Research and Innovation Smart Specialisation strategies: Assessment of RIS3s developed by German-speaking EUSALP regions

Università degli studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia Dipartimento di studi linguistici e culturali

Corso di Laurea Magistrale in

Languages for communication in international enterprises and organisations

Research and Innovation Smart Specialisation strategies: Assessment of RIS3s developed by German-

speaking EUSALP regions

Strategie di specializzazione intelligente su ricerca e innovazione: valutazione delle RIS3 elaborate da

regioni di lingua tedesca in ambito EUSALP

P

: Giusi Carta

R

:

Giovanni Bonifati

C

: Margherita Russo

A

2017/2018

I

In this paper, I shall analyse and evaluate the smart specialisation strategies issued by the German-speaking Alpine regions as part of the EUSALP strategy by means of the Assessment Wheel 2.0 method developed by Filippo Damiani and Filippo Ferrarini. The evaluation is carried out in collaboration with the More-Alps project of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, whose research activities are part of Action Group 1 among the 9 involved (see § 1.2).

The project also relies on the involvement of students from the master courses "Languages for communication in international enterprises and organization" and "Economics and public policy".

To begin with, the work provides an overview of the EUSALP macro-strategy and its objectives, which are closely linked to the priorities of Europe 2020. The attention focuses then on Action Group 1, one of the 9 EUSALP working groups involved and strictly related to the More-Alps project. A discussion on Europe 2020 priorities is then provided in order to understand the backdrop against which these activities take place, together with some explanation on the tools and processes useful to the Alpine regions to achieve their objectives (see § 1.1.4, 1.1.5).

In this respect, the second chapter refers to the Smart Specialisation Strategies, one of the means adopted by the regions as an ex-ante conditionality to access the Structural Funds and to promote the cohesion policy between the regions and the communities within them. Therefore, the chapter discusses the concept of smart specialisation, focusing on the importance of the process of entrepreneurial discovery and trying to highlight the tools that can be of use to the drafters of the strategies. These include the RIS3 Guide and the six steps suggested, as essential tools for the elaboration and monitoring of Smart Specialisation strategies. Then the actual method of evaluation, "Assessment Wheel", based on the six steps and its revised version called Assessment Wheel 2.0 are introduced and discussed (Damiani, 2018 / Ferrarini, 2018).

On an empirical basis, the third part is addressed to the evaluation method "Assessment Wheel 2.0" which is, namely, applied to the strategies of the five Austrian Länder of Salzburg, Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Carinthia and Burgenland. For each Land, the analysis makes use of 6 tables (one for each step) containing a quantitative and a corresponding qualitative evaluation accompanied by references.

The fourth chapter aims to verify the reliability of the method by pointing out the drivers behind the evaluations provided. In order to obtain an effective Cross-Assessment, it has been decided to compare the evaluations of Bayern’s and Baden-Württemberg’s RIS3s carried out

by Alina Gavrylenko and the author of the paper herself. Considering the outcome, the fifth part is addressed to the final remarks with the purpose of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation method. This final part particularly aimed to verify to what extent the method can be regarded as a valuable means in promoting and monitoring innovation strategies.

I

Il presente lavoro si occupa dell'analisi delle strategie di specializzazione intelligente, sviluppate dalle regioni alpine di lingua tedesca nell'ambito della strategia EUSALP e della loro valutazione tramite il metodo “Assessment Wheel 2.0”, elaborato da Filippo Damiani e Filippo Ferrarini. La valutazione è realizzata in collaborazione con il progetto More-Alps dell'Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, le cui attività di ricerca fanno capo al Gruppo di azione 1 tra i 9 coinvolti in EUSALP (cfr. § 1.2). Il progetto si avvale, inoltre, della collaborazione di studenti dei corsi di studio ”Languages for communication in international enterprises and organization" ed “Economics and public policy”.

Inizialmente lo studio fornisce una panoramica della macro-strategia EUSALP e dei suoi obiettivi, i quali risultano essere strettamente connessi alle priorità dettate da Europa 2020.

Successivamente, ci si concentra sul Gruppo d’azione 1, uno dei 9 gruppi di lavoro coinvolti, a cui fa capo il progetto More-Alps. Al fine di comprendere quale sia il contesto all’interno del quale si svolgono tali attività, verrà poi descritta la strategia Europa 2020. Ciò fornisce il contesto utile per passare in rassegna alcuni degli strumenti tramite i quali le regioni EUSALP possono impegnarsi nella realizzazione dei loro obiettivi (cfr. § 1.1.4, 1.1.5).

A tale proposito nel secondo capitolo si fa riferimento alle Strategie di specializzazione intelligente, uno dei mezzi adottati dalle regioni coinvolte come presupposto ex-ante per l’accesso ai fondi strutturali e per la promozione di una politica di innovazione e di coesione tra le regioni e le comunità al loro interno. Qui verrà introdotto il concetto di specializzazione intelligente soffermandosi sull’ importanza del processo di scoperta imprenditoriale e cercando di mettere in evidenza gli strumenti che maggiormente possono essere di utilità ai redattori delle strategie. Tra questi ci si sofferma sulla RIS3 Guide e gli steps suggeriti da quest’ultima, in quanto strumento per l’elaborazione e il monitoraggio delle strategie di specializzazione intelligente. La trattazione prosegue con l’introduzione del metodo di valutazione “Assessment Wheel” basato sugli steps, seguito dalla presentazione della versione rivisitata del medesimo metodo, definita Assessment Wheel 2.0 (Damiani, 2018 / Ferrarini, 2018).

La terza parte è dedicata alla trattazione empirica del metodo di valutazione “Assessment Wheel 2.0” in riferimento alle strategie dei cinque Länder austriaci Salisburghese, Bassa Austria, Alta Austria, Carinzia e Burgenland. Per ogni Land l’analisi si avvale di 6 tabelle (una per ogni step) contenenti una valutazione quantitativa ed una corrispettiva qualitativa con annessi riferimenti bibliografici.

Il quarto capitolo si propone di verificare l’attendibilità del metodo utilizzato ponendo l’accento sulle motivazioni alla base delle valutazioni fornite. Al fine di ottenere una contro- valutazione efficace, si è deciso di mettere a confronto le valutazioni alle RIS3s die Bayern e Baden-Württemberg elaborate da Alina Gavrylenko e dalla stessa autrice della trattazione.

Alla luce dei risultati ottenuti, la quinta parte è dedicata alle osservazioni conclusive nell’intento di mettere in evidenza i punti di forza e di debolezza del metodo di valutazione verificando, inoltre in che misura possa essere considerato un mezzo valido per la promozione e il monitoraggio delle strategie d’innovazione.

