DANUBE 2014-2020
preparation of a transnational cooperation programme
DANUBE – EUSDR cooperation
State of play
20 May 2014 - Budapest
(0) Introduction: transnational co-operation
(1)
DANUBE programing: late start; eight DPC meetings ; more than
halfway on the road
(2) EUSDR support:
(3)
(1)
undefined needs; many stakeholders in a constantly developing setup;
different understandings in means of support
(2)
in the focus since DPC3; constructive approach; NCP involvement in DPC;
making first contacts
(3)
Shaping elements of a transnational programme priority; EC proposals;
cross-group stakeholder discussion (Budapest Jan 2014); collection of
information on relevant models;
Towards mutual support: development of managable options on
concrete details; further discussions between stakeholder groups;
DPC decisions in course of OP preparation
2014
2020
DANUBE
Content
in Europe (2000-2006)
2014
2020
DANUBE
Transnational cooperation programmes
Northern Periphery
Baltic Sea
North Sea
North-West Europe
Atlantic
South-West Europe
Western Mediterranean
Central Adriatic - Danubian - South East Europe
(CADSES)
Alpine
Archimed
basic characteristics
PROGRAMME
Number
Structure
Finances
Topics/
type
DANUBE
PROJECT
13 overlapping programme areas
6-15 countries per programme
10-15 project partners and observers
Roughly 100 project per program (SEE)
Monitoring Committee
(representatives of the partner
states) is the main decision-making
body of the programme
„Lead partner” principle: one partner takes
legal responsibility for the partnership.
Partners certify their costs at national level
and report together to the programme
100-300 million euro programme
budget for 7 year programme periods
94 % spent on projects
6 % on programme implementation
1-3 million euro project budget
spent in 2-3 year long cooperation projects
Programme priorities defined by
partner states based on EU directives
and needs of the programme area
„Soft” projects: joint development of ideas,
concepts, plans, solutions, preparation of
future investments – no direct infrastructure
development
2014
2020
Transnational cooperation
in the Danube area 2000 -> 2013
2000-2006: INTERREG II B
CADSES
DANUBE
2007-2013: EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL COOPERATION (ETC)
SOUTH-EAST EUROPE
CENTRAL EUROPE
2014
2020
Transnational cooperation programmes
in the Danube area 2014 - 2020
2014-2020: ETC II.
2007-2013: ETC I.
SOUTH-EAST EUROPE
DANUBE
Adriatic Ionian
Albania; Bosnia and
Herzegovina; Croatia;
Cyprus; Fyrom; Greece;
Italy; Malta; Montenegro;
Serbia; Slovenia; Austria
(not whole territory)
Balkan-Mediterranean
Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, The
former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia and Greece
2014
2020
DANUBE
Transnational cooperation programmes
of the South-East Europe programme (2007-2013)
DANUBE
2007-2013 transnational cooperation programmes were concentrating on EC defined priority
areas, in line with the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas:
Innovation, Environment, Accessibility and Sustainable Growth Areas
Priority axis
Areas of intervention
1.
FACILITATION OF
INNOVATION AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
1.1: Develop technology and innovation networks in specific fields
1.2: Develop the enabling environment for innovative entrepreneurship
1.3: Enhance the framework conditions and pave the way for innovation
2.
PROTECTION AND
IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
2.1: Improve integrated water management and flood risk prevention
2.2: Improve prevention of environmental risks
2.3: Promote cooperation in management of natural assets and protected areas
2.4: Promote energy and resource efficiency
3.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ACCESSIBILITY
3.1: Improve co-ordination in promoting, planning and operation for
primary and secondary transportation networks
3.2: Develop strategies to tackle the "digital divide"
3.3: Improve framework conditions for multi-modal platforms
4.
DEVELOPMENT OF
SYNERGIES FOR
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
AREAS
4.1: Tackling crucial problems affecting metropolitan areas and regional
systems of settlements
4.2: Promoting a balanced pattern of attractive and accessible growth areas
4.3: Promoting the use of cultural values for development
2014
2020
Thematic priorities
2014-2020: Concentration needed
DANUBE
2014
2020
Thematic priorities
 Art. 5(2), draft ETC Regulation: Thematic concentration
… up to 4 thematic objectives shall be selected for each
transnational cooperation programme…
• At least 80% of the ERDF allocation to each cross-border
cooperation and transnational programme shall be concentrated
on up to 4 thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of CPR (Council
Agreement)
• Up to 5 thematic objectives, substantial proposals for additional
investment priorities (EP amendments)
 Art. 6(b), draft ETC Regulation: Investment priorities
…under transnational cooperation: development and implementation
of macro-regional and sea basin strategies (within thematic
objective 11: enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public
administration)…
2014-2020: EC proposed Thematic Objectives
DANUBE
1.
