Results of the CoR online consultation on the outcome of negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes

Transcription

1 Unit E.2 Subsidiarity Network / Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform / Covenant of Mayors / EGTC The Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform Team Results of the CoR online consultation on the outcome of negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes (27 March 2015) 1

2 Contents 1. Summary Introduction and information on respondents Survey findings: Partnership Agreements Main findings quantitative analysis Opinions received through the open comments section - Partnership Agreements The consultation and drafting process The needs and specificities of regions and cities in final documents Survey findings on Operational Programmes Main findings - quantitative analysis Opinions received though the open comments section Operational Programmes The consultation and drafting process The needs and specificities of regions and cities in final documents The use of new tools for the programming period Main findings quantitative analysis Comparison of answers submitted by respondents from Fund eligible countries vs. non-eligible countries Obstacles concerning the programming period Simplification and administrative capacity in relation to the governance of the programming period Comparison of answers submitted by respondents from Fund eligible countries vs. non-eligible countries Opinions received in the open comments section obstacles, challenges and improvements Administrative burdens and other obstacles Suggested improvements Illustration of the survey results (total) Illustration of the survey results, breakdown by cohesion fund eligible and cohesion fund non-eligible countries

3 1. Summary The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) carried out its online consultation on the outcome of negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes between 9 February and 6 March The results of the consultation with local and regional authorities will feed into the CoR's own-initiative opinion, which will be drawn up by the rapporteur, Ivan Žagar (SI/EPP), Mayor of Slovenska Bistrica. There were 317 contributions submitted from 27 EU Member States (no answers from Croatia) 1. Approximately 70% of the responses were submitted by public administration representatives, 10 % by local/regional politicians and the remaining 20% by representatives of associations, chambers of commerce and NGO's. The results of the survey show that perceptions of the preparatory stage, and the final version of Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes, vary from country to country and often also within one country. Perceptions amongst participants from the same country may vary due to the size of the respondent's administrative unit or the level of the governance they represent or work for 2. Comments were submitted by respondents who expressed a certain level of dissatisfaction (or partial satisfaction) with the negotiations, the drafting process or the outcome. Overall conclusions should therefore be based first and foremost on the quantitative results of the survey. Partnership Agreements 13% of all those who took part in the CoR Survey participated in the drafting of a Partnership Agreement between their country and the European Commission, and 35% were consulted. A majority of respondents (63%) were satisfied with the negotiation process and with the drafting and content published, with 3% being 'very satisfied', 29% being 'satisfied' and 31% being 'fairly satisfied'. According to 12% of respondents, the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Partnership Agreements and for 61%, they were partly taken into account. According to 13% of respondents, these needs were not taken into account. More information on both the process and its outcome was contained in the additional comments provided by respondents. Respondents tended not to add such comments if they reported a high level of satisfaction. Several respondents for example, from the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland did however provide additional comments which confirmed their positive perception of the 1 Additional written contributions were sent by EUROCITIES, Eurochild, CEMR and one of the local/regional authorities in Cyprus. 2 This confirms earlier conclusions set out for example in the CoR 5th Monitoring Report on Europe 2020 (October 2014) drawn from evidence which showed that the perception of an LRA's involvement in the consultation process in was more positive among representatives of higher territorial levels of governance (NUTS Level 2) than among local or municipal ones. 3

4 drafting process (i.e. local/regional authorities being included in the process). Specific examples from Cyprus and Finland provided more negative feedback. In some cases, the picture is mixed as respondents from the same country state that the local and regional authorities were involved, whilst others say this was not the case. This view usually depends on the level of the government that a respondent represents. Generally speaking, this feedback confirmed earlier evidence which had suggested that smaller cities, municipalities and local level government organisations have fewer or no chances to participate in the negotiating/drafting process, and that their interests are reflected less or not at all in their country's final Partnership Agreement. Such views were expressed by several respondents from Belgium, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, the UK and other countries. Operational Programmes 18% of all those who took part in the CoR survey participated in the drafting of Operational Programmes, 41% were consulted and could provide input and 24% of respondents were not involved at all. The majority of respondents were satisfied with the negotiation process and with the drafting and content published on the Operational Programmes, with 4% being 'very satisfied', 26% being 'satisfied' and 33% being 'fairly satisfied'. According to 15% of respondents, the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Operational Programmes and for 66%, they were partly taken into account. More information on both the process and its outcome was contained in the additional comments provided by respondents. Additional comments from a few countries for example from the Netherlands (Rotterdam), Italy (Marche Region) and Germany (Bavaria) were in line with the overall results of the survey (quantitative results). Some respondents addressed the negotiations conducted with the European Commission, criticizing the Commission for a lack of a coordination (i.e. different EC Directorates Generals had varying interests) and for not understanding the characteristics and needs of specific regions. Moreover, some also criticized their central government for having a lack of negotiation skills and for accepting the draft suggestions prepared in Brussels (e.g. respondents from Poland and Slovenia). Coordination problems were also reported at regional level, among relevant stakeholders (e.g. in Italy). With regard to the inclusion of local/regional needs in Operational Programmes, several respondents presented a view which differed to the outcome of the quantitative analysis of the survey results. They illustrated that these needs were not taken into account in the Operational Programmes they are concerned with (e.g. Poland, Finland, Sweden, Austria and others). However, some of them also admitted that including all of these needs was not possible, due to the nature of the Operational Programmes. Several respondents commented on specific problems or needs in their regions or cities which were not seen as priorities as they did not fit into the selected thematic 4

