Opinion of the European economic and social Committee on the Governance and partnership at national and regional level, and a basis for regional policy projects (European Parliament referral)
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU policy, economic cooperation, governance, local authority, regional authority, regional policy

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/143

Opinion of the European economic and social Committee on the ‘Governance and partnership at
national and regional level, and a basis for regional policy projects’ (European Parliament referral)

(2009/C 77/30)

On 22 April 2008 the European Parliament decided to consult
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on

the European Economic and Social

Governance and partnership at national and regional level, and a basis for regional policy projects.

On 25 May 2008 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Economic and Monetary Union and
Economic and Social Cohesion to prepare the Committee's work on the subject. The draft opinion was
prepared by Mr van Iersel, rapporteur and Mr Pásztor, co-rapporteur.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr van Iersel
as rapporteur-general at its 447th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 September 2008 (meeting of
18 September 2008), and adopted the following opinion by 96 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

the EESC strongly pleads procedures and working methods that
enhance
and
cities (1).

responsibility and accountability of

regions

The EESC welcomes

1.1
the European
Parliament aiming at European, national and regional govern-
ance and partnerships in regional policy.

the initiative of

1.2
In the EESC's view good governance implies ‘multi-level
government’ and partnerships with representative organised civil
society at regional level.

Consequently, the EESC agrees with the Council and the
1.3
Commission as
to the desirability of effective ‘multi-level
government’ and better governance in applying EU-Funds and
implementing EU-policies. The question is not ‘if’, but ‘how’. It
is a matter of fine-tuning bottom-up initiatives and top-down
framework conditions.

1.4
The EESC endorses the Parliament's proposal to set up a
formal Council of Territorial Development. It would underline
‘multi-level government’ and it would make discussions and
agreements more obligatory.

‘multi-level government’

In the view of the EESC,

1.5
is a
flexible structure of relations between Commission, govern-
ments, and regional and local authorities, tailor-made according
to specific situations and thematic considerations rather than a
hierarchical framework of competences between governmental
layers. Good governance is characterised by open-minded rela-
tions and a less strict application of the ‘subsidiarity’ principle.

self-confident

Europe needs

1.6
resilient and sustainable
regions and cities. As a number of examples show, regions and
cities often get positive impulses
from the dynamics of
economic internationalisation. They find new ways to put them-
selves successfully on the map.

1.7
Notwithstanding the wide and often complicated variety
of administrative structures in the Member States, for the future

Practical evidence shows that decentralised responsibility
1.8
and accountability foster leadership and vision. These usually
form a firm base for public-public partnerships as well as for
public-partnerships with a number of stakeholders such as
social partners, chambers of commerce, companies, develop-
ment agencies, housing organisations, quangos, environmental
agencies, social organisations, schooling facilities at all
levels,
architects, and artists.

1.9
Consequently, representative organised civil society at
regional level should be given the opportunity for responsible
in defining and executing EU
and transparent
regional programmes. Taking local and regional (non-govern-
mental) views on board will contribute to the acceptance of the
values of the Union by the citizens.

involvement

1.10
The EESC is of the opinion that well-structured consul-
tations can lead to successful partnerships with non-govern-
mental stakeholders in the whole chain of defining, monitoring
and evaluating regional policy (2).

1.11
Flexible ‘multi-level government’ and good governance,
and corresponding synergies focussed on tailor-made solutions
can be most helpful to respond to the ultimate objective of EU
and national regional policy, which is to activate existing forces
and hidden potentials of regions and cities.

(1) In the EESC's view, ‘regions’ and ‘cities’ are not necessarily similar to
corresponding existing administrative entities, but
is rather a
dynamic concept consisting of coherent socio-economic areas embra-
cing network-regions, cities and their surroundings, interconnected
municipalities and metropolitan areas.

it

(2) See EESC Opinion ‘Partnership for implementing the Structural Funds’,

OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004, p. 21.

C 77/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

1.12
A European exchange programme can be set up for
officials in regions and cities as well as a well-structured system
of exchanges of experiences and the disseminating of good prac-
tices. Specialised research institutes and universities can be
supportive.

2. Context

Since 2001, ‘governance’ rightly came to the foreground
2.1
because of the growing need to link EU policies more directly
with compliance and implementation by and in Member
States (3).

