DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES · REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ... DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES ... 2014-2020 will still be coupled with administrative challenges

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

IMPLEMENTATION OF COHESION POLICY

2014-2020:

PREPARATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE

CAPACITY OF MEMBER STATES

ANNEX

This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Regional

Development.

AUTHORS

Metis GmbH - Herta Tödtling-Schönhofer, Christine Hamza, Alice Radzyner

EPRC University - John Bachtler, Stefan Kah, Carlos Mendez

RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATORS

Diána Haase, Esther Kramer

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies

European Parliament

B-1047 Brussels

E-mail: [email protected]

EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE

Valérie Wiame

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS

Original: EN

ABOUT THE PUBLISHER

To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to:

[email protected]

Manuscript completed in September 2014.

© European Union, 2014.

This document is available on the Internet at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do

not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the

source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

IMPLEMENTATION OF COHESION POLICY

2014-2020:

PREPARATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE

CAPACITY OF MEMBER STATES

ANNEX

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess the administrative capacity of Member States

for implementing Cohesion policy in 2014-2020, and the preparations

undertaken at administrative level for a successful start of the programming

period. Fourteen case studies support the finding that simplification measures

are being prepared at EU and Member State levels based on the lessons learned

from previous periods, but that the efficient and effective Funds management in

2014-2020 will still be coupled with administrative challenges for national and

regional authorities.

IP/B/REGI/FWC/2010-002/LOT01-C01-SC12 September 2014

PE 529.085 EN


3

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES 7

LIST OF TABLES 7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 11

COUNTRY CODES 15

INTRODUCTION 17

1. CASE STUDY - AUSTRIA 19

1.1. Partnership Agreement 19

1.2. Programme architecture 22

1.3. Operational Programme(s) 23

1.4. Capacity issues – lessons learned 28

1.5. Capacity changes for the future 30

2. CASE STUDY - BULGARIA 33

2.1 Partnership Agreement 33

2.2 Programme architecture 35

2.3 Operational Programme(s) 37

2.4 Capacity issues – lessons learned 41

2.5 Capacity changes for the future 44

3. CASE STUDY - CROATIA 47

3.1 The pre-accession period 47

3.2 The period from 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013 48

3.3 Progress with Partnership Agreement preparations for 2014-2020 49



3.6 Capacity issues 52


4. CASE STUDY - CZECH REPUBLIC 55




4.4 Capacity issues – Lesson learned 72


5. CASE STUDY - ESTONIA 83

Implementation of Cohesion policy 2014-2020: Preparations and administrative capacity of Member States

4




5.4 Capacity issues – Lessons learned 90


6. CASE STUDY - FINLAND 97




6.4 Capacity issues - lessons learned 102


7. CASE STUDY - GERMANY 105




7.4 Capacity issues– lessons learned 111


8. CASE STUDY - GREECE 117






9. CASE STUDY - HUNGARY 131






10 CASE STUDY - ITALY 145






5


11. CASE STUDY - LUXEMBOURG 155






12 CASE STUDY - POLAND 169






13 CASE STUDY - SWEDEN 187






14. CASE STUDY - United Kingdom 195







6


7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1

The project framework of the pa in the czech republic 57

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Case study selection 18 Table 2

Allocation of funding* 22 Table 3

Financial table erdf austria 2014-2020 24 Table 4

Implementation assessment – preparation for programme-cycle stages and

elements 26 Table 5

Effectiveness of capacities at different levels 28 Table 6

Effectiveness of capacities for different themes 29 Table 7

Capacity assessment 30 Table 8

Indicative distribution of the esifunds by thematic objectives (2014-2020), €

million 34 Table 9

Proposed allocation of funding to operational programmes in bulgaria (2014-

2020) 36 Table 10

Implementation assessment 39 Table 11



Capacity changes for the future 44 Table 14

Cohesion policy programmes in croatia, 2014-20 51 Table 15

Esif programmes’ contribution to respective thematic objectives 2014-2020 59 Table 16

Indicative distribution of the union aid by thematic objective at national level for

each esifund 59 Table 17

Czech republic: changes in operational programmes for 2014-2020 61 Table 18

Proposed allocation of funding to the ops in the czech republic (2014-2020), €

million 64 Table 19

Priority axes and specific objectives of the op ta 2014-2020 66 Table 20

Implementation assessment– preparation for programme-cycle stages and

elements 69 Table 21


Capacity changes in the new programming period 77


8

Table 23

Funding allocations of thematic areas per esifund(€ million) 85 Table 24

Implementation assessment - preparation for programme-cycle stages and














Progress in fulfilling ex-ante conditionalities 119 Table 37





Stage in the process of fulfilling of ex-ante conditionalities and their

documentation 132 Table 42

Hungary: operational programmes for 2014-2020 134 Table 43

Cohesion policy changes from 2007-2013 to 2014-20 134 Table 44




National operational programmes foreseen in the italian pa 2014-2020 147 Table 48

Effectiveness of capacities at different levels 151


9

Table 49

Comparison between the thematic priorities of the erdf op 2007-2013 and the

thematic objectives chosen for the erdf op 2014-2020 156 Table 50





Simplifications planned to reduce the administrative burden and expected results 166 Table 54


Allocation to basic themes, comparison of 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 169 Table 56

Comparison of cohesion policy allocation to specific thematic objectives, 2007-

2013 and 2014-2020 170 Table 57

Progress of implementation of ex-ante conditionalities in poland, january 2014 171 Table 58

Allocation of resources to operational programmes (€ million) 175 Table 59

Rop śląskie 2014-2020 financial table (€ million) 176 Table 60

Implementation assessment– preparation for programme-cycle stages and



Governance and delivery of the themes 183 Table 63










Erdf and esf allocation to leps in england 202


10


11

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR Annual Implementation Report

bn Billion(s)

CAP Common Agricultual Policy

CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and

Stabilisation

CF Cohesion Fund

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CP Cohesion policy

CPR Common Provisions Regulation

DG Directorate-General

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EC European Commission

ECA European Court of Auditors

ECB European Central Bank

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ELY Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment

EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

ESIF/ESIFunds European Structural and Investment Funds

ESL Early school leaving

ESPON European Observation Network for Territorial Development and

Cohesion

ETC European Territorial Cooperation

ETS Emmission Trading System

EU European Union

EUSBSR EU Strategy of the Baltic Sea Region

FLC First-Level Control

GDP Gross Domestic Product

IB Intermediate Body

IMF International Monetary Fund


12

INTEGRA Scheme funded by the OP ‘Human Resources Development’

INTERREG Community initiative for interregional cooperation

INTERACT INTERACT I provided support for the implementation of the three

strands of the INTERREG Community Initiative

IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

IPRÚ Integrated Plan of Territorial Development

ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession

LEP Local Enterprise Partnerships

m Million(s)

MA(s) Managing Authority

MS Member State(s)

N/A Not available

NGO Non-Governmental Organisations

NOP National Operational Programme

NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

NUTS Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques

№ Number

OP Operational Programme

ÖROK Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz

PA Partnership Agreement

PHARE Poland Hungary Aid For Restructuring The Economy

PPS Purchasing Power Standard

R&D Research and Development

RDA Regional Development Agencie(s)

RIS3 Research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation

ROP Regional Operational Programme

RTDI Research and Technical Development Infrastructure

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SF Structural Funds

SFC Structural Funds Common database

SME(s) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise(s)

STRAT.AT 2020 Austrian Partnership Agreement

TA Technical Assistance


13

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

TO(s) Thematic Objective(s)

ToR Terms of Reference

WLWK 2014 Common List of Key Indicators (Poland)


14


15

COUNTRY CODES

AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

CY Cyprus

CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

ES Spain

FI Finland

FR France

GR Greece

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IT Italy

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg

LV Latvia

MT Malta

NL The Netherlands

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SE Sweden

SI Slovenia

SK Slovakia

UK United Kingdom

EU12 Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and in 2007

EU13 Member States that joined the EU in 2004, in 2007 and in 2013

EU15 EU Member States before the 2004 enlargement


16


17

INTRODUCTION

The following case studies aim to complement and illustrate the findings presented in the

main text of the study on the 'Implementation of Cohesion policy 2014-2020: Preparations

and administrative capacity of Member States' commissioned by the European Parliament.

These case studies describe the state-of-play of the preparation and implementation

process of the Partnership Agreement (PA) and the Operational Programmes (OP) overall in

14 Member States, as well as selected OPs wherever possible at the time of writing (see

Table 1:). The case studies were based on the draft PA and European Commission Position

Papers (hereinafter referred to as EC Position Papers) available, as well as other sources

wherever deemed relevant. In addition, the case studies were informed by interviews

carried out with authorities at national/coordinating level and OP authorities, mainly for the

OPs selected for further analysis.

The case studies follow a common structure to assist clarity and coherence. First, each case

study describes the state-of-play and the process of developing the PA in the country in

question. Next, the programme architecture is described, i.e. the number, type and funding

of the OPs planned for the 2014-2020 programming period are described.1 The subsequent

sections of the case studies focus on a description of a selected OP (wherever possible),

including an analysis of the changes compared to the 2007-2013 programming period’s

equivalent OP and the conditions for its preparation (including the impact of the financial

and economic crisis). The lessons learned from the capacity issues experienced in the 2007-

2013 programming period are then systematically described across the different themes

implemented and across the phases of the policy cycle. The final section of each case study

consists of a description of the changes planned and anticipated with regard to

administrative capacity in the 2014-2020 programming period, as well as the associated

difficulties expected.

It should be noted that the level of information differs between the case studies, depending

on the progress in developing the PA and OPs and the information provided by the

interviewees. Furthermore, the information provided does not necessarily relate to the

whole country, but rather to the OP and therefore the region or thematic scope of the OP

analysed.

Table 1 presents the selection of Member States along the following general parameters:

EU13 and EU15;

size of ERDF and ESF budgets;

and the following specific parameters:

below‐average absorption rate (BA) between 2007 and January 2013;

above‐average absorption rate (AA) between 2007 and January 2013;

OP architecture (multi-funded, single‐funded OP);

number of OPs;

type of OP (thematic, regional).

1 It should be noted that ETC programmes are omitted from the analyses that focus on national thematic and

regional OPs.


18

Table 1: Case study selection

ERDF and ESF budget

< 10 bn Euro

ERDF and ESF budget

> 10 bn Euro

EU15

Austria

(significant OP

reduction)

National ERDF

OP

AA Italy

(regional

single‐funded

OPs ERDF and

ESF)

Regional ERDF

OP – Calabria

BA

Finland

(significant OP

reduction, one

multi-funded

national OP

ERDF/ESF)

National

ERDF/ESF OP

AA Greece

(multi-funded

regional and

thematic OPs

with ERDF/

ESF)

Competitiveness

entrepreneurship

and innovation

ERDF OP

AA

Luxembourg

(no changes)

National ERDF

OP

AA UK

(significant OP

reduction,

regional multi-

funded OPs

ERDF/ESF)

Regional ERDF

OP – England

AA

Sweden

(no changes)

Regional ERDF

OP –

Mellansverige

(North

MiddleSweden)

AA Germany

(almost no

multi- funded

OPs, no

significant

changes)

Regional ERDF

OP – Saxony

AA

EU13

Estonia

(one multi-

funded OP

ERDF/ESF)

National

ERDF/ESF OP

AA Poland

(regional multi-

funded OPs

ERDF/ESF)

Regional ERDF

OP – Silesia

AA

Croatia

(one ESF and

one ERDF

programme)

National ERDF

OP

Czech Republic

(significant

reductions, mix

of multi-funded

and single‐

funded OPs,

regional and

thematic OPs)

National ERDF

OP – Technical

Assistance

BA

Bulgaria

(multi-funded

thematic

ERDF/ESF OPs)

Thematic ERDF

OP

BA Hungary

(mainly

thematic multi-

funded OPs)

Thematic ERDF

OP

BA


19

1. CASE STUDY - AUSTRIA

1.1. Partnership Agreement

In Austria, the process of developing the PA began in spring 2012 and ended in the first

quarter of 2014. The ÖROK, the Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning, was responsible

for coordinating theinteraction between the different funds and the elaboration of the PA.

The project was named ‘STRAT.AT 2020’, indicating a continuation of ‘STRAT.ATplus’, i.e.

the Austrian National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) of the 2007-2013

programming period.

For the elaboration of the PA, different working bodies were set up.2 The STRAT.AT 2020

Steering Group is composed of high-ranking public officials carrying out strategic tasks

concerning the overall process, bringing together the so-called Project Group, the

Subcommittee on Regional Economy (coordination board for European Union (EU) regional

policy and its implementation in Austria) and the political bodies of the ÖROK.

The STRAT.AT 2020 Project Group was responsible for the core process of defining the

common themes and strands of the national Cohesion policy objectives and the

development of rural areas/rural development policy as well as for generally laying the

ground. The Project Group included therepresentatives of the programming bodies, namely

the Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection, representatives of

the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, the

bodies of the Länder (Austrian regions) responsible for the European Regional Development

Fund (ERDF), and the Federal Chancellery responsible for the overall coordination.

STRAT.AT 2020 Focus Groups were set up by the Steering Group for the purpose of carrying

out preparatory work to clarify and deepen certain issues and themes. The themes of the

respective Focus Groups and their composition were therefore agreed on an individual basis.

The Focus Groups reported to the Project Group, which decides on the further use of the

results for STRAT.AT 2020. In total, 15 Thematic Focus Groups were held.3

The STRAT.AT 2020 Forums were open to all actors involved in the programming

(programme implementation partners, economic and social partners, Association of Towns

and Associations of Municipalities, intermediaries, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs),

experts/academia). The forums were designed to provide information on the interim results

and feedback, as well as to deepen the exchange among the actors from all programming

areas. Four STRAT.AT 2020 forums were planned for the process, including a presentation

of results of the process as a starting event for the new European Structural and

Investment Funds (ESIF) period.

During the STRAT.AT 2020 process, there were two online hearing procedures, in the

summers of 2012 and 2013 (online consultation).

On 8 April 2014, the PA passed the Ministerrat (Austrian Council of Ministers), and at the

time of the interview it was clear that, in accordance with the regulatory deadline, it was

going to be submitted via the Structural Funds Common database (SFC) to the European

2 See http://www.oerok.gv.at/eu-regionalpolitik/europaeische-struktur-und-investitionsfonds-in-oesterreich-

2014-2020/partnerschaftsvereinbarung-stratat-2020/english-summary.html . 3 See http://www.oerok.gv.at/eu-regionalpolitik/europaeische-struktur-und-investitionsfonds-in-oesterreich-

2014-2020/partnerschaftsvereinbarung-stratat-2020/prozess/fokusgruppen.html.

http://www.oerok.gv.at/glossar/glossar.html?tx_a21glossary%5Buid%5D=248&cHash=7c4e3cf9cecba283a025414e67b8752a

http://www.oerok.gv.at/eu-regionalpolitik/europaeische-struktur-und-investitionsfonds-in-oesterreich-2014-2020/partnerschaftsvereinbarung-stratat-2020/english-summary.html

http://www.oerok.gv.at/eu-regionalpolitik/europaeische-struktur-und-investitionsfonds-in-oesterreich-2014-2020/partnerschaftsvereinbarung-stratat-2020/english-summary.html

http://www.oerok.gv.at/eu-regionalpolitik/europaeische-struktur-und-investitionsfonds-in-oesterreich-2014-2020/partnerschaftsvereinbarung-stratat-2020/prozess/fokusgruppen.html

http://www.oerok.gv.at/eu-regionalpolitik/europaeische-struktur-und-investitionsfonds-in-oesterreich-2014-2020/partnerschaftsvereinbarung-stratat-2020/prozess/fokusgruppen.html


20

Commission by 22 April 2014 at the latest.In practice, the submission of the PA and one OP

took place on 17 April 2014.

Lessons learned

According to the opinion of the interviewed expert, two main lessons were learned in

Austria, the first in relation to the timing of the process and the second related to the

interests of different stakeholders involved. The strategic planning process started too early

in Austria, namely in spring 2012, before substantial changes were announced by the

European Commission in terms of standards and provisions for the PAand the OPs (e.g.

guidelines for the PA and OP templates). This resulted in a substantial amount of additional

work.

The PA also had to be modified over time, because certain analyses were carried out at a

rather early stage in 2012 (which resulted in the need for updating), and also because the

2013 EC Position Paper’s specific recommendations for Austria raised new considerations.4

The requirement to set up the OPs in parallel to the elaboration of the PA was not

considered as ideal by the interviewee. The Managing Authorities who were responsible for

developing the 2014-2020 OPs showed little interest in the process of elaborating the PA at

the beginning of the process. The OP authorities showed little active involvement, because

they wereconcerned with the day-to-day management of the programmes rather than with

the overall strategic processes. In this context, for the OP authorities, regional strategies

play a greater role and have a more binding character than discussion processes launched

by a national coordinating institution (ÖROK). For the ERDF OPs, the OP programming

processes did not start before 2013.

The process of preparing the PA aimed at including as many relevant stakeholders as

possible and created high expectations among some stakeholders (i.e. to have a real

influence on the orientation of the programmes), which were frequentlydisappointed.

Advantages and disadvantages of the new instrument

In the case of Austria, the ERDF and European Social Fund (ESF) amount to approximately

5% to 8% of overall funding within the respective policy areas, and the funds hence play a

complementary role in the respective Thematic Objectives.5 The new instrument does not

create any advantage for the programming process of Structural Funds.

The situation is completely different with regard to the Eureopan Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development (EAFRD), from which almost 100% of funds for rural development in Austria

originate. Consequently, there was a real need during the PA process to discuss whether

EAFRD funds could also be used for social services in rural areas (EAFRD should not be

limited solely to agriculture), and the PA was the appropriate vehicle for this discussion and

the fine-tuning of the decision (which was taken at ministerial level).

Stage of preparations for the thematic orientation of the PA

The overall thematic orientation of the programmes is defined in the PA and was decided at

an early stage in the process. A more important challenge consisted of choosing

the‘Investment Priorities’ (for ERDF) or ‘Focus Areas’ (for EAFRD) at programme level.

4 See http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/csr2013_austria_en.pdf . 5 Based on estimations, see Partnership Agreement, Final Draft, Chapter 1.3, p. 72.

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/csr2013_austria_en.pdf


21

For the ERDF, the regulation foresees that at least 80% of the funds have to be allocated to

two or more of the four Thematic Objectives: TO1 (strengthening research, technological

development and innovation), TO2 (enhancing access to and use of quality of Information

and Communication Technology - ICT), TO3 (enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs) and

TO4 (supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors). At least 20% must

be reserved for a reduction of CO2. For the region of Burgenland, which is a transition

region, 60% of the funds have to be focused on at least two of the four mentioned Thematic

Objectives and 15% on CO2 reduction (5% of ERDF funds have to be for ‘sustainable urban

development’). The ERDF in Austria will contribute to TO1, TO3 and TO4. The integrated

urban and regional development will encompass TO6 (environmental protection and

resource efficiency), TO8 (employment and labour mobility) and TO9 (social inclusion,

combating poverty and discrimination).

It was stated at the time of the interview that, with the Priority Axes and Investment

Priorities of the future single Austrian ERDF programme being defined, the ERDF OP would

be submitted as legally stipulated alongside the PA to the European Commission in April

2014.

With regard to the ESF, the concentration is envisaged at the level of Investment Priorities,

deriving from TO8 (employment and labour mobility), TO9 (social inclusion, combating

poverty and discrimination), TO10 (education and training, lifelong learning) and TO11

(institutional capacity). At least 20% of the funds must be allocated to TO9.

A first draft of the ESF OP was sent to the European Commission in November 2013, and

the European Commission responded with a statement. At the time of the interview, the

revised ESF OP draft was subject to consultation and was to be submitted to the European

Commission alongside the PA in April 2014.

Significant changes from 2007-2013

The Austrian NSRF 2007-2013 (‘STRAT.AT 2007-2013’) foresaw the following priorities:

Regional Competitiveness and Innovation (Priority 1), Attractive Regions and Quality of

Locations (Priority 2), and Adaptability and Qualification of the Labour Force (Priority 3).

The horizontal priorities are Territorial Cooperation (Priority 4) and Governance for the

Implementation of EU Structural Funds Programmes in Austria (Priority 5).

There are no significant changes in the future ERDF programme in comparison to the 2007-

2013 programming period, but the focus is stronger. The emphasis on innovation and Small

and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) is greater in the 2014-2020 programming period than in

the 2007-2013 period, and an even stronger focus can be noticed in the urban dimension.

TO6 (environment) and TO9 (poverty) will not be included.

Difficulties in responding to thematic orientation/concentration needs

No difficulties were encountered in responding to the thematic orientation/concentration

needs (see above).

Progress in fulfilling ex-ante conditionalities

All ex-ante conditionalities, the seven general ex-ante conditionalities and the relevant

thematic ex-ante conditionalitieswere fulfilled, according to the self-assessment in the PA.


22

Experiences with any formal or informal consultation with the European

Commission about the PA (and programmes)

The informal consultation of formal institutions was characterised as difficult by the

interviewed expert, and in general it seems to be a significant challenge to link formal and

informal processes at national and EU levels. The position of the European Commission in

the entire PA process was not really clear. The EC Position Papers were initially not foreseen

in the process, and in practice they were brought into the whole process at an arbitrary

point in time, completely detached from the process taking place at the national level.

1.2. Programme architecture

In the 2014-2020 programming period, there will be one ERDF OP, one ESF OP and one

EAFRD OP. In contrast to the 2007-2013 programming period, the number of ERDF OPs has

been reduced from nine (eight for Regional Competitiveness and Employment regions - one

per region - and one for a Convergence region) to one single OP resulting from the merger

of different regional ERDF programmes into one programme coordinated centrally by a new

Managing Authority (situated in the ÖROK). In the ESF, the number of Managing Authorities

has been reduced from two to one.

