Ten pillars of the Barca-report

Concerning the below-mentioned recommendations the report highlighted that some elements must be established in the programming period of 2007-13 in order to apply the gathered experience of the previous period for creating the system for the period after 2013 (Káposzta ed. 2010; Barca Report...).

Pillar 1. Concentration on core priorities and conservative territorial distribution

55-65% of the funding would concentrate on three or four core priorities. The criterion of territorial allocation would be unchanged more or less (NUTS2). The policy would still cover every region; however, it would ensure significant funding concentration for the underdeveloped areas. The value limit of 75% GDP per capita would remain. (Its change would cause political debate – just like when it was formed – which would focus on the financial issues again.) He would introduce a transition category for the regions above 75%.

He does not suggest an exact extent; it should be determined by a debate. The objective of territorial cooperation would get 4 per cent share. In order to ensure the coherence of fund for rural development and fisheries the recommendation would take under the cohesion policy, but the accord among the funds of cohesion policy should also be harmonized. For the trans-European network he suggests establishing a separate fund.

Pillar 2. New strategic framework for the cohesion policy

The basis of the new strategic framework is a new agreement (contract) between the Committee and the Member States, which would be based on the performance and the institutional terms. The debate on the future has started in the second half of 2010 when the 5^th cohesion report was published. On the debate they would discuss the EU proposals and the national strategic assessments about the place-based policies which would be made by each Member State. The debate would be held by a temporary committee with experts from the Member States, the Committee and other countries. Based on the debate the European Committee would draft a European Strategic Development Framework by the spring of 2012, which would determine the clear-cut principles, 3 or 4 core priorities, a limited number of indicators and target values. At the same time the Committee would prepare a regulation which would be accepted together with the European Development Framework by the Council and the Parliament.

Pillar 3. New contractual relationship, result-oriented implementation and reporting

The National Strategic Development Contract covering all cohesion subsidies would be accepted at the end of 2013 based on the Development Framework and the regulation. The Contract would contain:

 Priorities, objectives, target values.

 Allocation for the Managing Authorities.

 Institutional frame.

 Commitment whether there is enough administration capacity.

The Committee would be a strategic counsellor in creating the Contract. If the Committee cannot accept the Contract as a whole, it can approve only a part of it. The unapproved part would be monitored specifically and obliged to be reported. In point of core priorities the Committee can ask the Member State (Region) to transfer the fund. The Contract would also be evaluated by the Council for Cohesion Policy which would be newly created. The operative programmes would remain and the details of the general Contract’s implementation would be determined. Its structure would follow the structure of the result-oriented Contract.

After the Contract’s acceptance within one year the Committee would prepare an Implementation Assessment to prove the implementation structure and the compliance of processes. If the assessment is positive, a contract of confidence would be signed. After the third year the Member States would submit a short Strategic report about the results. This report would differ from the present one in focusing basically on the indicators and results. Based on this the Committee would give its Opinion about every Member State and EU level as well, which would be evaluated by the new counsellor formation and it would give proposals for the Member States and the Committee.

Pillar 4. Strengthened governance for core priorities

Experience shows that the failed interventions often occur from institutional weakness, therefore, in case of core priorities different conditions would be stipulated for the institutional frame and the performance-oriented monitoring system would also be built.

This monitoring system can only work well if a target and indicator system of high quality is introduced. If it becomes clear that the achievement of a given target is not possible and its reason is not properly underpinned, then the Committee prepares a comprehensive assessment. The Member State, which refuses either the assessment or its proposals, can be penalized.

Pillar 5. Promoting additional, innovative and flexible spending

The principle of additionality would still remain; however, the proposal would link it with the Stability and Growth Pact. Its reason is that by making clear the contrast between development and stability objectives, better policy decisions will be made. Direct commitment of sustaining past additionality values would be eliminated. The present co-financing system shall remain.

Pillar 6. Promoting experimentation and mobilising local actors

The territorial approach requires the active participation of the local characters and affords room for the pilot and innovative projects as well. Innovative territorial actions would be launched for a small part of the whole budget (the proposed value is 0.1%) headed by the Committee. Its main point is that the best pilot, innovative territorial projects would be chosen in competition, in particular on the field of core priorities.

