Maarit VILJANEN

What Maarit VILJANEN has said (3)

• “Thank you. Well, I think we are in full agreement that, you know, the SMEs are the one and a strong single market with the SMEs is one of the key elements also for the European competitiveness. In the SMEs, and here of course in this programme, we will try to, for the remaining part of this MFF, we will of course look at whatever we could do to simplify the processes and to increase their participation in the current single market programme. But as you will hear soon, the situation will be a little bit different in the future because the SMEs will no longer be part of the single market and customs programme. They will be embedded in the European Competitiveness Fund. So the situation will be different. Of course, they will be handled in different, in that programme which I am not responsible for and I suppose you will have a presentation on those activities as well. How do we see, of course, the administrative burden? And I think that has been really the burden has been on the rather cumbersome processes for the applicants to apply for the, especially if the questioning on the grants which we have, for instance, in the SME pillar but also in the other activities. And there the, of course, the idea would be that there should be same rules for different kind of activities and that's why the funding access to funding has been difficult because there have been very different funding rules in different programmes to have more harmonised and more simplified way in the future for the beneficiaries. ***Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Single Market and Customs Programme for the period 2028-2034 and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/444, (EU) 2021/690, (EU) 2021/785, (EU) 2021/847 and (EU) 2021/1077 (Exchange of views with the Commission)”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you and good afternoon and very happy to be here. Firstly, to present the results from the midterm evaluation of the single market programme and then later on with a colleague from DG TAXUD we will also present the new programme, single market and customs programme. But to start with this evaluation, midterm evaluation, the okay, the next slide please. The single market programme is the EU funding programme to help the single market to reach its full potential. It brings together six predecessor programmes, an independent budget line from various policy areas, and its budget is allocated across six different objectives which we also call pillars. These pillars are internal market, SMEs, standards, consumer protection, food and feed, and statistics. The overall budget for the single market programme for this MFF is around 4.3 billion. However, the period covering this evaluation from 2021 to 2023 is about NOK 1.9 billion. The budget was in single market programme allocated across the objectives also in proposal. Next one, thank you. So just a few words about the methodology, how we did this interim evaluation. It was conducted based on activities such as desk research, consultations, data analysis, and we had the support of an external contractor who basically provided us a study. It was aimed to basically address the programme against its general and specific objectives. The evaluation criteria were in two different kinds: content of the single market programme — its effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value, and relevance. This was to assess how the programme performed over the 2021-2023 period in providing financial support to these activities. But secondly, also by design — flexibility, simplification, and synergies — to assess whether the structure of the programme was fit for purposes of enabling more flexibility, simplification, and fostering synergies between activities. This dual approach led us to use additional design criteria which were needed due to the specificity of the single market programme's design. It also enabled us to analyse whether grouping diverse activities together delivers on the expected outcomes since the programme merged six different policy areas into one cohesive programme. It was useful to introduce a set of overarching priorities as common denominator for all activities under all pillars. The evaluation also followed a bottom-up approach. The conclusions at the level of the programme rest on the assessment of each of the pillars. The overarching priorities are used to grasp how specific findings fit into the bigger picture. Core performance indicators were complemented by second-level indicators to satisfy the needs of information. Then the next slide please. On the content of the programme, the activities which were financed under the single market programme are diverse but can be grouped in the following types of activities. These were basically, if you can see on the slide on the left side, data collection, capacity building, financial support, expertise and knowledge, and then drawing up European standards. Some examples I could mention on these activities that were undertaken on pillar one: the deployment and use of IT and enforcement tools such as EC IMI, Your Europe portal, Your Europe advice. On pillar two, SME support through the Enterprise Europe Network, Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs, IP Help Desk, and EULOC Euroclusters. Then also maybe on pillar three, the funded European and international standardization and reporting bodies such as CEN, CENELEC, ETSI, and so forth. On the conclusions, the next slide please. So in principle, it can be said that the programme has been effective overall, delivering tangible results in all of the pillars. Yet some degree of nuance may be evoked. It showed progress is possible to make the single market programme even more effective. Here I would also like to make one or two examples. On pillar one, positively, it can be said that the IT platforms like Your Europe improved cooperation between the authorities and access to information. However, some tools are still only partly deployed and will yield more benefits only in the future. On the SME pillar, an example of Enterprise Europe Network and Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs provided strong support to SMEs with the satisfaction rate close to 100%. Yet it can be said that the impacts of Euroclusters' cascade funding approach will be clearer in the longer term. On efficiency, as for the effectiveness, overall efficient implementation of the programme. Yet here as well, there is room for improvement in terms of efficiency. I take two examples: on pillar two, as a positive side, the funding via Euroclusters provided support efficiently to the SMEs, but some reporting requirements were seen as disproportionate for smaller organisations. On pillar three, the introduction of unit cost facilitated grant management; however, the transition increased the administrative burden for beneficiaries. On coherence, the single market