The reform of the ERDF administration was politically agreed between the Austrian Länder

and the central administration (Austria is characterised by a strong federal system). An

increase of efficiency in spending ERDF funds is foreseen, comprising a reduction of funding

bodies, the use of synergies in terms of organisation and delivery of tasks, and the

development of common quality standards. This is intended to deliver increased capacity,

with three Managing Authorities (one per fund) instead of 12 as in the 2007-2013

programming period. One central Managing Authority Afor the ERDF with decentralised

implementation bodies can be regarded as an advantage in terms of a territorialised

approach.

Main challenges

Despite the fact that nine regional programmes have been merged into one ERDF

programme, it is not yet apparent to what extent the Managing Authority, which is situated

at central level, will take over tasks from the regional level to generate the intended effect

of enhanced resource efficiency on programme level.

Table 2: Allocation of funding*

Programme title

ESIFunds

Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Austrian IWB/ERDF OP / 2014-2020

ERDF 536.3 72.1 73.6 75.0 76.5 78.1 79.6 81.2

ESF Employment Austria OP

2014-2020

ESF 442.1 59.5 60.7 61.9 63.1 64.4 65.7 67.0

Programme for Rural Development in Austria 2014 -2020

EAFRD 3937.6 557.8 559.3 560.9 562.5 564.1 565.7 567.3

Total 4916.0 689.4 693.6 697.8 702.1 706.6 711.0 715.5

Source: PA Austria, April 2014.

*in € million incl. performance reserve, rounded amounts.


23

1.3. Operational Programme(s)

Case: Austrian IWB/ERDF 'Investment for growth and jobs' OP

The process of developing an overall strategy is already finalised, and it is connected to the

PA. There will be no significant changes with regard to the output indicators in comparison

to the 2007-2013 programming period. However, the concentration targets set in the

regulations have consequences for the targets of the individual programmes (for instance,

20% of ERDF funds have to be reserved for a reduction of CO2).

A challenging or at least ‘discussion-intensive’ issue wasencountered with regard to result

indicators, but theyhad a positive effect ultimately, as they helped to focus the

programmes.

A critical issue in relation to the new indicator system –which overall has been considered as

a helpful orientation framework – relates to interpretation in the event of deviance of result

indicators from the officially set targets. At the time of the interview, financial tables were

available in a pre-final version, distinguishing between the ‘transition’ region of Burgenland

and the rest of ‘more developed’ Austria as well as the Priority Axes.6

6 http://www.oerok.gv.at/fileadmin/Bilder/3.Reiter-Regionalpolitik/2.EU-

Kohaesionspolitik_2014_/EFRE/IWB_EFRE_AT_Draft_2.0_2014-02-05_inkl_Anhang.pdf , p. 76.

http://www.oerok.gv.at/fileadmin/Bilder/3.Reiter-Regionalpolitik/2.EU-Kohaesionspolitik_2014_/EFRE/IWB_EFRE_AT_Draft_2.0_2014-02-05_inkl_Anhang.pdf

http://www.oerok.gv.at/fileadmin/Bilder/3.Reiter-Regionalpolitik/2.EU-Kohaesionspolitik_2014_/EFRE/IWB_EFRE_AT_Draft_2.0_2014-02-05_inkl_Anhang.pdf


24

Table 3: Financial table ERDF Austria 2014-2020

Priority Category of region

Union support

(in Euros)

National counterpart (in

Euros)

Indicative breakdown of national counterpart

(in Euros) Total funding

(in Euros)

Co-financing rate

Main allocation (total funding less performace reserve) in

Euros

National

public funding

National private funding

Union support National

counterpart

Priority Axis 1 FTI

Transition 12016920 19303552 3004230 16299322 31320472 38.4% 11 265 862 18 128 806

More developed

186174183 431896252 49471945 382424307 618070435 30.1% 174 538 326 405 612 569

Total 198191103 451199804 52476175 398723629 649390907 30.5% 185 804 188 423 741 375

Priority Axis 2 SME

Transition 26050881 110603523 6737720 103865803 136654404 19.1% 24 422 702 103 872 583

More developed

145119102 585067000 46346612 538720388 730186102 19.9% 136 049 182 549 461 886

Total 171169983 695670523 53084332 642586191 866840506 19.7% 160 471 884 653 334 469

Priority Axis 3 CO2

Transition 7049594 29915232 1607399 28307833 36964826 19.1% 6 608 994 28 094 696

More developed

98158118 226917143 15431458 211485685 325075261 30.2% 92 023 251 213 107 766

Total 105207712 256832375 17038857 239793518 362040087 29.1% 98 632 245 241 202 462

Priority Axis 4 Urban

/territorial dimension

Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

More developed

40244000 55023630 18652489 36371141 95267630 42.2% 37 728 756 51 675 086

Total 40244000 55023630 18652489 36371141 95267630 42.2% 37 728 756 51 675 086

Priority Axis 5 Technical Assistance

Transition 1879890 1253260 1253260 0 3133150 60.0% 1 879 890 1 253 260

More developed

19569391 19569391 19569391 0 39138782 50.0% 19 569 391 19 569 391

Total 21449281 20822651 20822651 0 42271932 50.7% 21 449 281 20 822 651

Total Transition 46997285 161075567 12602609 148472958 208072852 22.6% 44 177 448 151 349 345

Total More developed

489264794 1318473416 149471895 1169001521 1807738210 27.1% 459 908 906 1 239 426 698

Grand total 536262079 1479548983 162074504 1317474479 2015811062 26.6% 504 086 354 1 390 776 043

Source: Draft Operational Programme Austria 2014-2020.


25

According to the PA, the programmes will make use of the simplification measures foreseen

in the regulation – notably the simplified cost options. These simplifications will be reflected

in the national and regional eligibility rules. With regard to the ERDF, the eligibility rules are

going to be revised and harmonised and will be made much clearer for the beneficiaries.

On the level of programme structures, the merger of nine ERDF programmes will also

reduce the number of funding bodies and foster the concentration and increase of know-

how, e.g. at the First-Level Control (FLC) bodies.

Main differences between the 2007-2013 and the 2014-2020 programmes

The main differences relate to the already-mentioned reform of the ERDF programmes in

Austria in administrative and organisational terms.

Impact of the financial crisis or political instability

The financial crisis had no significant impact.

Impact of administrative issues

One of Austria’s characteristics is its strong federal system. With regard to the ERDF, for

instance, this led to different eligibility rules. National and regional rules and basic

standards were not harmonised between the nine regional ERDF OPs (nor in the European

Territorial Cooperation - ETC - programmes). The aim for the 2014-2020 programming

period is to achieve a harmonisation of national and ERDF eligibility rules.

Role of the European Commission, the European Semester or any other European

influence

The European Commission and European Semester certainly play an important role in

Cohesion policy processes, starting with the regulations and the indicator system, which

offers the strongest leverage to exert influence on the programmes. The influence of the

European Semester is noticeable via the Council’s ‘country-specific recommendations’,

which have influenced both the PA and the programmes (mainly the ESF).


26

Table 4: Implementation assessment – Preparation for programme-cycle stages and elements

Programme

elements State of implementation

How difficult has the process

been? Lessons learned?

Expected time frame and

management structure?

Strategic

programming/

thematic concentration

Finalised Not difficult, similar topics as in the

past, even stronger focus now on

Investment Priorities.

N/A N/A

Performance

framework

Finalised Not difficult. N/A Performance framework under the

responsibility of the new Managing

Authority, all participating regions

have to contribute to the set

targets.

Project generation /

preparation

On-going Not difficult, as there are broad

experiences from the past to build

upon.

Know-how, especially with

grants for the promotion of

individual firms are concerned,

is helpful.

Under the responsibility of funding

bodies in the regions.

Project appraisal

On-going Not difficult, as there are broad

experiences from the past to build

upon.

Useful templates and

procedures were developed in

the past.

Selection procedure and criteria to

be approved in the first Monitoring

Committee (2015); project

appraisal is responsibility of

funding bodies in the regions.

Financial management

On-going On-going, no difficulties observed. N/A Under the overall responsibility of

the new Managing Authority.

Control mechanism

On-going discussion process On-going discussion process. Room for manoeuvre for

concentration and

harmonisation was recognized.

Because of concentration in ERDF

administration, there will be fewer

FLC bodies.

Monitoring

On-going discussion process On-going, no difficulties observed. N/A Monitoring system of 2007-

2013period needs to be partly

modified: system will be

outsourced.

Evaluation

On-going discussion process On-going, no difficulties observed. N/A Evaluation Plan will be discussed

and approved in first Monitoring

Committee Meeting

(2015).

Simplification

On-going There is a strong intention to make

eligibilityrules easier.

There were already ideas

regarding simplification put

forward in the past to build

upon.

Eligibility Rules have to be

approved in the first MC meeting

(2015).


27

Programme


How difficult has the process

been? Lessons learned?



Communication

channels

On-going Ongoing, no difficulties observed. N/A Overall, the Managing Authority on

central level will be responsible for

Public Relations; PR activities will

also take place on a decentralised

(regional) level,

Financial instruments

On-going discussion on the

implementation of venture

funds.

No difficulties observed. There will be

a solution covering the entire ERDF

area and in parallel to venture funds

will be implemented in 2 Länder.

N/A No concrete information as to the

exact timeframe. The Austrian-

wide solution is on track.

Partnership principle

On track Not problematic. NGOs have been

integrated to a stronger degree than

in the past (horizontal issues). Very

constructive.

Not many changes regarding

the set-up of the Monitoring

Committees as compared to the

past.

N/A

Source: Interview conducted by Metis/EPRC, April 2014.


28

1.4. Capacity issues – lessons learned

Case: OP Strengthening of Regional Competitiveness and Integrated Urban

Development, Vienna 2007-2013

Table 5: Effectiveness of capacities at different levels

Programme elements Central

coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

Strategic programming /


- ++ +

Performance framework N/A N/A N/A


preparation

-- + ++

Project appraisal -- - ++

Financial management -- ++ +

Monitoring + ++ +

Evaluation ++ + -

Simplification + ++ ++

Communication with

beneficiaries

-- - ++

Financial instruments N/A N/A N/A

Partnership principle ++ + -

Source: Interview conducted by Metis/EPRC, April 2014

Note: Depending on the different institutional set-up in each Member State, some actors may carry out several

functions.

Legend: -- least effective, - not effective; + effective; ++ very effective; N/A not applicable

Action taken

The capacities depend on the role of the different actors. In Austria, the ‘central

coordination’ only had a coordinating role (submission of Annual implementation Report –

AIR - for each ERDF programme, Technical Secretariat which among others was responsible

for the organisation of the Monitoring Committee meetings of all ERDF programmes), and

there was no legally binding framework to exercise power over the Regional Operational

Programmes (ROPs). Furthermore, at levels such as project generation or project

appraisals, no tasks are foreseen for the central coordination.

In principle, the capacities at programme level were sufficient for day-to-day management.

Only when additional activities such as action plans were requiredwere the capacities found

to be limited.

Good practice

The project appraisal and generation of contracts for beneficiaries were considered as very

effective due to well-developed standards and procedures. Ideas for simplification were also

brought forward by the ROPs and taken up at central level.

Level of beneficiaries

Financial reporting and the submission of the evidence required are considered to be

complex by the beneficiaries.


29

Capacity across the Thematic Objectives

Table 6: Effectiveness of capacities for different themes

Thematic Objective Central

coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation - + ++

2) ICT - + ++

3) SME - + ++

4) Low-carbon economy - + ++

5) Climate change

adaptation

- + ++

6) Env. protection &

resource efficiency

- + ++

7) Sustainable transport &

networks

N/A N/A N/A

8) Employment and labour

mobility

N/A N/A N/A

9) Social inclusion and

combating poverty

N/A N/A N/A

10) Education, skills and

lifelong learning

N/A N/A N/A

11) Institutional capacity N/A N/A N/A

Source: Interview conducted by Metis, April 2014.


The programme implementation body, involved to a certain extent in project development,

has considerable know-how regarding TOs 1-6, which were central in the OP of the 2007-

2013 programming period. Programme management capacities are sufficiently effective,

though on the Central Coordination level (future new Managing Authority), they can be

seen as weak.

Action taken

TO7 and TO11 were not tackled in the 2007-2013 programming period. There is no need to

remedy this, as these topics will not play a role in the 2014-2020 ERDF OP.

Good practice

With regard to innovation and SMEs, capacity is very effective. There are good practice

projects in this area that have won prizes (the programme implementation body plays an

important role in project development).

Capacity issues in the past

In terms of institutional/human resources, the capacity in relation to assessing the state aid

elements of projects is low. Accordingly, in the 2007-2013 programming period, the project

types funded related exclusively to those that were not relevant to state aid.

Major changes in administrative structures

There were no major changes in the administrative structures in the 2007-2013

programming period.


30

Good practice

Each individual staff member in the OP Managing Authorities is responsible for a certain

number of projects and covers a wide range of tasks including the input of project-related

data in the monitoring database. A concentration of know-how and skills in individuals is

thus avoided, and processes are accelerated.

1.5. Capacity changes for the future

Table 7: Capacity assessment

Programme

elements

Will there be fewer or

more (new?) actors?

How clearly are tasks and

responsibilities assigned?

Which CP-related tasks will

be integrated into existing

administrative procedures

and which will not?

Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

No changes. Tasks and responsibilities are

assigned in a clear manner. N/A

Performance

framework

More and new actors

(central Managing

Authority is being set up).

It is not yet clear how the

tasks will be assigned.

The new Managing Authority

that is being setup will be

responsible for the tasks related

to the performance framework.

Thus, there will also be new

procedures in place.

Project generation

/ preparation

Probably more actors

(capacities) required as

state aid will be an issue in

the 2014-2020

programming period, which

has to be tackled.

Tasks and responsibilities will

be assigned in a clear manner.

Integrated into existing

administrative procedures.

Project appraisal No changes. Tasks and responsibilities will




Financial

management

No changes. Tasks and responsibilities will




Monitoring No changes. Tasks and responsibilities will




Evaluation

Fewer capacities required,

due to the merger of 9

ERDF programmes into a

single one.



Evaluations will be externally

contracted.

Simplification

More capacities will be

required in the beginning

on programme level. It is

expected that the

administrative burden for

beneficiaries will be

reduced.

Tasks are yet to be assigned. Integrated into existing


Communication

with beneficiaries





Financial

instruments

More capacities required,

financial instrument will be

introduced for the first time

in the new programming

period.



The handling of financial

instruments will be integrated in

the existing administrative

procedures.

Partnership

principle



N/A



31

Positive/negative implications for administrative capacity

The term of ‘capacity’ is understood in the interview as full-time equivalent and resources

allocated (hours) rather than ‘actors involved.’ There will be more actors because of the

newly implemented Managing Authority, the processes will be streamlined, and there will

be a consistent assignment of tasks.

Due to the creation of one central Managing Authority for all ERDF programmes (as

opposed to nine in the 2007-2013 programming period), capacity-related issues are

expected to arise in institutional and procedural terms. Synergies between the former nine

ERDF programmes can be used (e.g. important for evaluations), and there is greater

flexibility in financial terms than in the 2007-2013 programming period. There will be more

streamlined processes and information flows.

The changes made acknowledge the European Commission’s assessment of administrative

capacity in its Position Paper. The European Commission recommended pooling the

resources in the most efficient way. The strengthening of the capacity of the Audit

Authority, also recommended in the Position Paper, was not addressed explicitly but will be

part of restructuring measures foreseen for the implementation of the OP.


32


33

2. CASE STUDY - BULGARIA

2.1 Partnership Agreement

The Bulgarian PA was approved by the Bulgarian government on 26 March 2014. It was

sent to the European Commission on 4 April 2014 and has been in the process of inter-

service consultation within the European Commission since 14 April.

The PA is based on a number of national strategic documents developed at the end of the

2007-2013 programming period, more specifically the National Regional Development

Strategy (2012-2022) and the National Concept for Spatial Development (2013-2025),

both adopted in the second half of 2012. According to the National Concept for Spatial

Development, Bulgaria will strive to achieve the moderate polycentric model for urban

development over the next ten years. In this scenario, the larger towns and cities are

expected to play a key role in national economic progress and in regional policy. This is

seen as a way to counterbalance the increasing centralisation of the capital city of Sofia,

which may, in the long run, deepen the gap in the social and economic development of

some parts of the country and prevent the utilisation of the full potential of the territory.

The PA also envisages the pilot implementation of Integrated Territorial Investments in the

North-western Region (NUTS 2 level), identified as the least-developed region of the EU

(Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per inhabitant at 27% of the EU27 average in 2010,

expressed in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) terms).

Lessons learned

The PA is a very comprehensive document providing a basis for development over the

2014-2020 programming period and is much better targeted than the NSRF. The working

group for its elaboration comprised a wide variety of stakeholders, including the regional

development councils (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 2 level), the

National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria, national organisations

representing people with disabilities, national organisations of employers and employees,

environmental NGOs, etc., which provided a wide platform for consultations.

The experience generated during the 2007-2013 programming period will provide the basis

for better implementation of the programmes and improved absorption of the available

funds. The new procedures that will be introduced will be based on already established

mechanisms and are expected to be more effective and efficient.

The 2014-2020 programming period will widen the access of new actors that can become

beneficiaries under the available grant schemes, which have proved to be very useful for

the respective time period in meeting a specific need or enabling successful project

implementation. This is further described below. The elimination of the Intermediate

Bodiesin some of the OPs that had such structures is expected to accelerate project

approvals and improve their management.


34


The national strategic documents7 cover all 11 Thematic Objectives, and they have also

been included in the PA. Three types of criteria were used in Bulgaria to apply the ESIF to

all 11 Thematic Objectives:

Development needs;

Legal commitments as an EU Member State;

Development potential.

Table 8: Indicative distribution of the ESI Funds by Thematic

Objectives (2014-2020), € million

Themes ERDF ESF CF EAFRD EMFF

1) Innovation 492.36 - - 39.99 -

2) ICT - - - 24.64 -

3) SME 613.07 - - 436.33 49.97%

4) Low-carbon economy 956.97 - - 227.28 1.15%

5) Climate change adaptation 16.75 - 50.00 679.44 -

6) Env. protection & resource

efficiency

689.25 - 1 083.62 115.83 24.78%


networks

251.15 - 1 044.69 - -


mobility

- 419.24 - 158.13 18.13%


combating poverty

253.16 377.00 - 583.63 -

10) Education, skills and lifelong

learning;

188.90 285.26 - 20.86 -

11) Institutional capacity - 251.47 - - -

Technical assistance 167.05 127.65 - 52.66 5.98%

TOTAL 3628.67 1460.63 2278.31 2338.78 100%

Source: draft PA, March 2014.


Compared to the 2007-2013 programming period, there is more focus in the 2014-2020 PA

on low-carbon economy and promoting climate change adaptation, as well as on protecting

the environment and promoting resource efficiency. Also, a specific emphasis is put on

strengthening research, technological development and innovation through a new OP called

OP Science and Education for Smart Growth and a slight shift in the priorities of OP

Competitiveness (2007-2013), now called OP Innovations and Competitiveness.


There have been no specific difficulties in responding to thematic orientation/concentration

needs.

7 National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020; National Reforms Programme; National Regional

Development Strategy 2012-2022.


35

Progress in fulfilling ex-ante conditionalities and their documentation

There are still some issues with regard to meeting certain ex-ante conditionalities,

especially those focusing on Research and Development (R&D) and smart specialisation,

the digital growth agenda, next-generation networks, energy efficiency in buildings,

prevention and risk assessment, public procurement, etc. Annexes 3 and 4 of the PA

provide a detailed description of the state of play in view of fulfilling the ex-ante

conditionalities. Annex 5 provides an action plan for fulfilling all thematic ex-ante

conditionalities applicable at national level, with deadlines and responsible institutions. All

general and thematic ex-ante conditionalities of the ESIF are applicable, with the exception

of 7.4, ‘Development of smart energy distribution, storage and transmission systems’, since

there will be no planned measures and funds from ESIF for this theme. By 31 December

2016, all ex-ante conditionalities are to be covered. The status in April 2014 indicated that

some of the criteria under the different conditionalitieswere fulfilled, while the remaining

ones were to be met within the first half of 2014.



The PA and the respective OPs were subject to consultation with the European Commission

at a number of stages throughout their development – both formally and informally. The

European Commission was very supportive in providing comments and suggestions.

2.2 Programme architecture

During the 2014-2020 period, Bulgaria will implement seven national OPs financed by the

ESI Funds. The country will also benefit from five cross-border cooperation OPs

(Bulgaria/Greece-Romania-Turkey-Macedonia-Serbia). There will be no ROPs. Several

changes have been introduced for the 2014-2020 programming period:

A new OP has been developed called ‘Science and Education for Smart Growth’ in

response to the need tostrengthen R&D activities and education in science sectors.

It will be managed by the Ministry of Education and Science, formerly an

Intermediate Body under the OP Human Resources Development;

Two of the OPs from the 2007-2013 programming period (OP Administrative

Capacity and OP Technical Assistance (TA)) have been merged into the OP Good

Management;

The former OP Competitiveness has been focused more strongly on supporting

innovations by companies to become OP ‘Innovations and Competitiveness’.

The remaining OPs are:

OP Regions in Growth (former OP Regional Development);

OP Human Resources Development;

OP Transport and Transport Infrastructure (former OP Transport);

OP Environment.