5 concentration headings. Some of the issues listed included, environmental issues, protection of cultural heritage, promoting tourism and local level investments in infrastructure. The use of new tools during the programming period 49% of respondents (almost half) indicated that Community Led Local Development (CLLD) would be used, along with Financial Instruments. The third most popular tool is Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) with 41% of respondents indicating that it would be used. In relation to the two remaining tools, 28% of respondents stated that the European Investment Bank's Structural Programme Loan (SPL) will be used and 23% responded that the Joint Action Plans would be used. The majority of respondents could not actually say whether the latter two tools would be used or not (53% in relation to the EIB SPL and 60% for the Joint Action Plans), either due to their lack of knowledge on the use of these tools, or of the tools themselves. A comparison of answers submitted by respondents from Fund (CF) eligible countries with those submitted by respondents from CF non-eligible countries showed that respondents from CF eligible countries are more familiar with the new tools and are more certain that these tools will be used. For example, 59% of respondents from CF eligible countries say that Integrated Territorial Investment will be used compared with 29% of respondents from CF non-eligible countries. Obstacles concerning the programming period A majority of respondents agreed that the problems listed in the survey are actually obstacles to be considered in relation to the programming period Four of them were considered obstacles/big obstacles by more than 60% or respondents, namely: lack of financial resources (68%), lack of information (66%), political obstacles (66%), and insufficient administrative capacity (62%). Administrative boundaries were identified as a big obstacle/obstacle by 57% of respondents. Additional information on these obstacles was also conveyed through the open comments section in particular on administrative capacity (more training/assistance/resources required). Simplification and administrative capacity in relation to the governance of the programming period More than half of the respondents identified three measures/principles as essential for simplifying and improving administrative capacity, namely: simplifying eligibility rules (59%), avoiding 'goldplating' when national rules go beyond EU requirements (58%), and focusing on results (54%). All other measures and principles listed in the survey were considered important (either 'important' or 'essential') by a vast majority of respondents. 5

6 Several respondents added comments on specific measures/principles, for example on the importance of avoiding 'gold plating' and national authorities complicating procedures further (e.g. Finland, Slovenia). Another example was given by respondents from Hungary and Poland, who criticized the pressure to spend money. In their view this affects has a negative impact on the effectiveness of their projects. Recommendations on how to improve procedures and cooperation during this programming period were also put forward. Such recommendations included making more efficient use of IT tools and creating less paperwork (e.g. Latvia, Lithuania); introducing more flexible rules for countries/regions with very low allocations (e.g. Sweden, Netherlands); improving the co-financing mechanisms in the Member States (Poland); providing more training to those responsible for the management and absorption of funds, including elected politicians (e.g. Ireland). 6

7 2. Introduction and information on respondents The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) carried out its online consultation on the outcome of negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes between 9 February and 6 March The results of this consultation with local and regional authorities will feed into the CoR's own-initiative opinion on the outcome of negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes. This opinion will be drawn up by the rapporteur, Ivan Žagar (SI/EPP), mayor of Slovenska Bistrica. The draft opinion was discussed at the CoR's Territorial Policy Commission (COTER) on 2 March 2015 and it will be discussed for a second time and adopted by COTER on 13 May The opinion will subsequently be submitted for adoption to the CoR plenary session on 8-9 July There were 317 contributions submitted from 27 EU Member States (no answers from Croatia) 3. Approximately 70% were submitted by public administration representatives (110 officials/clerks/experts from local level public administrations, 92 from regional level public administrations and 23 from national level public administrations). Approximately 10 % of contributions were sent by local/regional politicians (20 politicians representing a local government and 10 representing a regional government). The remaining 20% of contributions were sent by representatives of associations, chambers of commerce, NGO's, agencies (e.g. water boards, innovation agencies), foundations and academics. Some categories of respondent have more than one role, e.g. working for a local authority but also representing an association of local/regional authorities. 26% of respondents represented an association of local/regional authorities, 4 in their main or an additional/shared job profile. The results of the survey show that perceptions of the preparatory stage, and the final version of Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes, vary from country to country and often also within one country. Perceptions amongst respondents from the same country may vary due to the size of their administrative unit or the level of the governance they represent or work for 5. The analysis presented in this report is based on aggregated data. In order to conduct a comparison, the data was broken down into two larger groups of respondents, those from Fund (CF) eligible countries and those from non-eligible countries. Open comments submitted to the survey were translated into English and were analysed for the purpose of this report. Extracts from these comments are quoted in this report along with an 3 Additional written contributions were sent by EUROCITIES, Eurochild, CEMR and one of the local/regional authorities in Cyprus. 4 Including 4 EGTCs. 5 This confirms earlier observations, contained for example in the CoR 5th Monitoring Report on Europe 2020 (October 2014), where evidence showed that the perception of an LRA's involvement in the consultation process in was more positive among representatives of higher territorial levels (NUTS Level 2) than among local or municipal ones. 7