Z

Die vorliegende Arbeit ist sich mit der Analyse der Strategien von intelligenter Spezialisierung beschäftigt, die von der deutschsprachigen Alpenregionen im Bereich von EUSALP entwickelt wurden. Das Ziel ist hier, diese Strategien anhand der Auswertungsmethode einzuschätzen, die von Filippo Damiani und Filippo Ferrarini eingeführt wurden. Die Auswertung wird im Rahmen des Projektes More-Alps der Universität von Modena und Reggio Emilia durchgeführt, dessen Forschungstätigkeit innerhalb der Aktion Gruppe 1 stattfindet (siehe dazu § 1.2). Insbesondere hat das Projekt Studenten und Studentinnen von dem Studiengang „Languages for communication in international enterprises and organizations“ und diejenige von “Economics and public policy“ hineingezogen.

Diese Abschlussarbeit versucht am Anfang einen Überblick über die Strategien und ihre Ziele zu liefern, die mit Europa 2020 Prioritäten eng sind. Sie führt den Begriff von intelligenter Spezialisierung ein und danach zeigt die echte Analyse der Strategien, die mithilfe der Auswertungsmethode Assessment Wheel 2.0 geschafft wurde. Die Strategien unter Beobachtung, wurden von den fünf folgenden österreichischen Ländern verarbeitet: Salzburg, Oberösterreich, Niederösterreich, Kärnten und Burgenland. Zum Schluss wird den sogenannten Cross-Assessment der Strategien von den deutschen Bundesländern Bayern und Baden- Württemberg geboten werden.

Hinsichtlich der Gliederung dieser Abschlussarbeit, kann man fünf Kapitel bestimmen, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.

Das erste Kapitel konzentriert sich auf die EUSALP Makro-Strategie, die sich, unter den anderen Makro-Strategien, auf die Regionen des Alpenraums bezieht (siehe dazu § 1.1). Im Mittelpunkt des zweiten Teils steht die Aktionsgruppe 1, eine der neun Aktionsgruppen, die sich mit EUSALP beschäftigt ist, und insbesondere, die Gruppe, in der das More-Alps Projekt durchgeführt wird. Der dritte Teil dieses ersten Kapitels erklärt die gemeinsame Rahmenstrategie, auf die sich die Aktoren der Makro-Strategien beziehen.

In diesem Zusammenhang verweist das zweite Kapitel auf die intelligenten Spezialisierungsstrategien, die sowie eine ex-ante Voraussetzung für die Fördermittel, als auch eine Unterstützungsmedium der Kohäsionspolitik zwischen die Regionen und Gemeinschaften darstellt. Deshalb wird man zunächst den intelligenten Spezialisierung Begriff zusammen mit der Wichtigkeit des unternehmerischen Entdeckungsprozesses untersucht. Danach werden einige den Werkzeugen vorgestellt werden, die nötig um die Verfassung von intelligenten

Strategien sein könnten. Zuletzt werden den RIS3 Guide und ihre sechs steps beschreibt, da sie wesentlich für die Verfassung und Überwachung der Strategien sind.

Im dritten Teil geht es dann um die Analyse der fünf österreichischen Regionen mithilfe der Auswertungsmethode namens Assessement Wheel 2.0. Nach einem kurzen Überblick über die sozio-ökonomische Bedingung werden die Strategien der fünf Länder durch die sech steps untersucht und daher wird eine Tabelle für jeden Schritt (step) mit Verweisen auf die untersuchten Strategien zusammen mit Kommentaren geliefert.

Wie bereits erwähnt, befasst sich das vierte Kapitel mit dem Cross-Assessment der Strategien von Bayern und Baden-Württemberg. Unter Cross-Assessment versteht man einen Vergleich zwischen das von Alina Gavrylenko durchgeführte Analyse der Strategien und meine Versionen (siehe dazu § 4.1, 4.2). Tatsächlich konzentriert sich dieser Vergleich auf die quantitativen und qualitativen Bewertungen, die beide von uns gegeben haben, ebenso wie auf die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung.

Der fünfte Teil ist die abschließenden Bemerkungen über die ganze Verfassung gewidmet (siehe dazu § 5.). Die Absicht ist hier darauf, die Stärken und Schwächen der Einschätzungsmethode hinzuweisen, um ihre Zuverlässigkeit und Wirksamkeit zu beweisen. In diesem Teil wird man nämlich erläutern, ob diese Methode ein wirksames Mittel für die Regionen darstellen kann, damit sie ihr eigenes innovatives Wachstum fördern und überwachen können.

T

1. Introduction: EUSALP within Europe 2020 and the More-Alps project 1 1.1. EUSALP’s framework: the four Macro-regional strategies 2

1.1.2. EUSALP: EU strategy for the Alpine Area 4

1.1.3. Objectives of the Strategy 5

1.1.4. Strategy’s Action Plan 6

1.1.5. Governance and financial stream 8

1.2. Action Group 1 and MORE-Alps Project 10

1.2.1. Allocation of responsibilities within Austria 12

1.3 Europe 2020 strategy: Objectives and headline targets 13

1.3.1. Governance 15

1.3.2. Cohesion policy 17

1.3.3. Agreement Partnership and Operational Programmes 20

1.3.3.1. Austrian Operational Programme 21

2. Introduction: Smart Specialisation rational, policy and tools 24

2.1. Smart Specialisation: Concept and approach 24

2.1.1 Smart Specialisation policy process: the three initial phases 26 2.2. National/regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation 28

2.2.1. The rational under the RIS3 strategies 29

2.2.2. RIS3 tools 30

2.3. The RIS3 guide for research and innovation strategies: The six Step 32 2.3.1. Step 1: Analysis of the regional context and potential for innovation 33