36

Three of the OPs will receive multi-funding, such as:

The new OP Science and Education for Smart Growth – from ESF (57.5%) and ERDF

(42.5%);

OP Transport and Transport Infrastructure – from Cohesion Fund (CF) (71%) and

ERDF (29%);

OP Environment – from CF (75.9%) and ERDF (24.1%).

Main challenges

The main challenges in the 2014-2020 programming period will be to ensurebalanced

development of the territory of the country, which is now economically dominated by the

capital city, as well as to ensure full absorption of the funds under the different OPs (which

was a challenge in the 2007-2013 period). This will lead to an improvement of the

competitiveness of Bulgarian businesses, better physical and engineering infrastructure,

and an upgrade of the human capital.

Management of multi-fund programmes

The following institutions will be taking the roles of Managing Authorities in the

implementation of the three multi-funded OPs: the Ministry of Education and Science will be

the Managing Authority of the new OP Science and Education for Smart Growth; the

Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications for the OP Transport

and Transport Infrastructure; and the Ministry of Environment and Water for the OP

Environment. The Ministry of Education and Science is in the process of establishing the

Managing Authority, as it will largely benefit from its previous experience as an

Intermediate Body under the OP Human Resources Development. The other two Managing

Authorities are well prepared and have structures, staff and procedures in place from the

2007-2013 programming period. Improvements are anticipated in the Managing Authority

of the OP Environment, which achieved very high contracting rates in the 2007-2013

period, but the level of implementation remains insufficient, even though it has been slowly

catching up.

Allocation of funding to the programmes

The total amount of funds (excluding the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF))

specified in the PA is set at €9.8 billion.

Table 9: Proposed allocation of funding to Operational Programmes

in Bulgaria (2014-2020)

Name of programme ESIF Total amount, in

million €

1. OP Regions in Growth ERDF 1350.88

2. OP Human Resources Development ESF 839.88

YEI 55.19

3. OP Science and Education for Smart Growth ESF 335.22

ERDF 247.54

4. OP Innovations and Competitiveness ERDF 1201.82

5. OP Transport and Transport Infrastructure CF 1144.69

ERDF 467.62

6. OP Environment CF 1133.62

ERDF 360.80

7. OP Good Management ESF 285.53

8. Rural Areas Development Programme EAFRD 2338.78

9. Programme for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries EMFF N/A

TOTAL 9761.57

Source: PA of Bulgaria, March 2014.


37

2.3 Operational Programme(s)

The different OPs were at an advanced stage of preparation at the time of the interview, as

most of them werethird drafts. They were expected to be finalised once the PA was

approved by the European Commission. Most of the final drafts (third or fourth revisions)

were to be published for public consultation by the end of April or beginning of May 2014.

The ex-ante evaluations of the OPs had either been finalised by the end of 2013 or were in

a final phase of preparation, such as in the case of the OP Environment.

Indicators and targets

Most of the indicators and targets will stem from the national strategic documents.

Compared to the 2007-2013 period, there will be fewer indicators and there will be a clear

distinction between output and result indicators. The main challenges are related to the

possibility of obtaining quantitative information from national sources in order to verify the

achievement of the targets set.

Financial tables (i.e. funding earmarked to regions or selected measures)

Most of the financial tables for the respective OPs have been drafted based on the financial

distribution in the PA. There will be more focus on the development of the different urban

agglomerations seen as generators of regional economic growth. Under the OP Regions in

Growth, for example, over 60% of the funds will go for sustainable and integrated urban

development. Balance will be sought between the development of the national and regional

transport infrastructure, which has serious deficiencies. In the OP Human Resources

Development, the focus will be put on youth employment and social inclusion.

Simplification measures

In an effort to improve the implementation of projects, the following simplification

measures are planned to be introduced:

Electronic submission and reporting of project proposals – for both public and

private beneficiaries. The municipalities already have experience in submitting grant

applications through the Module for electronic services of the Information System for

Management and Monitoring of EU Structural Instruments in Bulgaria

(https://eumis.government.bg);

Simplified financial reporting under the projects: introduction of flat rates and lump

sums, as well as verification of costs based on sample checks;

Elimination of Intermediate Bodies, e.g. in the OP Human Resources Development,

which had three Intermediate Bodies in the 2007-2013 programming period;

Focus on direct beneficiaries with clearly identified needs and proven impact as well

as on projects proposals at an advanced stage of preparation, e.g. already prepared

technical designs for construction works – for the OPs Regions in Growth, Transport

and Transport Infrastructure, and Environment.

Main differences between the 2007-2013 and the 2014-2020 programme(s)

There is more thematic focus in the new OPs, based on the experience of the 2007-2013

programming period, more specifically on urban development as a basis for regional

economic growth (67 urban agglomerations will receive the majority of the support under

the OP ‘Regions in Growth’), R&D and innovations, as well as transition to low-carbon

economy, preservation of environment and resource effectiveness.

https://eumis.government.bg/


38

Also, more support will be provided to marginalised communities and for combating youth

unemployment (OP Human Resources Development). Efforts willfocus on making a clear

demarcation between the areas of support, both in terms of Thematic Objectives and

between urban and rural regions. During the 2007-2013 programming period, settlements

in some municipalities were unable to apply for funding due to the limitations of the OPs

(e.g. Rural Areas Development Programme vs. OP Regional Development). Therefore,

efforts will be made to widen the funding opportunities to all.


The financial crisis has largely impacted on the capacity of the project beneficiaries to

implement their grant contracts, which in some cases, e.g. under the OP Competitiveness,

has led to the inability of SMEs to implement a significant number of projects that had

already been approved. The municipalities have also had problems securing sufficient

financial resources for the implementation of their projects. The political instability did not

have a significant impact on capacity. The Managing Authorities have managed to preserve

most of their expert staff since the preliminary elections in 2013, although there have been

changes among the heads of the Managing Authorities.

Influence of national political structure on administration

The national government and the respective ministries responsible for the OPs have the

greatest power in managing the programmes. The level of self-government is not

sufficiently developed either in terms of decision-making power or financial resources. Most

of the Managing Authorities have regional representation in the 28 districts of the country,

dealing with the operational management and monitoring of the projects. However, all

decisions are taken centrally, including the verification of costs and payments to the

beneficiaries.


influence

The consultations with the European Commission and its recommendations were reported

as very effective, as full support was provided both for the implementation of the OPs

during the 2007-2013 programming period and for the development of the 2014-2020 OPs.


39

Preparation for programme-cycle stages and elements

Table 10: Implementation assessment

Programme


How difficult has the

process been? Lessons learned?



Strategic programming/

thematic

concentration

Completed for the PA (submitted to European Commission at beginning of April 2014).

No specific difficulties were reported.

There should be more focus on supporting business, innovations and the urban regions.

Completed with the broad participation of the state, NGOs, academia and employer-employee organisations.

Performance

framework

Advanced No specific difficulties were reported.

The communication with beneficiaries needs to be simplified – unified procedural rules.

Responsible Council of Ministers and respective Managing Authorities; to be completed by end 2014.

Project generation / preparation

Initial Some projects were generated during the previous programming period.

Focus needs to be put on projects at an advanced stage of preparation, especially ones involving construction works (e.g. having technical designs) + more direct beneficiaries.

The respective Managing Authorities have developed grant schemes to be opened by the end of 2014, should the OPs be approved.

Project appraisal Initial No specific difficulties were

reported. There have been issues with the qualitative indicators and their objective evaluation.

By the end of 2014 or beginning of 2015; respective Managing Authorities.


Initial Will be based on the previous experiences.

Simplified reporting needs to be applied – flat rates, lump sums and sample checks. Larger advance payments need to be made in order for the beneficiaries to have sufficient financial resources for the projects' implementation in their

early stages.


Control mechanism Initial Will be based on the previous

experiences. Unified rules for the management of projects under the different OPs should be applied.


Monitoring Initial Will be based on the previous

experiences. Need to build on existing systems. By the end of 2014 or beginning

of 2015; respective Managing Authorities.

Evaluation Initial Will be based on the previous

experiences. More specific impact and result indicators need to be developed and matched against achieved results.


Simplification

Advanced Based on the lessons from the previous programming period.

The submission and management of projects should be based on an electronic platform; fewer paper reports should be circulated.

Council of Ministers and the respective Managing Authorities.


40

Programme






Communication channels

Advanced Will be improved, based on the elimination of Intermediate Bodies under several OPs.

Need to be upgraded in order to provide updated information and generate better awareness.



Initial Will be based on expert evaluations.

Very much needed in order to provide bridge financing for projects.

June 2014; management structure will depend on the outcomes of expert analysis, probably through the Bulgarian Development Bank.

Partnership principle Advanced No comments. Based on the experience from the

previous OPs. By the end of 2014 or beginning of 2015; respective Managing Authorities.



41

2.4 Capacity issues – lessons learned



coordination Programme

management

Programme implementation

(e.g. Intermediate Bodies)

Strategic programming / thematic concentration

+ + +

Performance framework + + -

Project generation / preparation

+ + +

Project appraisal + + -

Financial management + + -

Monitoring + + +

Evaluation + + +

Simplification + + -

Communication with beneficiaries

+ + +


Partnership principle + + +



functions.


The Intermediate Bodies proved to be the weaker link in the implementation of the OPs,

due to a lack of administrative capacity to evaluate and contract projects within a

reasonable time frame, e.g. three to four months from the end of the respective grant

scheme. This led to delayed implementation of a number of projects, especially for

businesses. The most significant deficiencies accumulated in the State Fund ‘Agriculture’

(Rural Areas Development Programme), where some projects were not rankedfor over a

year. Following a very slow start, the OP Competitiveness managed to generate momentum

over time and to reach a stage where reimbursement of incurred costs to beneficiaries

wasexecuted within 30-40 days from submission of the technical and financial reports.

Good practice and lessons learned

There are no specific areas where capacity could be evaluated as ‘very effective’. Rather,

some specific OPs managed to implement grant schemes that proved to be very useful for

the respective time period in meeting a specific need or enabling successful project

implementation in the 2014-2020 programming period. Several examples can be named in

this regard:

The INTEGRA scheme, funded by the OP Human Resources Development and

targeting three municipalities (Vidin, Devnya and Dupnitsa), each of which suffers

from specific deficiencies. The scheme provided an integrated approach for tackling

the labour market integration of marginalised groups, ensuring access to education

and training, supporting social inclusion through improving access to social services

and healthcare, and supporting social inclusion and long-term integration of the

most marginalised groups;

Support for the de-institutionalisation of children in Bulgaria – a good practice for

the joint use of funds under the OP Human Resources Development (ESF), the OP

Regional Development (ERDF) and the OP Rural Areas Development (EAFRD) – in

which physical infrastructure (construction of premises) for resident services in


42

urban and rural regions has been funded by ERDF (in towns) and EAFRD (for 19

rural municipalities), while ESF funds have supported the development and delivery

of social services in the respective communities;

Integrated Plans for Urban Regeneration and Development – a grant scheme under

the OP Regional Development initially developed for the 36 largest municipalities

and later on expanded to another 31 municipalities from levels 3 and 4 as defined

by the National Concept for Spatial Development. The plans represent a combination

of time-and-space-integrated projects, actions and investment intentions that will be

applied in 67 urban agglomerations. The purposes of the IPURDs are to integrate

policies and gather different stakeholders for their joint implementation, which will

contribute to the realisation of the vision and strategy for urban development and

will combine specific development priorities as defined in the municipal development

plans, the general area development plans, and other strategic documents at

national and European levels. The Integrated Plans for Urban Regeneration and

Development have served as the basis for the development of the largest in terms

of financing Axis 1 of the new OP Regions in Growth.

Over the course of the 2007-2013 programming period, the capacity of the beneficiaries

significantly improved, but the following issues can be identified:

The larger municipalities that were beneficiaries under the OPs have more staff and

better-prepared staff able to deal with project development, implementation and

reporting, compared to small or rural municipalities, which lack sufficient capacity

and expertise;

The same applies to the financial capacity for the implementation of projects. The

smaller the municipality, the less (access to) resources it has available;

A similar pattern is observed with businesses, where access to finance, especially for

micro- and small enterprises, is still a challenge for the implementation of EU-

funded projects.


Thematic Objectives Central

coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation + + -

2) ICT + + -

3) SME + + +

4) Low-carbon economy + + -

5) Climate change adaptation + + -


efficiency

+ + +


networks

+ + +


mobility

N/A N/A N/A


combating poverty

N/A N/A N/A


lifelong learning

N/A N/A N/A

11) Institutional capacity + + +




43

Action taken

In an effort to reduce the deficiencies in the Intermediate Bodies, the Managing Authorities

have taken stronger control over the process of selection, monitoring and evaluation of

projects. There are still many unresolved issues with ‘State Fund Agriculture’,8 where the

Managing Authority is the ‘Development of Rural Regions’ Directorate within the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food. The State Fund Agriculture was established in 1998 under the

Agricultural Producers Support Act to provide financial support to agricultural producers

under state aid programmes, the pre-accession SAPARD Programme, the Common

Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU, including the Rural

Development OP.

Another action is the revision of the annual indicative programmes under the different OPs,

in an effort to include grant schemes that are able to generate interest.


Most of the capacity issues in relation to the programming and management of the OPs in

Bulgaria were expressed in the first few years after EU accession (2007-2009). This was

also reflected in the very low absorption rate of EU funds during this first three-year period

(<3% from all available Structural and Cohesion Funds). Over the next few years, capacity

gradually increased to reach acceptable levels by the end of the period. Therefore, there

has been significant improvement in all areas. The Managing Authorities have gained

significant experience in all aspects of programming and project cycle management.

Procedures are now established and efforts have been made in favour of their

simplification, especially in the fields of contracting (e.g. Ordinance of the Council of

Ministers №69/11 March 2013 has replaced Ordinance 55/2007 to ease the procurement

procedures made by enterprises and NGOs) and reporting (e.g. OP Human Resources

Development has developed a unified Operational Manual for Project Management for all

grant schemes under the programme).

There have been some issues with the turnover of staff both centrally (Managing

Authorities / Intermediate Bodies) and regionally (regional representations of the

contracting/implementing authorities) – at both managerial and expert levels, which has

had an impact on the administrative capacity. The major changes were implemented in the

period after the parliamentary elections in July 2009, during the mandate of the interim

government in 2013 (13 March-29 May 2013) and after the preliminary parliamentary

elections in May 2013. In the view of external experts, no specific problems were reported,

although sometimes there were issues with the quality of the delivered final products.

However, this was very much related to the detail available in the scope of work described

in the Terms of Reference developed for the respective projects and the expected

outcomes.


There were no major changes in administrative structures within the last few years of the

2007-2013 programming period. The only exception is the Managing Authority of the OP

Administrative Capacity, which was moved from the Ministry of State Administration and

Administrative Reform (closed in 2009 after the parliamentary elections) to the Ministry of

Finance.

8 http://www.dfz.bg/en/about-sfa /

http://www.dfz.bg/en/about-sfa


44

2.5 Capacity changes for the future

Table 13: Capacity changes for the future

Programme elements

Will there be

fewer or more

(new?) actors?

How clearly are

tasks and

responsibilities

assigned?

Which CP-related tasks will be

integrated into existing administrative

procedures and which will not?

Strategic

programming / thematic

concentration

More actors. Clear enough. Existing procedures.

Performance framework

Likely to remain the same.

Clear enough. Existing procedures.

Project

generation / preparation

More actors. Under

development.

Under development.

Project appraisal Likely to remain

the same.

Under

development.

Under development (electronic

submission).



Under development.

Simplification of reporting procedures.

Monitoring

Fewer actors –

Intermediate

Bodies are

removed.

Under development.

Under development.

Evaluation

Fewer actors –

Intermediate

Bodies are

removed.

Under development.

There will be more focus on mature projects, which have not been funded

during the previous programming period (e.g. ones specified in the Integrated Urban Development Plans). Also, more attention will be given to direct beneficiaries.

Simplification

Fewer actors –

Intermediate

Bodies are

removed.

Under development.

Under development (electronic submission and reporting).

Communication

with beneficiaries

Fewer actors –

Intermediate

Bodies are

removed.

Under development.

Existing procedures.


More actors. Under development.

Plans have been made for the introduction of financial engineering mechanisms for OP Innovations and Competitiveness, OP Regions in Growth, OP HR Development and OP Environment. The work of the existing guarantee schemes needs to be

accelerated.



Under development

Integrated into existing procedures.



The 2014-2020 programming period will widen the access for new actors that can become

beneficiaries under the available grant schemes. The envisaged pilot implementation of

Integrated Territorial Investments in the North-western Region will provide the background

for an accelerated development of this area. The new instrument ‘community-led local

development’, including multi-funding through programming and implementation of

innovative integrated multi-sectoral local development strategies will provide for a more


45

complex approach in meeting the existing challenges. The elimination of the Intermediate

Bodies in some of the OPs that had such structures is expected to accelerate project

approvals and improve project management.

The experience generated during the 2007-2013 programming period will provide the basis

for better implementation of the programmes and improved absorption of the available

funds (a bit over 60%, as of 31 March 2014 for the previous period). The new procedures

that will be introduced will be based on already established mechanisms and are expected

to be more effective and efficient.

Anticipated future capacity issues

Capacity issues will largely remain at the level of institutional development of the new

Managing Authorites of the OP Science and Education for Smart Growth (presently an

Intermediate Bodyof OP Human Resources Development) and the OP Good Management (a

merger of OP Administrative Capacity and OP TA). Also, since the Managing Authority of

the OP Human Resources Development will be released from its three Intermediate Bodies

but will be entrusted with additional functions (contracting, management, monitoring and

assessment of the grant schemes under the programme), it will need to integrate

management systems, increase staff and ensure adequate logistics for its normal

operation.

Since the intentions are for the procedures to be simplified, there should be no specific

issues in this regard. The human resources working in public administration will remain one

of the critical factors, especially for retaining high motivation and reducing the turnover of

staff. There will still be issues related to the capacity of the personnel of the additional

actors and smaller municipalities to participate in the 2014-2020 programming period,

which need to be addressed.

In terms of external expertise, this will continue to be one of the milestones for the success

of the new OPs. This role was somehow underestimated during the 2007-2013

programming period, while external services proved to be instrumental in the successful

development, management and/or implementation of a number of projects of the public

administration and private business, both on the side of the beneficiaries and as sub-

contractors for the realisation of specific assignments.


46


47

3. CASE STUDY - CROATIA

Croatia joined the EU on 1 July 2013. Croatia is, therefore, unique in this study in that it is

the only Member State that has to make the transition in the 2014-2020 programming

period from the pre-accession instruments to ESI Funds.

3.1 The pre-accession period

During its pre-accession period, Croatia had access to, and developed, organisational

structures for Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation

(CARDS), Poland and Hungary: Aid for Restructuring of the Economies (PHARE) /

Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) and the Instrument for Pre-

Accession Assistance (IPA). With regard to the preparation for the 2014-2020 Cohesion

period, the most relevant instrument was the IPA.

The IPA period from 2007 to 2013 required beneficiary countries to set up an IPA structure

based on five components. These five components were intended to match with relevant

ESIFunding sources and themes on the move to Structural Instruments. Each component or

programme was required to be supported by an Operating Structure plus horizontal

structures such as the National Fund and Audit Authority.

Croatia has, therefore, gained considerable experience in the management of EU Funds,

programmes and projects during the IPA funding period prior to its accession to the EU.

During the IPA period, Croatia was generally seen to be making good progress with the

programming, implementation and management of the IPA. However, despite its

reasonably efficient structures of operation, the following issues were raised:9

Staffing and capacity issues due to high staff turnover in a context of having to

complete PHARE/ISPA programmes and projects, setting up teams and operating

the IPA structures, and starting with the recruitment and training for EU Cohesion

policy funds and instruments upon EU accession;

Handling of the procurement process in a formalistic way, together with a continuing

weakness in the quality of procurement documentation produced,10 leading to a slow

procurement process, problems with absorption, and issues of de-commitment in

some of the major OPs.

The national authorities have worked on resolving these issues. However, after the change

of government following the general election held on 4 December 2011, there was some

disruption to the IPA structures and to ESIF preparation, as personnel and organisational

changes were undertaken by the new government.

9 Audit Reports and EC Funding Reports perused by the author.

10 Sigma Assessment Croatia Public Procurement System May 2009, p. 10.


48

3.2 The period from 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013

The accession date of 1 July 2013 left Croatia in a unique position. As a new Member State,

it was no longer eligible to receive financing under the IPA pre-accession instrument.

However, with only six months left in the 2007-2013 period, it was not feasible to put

programmes or projects in place under 2007-2013 rules for such a short period of time.

The solution was that a provision was made within the 2013 budget to create convergence

funds for Croatia to deal with the transfer from IPA to Cohesion policy funding.11Some of

the IPA Operational Programmes that were running at the time of Croatia’s accession (such

as the OP Transport) were turned into Convergence programmes that were to be funded

from these allocations but to be run under the applicable rules of the 2007-2013 funding

period.

These allocations amounted to around €449.4 million for Sustainable Growth, of which

€299.6 million were to be funded from Structural Funds and €149.8 million from the

Cohesion Fund.12

While this funding solution is maintained, for the OPs (or Convergence programmes) that

were still running at the time of Croatia’s accession, some of the Managing Authorities

(such as the Ministry of Transport for the Transport OP) will not be keeping their role under

the proposed structure set out in the PA submitted by Croatia to the European Commission

for the 2014-2020 funding period. This means, in effect, that for the period leading up to

2016 the Croatian authorities will have to run structures and programmes for:

IPA – mainly the larger programmes and projects financed under IPA and subject to

IPA rules of implementation and financing;

The Convergence OPs running under the 2007-2013 rules managed by the Managing

Authorities that are not designated as such for the 2014-2020 period under the draft

PA for the 2014-2020 funding period;

The 2014-2020 period itself, with any specific changes in the rules from the 2007-

2013 funding period now in force within a new organisational set-up (described

below) and slightly different lines of communications and responsibilities;

The responsibilities for closing the IPA and Convergence programmes during the

2014-2020 operational period.