8 indication of their country and administrative level or specific region/city of origin. No personal details are included in this report. 3. Survey findings: Partnership Agreements 3.1 Main findings quantitative analysis 13% of those who took part in the CoR survey participated in the drafting of a Partnership Agreement between their country and the European Commission, and 35% were consulted and could provide input. 18% of respondents had a lower level of involvement (meaning that organisations received information but could not provide input) and 34% of respondents were not involved at all. The majority of respondents were satisfied with the negotiation and drafting process and with content published on the Partnership Agreements, with 3% being 'very satisfied', 29% being 'satisfied' and 31% being 'fairly satisfied'. According to 12% of respondents, the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Partnership Agreements and for 61%, they were partly taken into account. 13% of respondents indicated that these needs were not taken into account and 14% did not know. 3.2 Opinions received through the open comments section - Partnership Agreements 6 Respondents had the option of providing an additional comment on the subject of Partnership Agreements. 89 additional comments were received as part of this section of the survey. Some of them reflect or comment on a very specific situation, not directly related to the subject. Such comments are not presented in this report. This report does not intend to make assumptions about a particular country as the sample gathered for some countries was small and therefore cannot be considered as representative. The section below presents a selection of comments that were directly related to the subject and which also illustrate the main findings from the quantitative analysis of the results. The comments and additional analysis are set out under two main headings, the negotiations/drafting process and the inclusion of local/regional needs in the final set of Partnership Agreements The consultation and drafting process To a certain extent, the open comments section on Partnership Agreements confirmed the findings of an earlier analysis carried out by the CoR. This analysis showed that the perception of the 6 For a general overview, views expressed by respondents should be considered in conjunction with the quantitative results obtained though the survey. Generally, additional comments refer to specific problems, or provide additional elements which explain a low or reduced level of satisfaction with the process or its outcome. On the contrary, the aggregated data obtained from 317 respondents in 27 countries show a more balanced, general perception. 8

9 negotiations and the drafting process depend on the level of governance in cases where smaller municipalities and cities had fewer chances to get involved. Negotiations and drafting were also organised differently in each country and some arrangements seemed to be more satisfactory in the view of respondents than others. In some cases, respondents from a given country had a particularly negative perception of the process and the outcome. This view was also reflected in more detailed comments submitted in the additional comments section. On a positive note, some respondents who were satisfied with the drafting process and also with the finalized Partnership Agreements provided the CoR with additional information. For example, Dutch respondents in this survey (and in a previous survey) confirmed that the negotiations and drafting process was inclusive. An additional comment from a representative of a Dutch LRA association states that 'the Partnerships Agreements were drafted through a bottom-up process building on the Regional Operational Programmes being set-up.' This view was also supported by a respondent from the city of Rotterdam who indicated that 'the Partnerships Agreements were drafted through a bottom-up process building on the Regional Operational Programmes being setup.' The process was also conducted in partnership in Denmark, according to one of the respondents from a local level association who stated that they were 'involved in drawing up partnership agreements by participating in workshops and bilateral meetings with central government, amongst other things.' Similarly in Ireland, an Irish respondent from the Southern Regional Assembly confirmed that 'P.A. and Regional OP's were prepared as part of an interactive process feeding into both documents.' However, this view and familiarity with the Partnership Agreement is quite different when the same question is posed to a representative from a different level of governance. A respondent from the city of Dublin, who was involved in the preparation of one of the Operational Programmes, stated that he was not even aware of what the Partnership Agreement was. With regard to negative perceptions (no partnership), several respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with the process in the multiple-choice section of the survey and they provided additional comments to illustrate their point. For example, a respondent from Cyprus (regional level, development agency) stated that 'public consultation was applied typically. Everything was decided centrally!' Another respondent from Cyprus added that 'the text of the Partnership Agreement has been prepared by the Directorate General for European Programmes, Coordination and Development of Cyprus without consultation.' Negative perceptions of the process were expressed by several respondents from Finland. For example, a respondent from one of the regional councils in Finland stated that 'the process was not good. The fact that it was managed by the central government meant that there was no genuine partnership from the regions. But there was support when problems arose.' Another respondent from Finland (local level) wrote that 'the partnership agreement was drafted at a very high level of central level and local authorities did not have an opportunity to have their say. Local stakeholders are consulted at regional or national level on a very ad hoc basis and, in many cases; this depends on the political balance of power.' 9

10 As stated earlier in the report, the perception of the negotiations and drafting process depends in many cases on the governance level of respondents. In the case of Belgium, respondents representing local level also expressed their dissatisfaction with the process by adding additional comments. A Local level representative from Wallonia wrote that 'although the Commission s intention was to involve local and intermediary authorities in the implementation of programming and partnership agreements, in practice this has not been the case. Worse still, I have the growing impression that there is a two-tier system: those who are backed by a powerful enough lobby can make themselves heard all the more easily since they are well-known (big cities). For the rest it is difficult or impossible: they are too small, not taken into consideration, and in any case not able to follow the many very technical files that are usually in English.' Meanwhile, a representative from the City of Antwerp said that 'cities or local governments ( ) were not consulted on how funds for territorial development are best spent. The feeling is that the partnership agreement was drawn up solely because the European regulation required doing so, and not as an opportunity was seen to better engage stakeholders (including cities and local authorities).' A respondent from Italy also reported a lack of inclusion of city/municipal levels of government during the process. A few comments from the UK also show that the local dimension was not included in the drafting and negotiating process. A respondent from one of the Local Enterprise Partnerships or LEPs (partnerships between local authorities and businesses) wrote that 'by taking out references to local stakeholders on the ongoing governance of the ESIF programmes, this has enabled UK and EU negotiators to emasculate the principle of partnership and multi-level governance in the England OPs.' This issue was also mentioned by other respondents, who provided additional comments on the structure/governance of Local Enterprise Partnerships. A respondent from one of the LEPs said that 'the UK government approach to the new structural fund programmes was hampered by its abolition of our regional structures. As a result, it has proved problematic to reflect local needs via a national Programme for England.' The needs and specificities of regions and cities in final documents An inclusive (including consultation stage) drafting process did not necessarily translate into taking the local and regional needs into consideration in the final Partnership Agreement in some countries. This was illustrated by a respondent from the UK (Northern Ireland, Belfast), who wrote 'our Local Authority and those in the surrounding Metropolitan Area were very enthusiastic about the process of developing the PA's but in the end were very disappointed that although we were well consulted, our needs were not taken into account and ultimately there are no opportunities for us to take a strategic approach to using Structural Funds in the new Programming period ' Several other respondents from the UK also indicated that local level needs were not considered in the final outcome. They also highlighted that they were not involved in the drafting phase either. For example, one of the respondents (local level, Yorkshire) stated that 'in order to agree the Partnership Agreement in good time, it seemed that all contentious elements relating to 10