2.3.2. Step 2: Governance 36

2.3.3. Step 3: Shared vision 38

2.3.4. Step 4: Identification of priorities 41

2.3.5. Step 5: Policy mix, action plan and pilot project 41

2.3.6. Step 6: Monitoring and evaluation 42

2.3.6.1. Peer Review 45

2.4. The Assessment Wheel 45

2.4.1. Assessment wheel at work 47

2.5. The Assessment Wheel 2.0 50

2.5.1. The six Step 2.0 51

3. Introduction: Assessment of five Austrian regions 57

3.1 Austria 57

3.1.1. Becoming an innovation leader 58

3.2. Regional RIS3 Strategies’ Assessment 59

3.2.1. Salzburg’s socio-economic Data 59

3.2.1.1. Salzburg’s regional strategy Overview 61

3.2.1.2. Salzburg’s regional Strategy Assessment 62

3.2.2. Upper Austria’s socio-economic data 69

3.2.2.1. Upper Austria RIS3 Strategy Overview 70

3.2.2.2. Upper Austria RIS3 Strategy Assessment 73

3.2.3. Lower Austria socio-economic data 80

3.2.3.1. Lower Austria RIS3 Strategy Overview 81

3.2.3.2. Lower Austria RIS3 Strategies Assessment 84

3.2.4. Carinthia socio-economic data 91

3.2.4.1. Carinthia regional strategy overview 92

3.2.4.2. Carinthia’s regional Strategy Assessment 94

3.2.5. Burgenland socio-economic data 100

3.2.5.1. Burgenland regional Strategy overview 101

3.2.5.2. Burgenland’s regional strategy Assessment 104

3.2.6. Comparative tables 110

3.2.7. Assessment Wheel 2.0: Spider Graphs 115

4. Introduction: Cross-Assessment of Bayern’s and Baden-Württemberg’s RIS3s 117

4.1. Bayern 117

4.2. Baden-Württemberg 131

4.3. Final assumptions on the Cross-Assessment 141

5. Conclusions 144

Appendix I 148

Bayern 148

Baden-Württemberg 156

References 162

Chapter 1 162

Chapter 2 163

Chapter 3 164

Chapter 4 167

L

F

Figure 1: Macroregional strategies 3

Figure 2:Austria’s political map 12

Figure 3 Cohesion Policy – 11 Thematic objectives 18

Figure 4: Total Budget by Fund - Austria 22

Figure 5: RIS3 6 Step 32

Figure 6: Three-dimensional box diagram 39

Figure 7: Spider Graph (example of outcome of the assessment above) 50

Figure 8: Position of Austria 57

Figure 9: position of Salzburg 59

Figure 10: Position of Upper Austria 69

Figure 11:”Innovative Upper Austria 2020” 71

Figure 12: Upper Austria Projects Submission 71

Figure 13: Lower Austria position 80

Figure 14: Lower Austria Innovation 83

Figure 15: position of Carinthia 91

Figure 16: Figure 16: Position of Austria 100

Figure 17: Graphic representation of Burgenland’s priority fields 102

Figure 19: Salzburg’s RIS3 Spider-graph 115

Figure 20: Upper Austria’s RIS3 Spider-graph 115

Figure 21: Lower Austria’s RIS3’s Spider-graph 115

Figure 22: Carinthia’s RIS3 Spider-graph 115

Figure 23: Burgenland’s RIS3 Spider-graph 116

L

Table 1: EUSALP objectives and actions 6

Table 2: Cross-cutting point 7

Table 3: Step 1 - regional context and potential for innovation 52

Table 4: Step 2 - Governance 53

Table 5: Step 3 - Overall vision of the future of the region 53

Table 6: Step 4 – Identification of priorities 54

Table 7: Step 5 – Definition of policy mix and action plan 55

Table 8: Step 6 – Monitoring and evaluation 56

Table 9: Salzburg step 1 - Regional context and potential for innovation 63

Table 10: Salzburg step 2 - Governance 63

Table 11: Salzburg step 3 - Overall vision for the future of the region 65 Table 12: Salzburg step 4 - Identification of priorities 66 Table 13: Salzburg step 5 - Definition of policy mix and action plan 67

Table 14: Salzburg Step6-Monitoring and evaluation 68

Table 15: Overall mark obtained thanks to the Assessment Wheel 2.0 method. 68 Table 16: Upper Austria step 1 - Regional context and potential for innovation 73

Table 17: Upper Austria step 2 – Governance 74

Table 18: Upper Austria step 3 - Overall vision for the future of the region 75 Table 19: Upper Austria step 4 - identification of priorities 76 Table 20: Upper Austria step 5 - Definition of policy mix and action plan 77 Table 21: Upper Austria step 6 - Monitoring and evaluation 78 Table 22: Overall mark obtained thanks to the Assessment Wheel 2.0 method. 79 Table 23: Lower Austria step 1 - Regional context and potential for innovation 84

Table 24: Lower Austria step 2 – Governance 85

Table 25: Lower Austria step 3 – Overall vision for the future of the region 87 Table 26: Lower Austria step 4 – Identification of priorities 88 Table 27: Lower Austria step 5 -Definition of policy mix and action plan 89 Table 28: Lower Austria step 6 – Monitoring and evaluation 90 Table 29: Overall mark obtained thanks to the Assessment Wheel 2.0 method. 90 Table 30: Carinthia step 1 - Regional context and potential for innovation 94

Table 31: Carinthia step 2 – Governance 95

Table 32: Carinthia step 3 - Overall vision for the future of the region 96

Table 33: Carinthia step 4 – Identification of priorities 97 Table 34: Carinthia step 5 - Definition of policy mix and action plan 98

Table 35: Carinthia step 6 – Monitoring and evaluation 99

Table 36: Overall mark obtained thanks to the Assessment Wheel 2.0 method 99 Table 37: Burgenland step 1 - Regional context and potential for innovation 104

Table 38: Burgenland step 2 – Governance 105

Table 39: Burgenland step 3 – Overall vision for the future of the region 106 Table 40: Burgenland step 4 – Identification of priorities 107 Table 41: Burgenland step 5 – Definition of Policy mix and Action plan 108 Table 42: Burgenland step 6 – Monitoring and evaluation 108 Table 43: Overall mark obtained thanks to the Assessment Wheel 2.0 method 109

Table 44: Comparison per step 110

Table 45: Comparison of formal characteristics 113

Table 46: Step 1 – Bayern’s RIS3 Cross-Assesment 118

Table 47: Step 2 - Bayern’s RIS3 Cross-Assessment 121

Table 48: Step 3 - Bayern’s RIS3 Cross-Assessment 123

Table 49: Step 4 - Bayern’s RIS3 Cross-Assessment 125

Table 50: Step 5 - Bayern’s RIS3 Cross-Assesment 127

Table 51: Step 6 - Bayern’s RIS3 Cross-Assessment 129

Table 52: Step 1 – Baden-Württemberg RIS3 Cross-Assessment 131 Table 53: Step 2 – Baden-Württemberg RIS3 Cross-Assessment 133 Table 54: Step 3 – Baden-Württemberg RIS3 Cross-Assessment 135 Table 55: Step 4 – Baden-Württemberg RIS3 Cross-Assessment 137 Table 56: Step 5 – Baden-Württemberg RIS3 Cross-Assessment 139 Table 57: Step 6 – Baden-Württemberg RIS3 Cross-Assessment 140 Table 58: Bayern step 1 - regional context and potential for innovation 148

Table 59: Bayern step 2 - Governance 150

Table 60: Bayern step 3 – Overall vision for the future of the region 151

Table 61: Bayern step 4 – Identification of priorities 152

Table 62: Bayern step 5 – Definition of policy mix and action plan 153

Table 63: Bayern step 6 – Monitoring and evaluation 154

Table 64: Baden-Württemberg step 1 – Regional context and potential for innovation 156

Table 65: Baden-Württemberg step 2 - Governance 157

Table 66: Baden-Württemberg step 3 – Overall vision for the future of the region 158

Table 67: Baden-Württemberg step 4 – Identification of priorities 159 Table 68: Baden-Württemberg step 5 – Definition of policy mix and action plan 160 Table 69: Baden-Württemberg step 6 – Monitoring and evaluation 160

1

1. I

: EUSALP

E

2020

M

- A

The EU strategy for the Alpine Region is the fourth European macroregional strategy developed to the purpose of improving the territorial cooperation and the regional cohesion, thus contributing to the creation of a sense of common responsibility among the partners involved. In particular, the strategy promotes a multi-level approach governance aiming at harmonizing the work of existing institutions and at promoting a more effective use of the available financial streams.

