1. 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

2. Introduction National level (parlamentary election) Local level (local election) State offices Regions (nominated Council from locally elected) Money and mandate Päijät-Häme

3. 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

4. 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

5. 2. “Territorial cohesion” dimension (statistics/cartography) -Methodology for regional breakdown: 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 -South-Finland -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

6. 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 Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective Priority territories Low GDP/inhabitant High unemployment High removal Low education level

8. 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)

9. 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.

10. 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

11. Development of Finlands EU-income and EU-payments 2006 vs. 2007-13 average (estimate) Netto Finlands payments to EU Other EU-funding (R&D, TEN…) CAP Rural development Structural funds From EU 2005, To EU 2005, from EU, to EU 2007-13 2007-13

12. 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

13. The EAFRD 2.2 Connection with potential integrated rural development plans at regional level REGIONAL URBAN LANDUSE PLAN (includes rural areas) REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN 20-30 years MEASURES FOR NEXT 4 YEARS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1+1 YEARS Plan of implementation Coherence / integration of the strategies? Impact of Leader approach Lacking complementarity and connection to regional strategies

15. Regional State Aid provisions General information -State of play of the eligibility map for 2007- 2013 -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

16. 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.

17. types of RSA provisions Aid for investment Aid for development Aid for operating environment projects of enterprises R&D Corridor of Finland

18. amounts and rates of funding No decisions made concerning the amount of the funding National Support Areas LARGE COMP. MEDIUM COMP. SMALL COMP. % % % SUPPORT AREA I Max. level 1)15 25 35 Recommended level 2) 10 20 30 SUPPORT AREA II Max. level 1)10 15 25 Recommended level 2) 5 10 20 SUPPORT AREA III Max. level 1) - 10 20 Recommended level 2) - 7,5 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.

19. 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%

20. GDP/inhabitant unemployment rate net migration income level education level population No subnational or regional weighting excluding population density (under 12,5) The Regional State Aid provisions Types of criteria Impact on RSA funding rates Chosen criterias correlate with the funding areas

21. Environmental Policy Accessibility Infrastructure importance Possibility to influence through EU-means Worlds Most Competitive and Dynamic Knowledge- driven Economy... Knowledge Education R&D Regional Policy ERDF Social Policy ESF Agricultural Policy Cohesion Policy ERDF Governance Democracy 4 Freedoms (globalized) Rural Policy Employment Policy ESF

22. 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

23. www.paijat-hame.fi Esa.halme@paijat-hame.fi 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). 31 May 2006 - Brussels