11 local governance were removed and left for agreement during the OP negotiations.' A representative of one of the city councils in the UK stated: 'there are some significant doubts amongst stakeholders as to whether this is genuinely a local/regional programme in the UK anymore, or whether it is in fact centralised and managed as a national programme, which is closely controlled to meet Ministerial priorities. There is still the chance to improve this situation, and it is hoped that the UK government could still take a more inclusive approach that genuinely meets the needs of the regions.' Some respondents from Slovenia also expressed disappointment with the level of attention given to the local and regional needs, despite some type of a consultation process being conducted. For example, a respondent from a Slovenian local/regional authorities association wrote: 'In Slovenia, local and regional authorities were indeed involved in drafting the partnership agreements and they did make comments regarding the documents, but these were not usually taken into account or only to a limited extent. What bothers us even more is the fact that in the new, programming period, there are almost no funds earmarked for municipalities, particularly not for carrying out infrastructure projects. This could therefore only be called a nominal partnership, and not a real one.' The perception that larger cities or regions are much better represented in the final set of Partnership Agreement documents, was reported by one of the Latvian respondents, (regional level, Latvia) who said that 'national and local needs must be equally represented in this agreement. Unfortunately, at the moment the impact of powerful lobbying is prevalent in larger cities.' In some cases, these needs and characteristics were only partly taken into consideration in relation to functional areas. A respondent from one of the regional development councils in Hungary wrote: 'The Partnership Agreements (PAs) have been only partially able to meet needs in terms of the integrated development of functional regions that cross administrative borders. Administrative planning units dominate European territorial policy, which gives these functional regions (functional from the economic, social or environmental point of view) only a limited chance of experiencing uniform development under the programme.' In some instances, respondents did not only express their critical view of the situation, they also provided additional arguments supporting the application of partnership principle. For example, one of the respondents from Finland wrote: 'Attention should be paid to ensure that the key regional authorities are involved in all stages of drawing up the partnership agreement, because in Finland, among other countries, the chief responsibility for implementing programmes lies with regions. The partnership agreement must not simply remain a conversation between the ministry and the commission, because the document provides for an agreement which local and regional authorities have the responsibility to implement.' A similar message was also conveyed by another respondent from the UK (UK, LRA association), who wrote: 'Associations representing local and regional government need to be part of the negotiating teams from the Member States who meet 11

12 with the Commission. They should be trilateral negotiations and trilateral Partnership Agreements (local, central, EU) not just bilateral (central, EU).' 4. Survey findings on Operational Programmes 4.1 Main findings - quantitative analysis 18% of those who took part in the CoR survey participated in the drafting of Operational Programmes and 41% were consulted and could provide input. 17% of respondents had a lower level of involvement (meaning that organisations received information but could not provide input) and 24% of respondents were not involved at all. The majority of respondents were satisfied with the negotiation and drafting process and with the content published on the Operational Programmes, with 4% being 'very satisfied', 26% being 'satisfied' and 33% being 'fairly satisfied'. According to 15% of respondents, the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Operational Programmes and for 66% they were partly taken into account. 10% of respondents indicated that these needs were not taken into account and 9% did not know. 4.2 Opinions received though the open comments section Operational Programmes 7 Respondents to the survey had the option of providing an additional comment on the subject of Operational Programmes. 101 comments were received as part of this section of the survey. Some of them reflect or comment on a very specific situation, not directly related to the subject. Such comments are not presented in this report. This report does not intend to make assumptions about a particular country as the sample gathered for some countries was small and therefore cannot be considered as representative. The section below presents a selection of comments that were directly related to the subject and which also illustrate the main findings from the quantitative analysis of the results. The comments and additional analysis are set out under two main headings, the negotiations/drafting process and the inclusion of local/regional needs in the final set of Partnership Agreements. It should also be noted, that in some cases the Operational Programmes were not finalized when the survey was carried out. 7 For a general overview, views expressed by respondents should be considered in conjunction with the quantitative results obtained by the survey. Generally, additional comments refer to specific problems, or provide additional elements explaining a low or reduced level of satisfaction with the process or its outcome. On the contrary, the aggregated data obtained from 317 respondents in 27 countries show a more balanced, general perception. 12