Pillar 7. Promoting the learning process: a move towards prospective impact evaluation

Cohesion policy has invested much on the learning processes: by introducing the exchange of experience, assessments. However, the analysis of ‘effects’ is an important area, where no progress was made in the past 20 years. In other policies different methodologies got priority of which the counterfactual method appeared to be the most promising. This method appreciates the impact of the interventions by analysing what would have happened if the interventions hadn’t been made – it makes it on a similar control group which is not affected by the given intervention. This method requires significant information, but its answers are limited: it does not allow analysing ‘how’ a given intervention operates, and it does not give guidelines whether the intervention would have the same results under other circumstances or other target groups. At the same time, it gives the best and most certain answer for the question of what operates well.

Concerning the application of impact assessment for the regional policy there are several challenges: primarily the territorial heterogeneity of the interventions. If from the impact assessment it is expected to be the core of the cohesion policy then its technical, administrative and political basis must be provided – it takes time. The Member States would still retain the responsibility of the assessment, but the Committee – by strengthening its internal structure – could promote the application and it could be the centre for collecting, filtering and publishing the studies and results.

Pillar 8. Strengthening the role of the Commission as a centre of competence

The reform of the cohesion policy drafted in this report requires that the Committee must play a more ambitious role than at present. This role requires:

 approaching the regional development issues by embedding them into comprehensive, economic and social theories;

 the implementation of the methodology along the boundaries of the international debate and experience;

 greater commitment with the Member States and regions;

 specialised human capacity.

Therefore, strong political unity is needed in order that the role of the Committee would also strengthen – it is a feasible task if the reform starts during the year of 2010. This would mean the following significant changes:

 establishing high quality, specialised task forces by the core priorities – groups of 20 people who would work full-time on monitoring these priorities in close cooperation with the regional units;

 training the workers for issues on theory and methodology, enhancing the knowledge and skills of regional units;

 ‘improving’ the assessing department in order that they could help the Member States as think tanks;

 administrative support for assessing the implementation;

 integration of organizational structures – improving the coordination between the horizontal and regional units;

 establishing a research department.

Pillar 9. Addressing financial management and control

On the field of financial implementation and control – because of the limitation of human capacities – greater efficiency is needed. Present experience shows that the high

of mistakes – as it was also stated by the European Court of Auditors. This situation is generated by two factors: (i) the shared management and the enlarged number of control levels increase the uncertainty, (ii) the audit of expenses acts like a filter, because this way the general mistakes turn out (e.g. public procurement). The identified mistakes become the main quantitative information in the eyes of the European Parliament and the public opinion as well. It is putting extraordinary pressure on the Committee which takes too much time and capacity from the strategic issues.

In the past couple of years significant changes have been introduced on this field which first results will only be learned in 2010. Further modification proposals are on the anvil – some of them are really worth considering (e.g. increasing the tolerable risk of error, introducing simplifications, determining the annual rate of errors by Member States and if it is exceeded, payments will be suspended). This study is not aiming to propose further simplification measures.

Pillar 10. Reinforcing the high-level political system of checks and balances

A high-level political debate is required to divide the competences with the maximum usefulness among the European Committee, the European Parliament and the European Council. By the contribution of the General and Foreign Affairs Councils the creation of a formal institutional framework for the cohesion policy is appropriate which tasks would be:

 to consider the national strategic development contracts after the Committee’s acceptance;

 to consider the strategic report of the results (to be prepared by each Member State in every year after the third year);

 to analyse special circumstances which could require special intervention from the Committee.

The European Council would formulate recommendations; its activity would be supported by a high-level Member State expert group. The new system of contracts and reports would also ensure a greater role for the European Parliament. The annual summary report about the results to be made by the European Committee could become an important element of channelling the parliamentary opinions.

First and last, the Barca Report based on ten pillars to implement the two most important objectives (efficiency; equality – social inclusion) or six core priorities highlights the fact in a straight or oblique way or proves for the leaders of the cohesion policy that the reallocation of funds, their transfer to the old Member States (more developed regions, small areas) came to the front of all recommendation and effort. In other words, the most important conclusion of the Barca Report for the future – which was also supported by the new development documents – is that actually it is about the reallocation of development funds by new criteria on the level of common and regional funding policies.

4.3. Control Questions

1. How can you describe the paradigm-shift in the European Union’s cohesion policy according to the Barca Report?

2. Why can the place-based development policy approach mean new solutions in the renewed cohesion policy of the EU?

3. Which are the objectives and priorities of the Barca Report?

4. Summarize briefly the content of the Barca Report’s ten pillars!

4.4. Competence Developing Questions

1. In your opinion why was the shift of Barca Report needed in the cohesion policy?

2. Why do you consider the innovation and the climate change as core priorities in increasing the efficiency?

3. In the duality of equality and social inclusion why are the problems of migration, the children and ageing considered as special core priorities?