The Alpine Region is in fact a modern, prosperous and innovative territory including a population of 70 million inhabitants who work and live in the most important medium-sized European metropolitan areas. The cities lie all in-between the Alpine and Pre-Alpine territories, to which they are strictly linked from an economic, logistic and environmental point of view.

Therefore, a cohesion policy between the metropolitan and Alpine territories is to be fostered to the purpose of an inclusive, intelligent and sustainable growth.

As for the structure of chapter 1, it is made up of three sub-sections. The first part is going to introduce the context in which EUSALP strategy together with the other macro-regional strategies have been developed, hence a brief description of them will be included. The focus of the discussion will be diverted then towards a more specific description of the EUSALP strategy particularly centred on its objectives, action plan and governance.

Among all the Action Groups involved in the realisation of the strategy, the second section will then pay attention to the Action Group 1 and the MORE-Alps project. It will follow the paragraph that is going to explain how Austria will allocate its own responsibilities providing a better understanding of what role will be played by the country and its territorial units within EUSALP.

The third part will delineate the Common framework strategy which the macro-regional strategies look at, namely, the Europe 2020 strategy. Several aspects will be highlighted, that is its governance, the cohesion policy, the agreement partnership and the operational programme.

Finally, few references will be introduced concerning the Austrian national operational programme.

2

1.1. EUSALP’

:

M

-

The EUSALP strategy is to be considered within the wider frameworks of other three macro- regional strategies in the EU. The concept of macro-region identifies a group of regions sharing similar morphological, economic and social characteristics whereas the strategy allows them all to find solutions to problems and to share their potentials in pursuance of the EU common objectives.

Since the areas involved are too local, the strategy functions, literally, as a bridge between EU and the single regional policymaking. As for the concept of Macroregional strategy, it can be defined as an integrated framework implemented by the European Council and possibly supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds focused on the common challenges faced by a particular area. Main instruments to deal with these challenges are the improvement of cooperation both within and among macro-regions, as well as the enhancement of resources potentials.

The actors involved work at different level in a system that includes the supervision of the European Commission along with the following bodies: the high-level group of the 28 EU Member States’ representatives; a national or regional level including a coordinator responsible for the single regional strategies coordination; a thematic area level involving a steering group¹ made up of regional counterparts supporting thematic area coordinators (policy coordinators).

On the basis of this definitions, four macro-regional areas have been outlined in the EU with the aim of improving the cooperation not only between the internal regions for each area, but also among the four European macro-regions. As a whole it is possible to identify 19 EU- Members and 8 non-EU Member States all involved in the four strategies² (Figure 1). They include (European Commission 2017a):

∙ EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region (EUSBSR - 2009);

∙ EU strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR - 2010);

∙ EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR - 2014);

1 Steering groups are committed with the development of projects contributing to the overall macro-regional strategy.

2 States are often part of more than one strategy as in the case of Germany whose regions, according to the geographical position, are involved in the Alpine, Danube and Baltic strategies.

3

∙ EU strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP – 2015).

To the purpose of improving the cooperation between them, a system of indicators concerning four main areas of attention able to set a comparable framework³, have been introduced in accordance to the European cohesion policy. Each system comprises in turn composite indicators or indicators made up of similar bundled indices into one indicator. They are characterised, briefly, as follows:

∙ Macroeconomic features inform on the economic context and are assessed by three main composite indicators: the economic performance, employment and social progress indicators;

∙ Macro-regional economic integration factors concern the degree of cooperation, integration and exchange within a Macro- region, and are defined by Labour, Trade, Capital, Energy, Accessibility, Transnational cooperation composite indicators.

∙ Competitiveness insights, advising on the competitiveness of countries and macro-regions, are determined by the following Composite Indexes: Overall competitiveness, Business, Transport, Tourism, Energy, Climate Change Adaptation, Climate Change Mitigation,

3 Comparisons are provided usually at a regional level or at NUTS 2³ level, otherwise the national level or NUTS 1 is taken into consideration. The NUTS (from FrenchNomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques) refers to the classification of territorial units for statistical purposes,

Figure 1: Macroregional strategies

Source: European Commission 2017

4 Environment and Air Quality, Environment and Air Pollution, Environment and River Status, Biodiversity, Diversity of Land Cover (Shannon Index), Eco-Innovation Scoreboard, Resource Efficiency, Agricultural Impact, Forestry in the Alps.

∙ Political, institutional and governance indicators give hints about the effectiveness of governments and legislation which, in turn, bring to the light the macro-regional ability of implementation. They are assessed by the following Composite Indicators: Governance, Public Institutions, Voice and Accountability, Human Trafficking, Number of Drug Seizures (European Commission, 2017a).

In line with the aim of this work, the following paragraph will focus on the EUSALP strategy trying to outline all the main features and challenges set that the countries involved will have to face in the pursuance of the common goals.

1.1.2.EUSALP:EU STRATEGY FOR THE ALPINE AREA

The EU strategy for the Alpine area (EUSALP) is one of the four strategies implemented by the European Union involving 5 EU Member States, 2 non-member states⁴ for a total of forty- eight regions. Specifically, they are (European Commission, 2017a):

∙ Austria;

∙ France (Franche-Comté, Rhône-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur);

∙ Germany (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria);

∙ Italy (Autonomous Provinces Bozen and Trento, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont, Valle D’Aosta e Veneto);

∙ Slovenia

∙ Lichtenstein

∙ Switzerland

The strategy is built upon a long tradition of cooperation based on already existing conventions in the Alps area developed way before the actual European Council invitation to the drafting of an Alpine macroregional strategy. Between the 19^th and 20^th of December 2013, the European council, invited, in fact, the European Commission to elaborate an Alpine macroregional strategy in collaboration with the Member States, already involved in the following existing collaboration structures (EUSALP, 2016a):

∙ The Interreg Alpine Space Transnational Programme, which covers most of the current EUSALP’s area;

4 Lichtenstein and Switzerland.

5

∙ The Alpine Convention drafted under the international law and existing since 1991;

∙ CIPRA⁵, a non-governmental and non-profit commission to the protection and sustainable development of the Alps since 1952;

∙ The Arge-Alp Initiative⁶, Its main objectives is to strengthen the cooperation and opportunities in the Alpine Region since 1972;

∙ The Zurich Process, the formal platform of cooperation of the Ministers of Transport of the Alpine countries since 2001;

∙ Alpe-Adria, the proposal to create the first organic bioregion in the Alpine area;

∙ Euregio, to foster and facilitate trans-border, trans-national and interregional cooperation between the Tyrol, South Tyrol-Alto Adige and Trentino;

∙ COTRAO, agreement between France (Rhône-Alpes and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur), Italy (Valle d'Aosta, Piedmont and Liguria) and Switzerland (cantons of Geneva, Valais and Vaud) to the purpose of knowledge flows, co-ordination of solution and implementation of internal projects;

The strategy is the result of the work of a Steering Committee made up of States’ and Regions’ representatives and observers of the Alpine Space Programme and the Alpine Convention. It is also the result of many debates during Stakeholder Conferences on EUSALP, online public consultations and workshops. We cannot say that the strategy is completed or that it has reached its final shape since it is still in its initial stage and probably many other upgrades will be introduced over time. However, we know that its actual form was elaborated by June 2015, endorsed by the European Council by the end of 2015 and then launched during a Conference held in Slovenia on January 2016, which marked the beginning of the strategy’s implementation phase (EUSALP, 2016a).