13 4.2.1 The consultation and drafting process In some countries, several respondents said that local and regional authorities were involved in the negotiations and in drafting Operational Programmes. For example, a respondent from the Netherlands (city level) wrote: 'The national government was part of the process to ensure several issues were organised for all of the four programmes ( ) but were in no way interfering in the drafting of the priorities and actions. The regional and local authorities were in charge and the city of Rotterdam as managing authority acted on behalf of this partnership.' A positive view was also received from a respondent from Italy (regional level, Marche region) who stated that 'for both the ERDF and the ESF in the Marche region there has been good cooperation between the region, the lead Ministry and the European Commission in arriving at a joint text.' A respondent from Bavaria (city level) also confirmed that Local and regional authorities were involved in Germany writing that 'during the process of setting up the ERDF OPs and PAs the cities in Bavaria were represented through the Bavarian Association of Cities.' Inclusion in the process (the outcome notwithstanding) was also confirmed by a respondent from the UK (local level, Yorkshire) who commented that 'the consultation responses were acknowledged with thanks, and we can see some shifts in emphasis in response. This view has been echoed by other UK stakeholders who have had equally positive experiences.' However, the process did not seem so straightforward to some other respondents. One respondent from a city council in the UK, reported that 'there has been confusion over who is leading the programmes and then in the communication between these bodies to the local authority level.' Organisational problems relating to consultations were also reported in Spain by a respondent from a chamber of commerce in one of the largest Spanish cities, who highlighted that 'some organisations received invitations during the last phase of the process and the forms for putting forward contributions were very complicated considering the little time left by this stage. Moreover, the preparatory meetings with interested and sectoral stakeholders, which took place from the start, included organisations in our field that are less relevant than our own.' The negotiations on the Operational Programmes were perceived as difficult by some, not only because of national specificities but also due to the varying interests presented by different Directorates General of the European Commission. For example, a respondent from Ireland (regional level), who was involved in the process, wrote that 'negotiations with the Commission were difficult as had to deal with competing demands of many Commission Services, all with their own agendas.' In some cases, respondents claimed that Operational Programmes for the new programming period were in fact just a repetition of already established practices/content. A respondent from Portugal (local level), commented that 'they are essentially for maintenance, not for breakthroughs or trying new approaches. Copies based on previous versions, previous frameworks.' Several respondents held a more negative perception of the negotiation process with the European Commission. For example a respondent from Poland (regional level) wrote: 'The process of 13

14 negotiating regional programmes in Poland with the EC did not resemble negotiations. Regions were forced to adopt them without any deviation from the content imposed by the EC's representatives. This is why there is a lack of region-specific elements in the Polish regional programmes, which goes against the spirit of regionalization. An example here would be specific objectives and CT1 and CT3 indicators in regional programmes in Poland identical in all regional programmes.' A similar issue was also highlighted by a Slovenian respondent (Slovenia, regional level, development agency) who wrote that 'Slovenian negotiators in discussions with Brussels should negotiate and not just listen. The country needs to pay more attention to the needs of the local/regional environment.' However, some respondents point out that the problems also exist at national level or, in some instances, they were linked to a lack of cooperation within their region. This was illustrated by the comments of a respondent from Italy (municipal level) who described a 'total lack of operational and functional integration between the regions and the municipalities,' and commented that 'communication (only ex-post) by the region is formal and hasty providing the minimum content necessary although there was ample time to manage the new programme and organise everything properly.' The needs and specificities of regions and cities in final documents Several respondents stated that the inclusion of local/regional needs in the Operational Programmes was not achieved in their countries. Some of them supported their opinion by providing additional explanations concerning their institutional setting, the nature of the negotiation process or other factors. For example, a respondent from Poland (regional level) wrote that 'the specific characteristics of regions and cities can never fully be taken into account as the OP is the outcome of EU, national, regional and also, to some extent, local policies, not only municipal.' A similar point was also made by a respondent from Slovakia (regional level) who indicated that 'as in the previous programming period, the specific objectives were set at national level for the whole of Slovakia, although each region has its own specificities. This has produced a situation in which most of the one-size-fits-all goals set are not in fact the ones that need most urgently addressing in particular regions.' The opinion that decisions were mainly taken at national level with less attention given to specific regions was also expressed by a respondent from Sweden (regional level), who wrote that 'first of all, the government chose to keep the ESF partly as a national programme, which reduces the scope for regional adaptation.' A respondent from Austria (City of Vienna), also had a similar view on the consideration given to local/regional needs, writing that 'not enough attention is paid to the specific needs of cities and regions in central and eastern Europe. These relate to problems with co-financing and to cooperation across the geographical boundaries of the programmes or between programmes.' Some respondents commented on specific problems or needs in their regions or cities which were not seen as priorities and which did not fit into the selected thematic concentration headings. They 14

15 listed specific issues such as environmental issues and the protection of cultural heritage. This view was expressed for example, by respondents from: a) Slovenia (regional level, development agency): 'The Operational Programmes have not taken local authorities' needs into consideration depending on the specific needs of regions, it would be necessary to take more account of local communities' needs needs for funds to put in place transport infrastructure, cycling routes, tourism infrastructure, the renovation of cultural heritage, small treatment plants in areas of low population density (a characteristic of Slovenia, which has more than 6000 smaller settlements), and more emphasis on tourism as a key economic branch with a lot of potential for Slovenia.' b) Ireland (regional level): 'Thematic concentration to a certain extent has overridden the addressing of regional needs. Certain identified needs did not sit easily within the priority themes.' c) Belgium (regional level, Wallonia): 'Thematic concentration makes sense in principle, but in practice all the programmes and funds include the same three or four priorities: the others are therefore inaccessible! The emphasis on results leads to immediate practical measures, to the detriment of long-term strategy or tackling the root of the problems.' 5. The use of new tools for the programming period Main findings quantitative analysis Participants in the CoR survey were asked about the possible use of the new tools which have been introduced for the new programming period under the Policy. The list consisted of five tools and respondents could indicate whether such tools would be used in their countries/regions. 49% of respondents (almost half) indicated that Community Led Local Development (CLLD) (Article 32 of the Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) and the Financial Instruments (Article 37 of the Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) would be used. The third most popular tool is the Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI), with 41% of respondents declaring that it would be used (Article 36 of the Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013). (Article 31 of the Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) will be used and 23% responded that the Joint Action Plans (Article 104 of the Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) would also be used. The majority of respondents could not actually say whether the latter two tools would be used or not (53% in relation to the EIB SPL and 60% for the Joint Action Plans) either due to their lack of knowledge on usage or of the tools themselves. 15