In the same perspective, the EESC welcomes the forth-
2.2
coming report of
the European Parliament on national and
regional governance and partnership (4). It is a positive signal
that the EP as a European Institution is showing an increasing
interest in the way regional policy is shaped concretely in the
Member States.

the principle of

the EP paper demonstrates that

the
2.3 More generally,
dynamics of developments, such as economic internationalisa-
tion and continuous change inevitably ask for adjustments in
the strict application of
‘subsidiarity’. More
flexible interaction and synergies between the various levels of
government are needed to keep pace with worldwide develop-
ments and to implement commonly agreed European policies
successfully. The changed procedures as to the realisation of the
in which Commission, Council and Member
Lisbon Strategy,
is an illustrative example of such
Sates share responsibilities,
interaction and implementation.

‘Multi-level government’

2.4
in which the Commission,
national administrations and governments, regional and local
authorities each have their place and also share responsibilities
in a common framework, is the footprint of the same dynamics.

Regional policies and projects are shaped in the frame-
2.5
work of national and regional administrative practices which are
usually tremendously complicated and varied. But it is obviously
in the interest of citizens and business that policies and projects
are carried out correctly and in a consistent way across Europe.

2.6
The attention of the EP for this subject as well as the
many questions to be answered to promote convergence of
practices across the EU in view of attaining optimal successes in
regional policies boil down to corresponding considerations
worked out in documents of the Commission and the Council.

document ‘Innovation and regional policy’ (5) in preparation of
the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Territorial Cohesion and
Regional Policy in the Azores (6). They were already applied and
to a certain extent implemented in the period 2000-2006. Time
and again the Commission argues that enhanced ‘competitiveness
cannot be achieved by individual Member States or by regions alone:
close cooperation is required amongst all relevant public authorities,
business, citizens and social partnerships in a partnership with the
European Commission and the European Institutions’ (7). Moreover,
successful evaluation requires up-to-date administrative and
institutional capacity.

The Commission argues that progress will be only
2.8
possible by developing multi-level
innovative
government, which includes strategic coordination, an adequate
strategy mix for each region — there is no single ‘miracle
strategy’ — in which networks, clusters, poles of excellence are
identified, possibly supported by regional agencies, for selection.

systems

for

2.9
For the programming period 2007-2013, the Commis-
sion deepened its objectives in the Community strategic guide-
lines on cohesion with a focus on competitiveness, growth and
human resources. It developed a European territorial objective
focussing on ‘cross-border cooperation through joint local and regional
objectives and initiatives, trans-national cooperation aiming at terri-
torial development, and interregional cooperation and exchange of
experience’ (8).

2.10
The Ministers for Territorial Cohesion and Regional
Policy defined an Agenda for regions and cities in the Leipzig
Charter and the Territorial Agenda (9).
the
Informal Ministerial Meeting took the next step in defining the
way in which the Agenda for regions and cities must be carried
out. The Ministers underlined strongly in the First Action
Programme (10) their ‘belief that multi-governance is a fundamental
tool for a balanced spatial development of the EU and offer ourselves
to convene with selected stakeholders and local and regional authorities
the implementation of the Territorial Agenda priorities’.

In the Azores,

institutional

In this programme,

2.11
the Ministers further underlined
that the aims of the Territorial Agenda can be best pursued
arrangements within each
‘according to the
Member State,
through a strong involvement of national,
regional and local powers and stakeholders and a dialogue with
the European Commission and the other European Institu-
tions’ (11). Here again, one notices the emphasis on the need of
mutual discussion, support and action in the whole governance
chain, from local actors across Europe to the Commission and
vice versa.

A number of

these considerations and corresponding
2.7
principles are worked out in the Commission's staff working

(3) European Governance, COM(2001) 428 final presented amongst others a
new vision on the way the EU could and should function, creating
better involvement and more openness, identifying sharply the link
between policies, regulation and concrete delivery. It was explicitly
intended to improve the connection of Europe with its citizens.

(4) PE407.823v01-00 — Rapporteur Jean-Marie BEAUPUY.

(5) SEC(2007) 1547 of 14.11.2007.
(6) Meeting during the Portuguese Presidency, 23 and 24 November 2007.
(7) ibid. pag. 6. See also pag. 18: decisive factors for a successful region.
(8) ibid. pag. 17.
(9) ‘Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities’ and ‘Territorial Agenda of the
European Union, Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe
of Divers Regions’, Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development on
24/25 May 2007.