1.1.3.OBJECTIVES OF THE STRATEGY

If on the one hand the Alpine Area is one of the most economically, dynamic, innovative and competitive in Europe and can boast an advanced internal cooperation, on the other hand it has also to deal with a great diversity and heterogeneity of traditions, cultures and morphology.

As reported in the EUSALP official website (EUSALP, 2016b), the challenges set by these territorial and cultural features concern:

∙ the need to deal better with the economic globalisation through the improvement of competitiveness, innovation and regional know-how;

5 International Commission for the Protection of the Alps.

6 Association of Alpine States.

6

∙ the necessity to balance the demographic trend characterised by an aged society and new migration policies;

∙ the demand of facing new climate-change challenges related to the environment, the biodiversity and hence, people’s quality of life.

∙ the urgency of improving the energy sources with a view to sustainability and affordability;

∙ the improvement of the Alpine Area strategical position, as a transit region.

After having provided a brief overview on the origin of the strategy and the challenges that the countries engaged in the Alpine Area strategy will have to face, the following paragraph will be, instead, centred on the strategy’s Action Plan.

1.1.4.STRATEGY’S ACTION PLAN

EUSALP strategy’s Action Plan aims at a combined action of the Alpine regions and, hence, at the interaction between mountain areas and the surrounding lowlands and urban areas with a view to harmonious development and long-term cooperation. Main drivers to a smart and sustainable growth is the upgrading of both Alpine Region’s attractiveness and competitiveness as well the reduction of social and territorial differences, all based on a tailored-made strategy in accordance with the more general overall guidance objectives.

To this purpose three main policy areas plus a cross-cutting one have been selected supported by three interdependent thematic objectives. For the first three Policy Areas nine actions, corresponding to nine action groups (see § 1.5), have been set to emphasize all those crucial areas with high potentials but low results, that would need a higher degree of coordination and better financial strategies. The Table (1.) below provide an overview of the strategy and its main points as follows (European Commission, 2015a):

Table 1: EUSALP objectives and actions

Thematic Policy Areas Objectives Actions

Economic growth and innovation

Fair access to job

opportunities by building on the high

competitiveness of the Region;

1. To develop an effective research and innovation ecosystem;

2. To increase the economic potential of strategic

sectors;

3. To improve the adequacy of labour market education and training in strategic sectors;

7 Mobility and connectivity Sustainable internal and

external accessibility;

4. To promote inter- modality and

interoperability in passenger and freight transport;

5. To connect people electronically and promote accessibility to public services;

Environment and energy

A more inclusive

environmental framework and renewable and reliable energy solutions for the future

6. To preserve and valorise natural resource, including water and cultural

resources;

7. To develop ecological connectivity in the whole EUSALP territory;

8. To improve risk

management and to better manage climate change, including major natural risks prevention;

9. To make the territory a model regional for energy efficiency and renewable energy

Source: European Commission 2017a

A Cross-cutting point to the above policy areas, objectives, and actions is the Governance, including institutional capacity:

Table 2: Cross-cutting point

Governance, including institutional capacity

A sound macro-regional governance model for the Region (to improve cooperation and the coordination of action)

Source: European Commission 2017a

As we have already said each action corresponds to an Action Group and a comprehensive Thematic policy. More specifically (EUSALP, 2016c):

∙ Action groups 1 to 3 operate under the first thematic policy area Economic Growth and Innovation. Their objective is to homogenize the innovation process disparities arisen in particular from the diversities of the Alpine Territory where rural areas lag behind the urban

8 ones. The aim is in fact that of bridging the gaps between these areas creating a model to look up to, able to combine prosperity, energy-efficiency, high quality of life and traditional values;

∙ Action groups 4 to 6 are engaged with Thematic Policy area “Connectivity and Mobility”

which concerns the creation of a sustainable transport system, networks of communication and services in the field of Communication Infrastructures Technologies and Tourism. Their aim is to improve the transportation networks meeting the population needs through environment-friendly measures;

∙ Action Groups 7 to 9 is instead responsible for the natural and cultural heritage, two of the main assets of the region. In particular, their task consists in promoting a sustainable exploitation of natural resources and monitoring the climate change and the environmental disruptions that could threat the life of the population and the availability of resources.

As a whole the strategy reflects the commitment of the regions involved which are ready to:

collaborate to each other and better exploit the unused potentials; face and address the economic, social and territorial imbalances through a sustainable development; deal with the promotion of growth and job and the safeguard of natural and cultural aspects; benefit from their assets for innovative development.

Another important aspect of the strategy are the Governance and the Financial Stream as it will be explained in the paragraph hereafter.

1.1.5.GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL STREAM

EUSALP’s governance structure has been defined in the “Milan Declaration of the Alpine States and Region” released on 1^st December 2014 on the occasion of the EUSALP Stakeholder Conference. Similarly to the other strategies, the Alpine Region one has three main administrative levels each corresponding respectively to three main entities as it follows (EUSALP, 2014):

∙ A General assembly, in charge of the political level, is the entity that developed the general guidelines of the strategy. It has also the task of organizing ministerial meeting to create political awareness about the strategy. It consists of Representatives from the participating States, Representatives from all the Regions included in the Strategy, The EU Commission (as coordinator/facilitator), and The Alpine Convention (as observer);

∙ An Executive board responsible for the coordination level, that is, for the overall horizontal and vertical coordination, between the Action Plan’s objectives as well between and within the regions and the countries. It shall consist of Seven national delegations headed by the

9 National Coordinators, The European Commission as an independent facilitator and coordinator, and The Alpine Convention and the Interreg Alpine Space Programme as advisors;

∙ Nine Action Groups, in charge of the implementation measures, each of them formed by representatives from national, regional and local administrations with the task of enriching the expertise in relation to the implementation phase. According to the table shown in chapter 1.4 about EUSALP’s objectives and actions, each group is in charge of a specific action and within the framework of a specific Thematic policy area as listed in the right column above (Table 1).