16 5.2 Comparison of answers submitted by respondents from Fund eligible countries vs. non-eligible countries In order to conduct a comparison, respondents were organised two groups: those who originated in Fund (CF) eligible countries and those who originate in non-eligible countries. 8 The comparison diagrams and tables presented in an Annex to this report show that for most questions there were no significant differences in views expressed by respondents from Fund eligible and non-eligible countries. However, in relation to the question on the use of new tools during the programming period, respondents from CF eligible countries were more familiar with the new tools and are more certain that these tools will be used. For example 59% of them said that Integrated Territorial Investment will be used, compared with 29% of respondents from CF noneligible countries. A much larger proportion of respondents from non-eligible countries also could not say whether such tools would be used (49%), compared with 28% from the CF eligible countries. A similar picture emerged with regard to other tools, as the percentage of those stating they will be used is higher among respondents from CF eligible countries. CF eligible countries also have a lower share of respondents who selected the option 'I don't know,' which can indicate that they are either not aware of a particular tool or that they do now know whether it would be used. 6. Obstacles concerning the programming period A majority of respondents agreed that the following problems are either big obstacles or obstacles to a certain extent in relation to the programming period : 68% - a lack of financial resources (at lower levels, revenues are not sufficient to undertake the investment set out in the OPs. (note: this relates to the programming phase of the ESIF : 32% of respondents consider this a big obstacle; 36% consider it an obstacle to a certain extent and 15% do not consider it to be an obstacle); 66% - a lack of information (sub-national policy levels do not have access to the same quantity and quality of information when formulating and implementing policies: 20% of respondents consider this to be a big obstacle; 44% consider it as an obstacle to a certain extent and 26% do not consider it to be an obstacle); 8 The Fund is aimed at Member States whose Gross National Income (GNI) per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the EU average. It aims to reduce economic and social disparities and to promote sustainable development. For the period, the Fund includes Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. For more information on Fund please visit: 16

17 66% - political obstacles (ministries carry out primarily sectorial policies without involving regional or local authorities: 29% consider this to be a big obstacle; 37% consider it to be an obstacle to a certain extent and 21% do not consider this to be an obstacle); 62% - insufficient administrative capacity (not enough personnel/knowledge/infrastructure to implement specific tasks: 26% of respondents consider this to be a big obstacle; 36% consider it to be an obstacle to a certain extent and 26% do not consider it to be an obstacle); 57% - administrative boundaries (administrative boundaries due to national or EU restrictions are not always consistent with functional, economic and social areas, leading to fragmentation of policies: 18% of respondents consider this to be a big obstacle; 39% consider it to be an obstacle to a certain extent and 26% do not consider it to be an obstacle). 7. Simplification and administrative capacity in relation to the governance of the programming period More than half of the respondents identified three measures/principles as essential for simplifying and improving administrative capacity during the programming period, namely: simplifying eligibility rules (59%), avoiding 'gold-plating' when national rules go beyond EU requirements (58%) and focusing on results (54%). All other measures and principles listed in the survey were considered important (either 'important' or 'essential') by a vast majority of respondents. Please see a full list in a descending order in an annex to this report (Part D). 7.1 Comparison of answers submitted by respondents from Fund eligible countries vs. non-eligible countries Just as there were differences in views held in relation to new tools, there are also significant differences between the two groups of respondents on the subject of the importance of measures/principles relating to simplification and administrative capacity. A higher proportion of respondents from CF eligible countries see the options listed as essential compared with those from Fund non-eligible countries. For example, 64% of respondents from the first group ( Fund eligible) see focusing on results as essential, whereas 46% from Fund noneligible countries selected the same response. 50% from CF eligible countries see additional financial resources for capacity building as essential, compared with 37% from non-eligible countries. With regard to absorption pressures it is 30% (CF eligible countries) and 11% (CF noneligible countries). For more information concerning these differences, please see the charts included in an Annex to this report. 17

