “accommodation”

(1989-93)

2. “development and innovation”

(1994-99)

3. “consolidation”

(2000-06)

Added

Valu

e

22

Looking forward: new opportunities

Advanced process of regional restructuring / diversification platform for development

Stronger regional institutions – devolution / deconcentration of economic development

Networks of intermediaries – economic, social and environmental actors

Legacy of partnership – taken on within domestic policies

Greater national and EU policy coherence– shared commitment to Lisbon agenda (to greater or lesser extent)– process of formulating a shared agenda – CSF/NSRF– concrete steps being taken to align EU and domestic policy

priorities

23

Looking forward: challenges

Questions/issues:

regional policy vs sectoral policy priorities?

spatial focus of interventions – broad/narrow; areas of opportunity/need; urban/rural?

limits to Lisbon (potential conflicts, capacity issues?)

adapting programme management – fewer resources, need for coordination?

supportive SF Regulations?

implications of State aid reforms?