(10) ‘First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of

the European Union’, 23 November 2007.

(11) Ibid. pag. 8.

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/145

2.12
In the five lines of action the Ministers emphasised the
need for strengthening multi-level territorial governance, new
forms of partnerships and territorial governance as well as the
need to give a territorial/urban dimension to sectoral policies.

2.13
It is nonetheless disappointing — if not typical — that
in the Action Programme the responsibility for concrete imple-
mentation, at least in its definition, still remains nearly exclu-
sively in the hands of the Member States, and that regional and
local authorities and other stakeholders are rarely mentioned as
an indispensable part of the process. The traditional concept of
‘subsidiarity’ still prevails.

3. General comments

3.1
There are obstacles to transparency, consistency and effi-
ciency in planning and implementing regional policy. These are
partly due to the organisation and working methods of and
between Directorates General and European Funds at EU-level.
For a large part, however, they are due to defaults and gaps in
the functioning of ‘multi-level government’ and in the imple-
mentation of policies and programmes.

3.2
The draft report of the EP rightly demonstrates that a
number of positive initiatives have been taken to improve
governance at EU-level, such as URBAN I and II, LEADER and
Urbact.

economic developments, force to a re-examination of proce-
dures in order to make regions resilient and fit for change.

3.8
EU regional policy should be a bottom-up as well as a
top-down process. Bottom-up because regions have to identify
and improve their social and economic, environmental and
competitive conditions, and because European (and national)
regional policy has necessarily to be implemented on site. Top-
down because of the financial resources and framework condi-
tions which are provided and defined at EU and national level.
It never is one-way traffic.

3.9
The initiatives taken at EU level and the good intentions
of Member States to promote more effective and convergent
administrative approaches across Europe must be judged posi-
tively. Good governance in regional policy, however, requires
‘multi-level
first and foremost adjustments in rigid forms of
government’, which boils down to adjustments in governmental
style and mentality.

The above-mentioned documents in Chapter 2 demon-
3.10
strate that the Council largely shares this view. This is certainly
a big step forward. But from words to practical implementation
is often a long road.

Effective implementation is easier

3.11
to accomplish in
countries and regions with a decentralised tradition than in
administratively centralised systems. Additional complications
arise in the some Member States, where a fine-tuned regional
policy does not exist and where regional authorities are still not
fully established.

According to the EESC, some of the initiatives, however,
3.3
are rather vague, such as the Territorial Agenda. Besides, there is
no practical evidence to what extent ‘multi-level government’ is
a success factor in the above-mentioned programmes.

The EESC emphasises the need of better and accurate
3.12
European statistics as a basic requirement for effective regional
policy.

Although ‘multi-level government’

3.4
is becoming a more
accepted practice across the Union, transparent and consistent
working methods, and communication are still lacking. This is
largely due to the fact that the EU does not operate as a unitary
state.

The EESC supports all endeavours to improve European
3.13
governance. It should result in a better and more transparent
link between ‘policies’ and delivery. For delivery, the participa-
tion of regional and local stakeholders, public and private, is
indispensable. They must be taken on board more visibly. Invol-
vement usually leads to shared commitment and responsibility.
In the view of the EESC this is crucial.

3.5
Also the way in which national governments and stake-
holders such as decentralised authorities perceive the place of
the EU in the concept of ‘multi-level government’ sometimes
differs greatly depending on national
interests and cultural
traditions.

4.

‘Multi-level
Commission, governments and regions

government’:

interaction

between

3.6
A third consideration as to possible problems with
‘multi-level government’ flows forth from the broad variety of
administrative and political concepts that exist in Member States
themselves, and which are deeply rooted and usually not apt for
change.

3.7
These considerations demonstrate that a one size fits all
approach at EU level in regional planning and programming is
almost impossible. National and often also regional structures,
approaches and attitudes remain decisive. Nonetheless, practical
circumstances, such as actual international financial and socio-

At the level of the Commission, the presentation of the
4.1
various Community funds, related to regional policy, should
become more coherent. The overall picture of principles, targets
and objectives of Community policies in this field is rather
confusing for outsiders.

4.2
There is a need for a commonly agreed approach
between the Directorates General of the Commission. In this
respect the Interservice Group Urban Affairs (12) can be very
helpful.