programme is internally coherent. Each pillar focuses on distinct policy fields with specific regulatory frameworks. It is also externally coherent. It aligns well with the other multiannual financial framework programmes and EU regulatory framework. Maybe just an alignment to say the strategy is Green Deal, Digital Europe, Farm to Fork. Concerning the EU added value, it's very clear across the pillars. Many actions address legal obligations that cannot be delegated or achieved across border results and economies of scale that Member States couldn't deliver themselves. Few examples of this EU added value: IT tools at the EU level reducing duplication and cost and ensuring coordinated use of resources in the Union, consumer networks, vaccine banks, EU reference labs, and harmonised statistics. On the point of relevance, the relevance of the single market programme remains very high and it directly supports current and emerging EU priorities including resilience, sustainability, and digitalization. The single market programme is able to respond to emerging and unforeseen challenges, to mention COVID-19 and Ukraine. Despite a modest budget that did not anticipate the inflationary pressure nor the unexpected events, the performance and high relevance of the single market programme activities and its objectives underscore the importance of maintaining a sufficient level of funding. Then going to the next slide with the recommendation. So despite the overall positive conclusions, there is room for improvement. Recommendations were included in the report to explore ways to tackle the identified shortcomings. The following main recommendations may represent the feasible next step measures that could be envisaged in the remaining implementation of the single market programme. The findings of this interim evaluation have already and will be useful for the design and implementation of any future MFF programme as it is in the case of what we are going to present shortly. So just to mention the recommendation: exploiting the integrating design more. Design features, flexibility, simplification, and synergies have only partially delivered so far, so there is potential to further exploit. The report also contained a recommendation for each of the pillars which in part relate to the recommendation for the programme as a whole. Some obstacles we had during the evaluation: challenges such as limited data, distinctive nature of activities, and the attribution of impact. Mitigating measures were tailored to the challenges and enabled to carry the evaluation. This evaluation also allowed for an assessment of the framework in which it was conducted and this led to identify also areas of improvement and fit it in the recommendations included in the report. The monitoring and evaluation framework showed limitations during the evaluation, for instance lack of impact indicators or the limited data available for the analysis. But of course, I would like to maybe finish the presentation saying that these results of course were embedded in the while we were preparing for the single market and customs programme and in the overall approach for the next MFF that Commission has proposed. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• “Yes, maybe I'll start with the fact on the enterprises, the issue concerning the enterprises and the SMEs. So this programme is really relevant also for SMEs and actually businesses of all sizes, although it's not targeting the SMEs specifically. There are other stakeholders which are very important for this programme such as the national authorities, standardization organisations, and representative organisations. Then, of course, the collaboration with the Commission itself. But however, they are important in here on the customs. I will give the floor to my colleague. But maybe just to, I'll try to clarify the why. Why do we have this unified single market customs programme instead of the separate programmes? I gave a few examples on the activities where we see really the synergies. This programme really streamlines the funding across the interconnected policy areas. We consider that it really brings together the activities which are now funded under the different parts of the Single Market Programme, Customs Fiscalis, and the Union Anti-Fraud Programme. Because of this single market governance, customs, taxation, and anti-fraud and the statistics, they are operationally linked. It also brings back to the approach of the next MFF which is really aiming for simplified, harmonized programmes and more flexibility across the budget. So this is why we are pooling these, and these also these different funding streams together. Then, the mutually independent parts—I think I gave the examples already with where the synergies are, which we consider. I'll just repeat the one which was on the customs, market surveillance, and consumers, bringing together all these trends which is basically to have the coordinated checks at the border and online on e-commerce to detect and keep unsafe and noncompliant products out of the Single Market. This is supported, of course, by the enforcement tools. It's also supported by the standards on the consumer part. Yes, indeed, these are the continuation of the activities which are currently in the Single Market Programme. It has been always quite a small part. The activities will continue and there was, of course, our current estimation based on the needs that are arriving. But these are important activities. As you can see on the consumer side, there is quite a lot of joint activities also with the market survey, and so we consider them very much important activities. Just to name that in this new approach on the next MFF, of course, we do have this—even if we have this stability part that these legal obligations should be continuing—we do have this need for agility and flexibility. So there will be more joint activities and, of course, with the different crises or unforeseen needs, there will be a balancing of activities in the overall budget. The overall budget, of course, we consider that there is an increase in the overall budget. We are currently, of course, also analysing it very carefully in the sense, but of course there is an increase always taking into account the inflation towards the end of this MFF. But I have to remember, for instance, concerning parts which are concerning the Single Market Programme, that the big bulk of the activities that took most of the financing, namely the SMEs and the food and feed, are no longer in this programme. So you have to look at these bits and parts of each of the programmes and their continuation in order to do—and we are currently also clarifying this in some sort of more specified table. I'll maybe give the floor to my colleague now on the customs.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on consumer protection and product standards · EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports