1. 111 Synthesis of Questionnaires

2. Thematic concentration  Most of the new member states support the suggested principle while maintaining the element of flexibility and keeping in mind that primary objective of the policy set in Treaty remains.  There are still some questions …  How will the maximum number of thematic priorities be determined at programme level?  Will some priorities be obligatory? What sort of flexibility will be provided for Member States?

3. Linkage to the Europe 2020, obligatory priorities  Informal proposals might potentially not be fully consistent with place-based approach (description of actions rather than results to obtain). The concept of mandatory thematic priorities is unclear up-to-date.  Cohesion policy should support Europe 2020 goals, but its main priority is defined by the Treaty.  Definition of obligatory priorities is not welcomed; needs further discussion.  Member states should be allowed to invest part of the cohesion policy funding into basic infrastructure.

4. Linkage to the National Reform Programme  Common Strategic Framework – may contribute to an enhanced coordination between cohesion policy and other policies, should outline EU level.  Contract – legal status has not been clarified yet, detailed rules are to be communicated; some countries feel that this contract should be a true contract, laying down responsibilities and rights of both parties signing it  National Reform Programmes – are prepared differently from the EU Cohesion policy programming and strategic documents – formal interrelations are not clear, they differ in their scope, period and area of implementation.

5. Cohesion policy strengthening Most states agree that future Cohesion policy should be result-oriented (focusing on results achieved. not money spent). The Cohesion Policy could be strengthened mainly through:  simplification of procedures (including audit, control, simplified cost options..)  no additional administrative burden  clear set of indicators  allowing enough time for each operation ( programming, implementation, monitoring, evaluation), however additional level of control might have a negative effect  increasing the role of ex-ante evaluations  applying appropriate mechanism of conditionalities

6. Performance reserve Most states are skeptical about establishing obligatory performance reserve at the EU level because of many reasons (while agree on “national reserve“):  the MS would choose less ambitious ways of achieving the Europe 2020 objectives;  starting points of Member States in relation to Europe 2020 targets are too different;  investment results are seen after some time, not immediately;  reduction of the long-term strategic planning of cohesion policy in EU regions and member states.

7. Structural preconditions  All agree that the application of reasonable conditions, if the conditions are appropriately developed (tailor made avoiding one-size-fits-all approach), could enhance the effectiveness and credibility of Cohesion Policy.  Structural pre-conditions might increase administrative burden or put at risk the achievement of Cohesion policy objectives and reduce its flexibility.  Pre-conditions should not be defined at the EU level for all Member States and regions; but should result from the negotiations between a Member State or a region and the Commission.

8. Management and control systems  The periodical clearance of accounts procedure is not supported by most states.  System of annual accounts and partial closure does not correspond to the multiannual planning cycle of cohesion policy and would increase the administrative burden; current system should remain.  According to the annual report of the European Court of Auditors, error rate (comparing 2008 and 2009) had decreased – current system is functional and capable of improvement.  Simple analogy to Common Agriculture Policy could be dangerous and meaning a step back.

9. Delivery simplification  Selection of elements of the delivery system, which should be simplified, differs from one state to another, as delivery system is very broad and complex issue.  Most states are of the opinion that public procurement, cost-related methodologies, common eligibility rules for different funds, monitoring and control system of Cohesion Policy post 2013 should be simplified.

10. Harmonization of rules, co-financing level  All agree that harmonization of rules for different funds is needed; most haven’t specified the way how they should be harmonized.  Majority do not support the mono-fund approach after 2013; it can provide more obstacles than benefits, but the approach should be decided by a Member State.  Most states are in general in favour of existing co-financing level. Some agree that the co-financing rates needs to be reviewed and significantly differentiated according to the development level of the EU member state/ EU added value /type of activity and recipient.

11. Transition category  Most states support the mechanism for transition regions, however this system cannot be set up in a manner that will take away from the allocation of Objective One.  Only one state thinks that the present category of transition regions should not exist in the programming period post 2013 – goes against the policy basic idea, i.e. to support less developed regions).

12. Territorial cohesion  There is general support for strengthening the role of cities and urban areas in the next programming period (through the Contract).  How to strengthen a role of cities – respect placed- based approach and regional peculiarities; examining the possibility of using financial instrument for urban development; more flexibility for the implementation of integrated local development strategies.

13. Thank you for your attention.