While the Croatian authorities are clearly aware of and prepared forthe challenges these

different responsibilities entail, the transition period that Croatia will go through in the

period up until 2016 will:

Require staff to operate in different legal and regulatoryenvironments with new

requirements putting staff under additional pressure to ‘get things right’;

Put staffing levels under pressure unless the Croatian Government is prepared to

increase the levels in the short term in order to deal with the additional workload;

Require additional audit and monitoring efforts from the relevant audit and

monitoring bodies;

11

Inside Europe www.InsidEurope.eu . 12

Inside Europe www.InsidEurope.eu

http://www.insideurope.eu/



49

Increase the reporting requirements that the Croatian bodies will need to sustain in

the interim period.

3.3 Progress with Partnership Agreement preparations for 2014-

2020

In their study of the EC Position Papers, the authors of ‘European Perspectives on the

2014-2020 PAs and Programmes: A comparative review of the Commission's Position

Papers’ identified the following conditionalities as relevant to Croatia and the development

of the country’s ESI programme for 2014-2020:13

Research and Innovation: existence of national and/or strategies for smart

specialisation;

Transport: National Transport Plan;

Environmental Protection and Climate Change: Effective implementation of the EU

Environmental Aquis in waste management, wastewater management and

environmental impact assessment;

Employment: Design and delivery of active labour market policies in line with

European guidelines as well as modernisation and strengthening of labour market

institutions;

State Aid Rules: Strengthening the capacity for state aid.

In the draft PA, the Croatian authorities sought to address these issues through the further

development of organisational and legal resources and capacity enhancement.

The PA was prepared and coordinated by the Ministry for Regional Development and EU

Funds. Line ministries, local and regional representatives, representatives of business

organisations and other relevant institutions participated in the process of drafting

programming documents for the 2014-2020 periodin six Thematic Working Groups. A high-

level government body, the ‘Coordination Committee for the Preparation of Programming

Documents for the Period 2014-2020’ steered the overall programming process.

The planning of the PA and the Operational Programmes consisted of three phases:

1. A top-down process involving the planning of the main elements of the PA, based on

the development needs defined by the Thematic Working Groups (including those

contained in the national strategies), and on the planning guidelines, templates, and

comments from the European Commission. In this phase, the intervention logic

tables developed together by the line ministries, which form the basis of the PA,

were subject to expert consultation. The consultations related toidentifying the main

development challenges and needs, the identification of Croatian specific growth

potentials, the definition of expected results to be achieved, and key actions that

need to be implemented in order to achieve those results. The decision on the

indicative allocation of resources and the number and content of OPs was taken by

the Coordination Committee.

13

European Perspectives on the 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements and Programmes: A comparative review of

the Commission's Position Papers, pp. 63-7, Mendez, Bachtler and Granqvist, University of Strathclyde, April 2013.


50

2. A consultation document was prepared by the Ministry for Regional Development

and EU Funds, outlining the overall Strategy and investment areas for the 2014-

2020 period. The Ministry for Regional Development and EU Funds opened an online

public consultation process, which extended to two months (until 20 January 2014),

inviting public responses to the presented investment strategy for the ESIFunds.

Key elements were discussed at a Partnership event in Zagreb in December 2013.

The planning documents were finalised on the basis of further expert consultations

and input, followed by a broad partnership input. The partnership input

accordinglyinvolved all relevant economic, social, environmental and territorial

factors that were not included in the formal preparation stages and approval process

of the various stages of programming documents. Special consultations were

conducted at the beginning of 2014 with the Croatian Parliament. In this second

phase, draft and summary programming documents were made publicly available

online and to all partners involved, with sufficient time allowed for (focused)

comments. The comments were discussed at the partnership event(s) and included

as final inputs in the planning documents.

3. In parallel, the Coordination Committee discussed the draft documents, including

feedback and inputs from various stakeholders in the process, and decided on the

final content of the PA and OPs.

Croatia submitted its draft PA on 22 April 2014.14 As such, the Croatian authorities

submitted their PA within the designated timescale, but at the time of writing (April 2014)

they were still awaiting detailed comments from the European Commission on their

proposals.

The PA sets out six priorities15 for the use of ESI Funds in Croatia in the 2014-2020

programming period. These are:

Innovative and competitive business environment;

Promoting energy efficiency, renewable energies and protecting natural resources;

Sustainable and modern transport and network infrastructure;

Enhancing labour market participation and quality of the education system;

Active inclusion and reduction of poverty;

Supporting the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of public administration and the

judiciary.

The PA proposes to run four OPs as follows (it should be noted that these are draft

proposalsin April 2014).

14

Draft Partnership Agreement per Ministry of Regional Development, April 2014, Croatia. 15

Draft Partnership Agreement per Ministry of Regional Development, April 2014, Croatia.


51

Table 14: Cohesion policy programmes in Croatia, 2014-2020

Programme title ESI Fund and

funding Total EU contribution, € million

OP Competitiveness and Cohesion ERDF 4321

Cohesion Fund 2560

OP Efficient Human Resources ESF 1516

YEI 66

Rural Development Programme EAFRD 2026

OP EMFF * EMFF 253

Source: Draft PA Croatia.


Management structures proposed for 2013-2020 period

For the OPs associated with Cohesion policy (Competitiveness and Cohesion / Efficient

Human Resources), the PA proposes a streamlined, more centrally focused management

structure with a single Managing Authority for each OP supported by a number of

Intermediate Bodies. The proposed structures are:16

OP Competitiveness and Cohesion:

Managing Authority: Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds

Intermediate Bodies first level

- Ministry of Agriculture;

- Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts;

- Ministry of Science, Education and Sports;

- Ministry of Economy;

- Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure;

- Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection;

- Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning;

- Ministry of Public Planning.

Intermediate Bodies second level

- Environmental Protection and Efficiency Fund;

- Croatian Agency for SMEs, Innovation and Investment;

- Croatian Waters;

- Central Financing and Contracting Agency;

- Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure;

- Ministry of Economy;

- Agency for Vocational Education and Training and Adult Education.

16

Draft Partnership Agreement per Ministry of Regional Development, April 2014, Croatia.


52

OP Efficient Human Resources:

Managing Authority: Ministry of Labour and Pension System;

Intermediate Bodies first level:

- Ministry of Social Policy and Youth;

- Ministry of Science, Education and Sports;

- Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts;

- Ministry of Health;

- Ministry of Tourism;

- Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs;

- Ministry of Public Administration.

Intermediate Bodies second level:

- Agency for Vocational Education and Training and Adult Education;

- National Foundation for Civil Society Development;

- Croatian Agency for SMEs, Innovation and Investment.

During the preparation of the OP, the Managing Authority described the programme

implementation asinvolving two layers at the Intermediate Bodylevel, with the distinction

between first-level Intermediate Bodies and second-level Intermediate Bodies. The first

level will concentrate on calls for proposals and overall monitoring of projects, and the

second level will be tasked with verification of the eligibility of costs, on-the-spot checks

and sending payment requests to the Payment Authority.

Programming for 2014-2020

The Croatian authorities embarked on extensive public discussions regarding the content of

the PA and the content of the OPs. This consultation process was completed in January

2014 with the first outputs being the PA itself and the broad outlines of the proposed OPs.

More detailed planning of the programmes will follow as the PA is reviewed and revised as

required. The draft OP for Competitiveness and Cohesion was submitted to the European

Commission in May 2014. Other OPs will be submitted within three months from the

submission of the PA.


No information was available.

3.6 Capacity issues

No information was available.


53


By 2015, for the OP Competitiveness and Cohesion, the number of staff is estimated to

amount to 100 persons at Managing Authority level and 250 at Intermediate Body level.

For the OP Efficient Human Resources, it is estimated that by 2015 80 persons will be

needed at Managing Authority level with a further 100 working at Intermediate Body level.

This can be considered a sufficient level of staff with relevant experience in EU funds to

staff the institutions through transfers from other bodies and through redeployment as the

IPA and Convergence programmes wind down.

This organisational set-up does seem, at first sight, to be adding another layer of

complexity to the operation of the management and control system. However, the Croatian

draft PA states that the delegation of specific tasks to the different Intermediate Bodies will

streamline procedures and contribute to a better flow of information and documents. Most

of the Intermediate Bodies have experience in the management of EU funds.

Under IPA, the Croatian authorities had already setup a National Fund and Audit Authority.

The National Fund, located in the Ministry of Finance, will become the Certifying Authority

for EU funds and the role of the Audit Authority will remain as previously defined.

The Croatian authorities plan to introduce the required legislation to set up this structure

but, as the proposals are still in draft and awaiting detailed comments from the European

Commission, the passing of this legislation is indicatively forecast for the third quarter of

2014.


54


55

4. CASE STUDY - CZECH REPUBLIC


The Ministry of Regional Development informally submitted the first draft of the PA and the

draft OPs to the European Commission in October 2013. After the official national inter-

service consultations and a revision, a new draft was submitted to the European

Commission in February 2014. The Deputy Minister for Regional Development interviewed

still expects slight modifications based on the comments but also the awaited information

from the European Commission. The governmental discussions and informal dialogues are

on-going, the draft of the PA has been submitted at the 17. April 2014.

The preparation of the 2014-2020 programming period started in the second half of 2010,

when deriving the five National Development Priorities17 in a broad participation process

that included a wide range of institutions, partners at national, regional and local levels,

and the public, private and voluntary sectors.18 The thematic scope and problem analyses

were developed in a broad partnership process between September 2011 and November

2012. The draft programmes were defined in November 2012 and were based on the needs

identified in national, regional and sectoral strategic documents, National Development

Priorities, and thematic problem analyses from the partners. Next, platforms for the

preparation and implementation of the 2014-2020 period were established in December

2012 and January 2013, mainly the NSRF Coordination Committees and the Ministry of

Regional Development Ministerial Coordination Group for the EU (reviewing the materials

and informing the partners about events).

A working group for the preparation of the PA (including the Managing Authorities of the

OPs) and a working group for developing the programmes were established at the end of

2012. A Council for Funds of the Common Strategic Framework was planned, including

representatives of ministries, regional actors, NGOs, economic and social partners and

others, encompassingfive thematically-focused working groups. Preparation of the sections

of the PA incorporated the supporting documents received from individual partners, namely

the Managing Authorities, relevant ministries, the Office of the Government of the Czech

Republic as the coordinator of National Reform Programme, the regional and local partners,

and so forth. The negotiations in the platforms were also accompanied by a representative

of the Government Council for NGOs; moreover, a NGO Partnership Platform 2014+ was

established, uniting NGOs from various policy areas.19

17

Improving the competitiveness of the economy; 2) Development of backbone infrastructure; 3) Improving the

quality and efficiency of public administration; 4) Promoting social inclusion, the fight against poverty and the health care system; 5) Integrated area development.

18 Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2013). Draft Partnership Agreement for the 2014-2020

programming period. Czech Republic. June 2013. 19

Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2014). Draft Partnership Agreement for the 2014-2020

programming period. Czech Republic. February 2014; pp. 127-30.


56

The platforms for the preparation phase were:20

Council for the ESIFunds (multi-ministerial expert and advisory body of the

Government of the Czech Republic, which ensures substantial focus of interventions

of all ESIFunds. It replaces the existing Steering and Coordinating Committee and

will be maintained for 2014-2020);

Five Working Groups of the ESIFunds Council (thematic groups led by the Secretary-

General, which will also be maintained in 2014-2020);

Working Group for Preparing the PA for 2012-2020 (key platform for discussing the

preparation of the PA with the representatives of the Managing Authorities for the

programmes and other partners from the ranks of regional partners, economic and

social partners, and representatives of the non-profit sector and the academic and

scientific research sector);

Working Group for Programme Preparation for 2014–2020 (platform for discussing

the preparation of the programming documents with the Managing Authorities under

the coordination and management of the Ministry of Regional Development);

Inter-ministerial Expert Advisory Group (group of experts to prepare a

methodological environment);

Peer review group for creating a uniform methodological environment (reviewing

guidance documents prepared by a larger plenum of potential users);

Working groups for the preparation of individual programmes for the period of

2014–2020 (individual Managing Authorities, coordinated by the Ministry of Regional

Development);

Other section platforms – e.g. the Working Group on integrated access and

territorial dimension (regions, municipalities and other regional partners); the

Working Group for the preparation of a uniform monitoring system 2014+, etc.

20

Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2014). Draft Partnership Agreement for the 2014-2020

programming period. Czech Republic. February 2014; pp. 127-30.


57

Figure 1: The project framework of the PA in the Czech Republic

Source: Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2013), p. 8.


The interviewed representative of the Ministry of Regional Development described mixed

experiences regarding the PA process. One positive aspect throughout the process was the

strong link of the PA content to the national strategies and policies. However, according to

the Deputy Minister and coordinator of Structural Funds at the Ministry of Regional

Development, there were two major difficulties:

The partnership principle: The involvement of numerous different partners in the

development of the PA through several platforms resulted in complex and lengthy

discussions, which made it difficult to reach consensus. In fact, according to the

Deputy Minister and coordinator of Structural Funds, many involved actors perceived

EU funds as an important financial source in a context of shortage of public

finances;

Complexity of requirements for the 2014-2020 programming period: There are

already heavy critiques from the actors involved in the management and

implementation of Structural Funds about the complexity and the extent of the

requirements. Although the interviewee considered these requirements to be

rational and justifiable, they will result in too great an administrative burden and

workload for the actors involved at implementation level. In this respect, one major

example consists of the auditrequirements and extensive space for suspensions.

Although these concerns were voiced to the European Commission, a compromise had to

be reached on the legislative package, and the requirements included in the texts must be

implemented at national level.

In the opinion of the Deputy Minister and coordinator of Structural Funds at the Ministry of

Regional Development, the PA does not represent a revolutionary change compared to the

2007-2013 period.


58

The advantage he perceives is the greater link to the economic strategies at EU level

(Europe 2020), whereas the disadvantage is the increase in requirements and

interpretations. For example, with regard to the ex-ante conditionalities, the European

Commission seems to require an increased strategic framework in order to better

implement the Cohesion policy instruments. The disadvantage in these terms is that those

national and regional strategies are still significantly influenced by the European

Commission (e.g. smart specialisation strategy).


The Thematic Objectives identified have been tied to the analytical part in the PA. The

choice of the Thematic Objectives selected is based on the urgency of the problem

identified in the analytical part. The amount of financial allocation for each fund and

Thematic Objective was the critical factor in setting the main result indicators.21

The thematic priorities chosen are:22

Competitiveness of the economy;

Infrastructure;

Public Administration;

Social inclusion, combating poverty and healthcare system;

Environment.


In the opinion of the Deputy Minister and coordinator of Structural Funds at the Ministry of

Regional Development, there was more freedom when choosing the thematic orientation in

2007-2013 (earmarking being voluntary and only partial) compared to the 2014-2020

period. The requirement of further thematic concentration is, according to the interview,

sensible but difficult due to the need for reshuffling and the fact that some activities can no

longer be co-financed from EU funds. In the Czech Republic, the thematic concentration

results in:

a stronger focus on economic competitiveness and particularly the strengthening of

innovation through linking businesses with research and development;

a diminished concentration on road infrastructure compared to the 2007-2013

period. Within the infrastructure priority, the focus has also become narrower, as is

looks more at key TEN/TINA network infrastructure.

21

Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2013) Draft Partnership Agreement for the 2014-2020

programming period. Czech Republic, June 2013. 22


programming period. Czech Republic, February 2013, p. 107.


59

Table 15: ESIF Programmes’ contribution to respective Thematic

Objectives 2014-2020

Thematic Objective Funds Programmes fulfilling the TOs

1) Innovation

ERDF, EAFRD

OP Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness OP Research, Development and Education OP Prague - Growth Pole in the Czech Republic Rural Development Programme

2) ICT ERDF

OP Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness Intergrated Regional OP

3) SME

ERDF, EMFF, EAFRD

OP Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness Integrated Intergrated Regional OP OP Fisheries Rural Development Programme

4) Low-carbon economy

ERDF, CF, EAFRD

OP Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness OP Environment Intergrated Regional OPOP Prague - Growth Pole in the Czech Republic Rural Development Programme

5) Climate change

adaptation ERDF, CF, EAFRD

OP Environment Intergrated Regional OPRural Development Programme


resource efficiency ERDF, CF, EMFF, EAFRD

OP Environment Intergrated Regional OPOP Fisheries Rural Development Programme


networks ERDF, Cohesion Fund

OP Transport OP Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness Intergrated Regional OP


mobility ESF, ERDF, EAFRD OP Employment Intergrated Regional OPOP Fisheries Rural Development Programme


combating poverty ESF, ERDF, EAFRD

OP Employment OP Research, Development and Education Intergrated Regional OPOP Prague - Growth Pole in the Czech Republic Rural Development Programme


lifelong learning ESF, ERDF, EAFRD

OP Research, Development and Education Intergrated Regional OPOP Prague - Growth Pole in the Czech Republic Rural Development Programme

11) Institutional capacity ERDF, ESF

OP Employment Intergrated Regional OP

Source: Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2013), Draft PA for the 2014-2020 programming period,

February 2014, p. 121.

Table 16: Indicative distribution of the Union aid by thematic objective

at national level for each ESI Fund

Themes ERDF ESF CF EAFRD EMFF TOTAL

1) Innovation 2 657 0 0 2 657

2) ICT 957 0 0 957

3) SME 1 140 0 0 1 140

4) Low-carbon economy 1 492 0 492 1 983

5) Climate change adaptation 229 0 275 504

6) Env. protection & resource efficiency 779 0 1 372 2 151

7) Sustainable transport & networks 2 089 0 3 998 6 087

8) Employment and labour mobility 195 1 282 0 1 477

9) Social inclusion and combating poverty 807 893 0 1 699

10) Education, skills and lifelong learning; 939 1 034 0 1 973

11) Institutional capacity 97 113 0 211

Technical Assistance 589 93 122 803

TOTAL 11969 3416 6259 2170 21644

Source: Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2013). Draft PA for the 2014-2020 programming period,

February 2014, p. 123.

€ million, the total aid from the Union including the performance reserve


60


Thematic concentration means that fewer areas are being financed. According to the

Deputy Minister and coordinator of Structural Funds at the Ministry of Regional

Development, this results in the exclusion of areas and activities that had been financed in

the past. For instance, regional accessibility, tourism and local development were important

topics that will now be difficult to finance. As a result, some investment will no longer be

financed from EU funds, which of course creates tensions with some stakeholders.


Ex-ante conditionalities are discussed in all relevant platforms regularly, and then brought

up to the Ministry level. In fact, the Ministry of Regional Development holds the role of

coordinator for the ex-ante conditionalities, both within the context of the preparations for

the programming period as well as during the implementation phase.23 From January 2012,

the Ministry of Regional Development and the partner organisations (ministries,

departments and other relevant bodies) were asked to provide their positions on the ex-

ante conditionalities. The fulfilment of pre-conditions was continuously monitored and

updated in close cooperation with the Ministry of Regional Development.24

At the national level, ex-ante conditionalities for the ESIF preparation phase are anchored

in the guidance document for the preparation of programming documents for the 2014-

2020 programming period, as well as other guidance documents.25 For the implementation

phase, key documents apart from the PA include the Rule for Managing and Coordinating

the PA and the Action Plan for Managing and Coordinating Ex-ante Conditionalities. The

Action Plan was established for the purpose of setting up the management system and the

coordination of ex-ante conditionalities, including their assessment andthe identification of

problematic ex-ante conditionalities, together with a proposal for measures and a

completion schedule. The Action Plan is binding for all implementation bodies of the 2014-

2020 programming period, and it takes into account the specificities of individual ESIFunds.

At programme level, the Managing Authorities identify and determine the fulfilment of ex-

ante conditionalities for a given programme and for a Priority Axis (ERDF, ESF and

Cohesion Fund) or a Union Priority (EAFRD and EMFF, in cooperation with other

stakeholders). The Managing Authorities must observe the Action Plan prepared at the

national level. The Managing Authorities create individual action plans based on the

European Commission templates on partially fulfilled or unfulfilled ex-ante conditionalities,

including detailed measures declaring future fulfilment, a schedule and the bodies

responsible for the implementation of ex-ante conditionalities. These action plans are

updated on an on-going basis. Their ultimate fulfilment will be based on an agreement

between the coordinators of ex-ante conditionalities, the Managing Authorities, the Ministry

and the European Commission.

The ex-ante conditionalities are not always easily fulfilled in the light of the Czech

institutional arrangements, legislative environment or processes requiring

interdepartmental coordination. Therefore, the fulfilment of certain ex-ante conditionalities

is planned for the longer term. For these reasons, some ex-ante conditionalities are

perceived by the Czech Republic as risky (e.g. risks associated with changes in legislation

23


programming period. Czech Republic, February 2014. 24


programming period. Czech Republic, June 2013. 25


programming period. Czech Republic, June 2013.


61

or reforms; existence of strategic documents, etc.). The Action Plan for Managing and

Coordinating Ex-ante Conditionalities includes, among other things, monitoring of the most

risky ex-ante conditionalities. Based on the Action Plan, the risky ex-ante conditionalities

are dealt with at regular intervals and discussed by the parties concerned, always under the

supervision of the coordinator of the relevant ex-ante conditionality to which the risk is

related, which results in its subsequent fulfilment or update of measures to achieve it.26



There had been at least five dialogues with the European Commission by the time of the

interview (April 2014). The Deputy Minister and coordinator of Structural Funds at the

Ministry of Regional Development considered this exchange as positive, but he believed its

effectiveness could be weakened if issues that had been discussed informally reoccurred at

a later or formal stage of negotiations.