18 8. Opinions received in the open comments section obstacles, challenges and improvements Administrative burdens and other obstacles Some commenters voiced concerns that having identical levels of administrative requirements creates a burden for countries with small per capita allocations of EU funds. For example a respondent from Sweden, working for one of the regional councils, made the following point: ' We have around EUR 50 per capita from the ERDF and around EUR 100 per capita from the ESF to allocate for the whole period. The amount of work we have devoted to developing programmes, anchoring them at local level and other preparations is out of all proportion.' A Dutch respondent (NL, association) also added the results of a study done on the level of administrative burden to their comments, indicating that 'the administrative burden of the legislative package Policy doesn't seem to be lower than that of the period The investigation showed that there was a shift of the burden: from the final beneficiary to the implementing agencies.' Several respondents from other countries expressed similar views, for example one respondent from France (local level, town) stated that 'despite a few improvements (simplified costs) the beneficiaries will be faced with even more complex ESIF management and monitoring rules.' These sentiments were echoed by a German academic who wrote that, 'it is our impression that simplification mostly means the amount of work for the projects increases - so the promises are different to the expectations.' Avoiding practices related to 'gold plating' was ranked as essential in the multiple choice section of the questionnaire and this view was supported by some of the written comments received from respondents. For example, a respondent working for one of the regional councils in Finland stated: 'National interpretations are often stricter than EU law requires, for example, the 'de minimis' interpretations and public procurement guidelines. For the programming period, the ministry of employment and the economy has tightened up its own interpretations and is instructing Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment to respect these stricter interpretations, such as in the case of 'de minimis' support. The issue is a considerable obstacle to development activities in the region. There should be an end to such national interpretations which make matters difficult. Instead, interpretations should be in line with EU legislation.' A respondent from Slovenia also pointed out that procedures are sometimes made more complicated at national level (Slovenia, regional level, development agency) writing: 'Steps to cut back red tape and complicated procedures are needed urgently in the end it is the person responsible in the beneficiary organisation who is held responsible. National authorities further and unnecessarily 9 For a general overview, the views expressed by respondents should be considered in conjunction with the quantitative results obtained by the survey. Generally, additional comments refer to specific problems, or provide additional elements explaining a low or reduced level of satisfaction with the process or its outcome. On the contrary, the aggregated data obtained from 317 respondents in 27 countries show a more balanced, general perception. 18

19 complicate procedures civil servants should be proactive and try to facilitate access to development funds.' Respondents commented on the negative effects of pressure to spend money. Examples of this can be seen in the following comments: a) Hungary (management of one of the national parks): 'Pressure to spend money has an extremely detrimental impact. Because of this pressure, many projects are only set up under constraint, due to this obligation to spend the money and are consequently inefficient, do not produce meaningful results or contribute to achieving the original aim. Even where the projects concerned are sound, this pressure makes it difficult and often altogether impossible to secure a decent outcome, as suppliers are well aware that, sooner or later, the beneficiary will have to pay, cannot terminate the contract and is unable to put pressure on them by holding back a larger outstanding amount.' b) Poland (regional level): 'The obligation connected with the performance reserve only seems to enable policies to be oriented towards effects. In fact, from this perspective it increases the pressure even further to absorb and puts the speed of spending before effectiveness.' In several cases respondents reported a lack of understanding of the specificities of their regions/cities and a significant gap between concepts/models/new tools suggested and the actual needs or structures (functional areas). The following comments conveyed such views: a) Italy (city council): 'There is still a huge gap between theoretical models set up at EU level and the local operational level. At the moment Italian regions do not help to bridge the gap since the process and main content of the ESIF are still convoluted.' b) Greece (municipal level): Important steps have been taken to increase the effectiveness of policies and to ensure the functioning of the projects financed. However, the programs do not reflect the real needs and capabilities of potential intervention areas, and they have no tools to adapt to varying degrees of success with European objectives at local level, and to particularities, which may justify differences. Insufficient coordination and the low level of cooperation are crucial negative factors, which largely concern national and local authorities.' c) Hungary (regional level, development agency): ' ( ) the harmonisation of operational programmes is only partially possible, if not impossible, for functional regions (functional from the economic, social or environmental point of view) crossing administrative borders (NUTS 2 and/or NUTS 3). This is especially true in the case of complex developments that require the involvement of several sectors.' d) Belgium (City of Antwerp): 'Optimum use is not made of the new instrument: Integrated Territorial Investment. It is not used for (large) urban development, or to combine ERDF and ESF. The instrument will be used to put together ERDF funds in specific areas of economic downturn in 19

20 dealing. Regarding the possible use of the instrument in cities, it is felt that the management authorities and above local governments had no interest in an instrument that gives considerable autonomy to cities.' 8.2 Suggested improvements Several respondents suggested how to improve either the framework or the administrative practices in relation to the programming of the funds. For example, a respondent from Spain (regional level) suggest the following: 'We must be more reasonable with the resources that we allocate to monitoring and auditing. In my opinion, these have been huge and out of proportion (in terms of staffing which is costly in itself and the amount of time allocated). In addition, regardless of all this investment in monitoring, we have not reached our goal (reducing irregularities and ensuring that expenditure declared to the EU is above board). On the contrary, more and more problems continue to arise.' A few of the comments submitted referred to additional efforts to cut red tape. Suggestions for doing so included making more effective use of IT tools and generating less paperwork. For example, recommendations of this nature were made by respondents from: a) Lithuania (academic) who suggested that it was advisable 'to minimise the use of paper applications and reporting forms with all the mandatory paper annexes. To improve electronic application and reporting forms based on good practice' and b) Latvia (sectorial institution) who wrote: 'The national authorities that administer programmes need to communicate with each other and draw up a joint communication plan for existing and new programmes and also create a unified website with access to information on all support programmes and measures available in Latvia, at least those that are managed by national regulatory authorities.' However, some respondents also suggested an increase in the use of IT tools should not replace more traditional ways of cooperating. Such statement was made by a respondent from France (regional level, department) who wrote: 'The digitalisation of procedures and materials is positive in terms of access to information. It also leads to problems in accessing funding: direct exchanges are sometimes necessary in order to prepare corresponding dossiers and this becomes much less straightforward.' Some respondents called for considerable simplification in relation to the actual spending of the allocated funds. A respondent from Sweden commented that (regional level): 'There should be a much simpler system for distributing and monitoring resources. In principle it should be possible to pay out a certain amount per year without a Programme, but with the requirement to abide by the Commission s overarching directive. Monitoring must of course be thorough, but proportionate to the resources involved.' In some other cases, recommendations were directly related to the ensuring the required co-financing level as in the case of a respondent (regional level) from Poland who 20