strengthening research, technological development and innovation;
2.
enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication
technologies;
3.
enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the
agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the
EMFF);
4.
supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors;
5.
promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management;
6.
protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;
7.
promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network
infrastructures;
8.
promoting employment and supporting labour mobility;
9.
promoting social inclusion and combating poverty;
10. investing in education, skills and lifelong learning;
11. enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration.*
ETC* development and coordination of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies (tn)
2014
2020
Thematic priorities
& summary
(1) DANUBE programing: late start; eight DPC
meetings ; more than halfway on the road
(2) EUSDR support:
(1)
(2)
(3)
undefined needs; many stakeholders in a
constantly developing setup; different
understandings in means of support
in the focus since DPC3; constructive approach;
NCP involvement in DPC; making first contacts
Shaping elements of a transnational programme
priority; EC proposals; cross-group stakeholder
discussion (Budapest Jan 2014); collection of
information on relevant models;
(3) Towards mutual support: development of
managable options on concrete details; further
discussions between stakeholder groups; DPC
decisions in course of OP preparation
DANUBE
2014
2020
DANUBE – EUSDR cooperation
Meetings of the Programming Committee
DANUBE
Points of discussion / Milestone
/Results
3.
Meeting with
the PACs
4.
5.
6.
The supportive links between the Danube Programme
and the Danube Strategy were analyzed
PACs specified their expectations and concerns. The
PC agreed to develop a concept to be discussed at the
next PC meeting.
18-19 April
Belgrade
21 May
Ljubljana
Modalities of financial support to EUSDR PACs have
been tackled at the meeting
25-26 June
Bucharest
Further discussions on main cornerstones of financing
the PACs took place, seeking compromise between
different positions
9-10 October
Stuttgart
Presentation of a possible structure and tools of a
programme priority based on objective 11.b.
10-11 December
Zagreb
2014
2020
Relation to EUSDR in Danube programming
in the regulations
DANUBE
1299_2013_ETC art 7.
Investment Priority: enhancing institutional capacity of public
authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration by
developing and coordinating macro-regional and sea-basin
strategies;
2014
2020
Thematic Objective 11
as agreed at the 3rd meeting of the Danube PC (18 April, 2013)
DANUBE
The Danube Programme is considering to support the governance of
the EUSDR and other activities for institutional capacity building
through one priority axis based on TO11. Other TOs support the
implementation of EUSDR through projects in different thematic
fields.
The other 3 / 4 priority axis/TOs will be selected based on the
need of the transnational area considering the objectives of the
EUSDR but without making direct references to project /
initiatives (no projects in the OP).
Projects will be selected according to sound and agreed selection
criteria in line with the Structural Funds’ regulations.
2014
2020
Relation to EUSDR
proposed by the EC to the DPC for consideration (December 2013)
DANUBE
1. Facility for direct support to EUSDR governance
Each of the eleven priority areas of the Danube Region Strategy
are managed by two Priority Area Coordinators (PACs). The aim of
this element of the priority is to provide a stable source to fund
activities of the PACs on a longer run.
2. Seed money/project development fund facility
This instrument is providing support to all project developers in
the thematic fields of the Strategy. Small scale financial assistance
would be available for EUSDR-relevant project ideas.
3. The EUSDR Focal Point
It is an independent structure (project?) aiming to provide general
and specific support on EUSDR to the work and cooperation of
EUSDR stakeholders.
2014
2020
Potential instruments
about the Budapest (24 Jan 2014) meeting
Aim of the meeting:
Outlining options for solving
open questions;
Sharing a common
understanding on
programme support to PACs
/ NCPs
DANUBE
Limitations:
The meeting had a
fully informal nature
Time -> focus only on TO11b
(NO other TOs, EUSDR projects or action
plans), NO labelling issues, NO general
governance concepts)
Different understanding -> informal
open dialogue needed
Many participants ->
facilitated dialogue
an opportunity to speak for everybody
2014
2020
Important preliminary remarks
open issues
What are the open issues?
30 minutes brainstorming in plenary facilitation by INTERACT
In relation to T.O.11b activities for the EUSDR, i.e. current TA budget and
TAF, what are needs / expectations / open issues
TO PACs
TO NCPs
TO DPC
- What activities did we
cover with TA? What others
would we need?