Programme architecture and types of programmes

The main change compared to the 2007-2013 programming period is the reduction of

Operational Programmes. In total, there will be ten OPs instead of 18 as in 2007-2013. The

main changes are as follows.

Only one regional OP (ROP): Whereas in 2007-2013, there were thematic as well as

ROPs, in 2014-2020 there will be only one ROP (multi-fund OP ERDF/ESF).

One OP for Prague: The two former OPs for Prague have been combined into one

single multi-fund OP.

One OP combining Research and Development and Education: At national level, the

former ERDF research and development programme will be merged with the ESF

education programme, resulting in one multi-fund programme.

Table 17: Czech Republic: Changes in Operational Programmes for 2014-2020

Operational Programmes

2007-2013 CF ERDF ESF EAFRD EMFF


2014-2020

National Programmes

Transport x x

Transport

Environment x x

Environment ERDF, Cohesion

Fund

Integrated Operational

Programme x

Integrated Regional

Operational Programme

Enterprises and Innovations

x

Enterprise and Innovation for

Competitiveness ERDF

Research and Development for

Innovations x

Research, Development and

Education Education for Competitiveness

x

Human Resources and

Employment x

Employment ESF

Technical Assistance

x

Technical Assistance

26


programming period. Czech Republic, February 2014.


62


2007-2013 CF ERDF ESF EAFRD EMFF


2014-2020

Regional Programmes

Prague

x Prague – Growth Pole ERDF,

ESF Prague Adaptability

x

Moravia Silesia

x

North-East

x

North-West

x

South-East

x

Central Moravia

x

Central Bohemia

x

South-West

x

Rural Development

x

Rural Development

Fisheries

x Fisheries

Source: Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2013) Draft Partnership Agreement for the 2014-2020

programming period.

Reasons for change or stability

There are three main reasons for these changes:

The system was too complex for the beneficiaries and for the management and

controlling authorities. The result was a government decision to reduce the number

of OPs;

There were institutional problems with regard to accountability and controls in ROPs.

This was one of the reasons for further streamlining;

Lessons learned and strategic decisions based on the 2007-2013 period: The

government considered it to be strategically and politically important to combine

R&D with education (merging the two former ERDF and ESF OPs) with a view to

strengthening the innovativeness of enterprises.

Main challenges

According to the Deputy Minister and Coordinator of Structural Funds at the Ministry of

Regional Developmentany change that would impact on institutional set-ups, processes and

inter-institutional relations will be analysed carefully. Discussions are on-goingbetween

institutions on how to use potential synergies in the future.

Management of multi-fund programmes

There areon-going discussions regarding the management set-up,whichareprogressing

steadily and are expected to lead to simplifications. At the coordinating level (Ministry of

Regional Development), a streamlining process for all management bodies was being

developed. More precisely, in the Czech Republic, European and domestic regional policies

are managed and implemented separately with their own programming documents,

implementation systems, rules and procedures.27 European resources in the Czech Republic

are allocated through specific channels and structures dedicated to the Structural-Funds.

27

EPRC (2009) Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the ERDF

(Objective 1 and 2). WP 11: Management and Implementation Systems for Cohesion policy. Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio).


63

In the 2007-2013 programming period, Structural Funds OPs in the Czech Republic were

managed and implemented by regional councils responsible for the eight ROPs and by six

national authorities responsible for the national OPs. For staff working in ERDF

implementation, the non-existence of a Civil Service Act (Act of Public Servants) in the

Czech Republic has meant that they have been guided by different human resources

documents.

For 2014-2020, a methodology is being developed by the National Coordination Authority

for the Manging Authorities and Interemdiate Bodies, which will specify the number of

Interemdiate Bodies to be introduced, human resources guidelines for ESIF staff, guidelines

on management structures, and other measures to ensure that sufficient staff with the

right knowledge isinvolved in management and implementation. It will be an internal

document.

After extensive discussions and negotiations at national and European Commission levels, a

concrete table of financial allocation was included in the last draft of the PA sent to the

European Commission. Some minor changes are still possible in the consultation process

with the European Commission, but no major shifts are expected.


64

Table 18: Proposed allocation of funding to the OPs in the Czech Republic (2014-2020), € million

Name of programme ESIFund Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

OP Enterprise and Innovation for

Competitiveness

4170 561 572 584 595 607 619 632

ERDF 4170 561 572 584 595 607 619 632

OP Research, Development and

Education

2780 374 381 389 397 405 413 421

ERDF 1548 208 212 217 221 225 230 234

ESF 1232 166 169 172 176 179 183 187

OP Environment 2565 343 351 359 367 374 382 389

ERDF 375 50 51 52 54 55 56 57

CF 2191 292 300 307 313 320 326 332

OP Transport 4696 628 643 657 672 685 700 712

ERDF 627 84 86 88 90 91 93 95

CF 4068 543 556 570 582 594 606 617

Integrated Regional OP 4871 655 668 682 695 709 723 738

ERDF 4871 655 668 682 695 709 723 738

OP Technical Assistance 224 30 31 31 32 33 33 34

ERDF 224 30 31 31 32 33 33 34

OP Employment 2136 293 297 297 303 309 315 321

ESF 2122 285 291 297 303 309 315 321

YEI 13.6 7.6 6.0 0 0 0 0 0

OP Prague – Growth Pole of the Czech

Republic

202 27 28 28 29 29 30 31

ERDF 154 21 21 21 22 22 23 23

ESF 48 6 7 7 7 7 7 7

Rural Development Programme 2170 314 313 312 310 309 307 306

EAFRD 2170 314 313 312 310 309 307 306

Operational Programme Fisheries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EMFF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 23814 3225 3284 3339 3400 3460 3523 3583

Source: Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2014) Draft PA for the 2014-2020 programming period. Czech Republic, February 2014.


65


Case: Technical Assistance OP (OP TA)

The purpose of the Operational Programme Technical Assistance (OP TA) is to finance

administration and to support the absorption and administrative capacity and

complementary activities needed for a successful operation of the entire system of

ESIFunding in the 2014–2020 programming period. The OP TA will be crucial for ensuring

successful activities of the National Coordination Authority and other bodies. The goal of the

OP TA is to make sure that ESIFunding is used as much and as efficiently as possible.28

According to the interviewee, with regard to the strategy of the OP TA and the overall

setting, it is important to realise that the role of the OP TA within the structure of the PAis

significantly different fromthat of other thematic OPs. Whereas other OPs contribute directly

to the objectives set in the PA, the OP TA has a supportive character and focuses on

creating an environment for the implementation of the PAand thematic OPs that enables

and simplifies the achievement of the objectives set. The OP TA focuses primarily on the

removal of barriers that might hinder the implementation of other OPs, and it does not

have a direct impact on achieving the Europe 2020 goals and objectives of the PA.

However, the OP TA will support activities that indirectly contribute to the latter.

The aim of the OP TA is to create an environment for the implementation of the ESIFunds

that will minimise the negative factors reflected in the 2007-2013 programming period.

Consequently, the ESIFunds will be used more effectively, and it will be possible to achieve

the objectives of the PA. The OP TA also specifically seeks (i) to maintain a high level of

control and monitoring, while respecting the principles of sound financial management, (ii)

to develop and maintain administrative capacity, and (iii) to improve public awareness and

public opinion on the ESIF. Within the administrative capacity priority, the OP TA has set

complementary links with other OPs. Administrative capacity-building falls within the

competence of the individual Managing Authorities.

The OP TA is a follow-up to the programme of the same name from the 2007–2013

programming period. It will focus on creating the conditions for reaching the goals specified

by the PA, including application of the partnership principle to partners outside public

administration, preparing the 2021+ programming period, ensuring publicity and

absorption capacity especially by providing information, promoting integrated approaches,

providing an efficient single methodological environment and developing human resources

at the PA level.

It will be structured into the following Priority Axes:

1. PA management and coordination;

2. Single monitoring system.

28




66

Table 19: Priority Axes and Specific Objectives of the OP TA 2014-2020

Specific

Objectives PA 1 PA 2

1 Management and coordination PA (PA) incl. the

administrative capacity

Single monitoring system 2014+

2 Preparation in 2014-2020for programming period

2021+ N/A

3 Publicity incl. the absorption capacity N/A

4 Support of integrated strategies N/A

Source: Interview Managing Authority of OP TA Czech Republic 2014-2020.

Progress with individual programme elements

The OP TA strategy is based on the assumption that the results at the level of the PA would

be worse, if not completely unattainable, in the absence of a central coordinator and a

single management and coordination system of good quality,as well as a single monitoring

system and a high standard of administrative capacity. The OP TA aims to enable and

facilitate implementation and particularly to ensure the efficient use of resources that are

available to other Operational Programmes.

Indicators and targets

According to the OP TA Managing Authority, the indicator system is now more sophisticated

and complex than in the 2007-2013 programming period. The system of indicators was

prepared in cooperation with the coordinators of the PA in the OP TA and the National

Coordinating Authority. The National Coordinating Authority coordinated the development

of a consolidated version of all the indicators related to TA. There has already been some

fine-tuning of the formulation on the basis of technical meetings with the European

Commission, and some default values of result indicators are to be based on survey results.

Financial tables (i.e. funding earmarked to regions or selected measures)

The OP TA is supposed to cover both categories of less-developed and more-developed

regions. In comparison to the OP TA in 2007-2013, the allocation of the OP TA 2014-2020

is similar. However, a simple comparison of the two periods is not possible because of the

changes in the OP TA 2014-2020.

Simplification measures

The concept of a single methodological environment consists of individual guidelines for

relevant aspects of ESIF implementation. It unifies the implementation process and thus

increases the transparency and clarity of rules and processes for potential beneficiaries.

This concept, together with associated guidelines, is mandatory or recommended for all

Managing Authorities and forall programming and implementing documents, including the

OP TA.

The main methodological tools for reducing the administrative burden for beneficiaries and

the implementing bodies are:

the computerisation of administration processes;

establishing standardised processes with pre-established deadlines in order to

shorten the length of the period for approval and reimbursement;

harmonisation of control activities;

reducing the number of methodological documents;


67

setting up and using consistent terminology, and preparation and application of a

single website for the publication of calls, information and documentation;

setting basic rules for publicity and information about the support from ESIF;

setting standard, binding and enforceable rules on support from ESIF etc.

However, existing monitoring systems at Managing Authority level are not yet ready for the

new concept of a single methodological environment for the implementation of procedures

and processes that lead to the simplification of procedures for applicants and of the

implementation structure.


The structure of the OP TA for the 2014-2020 programming period is similar to the OP TA

for the 2007-2013 period. The changes are mainly at the level of supported activities and

are recorded in detail in the description of the PA. Continuity between successive

programmes is considered to be one of the greatest benefits and lessons learned from the

2007-2013 programming period and the experience of the implementation of EU funds.

The main changes compared to the 2007-2013 programming period are as follows:

strengthening the role of the National Coordinating Authority, especially in building

and setting the single methodological environment and management of the PA;

strengthening and developing evaluation activities at the PA level;

supporting the fulfilment of ex-ante conditionalities;

focusing on communication activities at the PA level;

supporting the leading actors of integrated strategies;

preparing and developing a new generation of a single monitoring system for the

whole implementation structure, with noexceptions;

initiating training activities for partners outside the implementation structure, but

which will be involved in the management of the PA.

Increasing the absorption capacity is left primarily to the individual OPs, which are closer to

the applicants and target groups. The OP TA will focus only on building a basic knowledge

of the ESIF.

The OP TA will finance all horizontal activities and activities that are connected to more

than one programme. All other TA Priority Axes that finance activities connected to

programmes will create complementary synergies to the OP TA. The OP TA will horizontally

impact on the administrative capacity development of the other OPs in the following ways:

Financing administrative capacity – the OP TA shall finance the salaries of

employees of horizontal institutions (OP TA Managing Authority, National Coording

Authority, Audit Authority, ETC), whereas the remuneration of persons

implementing the given OP will be covered from the TA of individual OPs;

Education of administrative capacity – the OP TA will finance education at the

horizontal level as well as joint topics relevant to all the OPs. In the TA of individual

OPs, funds are available for the provision of education focusing on specific areas of

the OP concerned;

Absorption capacity – the OP TA focuses on communicating the PA and creating the

basic awareness of EU funds, with the main target group being applicants who at the


68

given point of time do not know to which OP they should submit their idea in the

form of a project application. Upon agreement with the Managing Authorities, the

essential part of absorption capacity-building was left to the level of TA of the

individual OPs, since the Managing Authorities are much closer to their potential

applicants/beneficiaries;

Monitoring system – the OP TA will finance the monitoring system and also all its

modifications either required by legislation or agreed upon by the majority of

Managing Authorities. The Managing Authorities have a certain degree of discretion

in cases where they wish to implement a very specific solution of linking their

monitoring system to other systems within their organisation, but in such cases the

given Managing Authority shall cover the costs thereof.


During the financial crisis, there was some reduction of resources for public procurement

due to the savings measures. Moreover, political instability was reflected in strategic

decisions on the implementation of some large contracts. However, an evaluation of the

achievements of Cohesion policy carried out in 2012 found that there had been no

significant impacts of the crisis on the implementation of EU Cohesion policy support.29


According to the Managing Authority of the OP TA, the political structure has no direct

impact on the administration, because political interference usually concerns only the senior

management level, while most of the administration runs independently. In case of any

changes in political leadership, other directions or outcomes in decision-making are

expected on various issues. Ministers/deputies have differing ideas about the operation and

functioning of each department, processes and (sometimes) micro-management. According

to the Managing Authority of the OP TA, the expected approval of the new Civil Servant

Law (Act of Public Servants) will prevent political interference.


influence

The most intensive interaction takes place between the Managing Authority and the

European Commission in the context of informal and formal meetings during the

preparation of the OP. In the words of the Managing Authority of the OP TA: ‘While the

discussion with the European Commission is often constructive and leads to the

improvement of ideas, on other occasions the European Commission takes a strongly

paternalistic top-down approach, unfortunately without the capacities to discuss the

problems in depth and without any specific technical knowledge. This is perceived by the

Managing Authority as a lack of trust. Some uniform and rigid elements sometimes prevent

us from achieving better solutions, and we sometimes witness the inability of the European

Commission to change its ideas, even though our arguments are scientifically backed,

whereas the European Commission fails to support its ideas with recent scientific evidence’.

The European Commission representatives will be members of the OP TA Monitoring

Committee and other platforms within the PA.

On the other hand, the Community of Practice on Results-Based Management in the ESF

(network of several Managing Authorities funded by the European Commission;

www.coprbm.eu) helps to exchange fresh ideas and provides knowledge-brokering services

to the OP TA Managing Authority.

29

Blažek J (2012) Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy – Czech Republic, Expert

evaluation network delivering policy analysis on the performance of Cohesion policy 2007-2013, Year 2 – 2012, Final version, A report to the European Commission.


69

Table 20: Implementation assessment– Preparation for programme-cycle stages and elements

Programme

elements

State of

implementation How difficult has the process been? Lessons learned?

Expected time

frame and

management

structure?

Strategic

programming/

thematic

concentration

Completed The negotiations took place on the platform of

the Steering Committee of the OP TA 2014-

2020 for several months in a lively discussion

with th Managing Authoritiesand other

partners.

It was based on experience, i.e. the

OP TA is constructed in a substantially

similar way, because the previous

implementation was working well.

Managing Authority

OP TA

Performance

framework

Does not apply to

the OP TA.

Does not apply to the OP TA. Does not apply to the OP TA. Does not apply to

the OP TA.

Project

generation /

preparation

Has not yet started. The preparation of quality projects always

needs a good plan/vision, but their realisation

can be hinderedor delayed by complex

administrative requirements and processes.

The set-up of the OP TA is basedon

similar activities and projects that

worked well in the 2007-2013

programming period, such as the

qualification measures targeting the

Managing Authority staff.

Continuous

OP TA beneficiaries

Project

appraisal

Has not yet started. It will be set in the documentation. The Managing Authority will introduce

processes that have proven to be

successfulwith regard to increasing

transparency in the 2007-2013

programming period. This should lead

to a further simplification of the

project appraisal system.

2014

Managing Authority

OP TA

Financial

management

Advanced It will be set out in the documentation, and is

also based on national and European

legislation. It is not difficult to apply based on

the rules and experience.

Improving administrative processes,

increasing absorption capacity,

building on experience in risk

management.

2013-2014

Managing Authority

OP TA

Control

mechanism

Has started. Control mechanisms will be set out in the

documents and in the management and

control systems to be approved by the

Ministry of Finance. It is not difficult process,

based on experience.

It will be based on experience and in

accordance with the rules, and it will

also comply with European and

national legislation.

2014

Managing Authority

OP TA

Ministry of Finance


70

Programme

elements

State of


Expected time

frame and

management

structure?

Monitoring

Advanced The coordinators of the PA and the National

Coordination Authority have set up a

comprehensive and informative monitoring

system of indicators.

The authorities concerned have

learned significantly from the

monitoring experience throughout the

2007-2013 programming period and,

based on these lessons learned, they

have made considerable efforts to

establish a far more sophisticated

system than in 2007-2013 for the

2014-2020 programming period. Still,

the process of setting the appropriate

monitoring indicators for TA always

comes with complications and

difficulties.

2013-2014

Managing Authority

OP TA

Evaluation

Has started. Evaluation activities are considered to be a

highly specialised matter which in the Czech

Republic is not yet as established and

professional as in other EU Member States

(according to the interviewees) due to lack of

experience with this type of activities.

Therefore, it is very difficult to ensure the

quality of the future evaluation output.

Based on the 2007-2013

programming period, the authorities

interviewed believe that a better

awareness of evaluation activities

could be established. It is important

to ensure a benefits-focused analysis,

not just a summary of general

information.

2014

Managing Authority

OP TA

External evaluators

Simplification

Advanced To reduce the administrative burden,

substantial steps were taken at the national

level under the coordination of the Ministry of

Regional Development The Ministry of

Regional Development prepared proposals to

simplify the administrative burden for

applicants and beneficiaries in the 2014-

2020programming period. The OP TA reflects

these recommendations and includes activities

aimed at reducing the administrative burden

in each OP.

Experience has led to the creation of

a uniform methodological

environment.

2013-2014

Managing Authority

OP TA

Ministry of Regional

Development-

National

Coordination

Authority

Managing Authority

OP


71

Programme

elements

State of


Expected time

frame and

management

structure?

Communication

channels

Has started. This process is demanding in that different

kinds of communication channels address the

different needs of the individual

beneficiaries/recipients.

The 2007-2013 programming period

has shown that one important

element of effective administration is

the communication with

beneficiaries.For example, using

standardisedguidance from the

regulations can reduce the error rate.

2014-…

Managing Authority

OP TA

Beneficiaries /

recipients

Financial

instruments

Does not apply to

the OP TA.

Does not apply to the OP TA. Does not apply to the OP TA. Does not apply to

the OP TA.

Partnership

principle

Advanced Negotiations were undertaken on different

platforms within the PA and in the Steering

Committee of the OP TA 2014-2020.

The 2007-2013 programming period

has shown how important it is to

maintain the partnership principle at

various levels and establish successful

communication.

2013-2014



72

4.4 Capacity issues – Lesson learned

One of the changes in the OP TA described above is the fact that the OP will be financing

the staff costs for all other OPs. This change is based on the finding that the staff

fluctuation in 2007-2013 generally ranged between 13% and 21%. In detail, the rates of

staff turnover for the last four years were reported as follows:

2009: 17.72%

2010: 20.97%

2011: 16.19%

2012: 13.18%

Although the fluctuation rates decreased during the last three years, the moderate value is

still considered a challenge for the OPs. The authorities believe that the following factors

could be the reasons behind the staff turnover in Czech OPs:

The level of salary was not competitive enough;

Lack of career prospects;

Reorganisation/restructuring within the organisation.

Additionally, the fluctuation can be explained by the lack of a clear Human Resources

strategy as well as a Civil Service Law (Act of Public Servants), despite the fact that most

of the staff managing and implementing Structural Funds OPs are public officials. Public

administration modernisation and increased efficiency in OP management represent

important fields for improvement.

According to an evaluation carried out in 2012, despite the progress in implementation, the

persistence or even deepening of several problems (especially the overly close relations

between Managing Authorities and the respective audit bodies, the improper

implementation of public procurement rules, and high fluctuation in the staff of the

management and implementation system) led to a suspension of certification of

expenditure by the European Commission in January 2012. On the basis of progress in

implementation of the Czech Action Plan, the certification procedure was partially reopened

at the end of July 2012. According to the evaluation, ‘the excessive attention of Managing

Authorities to procedural and implementation issues in both day-to-day management and

in evaluation activities indicates that a fundamental reform in this sphere is necessary.

These problems of administrative nature clearly squeeze out much more important

questions connected with the implementation of EU support which are efficiency,

effectiveness and even the strategic focus.30

30

Blažek J (2012), Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy – Czech Republic, Expert

evaluation network delivering policy analysis on the performance of Cohesion policy 2007-2013, Year 2 – 2012, Final version, A report to the European Commission.


73


Programme

elements Central coordination Programme management



Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

Negotiations took place with the Ministry of Regional

Development-National Cooridnating Authority to

optimally set the strategic level in the OP TA.

Strategic programming is mainly under

the responsibility of the Managing

Authority OP TA.

Not relevant, because no Intermediate Bodies are

planned under the 2014-2020 OP TA.