As for the financial stream necessary to the implementation of the strategy, the approach of the three Nos, no new EU funds, institutions or legislation, adopted also for the Baltic and Danube area, has been followed. In other words, no additional EU funds has been allocated for the strategies so that the contribution of private, social and economic entities and the already existent EU funding become fundamental for EUSALP strategy.

Thus, sources of the financial contribution can be retrieved at a European, national, regional and local level or according to the official nomenclature of the territorial unity for statistical purposes, at NUTS 1, NUTS2 and NUTS 3 level⁷. The nomenclature helps to identify the different types of administrative units under a common and wide recognised system of reference⁸, for instance, Austria can be classified at NUTS 3 level, its Groups of Bundesländer (e.g. Ostösterreich) at NUTS 1 and its districts or Länder (e.g. Niederösterreich) at NUTS 2.

First of all, the strategy could be financed at a European level under the following International Organization (EUSALP, 2017b):

∙ the EU Research and Innovation Programme Horizon 2020 supported, in turn, by the ERDF⁹ fund;

∙ Interreg Programme, under the ERDF funds;

7 The NUTS classification is hierarchical. It subdivides each Member State into NUTS level 1 territorial units, each of which is subdivided into NUTS level 2 territorial units, these in turn each being subdivided into NUTS level 3 territorial units (Article 2 (2) REG. (EC) n. 1059/2003)

8 In order to establish the relevant NUTS level in which a given class of administrative units in a Member State is to be classified, the average size of this class of administrative units in the Member State shall lie within the following population thresholds:

NUTS 1: 3 million to 7 million NUTS 2: 800 000 to 3 million NUTS 3: 150 000 to 800 000

If the population of a whole Member State is below the minimum threshold for a given NUTS level, the whole Member State shall be one NUTS territorial unit for this level (Article 3 (2) REG. (EC) n. 1059/2003).

9 European Regional Development funds

10

∙ The Regional and National Operating Programmes financed by the ESIF¹⁰ funds;

∙ The funds from other Direct EU-Programmes in the form of grants but also loans especially from the EIB, the European Investment Bank and other International Programmes such as 3rd HEALTH PROGRAMME, LIFE PROGRAMME, ENI-CBC MED, COSME, Development Cooperation Instrument - DCI II.

In the following section will focus on the objectives and tasks of the first Action Group (AG- 1) with the aim of developing an effective research and innovation ecosystem. Particular attention will be given to subgroup 1 involved in the MORE-Alps project concerning a study on the EUSALP policy on R&I and the Smart Specialisation Strategies.

1.2. A

G

1

MORE-A

P

The Action Group 1 represents the main overall scenario within which the analysis carried out in this work develops. As it has been previously outlined the comprehensive aim is to develop an effective research and innovation ecosystem in the Alpine region exploiting better its current potentials. Quoting the objectives set out in the EUSALP website in relation to the AG-1, the group is responsible for (EUSALP, 2016d):

a. Identification of the key strategic sectors where cooperation in R&I can impact either in economic or societal terms;

b. Mapping of existing clusters, competence centres related to the economic and academic landscape in the Region;

c. Mapping and matching of specific value chains and capabilities related to key areas of competence related to national/regional smart specialisation strategies;

d. Working towards joint pilots with industry participation in areas of smart specialisation to demonstrate opportunities for scaling up innovations for co-creating joint value chains;

e. Further coordinating efforts between the Alpine countries and JRC activities;

10 European Structural and Investment Funds

11 f. Enhanced capacity building of research institutions, networks and

infrastructure with an Alpine Region dimension;

g. Taking into consideration existing international research / innovation coordination activities of EUSALP.

Among the AG-1 several subgroups oriented towards different goals to be achieved in the Alpine area can be identified. The one on which we will concentrate hereafter is the subgroup 1 linked to the MORE-Alps project and aiming at analysing the patterns of the R&I policy and Smart Specialisation Strategies of the Alpine area. In particular, the project is committed with the realisation of the following points:

∙ Identification of the key strategic sectors for cooperation in supporting Research &

Innovation (R&I);

∙ Mapping of existing clusters, competence centres related to the economic regional landscape;

∙ Matching value chains and capabilities related to key areas of competence about smart specialisation strategies.

It is described as a teaching and research project within EUSALP involving the Department of Economics Marco Biagi of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and the CAPP or Centre of Analysis on public policy.

More, specifically the aim is that of carrying out a research activity in the field of R&I policy and Smart Specialisation Strategies with the involvement of students from the Master Courses

“Languages for Communication in International Organizations and Enterprises (LACOM)” and

“Economics and public policy.” Notably, LACOM students have contributed to the project through the drafting of Master Thesis concerning aspects of R&I and Smart Specialisation and related to the Alpine Region territories. Their knowledge of at least two official European languages allowed, in fact, the access of original documents (EUSALP, 2017c).

To LACOM students involved in the Analysis of RIS3s¹¹ were asked to collect all the R&I strategies developed by the regions under scrutiny and to evaluate them providing references of the documents as well as comments to account for their marks. The first stage of the analysis was performed taking into account the RIS3 six steps as they have been upgraded in the version carried out previously by the study conducted by Filippo Ferrarini and Filippo Damiani in their Thesis (See Chapter 3). The evaluation then translated into marks were then transposed into a

11 Research and Innovation Strategies

12 graphic representation by means of the Assessment Wheel 2.0 as it has been upgraded by Damiani and Ferrarini. As far as my analysis is concerned, it will be focused on Austria and five of their Länder, namely, Salzburg, Oberösterreich, Niederösterreich, Carinthia and Burgenland.

This issue will be further developed later in Chapter 3 where a complete explanation of the RIS3s and the steps to evaluate the strategies along with a clarification on the theory behind the Assessment Wheel 2.0 will be fully provided. The paragraph hereunder will deal, instead, with the distribution of political power within the Austrian territory to provide a better understanding of the forces involved in the implementation of the regional strategies.

1.2.1.ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN AUSTRIA

As I have already announced previously, this paragraph is going to show how Austria (Figure 2), the country under scrutiny in this work, allocates the political power between the central state and the other territorial units.

Bearing in mind these dynamics may help us to better understand what role is played by the country and the territorial units within the EUSALP strategy and to what extent they will have to interact to each other during the implementation process (Scagliarini, 2018).

As far as Austria is concerned, it falls into the category of the composed state in which the power is distributed by the central State to the regional authorities owning political autonomies and that in this case coincide with the Austrian Länder.

A federal state differs from a regional state (such as Italy) by many points, for instance, it has its own constitution, it keeps its own army, police and judicial office, it must participate to the revision of the Constitution. Moreover, the residuality in the constitution is in favour of the Member State and not of the Federal State, that is, the Constitution assigns specific competences to the State, otherwise they are under the responsibility of the Member States. Other characteristics of the Federal State includes a bicameral parliamentary system in which one of the two chamber represents the Federal States and the existence of a Constitutional Justice Organ to solve the dispute between the State and its Members.