(12) The Interservice Group Urban Affairs dates from … All DG's dealing

with specific fields of interests of cities are represented.

C 77/146

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

4.3
A more cohesive presentation and the visibility of a
common approach at EU-level may also set an example for
governments and ministries to come to integrated approaches
to regions and cities where these at national level usually are
lacking. It will be helpful anyway to close to a certain extent the
gap between the EU-level and regions and cities.

4.11
Their approach is often inspired by concrete objectives
that are drivers for the total development (15); their image is
most of the time determined by improvement of conditions for
(foreign) investment, clusters and human resources. At the same
time, nowadays, sustainable development is high on the agenda,
and so is social
inclusion, and quality of work and living
conditions.

A flexible implementation of

4.4
‘multi-level government’
and corresponding synergies can be a welcome incentive for
adjusting administrative practices in Member States. As the ulti-
mate objective of regional policy is to activate as much as
possible the (hidden) potentials of regions and cities, govern-
mental structures must be organised accordingly in a trans-
parent and consistent way.

4.12
A European exchange programme can be set up for
officials in regions and cities. Cross-border knowledge of one
another's approaches and strategies, e.g. regarding spatial devel-
opment, promoting economic attractiveness and social housing
will be very beneficial.

The EU Funds,

4.5
in close coordination with national
programmes, have to offer stimulating incentives to foster these
potentials.

4.13
The EESC suggests to set up twin programmes between
regions and cities across Europe as these already exist in a
number of other policy areas, in order to make their regions
accustomed to decentralised programmes and procedures.

4.6
The Commission has also a wider role in linking regions
and cities to Europe and in supporting self-confident resilient
and sustainable regions and cities: by explaining, also at decen-
tralised level, the significance of the Lisbon Agenda (which up
till now is still not well understood); by building awareness
among the future role of cities and metropolitan areas; by disse-
minating successful approaches across Europe (13). Specialised
research institutes and universities can be supportive in this
respect.

In the view of the EESC, this certainly does not mean
4.7
new bureaucratic procedures, but rather less bureaucracy and
red tape, and a targeted and consistent decentralisation.

4.8
According to the EESC, decentralisation is very promising
in that it accentuates the responsibility of regional and local
authorities and fosters accountability.

4.9
Responsibility and accountability are key. They are the
building blocks for the basic requirements of any regional devel-
opment, which are leadership, vision and consistency. There are
outstanding examples of these in Europe (14).

4.14
Such well-structured exchanges within Europe can add
to a change of mentality and attitude to promote expressiveness
and resilience of regions and cities. As a number of examples
demonstrate, regions and metropolitan areas often get positive
impulses from the dynamics of economic internationalisation.
They find new ways to put themselves on the map.

4.15
Community programmes can support this awareness,
either by projects co-financed by the Funds, or by targeted
communication and advice given by Commission officials. They
can be helped by specialised advisory bodies operating across
borders. Support of the EP favouring to structure this process,
that is already on its way, would also be most helpful.

4.16
The EESC endorses the proposal of the EP to set up a
formal EU Council of Territorial Development. It would under-
line the significance of ‘multi-level government’. It would be a
good platform for developing ideas about a holistic approach
for regions and cities. It would make discussions and agreements
in the Council more obligatory.

4.10
The EU and national governments should take into
account the mechanisms and working practices in successful
regions and cities, including metropolitan areas. These are not
tiny ‘states’. They are of a different nature; their management
differs fundamentally from state-level management.

(13) The Commission has worked out expertise for 26 regions in France in

a form of benchmarking.

(14) One outstanding example is Bilbao, where twenty years of leadership,
vision and consistency have produced a modern, future-oriented
metropole in a region that was totally depressed and in bad shape in
the early eighties. This leadership in Bilbao was financially supported
by the Central and Basque government and by the province, an
example of efficient public-public partnership as well as by a convin-
cing partnerships with organised civil society and with the private
sector.

On the basis of the First Action Programme (2007) (16)
4.17
a European discussion could be started on the modernisation of
administrative systems and practices as to the relationship state
— regions/cities. Its objectives should be: reduction of bureau-
cratic procedures, confidence building, promotion of resilient
and sustainable regions and cities transparency, shortening of
lines between decentralised levels and EU-level.