Performance

framework

Does not apply to the OP TA. Does not apply to the OP TA. Does not apply to the OP TA.

Project

generation /

preparation

The Ministry of Regional Development prepares projects

within the OP TA. The Ministry of Regional Development

is at the same time the Managing Authority and a

beneficiary.

The Managing Authority OP TA will also

implement its own projects.



Project appraisal

Deputies of departments in the Ministry of Regional

Development are members of the evaluation/appraisal

commission of the OP TA, which approve the project

applications, and then the decision is signed by the

Minister.

Formal appraisal, appraisal of

acceptability, objective appraisal, risk

analysis and additional controls are

performed at the Managing Authority

OP TA level.



Financial

management

Financial management on central level is coordinated by

the Ministry of Regional Development-National

Cooridnating Authority. If problems are encountered,

coordination meeting are organised to discuss the risks.

The Managing Authority OP TA has

little influence on its financial

management, given that success

largely depends on the quality of the

projects carried out. The Managing

Authority will continue meeting with

the beneficiaries in order to ensure the

quality of their projects.



Monitoring

The National Cooridnating Authority coordinates the

monitoring activities and is responsible for the overall

set of indicators.

The Managing Authority OP TA has an

influence on the creation of functional

monitoring.



Evaluation

The internal evaluation within the Ministry of Regional

Development focuses on its own professional

administrative capacity, since it is financed from the OP

TA. The OP also funded training in evaluation in the

past.

One solution is contracting external evaluators.

Internal evaluation of the Managing

Authority OP TA affects professional

administrative capacity, but the OP TA

does not even have one full-time

position planned for evaluation-related

tasks.




74

Programme

elements Central coordination Programme management



Simplification

The Ministry of Regional Development-National

Cooridnating Authority developed the concept of a single

methodological environment, the instruments of which

are designed to reduce the administrative burden for

beneficiaries.

The Managing Authority OP TA has the

opportunity to comment on the

methodology of themonitoring system

for 2014-2020, which it then needs to

implement.



Communication

with

beneficiaries

For example, in the case of projects to increase

absorption capacity or publicity,it is possible that the

Ministry of Regional Development as the beneficiary can

communicate with potential beneficiaries/ recipients.

The Managing Authority OP TA may

very well establish communication

channels to beneficiaries /recipients.



Financial

instruments


Partnership

principle

The partnership principle is fulfilled not only in the

process of focusing the interventions as narrowly as

possible when preparing the ESIF programmes, but also

in the process of setting up the management system of

the PA and the individual OPs.The Ministry of Regional

Development - in close cooperation with all partners -

prepared the document ‘Recommendations for reducing

the administrative burden for beneficiaries and

recipientswhen preparing the ESIF programming period

of 2014-2020’. In the course of preparing the latter

document, not only experts and professionals who deal

with the implementation of European funds were

involved, but alsothe general public, in view of

respecting and ensuring the proper setting of the

partnership principle at all levels of the system and at all

stages of the preparation process.

The process of fulfilling the partnership principle in the

preparation of programmes co-financed by the ESIF is

also coordinated by the Ministry of Regional

Development. The Ministry of Regional Development

recommended to the Managing Authority to involve

relevant partners from all areas of activity of the

programme. The Ministry of Regional Development

continuously monitored the implementation of the

partnership principle.

The Managing Authority of the OP TA

applies the partnership principle

mainlyin the platform of the OP TA

2014-2020 Steering Committee.The

Managing Authority of the OP TA also

takes part in the meetings of other

platformsthat implement the

partnership principle.




Note: Depending on the different institutional set-up in each Member State, some actors may carry out several functions.


75

Action taken

As mentioned above, problems of administrative capacity and staff fluctuation have been

identified as important in various studies and evaluations31. One of the changes related to

this issue is the expected adoption of a Civil Service Law (Act of Public Servants) that is to

regulate the human resources management of the staff involved in Structural Funds

implementation.

Capacity issues at beneficiary level

In the 2007-2013 programming period, problems experienced by beneficiaries were

identified at various stages in the administration of project application and implementation

(Interview Managing Authority OP TA). They included the administratively and technically

demanding application process, public procurement issues, archiving all documentation,

involving more control/audit bodies, etc. The Managing Authority OP TA provided consulting

and technical support at all levels of administration.

Capacity across the Thematic Objectives32

The OP TA 2014-2020 is not directly linked to any Thematic Objective or any Investment

Priority. By nature, the OP TA has an impact on improving the functioning of the

implementation structure, which is part of the public administration and is closely related to

Thematic Objective 11 – strengthening the institutional capacity and efficient public

administration.


No explicitly procedural issues were recorded that wereso difficult that the Managing

Authority was unable to cope with them. According to the Managing Authority, some

processes are certainly time-consuming or administratively challenging, but this relates to

the whole complex system of managing and implementing EU funds. The Managing

Authority of the OP TA believes that thecommunication with other institutions was very

good, and not only on an informal level.

Major changes in administrative structure

Whereas the structures were stable, there were frequent changes within the teams (staff

members leaving and being replaced by new staff) in both managerial and operational

positions. However, the authorities ensured that these staff changes do not result in a

capacity loss.

31 See for instance: Blažek J (2012), Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy – Czech

Republic, Expert evaluation network delivering policy analysis on the performance of Cohesion policy 2007-2013, Year 2 – 2012, Final version, A report to the European Commission; Radzyner A, Frangenheim A and Tödtling-Schönhofer H (2014) Co-financing salaries, bonuses, top-ups from Structural Funds during the 2007-2013 period, Final Report. Metis GmbH on behalf of the European Commission, DG Regio, February 2013

32 No information is available on the effectiveness of the capacities by Thematic Objective (see table ‘effectiveness

of capacities for different themes’ in the other case studies) and by level of programme authority (central

coordination, programme management, programme management) based on the interviews and research carried

out.


76

Good practice

According to the Managing Authority of the OP TA, the capacity is very effective in many

areas. Three facts were mentioned by the Managing Authority to support this statement:

The core of the professional staff implementing the programme has been

maintained, meaning that the experience gained by those individuals in the two

previous programming periods will be used to further develop human resources

capacities;

A National Coordination Authority has been established in the Ministry of Regional

Development, which is not the case in all Member States, because it is merely a

recommendation under the Regulation;

Various international seminars have been organised to exchange best practice in the

field of implementation of the EU Funds.

With regard to motivating staff, the Managing Authority of the OP TA mentions the

importance of ‘ensuring the possibility of self-fulfilment, self-education, a stable work

environment, the appreciation of one’s work, as well as financial motivation compared to

offers in the private sector’.


According to the PA, in the Czech Republic the capacity issue is considered as the highest

risk for the malfunctioning of programme implementation. The Managing Authority’splan to

stabilise the administrative capacity through the following steps:33

The Act of Public Servants must enter into force;

An adequate adjustment must be made to administrative capacity;

The amount of funds available for TA OPsmust be defined with respect to individual

years and activities;

Uniform rules for the remuneration of employees must be initiated across

implementation structures;

Uniform rules for the recruitment of employees must be implemented;

Common rules for employee evaluations and the establishment of individualised

development plans (including education) are needed;

A staff training system must be developed.

In order to increase efficiency at programme and project levels, the Managing Authorities

will commission an analysis of the administrative system that should propose mechanisms

to simplify the administrative burden through four phases: (i) calls for submitting project

applications; (ii) submission of project applications; (iii) project selection and assessment;

and (iv) project implementation. Definite deadlines are planned for the realisation of

simplifications and the creation of tools to evaluate success and failure of the simplification

measures.34

33


programming period. Czech Republic.June 2013, p.113. 34




77

Table 22: Capacity changes in the new programming period

Programme

elements

Will there be fewer or more

(new?) actors? How clearly are tasks and responsibilities assigned?

Which CP-related tasks will be integrated

into existing administrative procedures

and which will not?

Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

For the OP TA, fewer actors are

foreseen, because no Intermediate

Bodies are expected.

Tasks and responsibilities that arise for the actors from

European and national legislation will also be described in

the guidelines.

Managed by Managing Authority OP TA in cooperation with

Ministry of Regional Development-National Coordination

Authority and European Commission.

The Managing Authority OP TA will take into

account all the requirements/tasks laid down in

the CPR that are relevant for the TA.

Performance

framework



preparation



Bodies are expected. On the other

hand, some new beneficiaries will be

added.

It will be described in the documentation of the OP.

The Managing Authority OP TA will manage project

generation and preparation within a specific unit dedicated

to this task, which was setup on the basis of having a

single methodological environment in the Ministry of

Regional Development-National Coordination Authority

under the methodological guidelines for preparing the

documentation of the OP. The rules and recommendations

will be incorporated in the programme documentation.


account all the requirements laid down in the

CPR that are relevant for the TA.

Project appraisal



Bodies are expected

It will be described in the documentation of the OP.

The Managing Authority OP TA will manage project

generation and preparation within the department of

project administration, on the basis of having a single

methodological environment in the Ministry of Regional

Development-National Coordination Authority under the

methodological guidelines for preparing the

documentation of the OP. The rules and recommendations

will be incorporated in the programme documentation.




Financial

management

Roughly the same number of actors

is expected.

A specific methodology will be set up for financial

management tasks.





78

Programme

elements

Will there be fewer or more

(new?) actors? How clearly are tasks and responsibilities assigned?

Which CP-related tasks will be integrated

into existing administrative procedures

and which will not?

Monitoring

Roughly the same number of actorsis

expected.

The monitoring process will be described in the OP

documentation.

Managed by the Managing Authority OP TA in cooperation

with the Ministry of Regional Development-National

Coordination Authority.




Evaluation

Roughly the same number of actors

is expected.

A specific methodology will be set up for evaluation-

related tasks.

Managed by the Managing Authority OP TA in cooperation

with the Ministry of Regional Development-National

Coordination Authority.

Based on the experience of the 2007-2013 programming

period, the Managing Authority OP TA expects

improvements in the quality of the evaluation work.




Simplification

There will be fewer actors, as there

are fewer OPs than in the 2007-2013

programming period.

Managed by the Ministry of Regional Development-

National Coordination Authority. The Managing Authority

OP TA will incorporate rules and recommendations into

programme documentation.




Communication

with beneficiaries


foreseen, because no IBs are

expected.

A specific methodology will be set up for tasks related to

communication with beneficiaries.

Managed by the Managing Authority OP TA.




Financial

instruments


Partnership

principle

Various actors will be involvedin

relation to the partnership principle.

It is described in the PA and each OP and in other

strategic materials.

Managed by the Ministry of Regional Development-

National Coordination Authority.






79


The following changes are highlighted as positive by the Managing Authority of the OP TA:

Some simplification should be achieved by the integration of procedures into a single

methodological environment and a single monitoring structure;

The description of tasks and responsibilities has been methodically adjusted;

With regard to new actors, the changes mainly concern actors in the territorial

dimension – Integrated Territorial Investments, Integrated Plan of Territorial

Development, Community-Led Local Development (CLLD);

The number of OPs has decreased in 2014-2020, with the 2007-2013 ROPs

transformed into one OP, which will also result in a reduction in the number of

actors.


The Managing Authority of the OP TA does not expect any capacity issues to arise.

Everything is already set on the basis of the two previous programming periods. Moreover,

the actors involved are considerably more educated than was (and could have been) the

case at the beginning of the implementation of Structural Funds in the Czech Republic.

According to the EC Position Paper35, ‘the institutional environment and public

administration are considered key weaknesses of the Czech Republic’ (p.9). There is

mistrust in public administration, the political influence over civil servants is high, resulting

in significant staff turnover and dubious outsourcing that negatively affects the stability and

effectiveness of public administration. Irregularities in public procurement and sub-optimal

functioning of the management and control systems of the public administration are the

main sources of problems in the implementation of the Structural Funds in the Czech

Republic.

Despite some progress achieved in the area of e-government and administrative burden,

the Czech Republic is underperforming in terms of improving the business environment

(ease of creating start-ups and issues linked to delays in payments; low efficiency of the

civil justice system and lengthy judicial proceedings, and absence of alternative forms of

dispute resolution).

The following recommendations are included in the EC Position Paper:

To build on the positive measures of administrative capacityfrom the 2007-2013

programming period (jobs catalogue; harmonisation of remuneration/bonuses; staff

selection rules) and integrate them into a Public Servants Act. This law should be in

force at the start of the 2014-2020 implementation process;

To implement the national anti-corruption strategy, particularly those measures

directly or indirectly linked to the implementation of the ESIFunds. This process

should be monitored closely and be evaluated at the appropriate time;

To reflect on how sound financial management principles could be further enhanced

by the application of simplification, better coordination of funds and programmes, a

reduction in administrative costs and burdens for the beneficiaries and, for Cohesion

policy, the wider use of e-cohesion possibilities;

35

European Commission (2012) Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership

Agreement and programmes in the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020, 30/10/2012.


80

To increase the use of electronic systems within the e-cohesion principles (full

electronic exchange between the beneficiaries and the authorities, the ‘only once’

encoding principle, enhanced use of electronic signature, sharing of documents of

common interest within electronic storage systems, inter-operability of the systems)

with a view to decreasing the administrative burden for beneficiaries as well as

reducing the administrative workload for the authorities concerned.

According to the Managing Authority of the OP TA, actions taken to improve administrative

capacity based on the European Commission’s critiques are as follows:

The methodical guide for human resources development will be adopted by the

government and will be in line with the Public Service Act. The Public Service Act

should be in force from 1 January 2016. This issue is also tackled at horizontal level

– there are mandatory requirements for putting in place a code of ethics (the

example of this code is attached to the ‘Methodical Instruction for the development

of human resources in the 2014-2020 programming period and in the 2007-2013

programming period’, which is a part of a single methodological environment;

The above-mentioned methodical guide for human resources development follows

the anti-fraud and anti-corruption government strategy and also the anti-fraud and

anti-corruption strategy for the 2014-2020 programming period. According to the

OP TA, the anti-corruption strategy is carried out at three levels – the national policy

level, the ESIF level, and the level of the OP TA. Only the last level (OP TA) is

directly influenced by the OP TA conditions, which in the field of anti-corruption

measures will follow the ‘Strategy for anti-fraud and anti-corruption in drawing

funds under the SSR in 2014-2020’ and its related action plan. The latter strategy is

a document governing anti-fraud and anti-corruption in all areas of management

and implementation of the ESIF. The strategy is in line with the 2007-2013

regulations in force in the Czech Republic and the EU regarding anti-fraud and anti-

corruption. The main objective of the strategy is to minimise fraud in the

implementation of the ESIF in the 2014-2020 programming period. The anti-

corruption strategy is complemented by the ‘Guidelines for Risk Management’, which

are part of the single methodological environment, whereby the risk of corruption in

implementing the ESIF will be monitored and evaluated. For the Czech Republic, the

equivalent key strategic document is the ‘Anti-corruption strategy of the

Government for the 2013-2014 programming period’;

The management and control system of the OP TA already incorporates elements

which by their nature (i.e. multi-stage approval, collective decision-making,

publication of results, etc.) prevent the possibility of a corrupt environment or

indirect favouritism, ensured by the automatic control elements in the OP in the

form of internal management controls. Following the above-mentioned government

strategy, as well as the ‘Anti-corruption programme Ministry of Regional

Development, anti-corruption measures have been adopted by the Managing

Authority of the OP TA. They primarily translate intoan effort to build a stable

organisational team and the selection of staff according to established rules. Every

employee of the department is familiar with the Code of Ethics, and professional

training is related to their job responsibilities. The Ministry of Regional Development

regularly identifies, updates and evaluates the risk of internal fraud and corruption;

Sound financial management at the horizontal level is the main responsibility of the

Audit Authority, which will be a beneficiary under Priority Area 1 (Specific Objective

1) of the OP TA;

The Monitoring system 2014+ is designed in accordance with the

requirements/principles of e-cohesion, when most of the documents will be placed

and retained electronically on the system, possibly utilising electronic signatures.


81

The system enables the recording and management of a large number of

attachments, and the distribution and display of different types of users (depending

on their role), and it also allows for downloading and other similar functions. The

system also respects the principle of attaching embedded versions of documents,

saved with a time stamp and always associated with the object (programme,

operations, project) for which they were saved. Speeding up the administrative

process and reducing the cost of printing and saving should ensure the use of

electronic communication and data exchange (including electronic signature) for the

full replacement of the paper circulation of relevant documents between all subjects

in the implementation process. In parallel, the system will manage all structured

and unstructured information according to the rules defined for information sources

to be saved for the longterm (long-term trusted archive).


82


83

5. CASE STUDY - ESTONIA


The PA was approved by the Government of Estonia on 25 February 2014 and submitted to

the European Commission on 28 February 2014 (the OP was submitted on 2 March 2014).

No official comments had beenreceived at the time of the interview, as the communication

had been unofficial. Official European Commission comments were expected in May 2014.

The PA and the OP were expected to be approved in the third quarter of 2014. A new

approach of top-down strategic planning has been introduced. The planning process started

by defining the most appropriate development needs for the whole country and ended with

a carefully analysed list of thematic priorities. This holistic strategic approachis considered

to be the most important novelty, the aim of whichhas been to get an overall view of

strategic planning, as well as to better integrate EU funding into fulfilling the overall

strategic objectives of Estonia.

A centrally coordinated planning process was an advantage on the one hand, as it allowed a

strategic focus to be retained throughout the whole process, but in some cases it

preventedsectoral ministries from taking full responsibility for the final result of the

process. The Ministry of Finance, as a leader of the process, was in many cases dictating

decision-making and addressing thematic areas (in the opinion of sectoral ministries).

Nevertheless, with one OP and one PA for the whole country, achieving focus and

coherence between different thematic priorities was only possible under a centralised

coordination process. Perhaps the management of information flows could have been better

planned and managed, as the range of stakeholders was very large, and this may be one of

the main reasons why the sectoral ministries were not always satisfied with the leadership

of the Ministry of Finance.

The involvement of stakeholders was better organised than ever before – the Ministry of

Finance had learned from previous processes. For the whole involvement process, a tender

was launched to find a company to organise communication flows between the Ministry of

Finance and stakeholders. The consultation process involved two levels: consultation on the

OP and the PA was the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance (with technical support from

a consultancy company), whereasthe thematic areas were the responsibility of sectoral

ministries. This organisation guaranteed full involvement of all stakeholders and enabled

discussions on contextual topics.

For the first time, an ex-ante evaluation was provided in parallel with the planning process

in the year before submitting the PA. This enabled the Ministry of Finance as main

responsible body to improve the quality of the PA, by strengthening the coherence of the

thematic priorities as well as the supporting measures. The opinion of ex-ante experts

significantly influenced the process and wasan important support in compiling a high-

quality PA.

The definition of smart specialisation areas provided guidance to the sectoral ministries

regarding the areas with greatest potential for economic growth and helped to focus the PA

on those areas.


84


The PA complemented the holistic strategic planning approach that Estonia followed in

planning the EU funds for 2014-2020. As the PA includes the Structural Funds, the

Cohesion Fund, EAFRD and EMFF, it made central and holistic strategic planning for Estonia

easier. The PA development was a positive exercise, but the engagement of several

different public institutions and stakeholders sometimes added to the complexity of the

consultation and discussion processes. Nevertheless, the main added value of the PA can

be seen in the common approach to the planning process and in the creationof synergies on

a strategic level, as well as encouraging consultation and close cooperation among different

types of partners from varying thematic areas.

Thematic orientation

Thematic areas in the PA are better focused than in the 2007-2013 period. Planning the

thematic areas for the 2014-2020 programming period started with conceptual analyses of

Estonian strategic long-term needsin order to address social challenges and generate

economic growth. Afterwards, all strategic development needs were equipped with a list of

possible solutions. From these solutions, the most appropriate and promising ones were

chosen and thematic priorities were developed.

Defining smart specialisation areas forced policy-makers to find the most promising areas

supporting economic growth. It created discussion among policy-makers, academia and the

private sector. Finally, the smart specialisation areas were included in the Research,

Development and Innovation strategy and the entrepreneurship growth strategy 2014-

2020, which helped to retain public attention and support. By contrast, the smart

specialisation areas were not integrated into any other thematic areas in the OP. The

success of thesmart specialisation areas will strongly depend on the implementation tools.


As the holistic view in developing the PA and the OP was being applied for the first time,

the whole process was difficult and produced several discussions. The planning process

started with the identification of Estonia’s strategic development needs in all areas. At this

stage, no funding sources were taken into consideration – the main idea was to map the

real development needs that the country was planning to tackle and the instruments and

ways to do so. At the second stage, the Thematic Objectives were discussed in relation to

fulfilling the development needs. This is where the most difficult discussions took place. The

main problem was that sectoral ministries had to change their traditional way of thinking;

instead of seeing only a narrow range of their own sectoral needs, the whole country

(strategic picture) had to be considered. This motivated the sectoral ministries to

understand the challenges and development needs faced in other sectors. The agreements

reached in the end were seen as a breakthrough, as a number of cross-sectoral objectives

were set up, which also requires the sectoral ministries to cooperate in implementing the

Thematic Objectives.

With regard to the implementation of the EU Strategy of the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR),

the PA includes information about coordination of activities, sharing information and

avoiding duplication in functions and funding internally, but international cooperation is not

discussed. The PA acknowledges that EUSBSR priorities were taken into account during the

planning process, as these priorities are significantly financed by EU Funds.


85


The majority of ex-ante conditionalities are fulfilled. At the time of writing, some action

plans, training plans and sectoral strategies were still in preparation or being updated.

There is an action plan to fulfil the ex-ante conditionalities, which is under the supervision

of the Ministry of Finance. The fulfilment of all ex-ante conditionalitieswas expected to be

completed within a few months.