Source: KartePlan.com Figure 2:Austria’s political map

13 With regards to the Federal State competences we have to distinguish between matters on which the Federation exercises both the administrative and legislative powers and those on which it exercises only the legislative power whereas the execution is of Länder competence.

Only few matters are of exclusive jurisdiction of Länder such as agriculture (Scagliarini, 2018).

Furthermore, the Länder are called to follow the principle of mutual attention according to which the Central State and the Länder regulations has to coordinate and shall not conflict.

This principle highlights and makes us to understand how the country is probably managing the administration and implementation of the strategies. By the way, because of the economic crisis a current general trend concerning the centralization of responsibilities must be taken into account. This tendency might in fact facilitate the Central State activities aiming at the optimization of available resources potentials during the crisis (Scagliarini, 2018).

A complete treatment of the Smart Specialisation Strategy cannot omit the description of the context in which it actually develops. It is for this reason that the following paragraphs will provide an overall view of the Europe 2020 Strategy, its objectives and policies.

1.3 E

2020

: O

The third part of this first chapter will deal with the issue of Europe 2020 Strategy, the framework in which the Smart Specialisation Strategies have developed. The project arose from the challenges that the European countries must have faced out during the economic crisis and upon awakening from this period. Years of economic progress were undermined by the crisis, thus a collective coordinated intervention of all the Member States was needed to deal with a low average rate of economic growth, a lower employment rate compared to the world average and an acceleration of the population ageing.

These structural weaknesses must have been addressed not only through national reforms but also by strengthening the European potentials represented by the single market, the common commercial policies and other EU policies. To maintain the status quo in that difficult moment the EU must have become more competitive. So, the 3^rd of May 2010 a long-term strategy of ten years, to be completed by 2020, was proposed by the European Commission in strong continuity with the policy lines of Lisbon Strategy 2000 – 2010. It aimed at renewing the attention towards issues such as the increment of competitiveness, increment of employment and the quality of the labour market, promotion of the development of society by strengthening research, education and innovation (European Commission, 2010).

The Europe 2020 Strategy is therefore based on two strands. The first one identifies three priorities that define the trend towards which the strategy is oriented: smart growth, developing

14 an economy based on knowledge and innovation; sustainable growth, promoting a more efficient economy in terms of resources exploitation under the banner of sustainability and competitiveness; inclusive growth, which means creation of high employment levels, strong social and territorial cohesion.

The second strand concerns five headline targets that serve as benchmarks for the EU in 2020 on employment, research and development, climate change and energy, education, and social inclusion. For each headline target hereafter, the five corresponding goals by 2020 are respectively presented (European Commission, 2010):

➢ 75 % of the population aged 20-64 should be employed;

➢ 3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in R&D;

➢ The "20/20/20" climate/energy targets should be met (including an increase to 30% of emissions reduction if the conditions are right);

➢ The share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the younger generation should have a tertiary degree;

➢ 20 million less people should be at risk of poverty.

To these two strands, seven flagship initiatives related to a specific field of action have to be included. These are listed below (European Commission, 2010):

1. “Innovation Union” under innovation, to the purpose of facilitating the access to finance for research and innovation therefore ensuring the translation of ideas into products and services and consequently also the creation of jobs and growth;

2. “Youth on the move” under education and employment to improve the education systems supporting their access in the job market;

3. “A digital Agenda for Europe” and for a digital society aiming at the wide distribution of the high-speed internet to ensure a better performance the single market;

4. “Resource efficient Europe” with reference to climate change and energy. The purpose is that of improving the exploitation of existing resources, shifting towards a low carbon economy, increasing the use of renewable energy and modernising the transport sector.

5. "An industrial policy for the globalisation era" to enhance competitiveness. It supports the business environment of SMEs making it able face the global market;

6. "An agenda for new skills and jobs" under the target headline of employment to modernise the labour market, support people in developing their skills and create the condition to better match labour supply and demand also through labour mobility;

15 7. "European platform against poverty" to meet the goals of the fight against poverty. It would introduce jobs and growth for people living in poverty and social exclusion ensuring them a dignified life and social inclusion.

Looking at the strategy as a whole, it is clear how essential it is to invest in scientific research and technological development. This issue is of fundamental importance because it contributes to the achievement of all the objectives of the strategy. In other words, it is only investing in scientific research and technological development, that Europe can be innovative and competitive.

In the light oftheabove, the next paragraph is going to introduce Europe 2020 governance policy which relies on the commitment of member states and their coordinated work at a national level by ensuring, at the same time, the best use of community instruments at the EU level.

1.3.1.GOVERNANCE

The Europe 2020 strategy’s governance was designed to respond to the emergency created by the economic crisis within the European Union. It relies on a series of partnerships based on the commitment of the Member States at the national level and on an efficient use of Instruments at the EU level to the purpose of sustaining the European markets. Its function, as already stated, was that of creating synergies and coordinated action between the Member States as well between them and the EU economic interventions. Basically, governance is based on the articulation of two already existing coordination systems, that is, the thematic approach and the Country reporting (European Commission 2010).

➢ The thematic approach requires both European Union Institution and Member States to implement the objectives and priorities through a combination of concrete actions at the EU level and at national level. The seven flagship initiatives are to commit both the EU and the member states. At the EU level, the instruments, i.e. the internal market, the financial instruments and the instruments of external policy, are to be fully employed to reach the objectives of the strategy. The Commission's responsibilities consist of carrying out reform of the financial system, ensuring the necessary budgetary consolidation for long-term growth and reinforcing the coordination in the context of the Economic and Monetary Union.

Headline targets and priorities should, then, be adapted at the national level to the specific needs and potentials of a territory trying to secure a positive result. For their part, Member

16 States’ instruments are concrete initiatives to push the strategy and the realisation of headline targets forward;

➢ The country reporting was an instrument introduced to help the Member States to define and apply their exit strategies from the crisis. They include an evaluation of the challenges they have faced during the crisis and, in particular, all that information necessary to the assessment of the country from an economic point of view, contained in the different national Stability and Convergence Programmes. The European Commission provides then recommendations about the budget policy, the Programmes and the macroeconomics imbalances.

To create the condition for a strong coordinated growth all the Member States should be interconnected from an economic perspective. That is the reason why a stronger involvement of the European Union is required. In particular, the European Council should steer the strategy providing an overall guidance. Its responsibilities concern the supervision of integration of policies, the management of the coordination between the Member States and EU and in general the assessment of the progress achieved by them. The European Commission should monitor the progress of the Member States on the basis of a set of indicators and draft an annual report on the progress achieved by them. Furthermore, it should evaluate the countries’ reports as well as their stability and convergence Programme. The European Parliament is officially a co- legislator within the strategy but also the institutional body with the task of mobilizing citizens and their national parliaments.

At the national level, the Council of Ministers are called to work to the realization of Europe 2020 strategy in their sector of responsibility and to exchange good practices within the council.