21 wrote that: 'A national system for financing own investments should be supported and developed. It would lead to better use of EU funds. Furthermore, the system for monitoring spending should be improved so as to be user-friendly for beneficiaries rather than scaring them off. In this regard, it is necessary to develop an appropriate model of cooperation between the beneficiary and the controller so that they could work together to maximise the use of the planned funds rather than building barriers against using them.' Training needs were highlighted by a number of respondents, for example from: a) Ireland where a respondent (city level) indicated that 'more training is needed to bring elected members up to speed. ( ) I do think that having well informed elected members is an essential part of subsidiarity and consequently functioning of democracy'; b) Poland where a commenter (academic) noted that, 'a better system for training beneficiaries would be useful and it is necessary to develop a better cooperation system.' Many commenters were also of the opinion that training should not only target beneficiaries, managing authorities and other similar parties, but that it was also necessary at the European Commission to ensure mutual understanding between both partners at the table during the negotiations phase. A comment conveying this view was sent by a respondent from Portugal (regional level), who said that 'the technical and professional training of the European Commission negotiating team should be provided by professionals who are well-briefed on the areas in which they are involved, which is not often the case.' A similar comment was also made by a respondent from Spain (regional level, Navarra) who wrote that 'In general, the European Commission has helped boost the Region of Navarre's ERDF Operational Programme, and it deserves thanks for its work and dedication. However, I must draw attention to one small criticism of the European Commission. It should try to take a closer interest in the specific conditions in the region where the Programme is being developed. ( ) For example, it would have been useful for the European Commission to visit Navarra and meet with the managers in charge of each section of the local authority, who could have contributed their solutions to the Programme.' 21

22 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden The Netherlands United Kingdom 9. Illustration of the survey results (total) (n=317) Respondents by country Q On the whole, are you satisfied with the negotiation process, drafting and content published of the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes? 22

23 Q To what extent were you/your organisation involved in the drafting of the Partnership Agreements? 34% 18% 13% 35% a) I/my organisation was involved in the drafting b) I/my organisation was consulted and could provide input c) I/my organisation received information but without the possibility of providing any input d) I/my organisation was not involved at all Q Do you feel that the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Partnership Agreements? 12% 14% a) Yes 13% 61% b) Partly c) No, they were not taken into account d) Don't know Q To what extent were you involved in the drafting of the Operational Programmes? a) I/my organisation was involved in the drafting 24% 17% 18% 41% b) I/my organisation was consulted and could provide input c) I/my organisation received information but without the possibility of providing any input d) I/my organisation was not involved at all 23

24 Q Do you feel that the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Operational Programmes? 10% 9% 15% a) Yes b) Partly c) No, they were not taken into consideration 66% d) Don't know 2. Awareness of the tools available in, or introduced during, the programming period: Q The new cohesion policy programming period introduces several new tools. Please indicate whether the following tools will be used in your country/region/city? European Investment Bank Structural Programme Loan (SPL) (Article 31 Common 28% 19% 53% Joint Action Plans (Article 104 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) 23% 16% 60% Community Led Local Development (CLLD) (Article 32 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) 49% 14% 37% Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) (Article 36 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) 41% 19% 40% Financial Instruments (Article 37 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) 49% 8% 43% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% a) Yes, it will be used b) No, it won't be used c) I don't know 24

25 Q In your view, did local and regional authorities experience any of the following obstacles in your country/region/city concerning the programming period ? Political obstacles: ministries carry out primarily sectoral policies without involving regional or local authorities. 29% 37% 21% 13% Administrative boundaries: administrative boundaries (due to national or EU restrictions) are not always consistent with functional, economic 18% 39% 26% 16% Insufficient administrative capacity: not enough personnel/knowledge/infrastructure to implement specific tasks 26% 36% 29% 10% Lack of financial resources: at lower levels, revenues are not sufficient to undertake the investment set out in the OPs. (note: this relates 32% 36% 15% 17% Lack of information: sub-national policy levels do not have access to the same quantity and quality of information when formulating and implementing 20% 44% 26% 11% a) Yes, it was a big obstacle b) Yes, it was an obstacle to a certain extent c) It was not an obstacle d) I don't know 25

26 3. Simplification and administrative capacity in the governance of the programming period for EU funds Q Please state the degree of importance of the following measures/principles with respect to simplification and increasing administrative capacity: simplifying eligibility rules 59% 33% 5% 3% avoiding 'gold-plating' (national rules going beyond 58% 28% 7% 8% focusing on results 54% 41% 2% 3% simpler rules for projects which generate their own 46% 35% 11% 8% use of simplified cost options 44% 42% 6% 8% additional financial resources for capacity building 43% 48% 7% 3% the one-stop-shop principle for beneficiaries 37% 39% 15% 9% application of the partnership principle 31% 53% 10% 6% guidance/technical assistance from the European 27% 56% 13% 4% thematic concentration 24% 64% 8% 3% a) essential b) important c) not important d) I don't know 26