Commission

Nothing special can be highlighted. The main comments and open questions were normally

resolved during informal consultations, leaving the official consultation to focus on

agreementsin major areas or formalities.



There is one OP in Estonia for 2014-2020 covering all the thematic areas as well as the

entire territory of Estonia, which isa NUTS 1 region. In 2007-2013, there were three

thematic OPs, but to gain better thematic coherence and more efficient management it was

decided that only one OP should be prepared for 2014-2020. The main challenge in

implementinga single OP lies with the ability of ministries to cooperate in the

implementation of thematic areas, which cover issues falling under the responsibility of

several ministries. A good example is the implementation of R&D and entrepreneurship

priorities (Priority Axes 4 and 5 in the OP), which must be coordinated between the Ministry

of Education and Research and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. The

funding plan is agreed and approved by the government and included in the PA.

Table 23: Funding allocations of thematic areas per ESI Fund(€ million)

Themes ERDF ESF CF EAFRD EMMF Total

1) Innovation 642 0 0 20 663

2) ICT 85 0 0 0 0 85

3) SME 301 0 0 273 0 575

4) Low-carbon economy 49 0 247 14 0 310

5) Climate change adaptation 0 0 56 122 0 178

6) Env. protection & resource efficiency 0 0 254 122 0 376

7) Sustainable transport & networks 0 0 476 0 0 476

8) Employment and labour mobility 166 228 0 66 0 460

9) Social inclusion and combating poverty 254 134 0 70 0 458

10) Education, skills and lifelong learning 218 195 0 9 0 422

11) Institutional capacity 89 30 0 0 0 119

Technical Assistance 69 0 40 29 0 138

Total 1874 587 1073 726 0 4260



86


The one and only OP was prepared and submitted to the European Commission at the

beginning of March 2014. The OP was drawn up in accordance with the principle that the

EU Funds represent one-off leverage to achieve significant changes in Estonia. Their use

should bring about a shift in development, increasing the efficiency, effectiveness or quality

of target achievements in an area, sector or industry, and lead to positive long-term impact

(e.g. initiation and implementation of structural reforms and key initiatives/projects).

The OP is based on the following principles:

Funds should be focused on a limited number of important strategic objectives, in

order to achieve significant changes, and improvement of capacity and better

coordination;

Planning should take into account the long-term impact of activities and

implementation capacity.

The funding priorities were chosen and the alternatives were compared using the following

selection criteria, which clarified the above principles:

compliance with the objectives and main courses of action of the ‘Estonia 2020’

National Reform Programme;

opportunities for international cooperation and value-added at the EU level;

(co)effect across policy areas;

increase in the leverage effect and preparedness for the future;

sufficient concentration of funds; and

availability of suitable alternative funding options.

Based on the above, the focus of the OP is on investments that contribute to the central

objectives of the 'Estonia 2020' National Reform Programme. The setting of output and

result indicators has been a major challenge in the preparation of the OP.

Both OP and Priority Axis indicators have been set, but they need further adjustment. The

main difficulties encountered related to setting indicators that were sufficiently ambitious

and defining indicators in a way thatwould really measure progress. In many cases, the

indicators were repeatedly redefined, and the ex-ante evaluation team provided significant

assistancein this task.

The main simplification measure described in the PAis the simplification of the application

process. The aim is to make the application process easier and faster for the applicant. First

of all, the application submission process will be fully electronic, making communication

between the applicant and administration easier and quicker. Secondly, a number of small

simplification measures will be implemented, such as enabling advance payments to the

applicant, introducing unified unit costs, and consulting applicants.


87


First, in 2007-2013 there were three OPs for (i) development of human resources, (ii)

development of the economic environment, and (iii) development of the living environment.

In 2014-2020, there will be only one OP covering all the thematic areas as well as the

whole geographic area of Estonia. Second, due to the holistic, strategic approach in 2014-

2020, there are cross-sectoral Thematic Objectives, whichmean that implementationneeds

better collaboration between the different ministries. For Estonia, this is a challenge, as

inter-ministerial cooperation has not been effective so far. In addition, the lack of sufficient

coherence between the thematic areas in Estonia has always been criticised, and it should

therefore beimproved in the2014-2020 OP.


There has not been any political instability and the implementation structures and the

capacity will remain the same in general. The only major change is that in 2014-2020 there

will be one OP instead of three OPs as in 2007-2013, and therefore the former single

political level of ‘OP leading ministries’ will be lost. In the same light, the number of

second-level implementing agencies will be reduced in order to simplify the implementation

system.


The government’s role in the preparations for the 2014-2020 programming period has been

to approve thematic areas and funding allocations, as well as the PA and the OP. The

government also approves the implementation process and the Structural Funds Act, which

lays down the overall legal framework for the implementation of EU Funds in Estonia.

Lower-level legal acts (for implementation of programmes and measures, as well as

horizontal legal acts) are the responsibility of ministers of sectoral ministries. Monitoring

and evaluation as well as an auditing system will generally be set out in the Structural

Funds Act, and implementation guidelines and regulations will be issued by the Minister of

Finance.


influence

The European Commission’s comments/recommendations were taken into account.


88

Table 24: Implementation assessment - Preparation for programme-cycle stages and elements

Programme




Expected time frame

and management

structure?

Strategic

programming/


Completed Complicated due to

many stakeholders, the

centralised approach to

the planning process,

and the holistic

strategic planning

approach.

+ Centrally coordinated process

+ stakeholders involvement

process

+ holistic strategic planning

approach

- management of information flows

could have been better organised

- sectoral ministries could have

been better consulted.

Ministry of Finance.

Performance

framework

In general, remains the same.

Some simplifications will be

provided.

N/A Simplifications will be essential to

ensure a smooth management and

monitoring process.

Ministry of Finance;

monitoring is on-going

process.


preparation

Programmes and support

measures are being prepared;

first support measures have been

informally submitted to the

Ministry of Finance for

consultation.

Too early to judge. A precondition for projects/support

measures is the existence of proper

strategic plans.

Sectoral ministries,


process is on-going.

Project appraisal

Implementation system is in

place, but no real appraisals have

been provided yet.

Not difficult, as the

implementation system

remained the same in

general.

Well-functioning implementation

system, and the application

process will be simplified.



Financial plans are agreed and

approved by the government.The

Certification Authority has been

Merged with the Management

Authority.

Always difficult, as it

was a question of

allocation of funds.

The system remains the same. Ministry of Finance.

Control mechanism

Will remain the same. No difficulties, as there

will be no substantial

changes.

Proper legislation and procedures

in place.



89

Programme




Expected time frame

and management

structure?

Monitoring

The system will in general remain

the same.

No difficulties, as there


changes.

More site visits would give better

feedback on the use of funds.


Evaluation

The system will in general remain

the same.

No difficulties, as there


changes.

More policy and programme

implementation/impact evaluations

would give more justified feedback

on implementation.


Simplification

In progress. Not difficult. The need is

there, and all

simplification measures

are realistic.

Easier and quicker processes and

less bureaucracy will increase the

speed with which ESIFunds are

implemented,

Ministry of Finance,

sectoral ministries.

Communication

channels

Broadly the same, no substantial

changes.

N/A Communication has to be visible

every day and especially during the

implementation period.




In progress. Too early to judge. Financial instruments have been

used in a very limited number of

support measures (loans and

guarantees only). In general, they

have been successful, which

encourages looking for additional

possibilities for future use.



Completed Difficult, due to many

stakeholders and a

number of different

opinions.

More active participation of

stakeholders in the early stage of

planning process is an advantage

for the whole process.





90

5.4 Capacity issues – Lessons learned


Programme Elements Central

coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)



+++ ++ ++

Performance framework ++ ++ ++


preparation

N/A ++ N/A

Project appraisal N/A ++ ++

Financial management +++ ++ ++

Monitoring ++ ++ +

Evaluation ++ + N/A

Simplification ++ + +

Communication with

beneficiaries

++ ++ ++

Financial instruments ++ ++ ++

Partnership principle ++ ++ ++


functions.


Action taken

The ex-ante evaluation of 2014-2020 as well as the interim evaluation of 2007-2013

confirmed that the implementation system is strong enough to successfully fulfil its

functions. The interim evaluation underlined the following main findings:

there are some overlaps in the implementation system in terms of activities;

the number of staff in administration could in some cases be higher;

the management structure is not always clearly communicated to all staff of the

administration;

double-control and reporting is sometimes too time-consuming and ineffective;

the importance of monitoring and evaluation is sometimes underestimated;

the decision-making process is sometimes inefficient.

The main recommendations to solve these minor problems were:

to simplify the system by reducing the number of second-level implementing

agencies;

to remove the level of lead ministries;

to centralise monitoring function;

to strengthen the different management levels in one institution; and

to reduce the number of departments in the Ministry of Finance conducting

Managing Authority functions.


91

All these recommendations have been addressed in the PAand the2014-2020 OP.

Good practice

Since joining the EU and implementing its first period of EU Funds in 2004-2006, Estonia’s

most important basis for successful implementation was to havea level of irregularitiesthat

was lower than 5% of the whole EU Funds budget for Estonia. The fulfilment of this

principle required the creation of a strong implementation system with efficient monitoring

and control systems. One very effective monitoring tool is on-the-spot checks, which

helps to see clearly whether a project manager is keen on implementing the project,

whether the project is progressing well and that the level of implementation corresponds to

that declared in the report, and what the potential result of the project is. Despite the cost

and time consumption of on-the-spot checks, this is still the most effective way to

understand the real implementation stage of a project.

The recent mid-term evaluation of the Structural Funds 2010-2013 concluded that, in 2010,

0.0203 crones were spent for the administration of one crone of support invested.36


Weak capacity of active participation both in programming/planning and in the

implementation processes has been observed especially in the case of NGOs, which are

organisations based on voluntary participation, often lacking specialised knowledge in

relation to applications for EU funding. Although the situation has improved considerably,

the participation of NGOs in applying for Structural Funds support/participating in projects

may still be hampered. Consultations with applicants before they submit applications

(which are also one of the simplification measures) will help NGOs to prepare better

applications.

Capacity across Thematic Objectives



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation - - --

2) ICT + + +

3) SME + + +

4) Low-carbon economy - - -

5) Climate change adaptation + + +


efficiency

+ + +


networks

+ + +


mobility

N/A N/A N/A


combating poverty

N/A N/A N/A


lifelong learning

N/A N/A N/A


Source: Interview conducted by Metis, April 2014. Legend: -- least effective, - not effective; + effective; ++ very effective; N/A not applicable

36

Estonia joined the Eurozone on 1 January 2011.


92

Steps to prioritise the need for innovation were taken in the recent Research, Development

and Innovation strategy 2014-20. According to the strategy, every sectoral ministry will

have an R&D councillor and an R&D action plan in that particular area. In addition, The

Government Office of Estonia is planning to introduce a training programme on innovation

for the public sector's top executives. This should increase the knowledge and motivation of

top managers in the public sector, and it would serve as one important precondition for

innovation in the public sector.

Low-carbon economy (or green economy) has been discussed substantially, but no real

actions have been taken horizontally. Issues such as green procurement, zero-energy

public housing and zero-energy public transport have been discussed, but the discussions

will have to be translated into concrete actions.

With a view to improving resource efficiency, this theme has been selected as one area for

smart specialisation. It includes topics such as material technology, functional food, more

effective use of oil-shale, and resource-efficient construction. Demand-side innovation

policy instruments are planned to be used in this area, in order to boost demand and to

introduce resource-efficient approaches in general.

It is clear from Table 26: that there is no theme where capacity is very effective. This is a

problem that is specific to the small size of this country and limited human resources, but it

also reflects the overall approach of the public sector of not using external knowledge in

policy planning.


No significant issues with regard to capacity have been identified yet. Perhaps in some

cases, or in certain periods when the support measures were launched and many project

applications needed to be addressed, the capacity of human resources in the second-level

implementing agencies was considered problematic. But such management problems were

quickly resolved. Sometimes, procedures were also seen as bottlenecks – especially in ESF

measures, where small office costs had to be justified – but issues of this type

wereresolved through the simplification of procedures.


No substantial changes have been made in the administrative structures within the past

few years. A couple of mergers between public authorities implementing EU funds took

place in order to increase resource and management efficiency. However, all positions

related to the implementation of EU funds were maintained, and the management and

control systems were retained. One example is the transfer of functions of the Public

Procurement Office under the Ministry of Finance procurement department.

Another merger took place in the environmental sector, where the Estonian Meteorology

Institute and the Environmental Information Centre were merged into the Estonian

Environmental Agency.

Examples of administrative procedures and/or capacity development measures

which can be recommended as good practice

Despite the fact that they have been characterised as highly time-consuming and resource-

intensive, on-the-spot checks are seen as the most valuable tool for identifying the success

of a project by the Estonian authorities, given that they help to verify that a project is on

the best path to achieving its objectives in the most effective manner.


93


In general, the implementation system will remain unchanged. The following changes,

recommended in the mid-term evaluation of 2007-2013, have already been made:

the system has been simplified by reducing the number of second-level

implementing agencies;

the level of lead ministries has been removed;

the monitoring function is now centralised;

the different management levels have been strengthened; and

the number of departments in the Ministry of Finance with Management Authority

functions of has been reduced (Certifying Authority merged with Managing

Authority).


Programme

Elements

Will there be

fewer or more

(new?)

actors?



Which CP-related tasks

will be integrated into

existing administrative

procedures and which

will not?

Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

No changes. N/A All Cohesion Policy-

related tasks are

integrated into existing

administrative procedures

in all categories.

Performance

framework

No changes. Management and control

systems of the entire

administration as well as


N/A

Project

generation /

preparation





N/A

Project

appraisal





N/A

Financial

management

Certifying

Authority is

merged with

Management

Authority.

Management and control




N/A

Monitoring

Fewer actors. Management and control




N/A

Evaluation

Fewer actors. Management and control




N/A


94

Programme

Elements

Will there be

fewer or more

(new?)

actors?







will not?

Simplification

No new actors,

tasks will be

divided between

existing actors.

All responsibilities are described

in the action plan.

N/A

Communication

with

beneficiaries





N/A

Financial

instruments

No changes. N/A N/A

Partnership

principle





N/A



The structure of the implementation system has been simplified, the lead-ministry level has

been eliminated, the number of implementing bodies has been reduced, and some

functions are now centralised (including supervision and monitoring at the level of the

Operational Programme). As a result, the number of tasks, which are concurrently

performed by institutions of various levels (or by various departments) and whose

components (activities to be performed in the Structural Funds implementation system)

have been delegated downwards by several levels, will be reduced for several functions.

There will be no new actors in the system. Given that the implementation system was

regarded as quite effective (mid-term evaluation of the Structural Funds, conducted in

2011), and that further efficiency measures have been or are intended to be taken, the

implementation system can be deemed to be strong. For clarity of management Managing

Authority and responsibilities, there are two levels of management and control systems: at

the Managing Authority level as well as at the implementation authority level. Specific

procedures concerning application and project management processes are described in

legal acts issued by the sectoral ministers.


The Estonian EU funds implementation system has been running quite smoothly for 10

years. As no major changes are planned for 2014-2020, no major capacity issues are

expected. Still, the practice so far has shown that, at a certain point of EU funds

implementation, where many support measures and programmes are launched at the same

time, the implementing agencies may experience a lack of human resources. This can be

avoided with better communication between the Managing Authority and implementing

agencies as well as better planning of activities.

Secondly, the Managing Authority and sectoral ministries could plan more policy

evaluations during the implementation period. There is no strong tradition of policy

evaluation in Estonia – some evaluations are provided by the ministries, and some are

purchased from the market, but in most cases no evaluations of policy impact, results or

success are provided. The quality of evaluations and analyses provided by the ministries

vary widely – the knowledge and methodologies of the ministries’ analysts are very

different. To strengthen the strategic planning cycle and move towards evidence-based

policy planning, more external policy evaluations would be recommended.


95

Relevance of the assessment made by the European Commission on the status of


The implementation system of EU funds in 2014-2020 will broadly remain the same as in

2007-2013. Nevertheless, a number of smaller adjustments to strengthen the functioning

of the system also address the recommendations raised in the EC Position Paper.37 First of

all, the application process will be simplified and speeded up, becoming fully electronic. The

existing management information system will also be developed and extended. Secondly,

the implementation system has been simplified through the mergerof the Certifying

Authority and the Managing Authority, as well as the elimination of the level of lead

ministries. This also requires harmonising the working processes of the administration –

they will be made more precise and clear.

The involvement of national, regional and local partners during the programming process of

2014-2020 was organised better than in previous rounds. The consultation process was

provided on two main levels: the Ministry of Finance had responsibility on the OP and PA

level, whereas the sectoral ministries had to consult with their partners regarding support

measures and programmes. On the OP and PA level, the Ministry of Finance hired a

consultant company to support and conduct the consultation process – the technical part of

the process was handled by the consultant company, allowing the Ministry to concentrate

on thematic topics. All the larger organisations such as local governments, industry and

NGOs were represented and consulted.

The planning, tracking and reporting of climate-related expenditure are coordinated for all

ESI Funds, in accordance with the methodology developed by the Commission. In practical

terms, this means a categorisation of OP expenditure. The 2014-2020 Structural Assistance

Act also includes the regulation of horizontal issues, including climate change and

environment. The Ministry of Environment is preparing a standard questionnaire to track

whether support measures or programmes relate to climate change or environmental

issues. All support measures and programmes must complete this questionnaire.

In cases where the support measure or programme is related to climate change or any

other environmental issue, the support measure/programme needs approval from the

Ministry of Environment.

In order to reinforce the capacity of beneficiaries and partners, training and consultations

are planned (during the application process and project implementation). Funding for this

activity is foreseen from TA. This also requires preliminary training of administrative staff,

in relation to which training plans are already under preparation. In addition, a Structural

Funds management information system will be developed to simplify the application

process.

37European Commission (2012) Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership Agreement

and programmes in ESTONIA for the period 2014-2020, 30/10/2012.


96


97

6. CASE STUDY - FINLAND


The Finnish Government approved the PA on 23 January 2014 to be submitted to the

European Commission for approval.

In 2007-2013, the Finnish NSRF had an important role in aligning and integrating the

regional ERDF programmes and the ESF programme. The PA for 2014-2020 goes a step

furtherbyfacilitating a more integrated approach across the different funds and avoiding

overlaps. However, as there will be only one national programme for ERDF and ESF in

Finland in 2014-2020, there is less need to emphasisethe integration of Structural Funds

programmes. Overall, the introduction of the PA is considered to be advantageous,

although there is less agreement about whether the instrument has been used to the most

beneficial extent possible in the Finnish EU funds environment.


Concerning the thematic orientation, the following Thematic Objectives were chosen:

TO 3, Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (40%

of ERDF);

To 1, Strengthening research, technological development and innovation (53% of

ERDF);

TO 4, Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors (25% of

ERDF);38

TO 8, Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility (47% of ESF);

TO 10, Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning (33% of ESF);

TO 9, Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty (20% of ESF).

In general, the priority and financial weight given to the three ESF priorities will not

change, butsocial inclusion will be given more emphasis than before (funds will be

earmarked for this priority). From the four ERDF priorities, support for innovation and

knowledge will be the highest priority. Increasing regional accessibility will not be given as

much priority as in 2007-2013, and it will only be implemented in Eastern and Northern

Finland. The main drivers for change have been Finland’s decreased Structural Funds'

allocation and the European Commission's requirements. Supporting innovation and

knowledge is seen as an effective way to improve regional development outcomes. The

emphasis on innovation and knowledge development also marks a shift from direct

business aid to support for the business and innovation environment. Finally, in 2014-2020,

‘supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy’ will be introduced as a completely new

priority in Finland.

38

25% of ERDF funding towards ‘supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors’ is integrated

within Priorities 1 and 2 of the Operational Programme, which are: P1 – Enhancing access to and use and quality of information and communication technologies; P2 – Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises.


98


The ex-ante conditionalities have been fulfilled. This took place without any major issues.

There has been some refinement of the smart specialisation strategies on the basis of the

European Commission’s feedback.



The informal consultation with the European Commission was conducted on good terms.

Feedback received from the European Commission as part of the PA drafting process was

regarded as useful. The issues under discussion mostly concerned accessibility and the

possibility to fund infrastructure projects in the new period.



In the 2014-2020 programming period, there will be onlyone national programme,

integrating ERDF and ESF. The number of programmes will change significantly, from five

(four regional ERDF and one national ESF programme) in 2007-2013 to one in 2014-2020,

although the national programme will have two regional plans (one plan for Northern and

Eastern Finland, and another plan for Western and Southern Finland). A single multi-fund

programme is considered better to enable the integration of funds, while reducing

administrative costs.

The preparation and implementation of the programme is the responsibility of the two

regions (Northern and Eastern Finland; Western and Southern Finland). This means that

both regions prepared regional plans which fed into the national OP; and project proposals,

approvals and guidance will take place at the regional level. In addition, there are

designated national themes (prepared by the ministries) that facilitate projects with

national coverage. The three national themes are knowledge and innovation networks

(ERDF), low-carbon economy (ERDF) and employment, knowledge and social inclusion

(ESF).

The allocation of funding to the regional plans was made on the basis of a regional

proposal. The proposal, which was approved by the government, was developed in

collaboration with the regional councils and the Centres for Economic Development,

Transport and the Environment. On the basis of this proposal, Eastern and Northern Finland

are due to receive approximately 71% of the funding (equivalent of €206 million), while

Western and Southern Finland will receive 29% (equivalent of €85 million). The island of

Åland will be allocated 0.5% (equivalent of €1.3 million). The national themes were

allocated 10% of ERDF funding (approximately €13 million) and 25% of ESF funding

(approximately €32 million). The funding is therefore concentrated on the regions.39

The Ministry of Employment and the Economy will continue as the Managing Authority of

the Finnish OP in 2014-20. Changes have, however, been introduced at the regional level.