National regional and local authorities are also expected to promote the collaboration between parliaments, social partners and the representatives of the civil society in order to contribute to the development and implementation of the national reforms necessary to the achievement of Europe 2020 targets. The success of the strategy will therefore depend on the European Union’s institutions, Member States and regions with the fundamental involvement of citizens, businesses and their representative organisations.

The implementation of the strategy depends also, of course, on the investment Programmes to the regulation of the financial stream. Hereafter an explanation of the Cohesion Policy adopted by the European Commission to this purpose.

17 1.3.2.COHESION POLICY

The financial stream supporting Europe 2020 responds to the Cohesion policy which is the main EU’s investment policy. It ensures an investment stream to the achievement of Europe 2020 objectives and the main targets each country has defined in the wake of the strategy’s headline targets.

The overall budget for 2014-2020 amounts to €1082b of which €351.8b are the total traceable to the Cohesion Policy. But, since the cohesion policy encourages also national contribution and private investment, it has been recorded that it should amount to about €450b.

In other words, the Cohesion policy funding accounts for the 32% of the total budget whereas the remaining 67.5% can be attributed to other EU policies (European Commission 2014a).

Moreover, the Cohesion Policy (32%) is delivered through five main European funding Programmes channelled according to the GDP, the investment priorities and development needs of the countries which are therefore categorised as more developed, transition or less developed¹². To get an idea, in light of this classification, the allocation of funds can cover from 50% to 85% of a project whereas the remaining part is under the public and private contribution (European Commission, 2014a).

The five main financial Programmes mentioned above, namely, the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF)¹³, the European Social Funds (ESF)¹⁴, the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)¹⁵ and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)¹⁶ set out the European Structural and Investment fund (ESIF)¹⁷ trying to cover 11 objectives (Figure 3).

12 Less-developed regions with GDP per capita less than 75% of the EU-27 average;

Transition regions with GDP per capita between 70 and 90% of the EU-27 average;

More-developed regions with GDP per capita more than 90%of the EU-27 average.

13 The ERDF is regulated by the REGULATION (EU) No 1301/2013 of 17 December 2013 released by the European Parliament and the Council.

14 The ESF is set by the REGULATION (EU) No 1304/2013 of 17 December 2013 released by the European Parliament and the Council.

15 The CF is defined by the REGULATION (EU) No 1300/2013 of 17 December 2013 released by the European Parliament and the Council.

16 The EAFRD is established by the REGULATION (EU) No 1305/2013 of 17 December 2013 released by the European Parliament and the Council.

17 The EMFF is determined by the REGULATION (EU) No 508/2014 of May 2014 released by the European Parliament and the Council.

18

Figure 3 Cohesion Policy – 11 Thematic objectives

Source: European Commission 2014a

Hereby, the five budgetary sources are briefly outlined (European Commission 2014a/

2015b/2018a):

➢ The European regional development funds (ERDF) aim at strengthening the economic and social cohesion in the EU investing into 11 objectives of which 4 represent the main priorities. They address the following issues:

∙ Strengthening research, technological development and innovation;

∙ Enhancing access to, and use and quality of information and communication technologies;

∙ Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs;

∙ Supporting the shift toward a low carbon economy;

➢ The European social funds (ESF) addresses the improvement of education and employment opportunities as well as measures for disadvantaged people at risk of poverty and of social exclusion. It supports 8 objectives on the whole although its main priorities are the 4 that follows:

∙ Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility;

∙ Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination;

∙ Investing in education, training and lifelong learning;

∙ Improving the efficiency of public administration.

➢ The Cohesion fund (CF) focused more on green growth and sustainable development as on the enhancement of connectivity in the Member States¹⁸. It invests in five domains of which the three hereafters are of fundamental importance:

∙ Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management;

∙ Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;

18 Only those with a GDP below 90% of the EU-27 average.

19

∙ Promoting sustainable transport and improving network infrastructures;

➢ The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) helps the European rural areas to achieve the targets set by 2020. In particular, it would foster a territorially and environmentally balanced, climate-friendly, innovative and competitive agricultural environment. It has to accomplish at least the following four EU priorities (European Commission, 2018a):

∙ fostering the competitiveness of agriculture; - ensuring sustainable management of natural resources, and climate action;

∙ achieving a balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities, including the creation and maintenance of employment;

∙ promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas.

➢ The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) boosts the maritime economy and the fishing communities. Its main targets are:

∙ To Make fisheries and aquaculture more sustainable and profitable;

∙ To monitor compliance with the European Common Fisheries Policy and protect a fair access to healthy stocks;

∙ to improve the fishers’ knowledge of the seas and the long-term management of fisheries in order to collect data;

∙ To unlock sustainable growth and job creation from our seas and oceans.

All the funds are managed by the EU countries themselves by means of Partnership Agreements prepared in collaboration with the EU to define how the funding will be used during the timeframe 2014-2020. Operational Programmes, the set of countries’ financial statements to the realisation of the projects, must be then approved by the European Commission on the basis of the Partnership Agreement. At this point, it is up to the national Managing Authorities to select the projects to be funded and to monitor them in collaboration with the Commission.

The Next paragraph will provide an overview of the functioning of Operational Programmes and Agreement Partnership explaining how countries will set all the necessary preconditions to ensure the realisation of the projects.

20 1.3.3.AGREEMENT PARTNERSHIP AND OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES

As anticipated, an Operational Programme (OP) is a detailed plan in which the country will set the amount of funding necessary to the realisation of the projects defined previously in the Partnership Agreement. Each Operational Programme outlines also which of the 11 thematic objectives of the Cohesion Policy is going to be financed (European Commission 2018b).

The Partnership Agreement is a relative recent document introduced in 2014 to replace the 2007-2013 National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) for the Funds and the National Strategy Plan (NSP) for EAFRD and EFF and to provide a more transparent, effective and efficient system. The previous separate NSRF and NSP documents entail only basic and unclear information about the EU Funds whereas the Partnership Agreement provides a comprehensive, coherent strategy concerning all the five ESI Funds, therefore, facilitating the multi-Funds coordination. In particular, it functions as a mediator between the European Commission and the different countries translating the common thematic objectives and the guidelines into the national and regional context. It is able to provide also details on the arrangements previously set as well as information about the commitment of the region to the achievement of EU common goals (European Commission 2015b).

According to this reformed system also the countries will have to draft a summary to be attached to the Partnership Agreement in order to explain extensively how they intend to realise their projects. Specifically, the summary will have to explain how countries will realise the aspects listed below (European Community, 2015b):

➢ the application of horizontal principles and policy objectives of the ESI Funds including the partnership principle and the climate change objectives;

➢ the distribution of the performance reserve broken down by each ESI Fund and category of region and how consistency in the functioning of performance framework is ensured;

➢ a summary of the state of play of applicable ex ante conditionalities;

➢ an assessment of administrative capacities of the authorities involved in implementation of the ESI Funds together with –