- What role do we have in
the DR MC in relation to
EUSDR activities?
- How much money do we
have for T.O.11b? – What
results/outputs do we
monitor?
- What did we learn from TAF - Do you need support within - Will our JS run EUSDR seed
and want to keep for DR
T.O.11b? What?
money? What options?
support?
- What/how coordination
among PACs should work?
«Technical Point»?
- Do we need “Technical
Point” support?
- What and how shall a
“technical point” run? Other
options?
2014
2020
DANUBE
Session 2
on support to EUSDR governance
Questions
DANUBE
Relevant outcomes
To PACs: What
activities did we
cover with PAC TA?
What others would
we need?
- Project preparation meetings
- Meetings between PACs (bilateral-pillar)
- PACs and their staff’s cost related to supported activities ensuring continuity
- REMINDER: PACs will report and be accountable to DRP on 11b achievements, NOT on
EUSDR achievements (action plan)
- Regional assessment and feasibility studies
- The list of activities proposed by EC needs to be extended
To NCPs: What role
do we have in the DR
MC in relation to
EUSDR activities?
- Strategic interface should be established between EUSDR and the transnational
programme – one rather than two (to keep the structure simple and streamlined there
should be no separate bodies that PACs and technical point should report to and/or to
provide the strategic interface between DRS structures and strategic decisions and the
transnational programme)
DPC: How much
money do we have
for T.O.11b? – What
results/outputs do
we monitor?
- According to EC proposal, TO11b ca. 10% of Danube Programme budget
- Regarding PAC support, activities are to be financed
- based on planning, project line, reporting as simple as possible
- no exceptions for PAC support with regard to the general rules for other beneficiaries
- it is necessary to understand the tasks of the PACs and their related activities
- 100.000 EUR/priority area should be considered as a baseline, exact allocation should
be decided based on the information to be provided by the EC
2014
2020
Results of the informal group sessions
on Seed Money
Questions
DANUBE
Relevant outcomes
To PACs: What did we
learn from TAF and
want to keep for DR
support?
- Both TAF-DRP and BSR Seed money models might have advantages and shall be used;
(the BSR seed money is a proved framework, TAF must be assessed as well in terms of
efficiency after delivering outputs);
- Easy procedures should be assured (e.g. providing services, instead of grants like the
TAF-DRP)
- SEED money has a risk capital nature: maybe no “harvest”, i.e. the project will not be
further financed, but this should not have any consequence.
- REMINDER: This kind of support to all PAs has to be strengthened, because there is no
guarantee that all PAs will be covered in the T.O.s of the programme
To NCPs: Do you need
support within
T.O.11b? What??
- EUSDR governance (rather than the NCPs) might need some limited support from the
transnational programme (also via the technical point) seed money: preferred to be a
flexible facility taking the BSR example into account while managed
DPC: Will Danube
Programme run
EUSDR seed money?
What models to
consider?
- seen as an option
- objective is to support project generation for EUDRS, as well as for Danube Programme
- a kind of „risk fund”
- options need to be further analysed
2014
2020
Results of the informal group sessions
on EUSDR Focal Point
Questions
DANUBE
Relevant outcomes
To PACs: What/how
coordination among
PACs should work?
«Technical Point»?
- Preference to call it “Focal Point”
- Task should be based on good working examples (e.g. RCC Sarajevo);
- About 4 people might be considered (to be determined after the definition of tasks)
- Profile to be defined better, is knowledge on all financing sources/all themes realistic?
- Support info flows and communication among NCPs – PACs (meeting etc.)
- REMINDER: This kind of support to all PAs to be strengthened , because not all PAs will
be covered in the T.O.s of the programme
To NCPs: Do we need
“Technical Point”
support?
- service not structure
- help preparing facilitating the tasks, but not delegating and reducing ownership
- support annual forum
- technical point reporting to the single strategic interface (to be established by DRS
governance process)
- important to clearly define and distribute the support between the various PAC support
and TP to avoid duplication
- prioritise possible tasks and identify costs to see what can be realistically provided
DPC: What and how
shall a “technical
point” run? Other
options?
- it is an interesting initiative, it might be supported but details should be clarified (e.g.
exact role and tasks; what is feasible from TO 11b budget; additional financial support
from EC)
- there might be overlaps with the other structures of the Strategy and the Programme
(should be clarified)
- more information needed on the division of roles (i.e. independent from JS)
2014
2020
Results of the informal group sessions
2014
2020
DANUBE
Thank you
for your attention!
Béla HEGYESI
bela.hegyesi@nth.gov.hu
+36 30 475 85 73