(15) Among these, interesting examples are the junction of fast trains in
Lille, the Olympic Games and the 500th anniversary of the discovery
of America by Columbus in Barcelona, and a future-oriented new city-
centre in Birmingham. In all three cases these driving objectives were a
fresh starting point for a new development.

(16) See First Action Programme, pag 5: ‘New forms of territorial governance are
required to foster a better integrated approach and a flexible cooperation
between different territorial level’.

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/147

4.18
These suggestions are to be seen as part of a better
‘governance’ of the relationships between public authorities at
all levels. These should not or no longer be seen in the frame-
work of a hierarchy of competences between governmental
layers. By contrast, in the view of the EESC ‘multi-level govern-
ment’
is a flexible model of relations between Commission,
national governments, and regional and local authorities, tailor-
made
thematic
considerations.

according

situations

specific

and

to

5. Good governance implies partnerships with organised

civil society

5.1
In the EESC's view up-to-date local and regional manage-
ment requires active involvement of the various segments of the
local and regional communities. They can bring in varied
competences and views, responding to specific needs. Explicitly
or implicitly this is also recognised in a number of considera-
tions of the Council (17).

The central reference concerning ‘partnership’

5.2
is article
11 of the general regulation on the structural funds that calls
for partnership,
i.e. consultation and involvement of socio-
economic actors and organised civil society (18).

and legitimate

5.3
In the view of the EESC good governance in regional
policy includes responsible and transparent participation of
representative
consisting of
well-defined actors at regional level. Consultation and involve-
ment should take place in defining, programming and evalu-
ating regional projects. This cooperation should also be accom-
interregional and cross-borders projects,
plished in case of
amongst others in the framework of a European grouping of
territorial cooperation (19).

society,

civil

In more general terms the EESC's view is that decentrali-
5.4
sation is salutory in fostering responsibility and accountability

Brussels, 18 September 2008.

local

that will

and regional

of
also activate
authorities
non-governmental stakeholders like social partners, chambers of
commerce, companies, development agencies, housing organisa-
agencies,
quangos,
tions,
schooling facilities at all
levels, health care, architects, and
artists.

environmental

agencies,

social

5.5
Despite intentions expressed by the Council and a
continuous dialogue between the Commission, and Member
States and regions to foster such partnerships, these are still
only practice in a limited number of cases (20). In many cases
they simply do not exist. Good examples should be published.

For its part, representative civil society has also to be
5.6
organised satisfactorily at regional level, and it has to dispose of
the right competences. These conditions are not easy in those
cases where civil society is weakly developed or when it reflects
a wide variety of sometimes opposing interests.

5.7
The Commission should be given the opportunity to act
as a catalyst and as a promoter of learning curves in decentra-
lised governance.

Also the awareness and the vision on the need of change
5.8
and adjustment in regions and cities can foster more and better
partnerships. Experience shows that a consistent vision among
public authorities creates room for intensifying cooperation
with other stakeholders. Article 11 on Partnership in the general
provisions on the Structural Funds should be taken in considera-
tion in the same perspective.

5.9
There are many opportunities. Better governance at
decentralised level will make societies as a whole more resilient
and fit for the future.

the fact

In view of

5.10
the European Commission
that
intends to publish a document on the issue of partnership in
the framework of the EU Cohesion Policy later this year, the
EESC proposes to return to this matter in more detail in a sepa-
rate Opinion.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(17) See Chapter 2.
(18) Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006, July 2006, that is to be applied
on all EU cohesion policy programmes for 2007 to 2013. It goes
without saying that partnerships at national level, however important
they are, cannot be a substitute for partnerships with regional civil
society.

(19) Regulation (EC) 1082/2006, July 2006. This regulation regarding

cross-border operations is limited to administrative practices.

(20) At several occasions the EESC has pleaded partnership in the imple-
mentation of regional policy, e.g. ‘Partnership for implementing the Struc-
tural Funds’, OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004, p. 21, and the ‘Role of civil society
organisations in the implementation of EU cohesion and regional development
policy’, OJ C 309 of 16.12.2006, p. 126. Regional partnership should
be guaranteed in other fields, such as the Competitiveness and Innova-
tion Programme and FP7, see the EESC opinion on ‘The territorial
governance of industrial change: the role of the social partners and the contri-
bution of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme’, OJ C 318 of
23.12.2006, p. 12.