The changes particularly concern the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the

Environment (ELY). These are Intermediate Bodies alongside the regional councils at the

regional level and responsible for project calls, preparation, decisions, monitoring, payment

decisions and on-the-spot checks. There are 15 ELY-Centres across the country.

39

Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2013) Talouspoliittinen ministerivaliokunta teki linjaukset tulevalle

rakennerahastokaudelle, Tiedote 2013. http://www.tem.fi/alueiden_kehittaminen/tiedotteet_alueiden_kehittaminen?89522_m=110551

http://www.tem.fi/alueiden_kehittaminen/tiedotteet_alueiden_kehittaminen?89522_m=110551


99

However, in 2014-2020 only four of these ELY-Centres are to specialise in the management

of Structural Funds (alongside the regional councils), while the other ELY-Centres will

function as regional development entities (essentially as the firstpoint of contact for the

beneficiaries and assisting in the preparation of projects which are subsequently decided

upon by the specialised ELY) and continue to cooperate closely with the four specialised

ELY-Centres. The more streamlined management pursued as part of the reform is in line

with the decreased Structural Funds and drive towards cost-efficiency in Finland. The aims

of the reform include: improved synergies between project activities and the OP as a whole,

improved project results and impacts, more flexible use of funding, more efficient steering

and management of Structural Funds processes, faster handling times and more cost-

efficient management. Following the practice of the ELY-Centre reform, similar changes are

expected to take place within the regional councils. At the time of writing, coordinating

regional councils had been named. However, there will be differences between the two

regional plans. In the North and East Finland area, all councils will remain as Intermediate

Bodies and only reporting and some other tasks will be given to the coordinating councils.

In the South and West Finland area, the coordinating councils will also take over payment

and funding decisions. At the time of writing, the discussions had still to be finalised.


Finland will have one joint ERDF/ESF programme with two regional plans, one for East and

North Finland (which together form one NUTS 2 region) and one for South and West

Finland (composed of three NUTS 2 regions of Helsinki-Uusimaa, South Finland and West

Finland). Compared to the 2007-2013 period, there will be increased emphasis on

supporting innovation and knowledge, less support for regional accessibility (in contrast to

2007-2013, the ‘increasing regional accessibility’Priority will only be implemented in

Eastern and Northern Finland), and the establishment of a Priority for low-carbon economy.

Main differences between the 2007-2013 and the 2014-2020 programmes

The development of the different programme elements, such as strategy, indicators and

targets, financial tables and simplification measures, has been completed. Lessons from the

2007-2013programming period were used as a basis in the development process. With

respect to the indicators and targets, the development started at an early stage. The

number of indicators has increased, and they have also become more developed (or,

depending on interpretation, more complex). The indicator set has been broadened with a

view to measuring increasingly more developments, but there is some concern that data

collection and reporting tasks will become more onerous as a result. The OP was approved

by the Finnish Government on 23 January 2014, and was submitted to the European

Commission in March 2014.

Finland has a long tradition of a relatively strong region-based approach to development in

comparison to many other countries with centralised administrations. However, in recent

years, the role of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy in the management of EU

programmes is perceived (particularly from the regional perspective) to have increased,

while other ministries are considered to have become less important. The only exception to

this is the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, which may have a stronger role in future,

given the focus on the prevention of poverty under the ESF Funds.


100


The financial crisis has had an impact on administration and capacity in the sense that

there has been a shift towards a more streamlined administration in order to make

economic savings. Financial pressuresare particularly visible in the administrative reforms

implemented for the 2014-2020 programming period (see discussion above on the

concentration of tasks on four specialised ELY-Centres and coordinating regional councils).

In addition, the Managing Authority has reduced the TA budget from 4% to 3%, which is

going to affect the number of people employed across the Intermediate Bodies (ELY-

Centres and regional councils), but also at the level of the Ministry.


Programme

elements

State of

implementa

tion

How

difficult has

the process

been?

Lessons learned?

Expected time frame

and management

structure?

Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

Completed No comments. The 2007-2013 period was

used as a basis for the

strategy and themes. As a

result of reduced funding

for 2014-2020, there are

fewer objectives than was

the case in 2007-2013,

although they are more

focused.

The Finnish OP for 2014-2020

is built on two regional plans

(Northern and Eastern

Finland; Western and

Southern Finland) prepared

by the regions, and national

themes prepared by the

ministries. The strategy and

themes have been

completed.

Performance

framework

Completed (as

part of the

OP).

No comments. N/A The Managing Authority is

responsible for the

performance framework.

Project

generation /

preparation

Advanced No comments. Practice from 2007-2013 is

largely expected to continue

into 2014-20.

The project generation

process normally starts

within the Regional

Management Committees,40

although in practice it is the

coordinating ELY-Centres and

regional councils that lead

the process, particularly

when it comes to project

preparation, etc.

Project

appraisal

Advanced No comments. Practice from 2007-2013 is

largely expected to continue

into 2014-20.

Intermediate Bodies (i.e. the

regional councils and ELY-

Centres). Project appraisal

will start when the first

project applications are

submitted.

Financial

management

Completed No comments. N/A The Managing Authority is

responsible for the overall

financial management of the

OP. The financial

management set-up has been

established in the OP.

40

Regional Management Committees (RMC) are statutory bodies in the regions and are responsible for

coordinating the implementation of national and EU co-funded plans and agreements relating to regional development. One of the key tasks of the Committees is the approval of the annual regional cooperation document, which sets out how EU and national funds are allocated to the financing authorities and to the projects.


101

Programme

elements

State of

implementa

tion

How

difficult has

the process

been?

Lessons learned?

Expected time frame

and management

structure?

Control

mechanism

Completed No comments. N/A The Managing Authority is

responsible for related tasks.

Tasks related to the control

mechanism have been

established in the OP.

Monitoring

Completed Complex The number of indicators

has risen, and the general

view is that they have

become more complex.

The Managing Authority has

developed the indicators in

cooperation with the

Intermediate Bodies. These

tasks have been completed in

the OP.

Evaluation

Completed No major

issues.

N/A The Managing Authority is

responsible for coordinating

evaluation activities (e.g. ex-

ante). The ex-ante evaluation

has been completed.

Simplification

Completed Mixed views

between

central level

and regional

level. There

was plenty of

focus on

simplification,

but some

regions

consider that

very little has

changed in

practice.

Simplified costs (flat rates

and lump sums) were

introduced in 2007-2013

and will be used in 2014-

2020 (only in exceptional

circumstances can the

former receipt-based model

be used).

The Managing Authority has

been responsible for

introducing simplification

measures.

Communicatio

n channels

Completed As a result of

reduced

funding,

communicatio

n is largely

web-based.

Web-based services offered

in 2007-2013have been

further developed for the

2014-2020 period.

The Managing Authority and

Intermediate Bodies are

responsible for

communication activities. The

Managing Authority is

responsible for overseeing

centralised web-services.

New web-services were made

public on 1 April 2014.

Financial

instruments

Completed No comments. N/A N/A

Partnership

principle

Completed No issues. Partnership worked well in

the previous period, and

this has been used as a

basis for the future.

N/A



102

6.4 Capacity issues - lessons learned


Programme management level Central

coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)


thematic concentration + + +

Performance framework - + +


preparation + + +

Project appraisal + + +

Financial management ++ ++ +

Monitoring + + +

Evaluation + + +

Simplification + - -

Communication with

beneficiaries - + +

Financial instruments + + +

Partnership principle + + +



Capacities are generally rated as sufficiently effective across the different actors involved in

Structural Funds coordination, programme management and implementation. Weak ratings

occur at the level of central coordination, concerning performance framework and

communication with the beneficiaries. Similarly, weak ratings are noted at the level of

programme management and programme implementation concerning simplification issues.

No specific action had been taken to remedy these issues at the time of writing.

In addition to central coordination, programme management and programme

implementation, capacity issues were recorded at the level of the beneficiaries: for

instance, difficulties related to the use of the new electronic data management systems.

Capacity across the Thematic Objectives

Concerning the effectiveness of capacities for the different themes, very effective ratings

were given for the theme of SMEs. There is plenty of expertise regarding the growth of

SMEs and their internationalisation, as well as on employment issues. Sufficiently effective

ratings were given for themes such as innovation and low-carbon economy. Although there

are no major concerns regarding either of these themes, the fact that many of the climate

change and environmental issues have been integrated under the theme of low-carbon

economy may cause disagreements between different administrative sectors during the

implementation of the OP. In addition, the strong focus on the theme of low-carbon

economy (which receives 25% of funding) means that there will be a steep learning curve

for all the actors concerned in order to meet the targets. The concern with regard to the

theme of ICT and digital economy, which has been rated as weak, is that this theme is not

very visible in the plans of the regions or the ministry.


103



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation + + +

2) ICT - - -

3) SME ++ ++ ++

4) Low-carbon economy + + +

5) Climate change

adaptation - - -


resource efficiency - - -


networks - - -


mobility N/A N/A N/A


combating poverty N/A N/A N/A


lifelong learning N/A N/A N/A





In the past, administrative issues were experienced in the context of limited funding for

human resources as a result of broader funding cuts. Another issue was the limited supply

of external experts. Given the small size of the country, external experts tend to be limited

to a small number of consultancies. Since many of these consultancies have now merged

and joined forces, which effectively means that there is even less variety available, the

situation has become somewhat worse. New experts are rare, and there is some level of

caution about using foreign experts.

Administrative structures changed quite considerably in the 2007-2013programming

period. The key changes concerned the creation of the new Intermediate Bodies (ELY-

Centres). This was done in the context of a broader regional governance reform at the start

of 2010, which saw a reduction in the number of the state’s regional authorities from six to

two. The new authorities include the agencies for regional administration (AVIs) and the

ELY-Centres (for business, traffic and environment). The ELY-Centres are Intermediate

Bodies alongside the regional councils for Structural Funds purposes. Another key change

concerns the merger at the central level. In 2008, the Ministry of Employment and the

Economy was created, merging the units responsible for regional development from the

Ministries of Trade and Industry, Labour and the Interior in pursuit of a more simplified

central-level structure.


104


The interviewees were not able to provide an assessment regarding capacity changes for

the 2014-2020 programming period. Overall, they noted that the basic structures will

remain largely unchanged. The Structural Funds management will focus on the four ELY-

Centres and on the coordinating regional councils (there will be approximately four to nine

coordinating regional councils), and the effects of this change will be experienced towards

the end of the programming period. Indeed, at the start of the programming period, old

routines will be applied and tasks will be largely implemented through the existing

Intermediate Bodies, but during the course of the programming period, there will be more

concentration of tasks in the coordinating Intermediate Bodies (i.e. the coordinating

regional councils and coordinating ELY-Centres). The experience gained from this reform

will affect the organisation of other administrative functions. There may be difficulties in

coordinating regional and central-level activities, and overlaps may occur.


Programme

management level

Will there be

fewer or more

(new?)

actors?

How clearly are

tasks and

responsibilities

assigned?



administrative procedures and which

will not?

Strategic programming

/ thematic

concentration

N/A No comments. N/A

Performance framework N/A No comments. N/A


preparation

Expected to be

largely

unchanged (but

varies between

the regions).

No comments. N/A

Project appraisal

Expected to be

largely

unchanged (but

varies between

the regions).

No comments. N/A

Financial management N/A No comments. N/A

Monitoring N/A No comments. N/A

Evaluation

Expected to be

largely

unchanged.

No comments. N/A

Simplification N/A No comments. N/A

Communication with

beneficiaries

N/A No comments. N/A

Financial instruments N/A No comments. N/A

Partnership principle N/A No comments. N/A


Relevance of the assessment of the European Commission towards the status of


The EC Position Paper regards the administrative procedures as generally good and reliable

in Finland. Its criticisms mainly focus on the complexities of the administrative system, as

well as the varied governance and management practices resulting from the high number

of Intermediate Bodies.41 The changes in Finland have been in line with the EC Position

Paper’s recommendations. The process of reducing the number of Intermediate Bodies and

simplifying the administration is on-going.

41Komission yksiköiden kanta kumppanuussopimuksen ja -ohjelmien kehittämiseen SUOMESSA vuosina 2014–2020.


105

7. CASE STUDY - GERMANY


The final draft of the PA was sent to the European Commission at the end of February 2014

and was then subject to an internal assessment process in the European Commission. The

PA for the Federal Republic of Germany was subject to a fast-track process, which is

applied whenever all Directorates-General (DGs) approve of the draft. The PA was

approved on 22 May 2014.

The PAdevelopment process was very similar to the preparatory process for the 2007-2013

programming period. In the former reference framework, namely the NSRF, a partnership

process had to be applied as well. In contrast to the preparatory process for the 2007-2013

framework, the 2014-2020 PA also had to include the EAFRD and the EMFF. This

adjustment was challenging for the Federal Ministry in charge. According to the Managing

Authority of the ERDF OP Saxony, the process ran very smoothly, all in all, given that all

the actors and institutions involved were aware that they were‘sitting in the same boat’, as

expressed by the interviewee.

The PA development process was carried out at different levels in Germany due to its

federal structure. The ESIFunds are coordinated at national level. The responsible

departments at Länder-level define their strategic approach (and thematic focus) to

implementing the ESIFunds based on their regional strengths and weaknesses, and taking

into account the opinions of relevant partners (including social and economic partners), as

well as the results from the 2007-2013 programming period. The cooperation between the

different national and regional actors as well as the other partners is based on an

organisational structure which allows for the exchange of information, as well as discussing

and assessing the PA. The Ministry for Economy and Technology coordinates the PA

development process, and it is responsible for identifying and agreeing investments related

to the ERDF. The Ministry for Employment and Social Affairs coordinates the ESF

programmes at national and Länder level. The Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer

Protection coordinates the activities related to the EAFRD and the EMFF.

The process of developing the PA includes consultations with all relevant actors involved in

the preparation of the OPs. The organisation and implementation of this complex system of

multi-level governance is documented thoroughly in the draft PA.42



In Germany, there will be 15 regional ERDF OPs, 16 ESF OPs (one national, 15 regional), 1

regional ERDF/ESF OP, 14 EAFRD OPs and 1 EMFF OP.43 The ERDF OP Saxony 2014-2020

will be a mono-fund programme. The ERDF OP Saxony was submitted to the European

Commission on 28 April 2014.

42

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2013) Partnerschaftsvereinbarung zwischen Deutschland

und der Europäischen Kommission für die Umsetzung der ESI-Fonds unter dem Gemeinsamen Strategischen Rahmen in der Förderperiode 2014 bis 2020, Draft, 01.08.2013.

43 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2013) Partnerschaftsvereinbarung zwischen Deutschland



106

The final decision about the financial allocation was not clear for a very long time, due to

the complex EU-level negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-

2020. The budget allocated to Germany for implementing the ERDF and the ESF for the

2014-2020 programming period amounts to €17.1252 billion (2011 prices) or €19.3144

billion (April 2014 prices).44

This negotiation process required substantial time, mainly due to the federal structure of

the country. In fact, two authorities were involved in the negotiations. The Conference of

Economic Ministers (Wirtschaftsministerkonferenz) was responsible for the more-developed

regions and the State Chancelleries (Staatskanzleien) were responsible for the transitional

regions. The more-developed regions in Germany and the transition regions were in

constant negotiations at federal level. The negotiation was mainly about the share of

budget for each Federal State and for each OP.

For example, Saxony had initially estimated the budget to amount to €1 billion without

even counting the inflation adjustment ensured by the European Commission. Then the

additional allocation was granted and the transitional regions were freed from the originally

50/50 share between the ERDF and the ESF, planned by the authorities in Saxony. The fact

that in the transitional regions of Dresden and Chemnitz the ESF share had been reduced to

23.1% resulted in a €600 million ERDF budget. In the region of Leipzig, which counts as a

more-developed region, the 50% ESF share was maintained, based on a decision by the

Conference of Economics Ministers (Wirtschaftsministerkonferenz).

At the time of writing, the OP includes all elements with the exception of a performance

framework and the intervention categories. The indicative output-indicators are still based

on the initially planned budget. Assessment will be completed once the Ministry of Interior

presents the final decision on the precise distribution of the urban development resources

to the Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities. The distribution of the resources for

national co-financing in Chapter 3 will be clarified in the budget preparation process.

With a view to ensuring a timely submission of the final OP-draft to the Saxon Parliament,

the revised draft is (at the time of the interview) being sent to various departments and the

fund managers. Upon their feedback, the draft will be revised again and is expected to be

approved by the national Cabinet (Bundesregierung) on 4 March. Then, the Managing

Authority of the ERDF OP can adapt the draft, based on the results of the ex-ante

evaluations and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and revise the indicators

selected.

The changes compared to the draft approved by the national Cabinet (Bundesregierung) on

1 November 2013 are:

Adapting the draft according to the last OP Template, which translates into an

increase in the number of tables and adds to the complexity of the document in

general;

The so-called mixed Axis ‘Sustainable regional development’ has been dropped,

Thematic Objective 7 (building road) has been deleted, and the resources have been

redistributed into Investment Priority (IP) 3d – expanding broadband – and IP 4e –

environmentally-friendly modes of transportation;

44

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2013) Partnerschaftsvereinbarung zwischen Deutschland



107

The activities related to SMEs have been integrated into sustainable urban

development. The activities related to the Saxony Ministry for Environment and

Agriculture have been integrated in the Priority Axis ‘Risk prevention’ (flood

protection, consequent damages). This change was carried out upon a

recommendation from the European Commission’s DG for Regional and Urban Policy

and a common decision taken at working level among the relevant departments;

The support of building institutions of higher education (Hochschulbau), which are to

be based on application-oriented research, has been integrated in the existing

planned activities, and the S-Bahn electrification in urban agglomerations (planned

activities related to environmentally-friendly modes of transportation) has been

included in the relevant activities;

The support of the new planned activity related to expanding broadband in industrial

areas and wirtschaftliche Kumulationsgebiete (economica ccumulation areas) has

been integrated as a new planned activity in IP 3d of expanding broadband, which

also includes the activities related to the support for improving the regional

economic structures. The European Commission has expressed its consent for this

activity, which is also included in the PA;

The strategy has been revised so as to place the thematically superior challenges

(demographics, regional disparities) first. The selection of Thematic Objectives and

IPs has been concretely laid out in the relevant documents and therefore

systematised. The new allocation of the individual planned activities has been taken

into account.


Case: Saxony

The ERDF OP Saxony 2014-2020 is foreseen as a follow-up to the ERDF OP Saxony 2007-

2013. The current status is that the overall strategy has been defined, and the first calls

are planned to start in autumn 2014, but some measures still have to go through a state-

aid law approval process. Given that this lies within the responsibility of the European

Commission (DG for Competition), the Managing Authority cannot take charge of the

timetable. However, governmental project applicants can start applying earlier (e.g. flood

prevention).

One major change is that the use of subordinated loans will be increased and made more

attractive. This instrument will be managed in the same way as in the past. However, it still

needs to be checked from a state-aid law point of view.


The main changes compared to the 2007-2013 OP are:

road construction has been dropped, and instead broadband expansion which used

to be an EAFRD activity has been included in the 2014-2020 ERDF OP;

in general terms, the new OP is characterised by continuity compared to the 2007-

2013 OP, with some modernisation. For instance, while there were three R&D

measures in the past, these have been combined into one;

the activities related to improving the access of SMEs to the market have been

expanded by including aspects such as product protection and product optimisation.


108


The financial crisis had an impact in the 2007-2013 programming period and resulted in

changes in the programme to ensure that the ERDF reacted to the short-term and long-

term effects. These changes had consequences for the 2014-2020 programming period. In

fact, some new instruments have been introduced, and others have been strengthened:

instruments strengthening subordinated loans and equity capital, risk capital;

strengthening the market entry for SMEs by offering the possibility of combining

loans and grants.


The ERDF policy is integrated into the national and regional systems in the sense that it

complements non-EU public funding support. Therefore, it needs to be well integrated into

all policy agendas, including those of fund managers and Intermediate Bodies.


Most ex-ante conditionalities are fulfilled in Germany, since most of them are part of the

national and regional strategies. However, with regard to the smart specialisation strategy,

different federal states had different approaches. Some Member States merely adapted

their previous innovation strategies to the new approach without much stakeholder

involvement, others combined different strategies into one by involving only those

ministries responsible for the strategies, while yet other federal states followed the smart

specialisation process carefully involving not only ministries but also social and economic

partners and regional and local authority representatives. In the case of Saxony, the smart

specialisation strategy was very carefully elaborated and revised several times. It was

finalised in 2013. The European Commission concentrated directly on the transition and

less-developed regions and assessed the smart specialisation process carefully.


influence

In the words of the Managing Authority of the ERDF OP Saxony, ‘the European Commission

does not have any influence on the programme’. The National Reform Programme contains

only very general reference to the ESIFunds. Moreover, the Commission’s

recommendations did not add to the policy development; in fact, according to the Managing

Authority, the same issues would have been included in the OP anyway.


109


Programme elements State of implementation How difficult has

the process been? Lessons learned?





Completed

The cooperation has

run very smoothly,

given the established

routine.

Lack of certainty in

the regulations:the

regulations were

ready only in late

November 2013.

The socio-economic analysis included the ETC

programmes, which was a mistake given that

the logic of these programmes is very different

from the other funds. This had a negative

impact on the relevance of the socio-economic

analysis for Saxony.

May 2014.


Almost completed

(the Bund has called another

meeting with workshops

aiming to ensure that a

common approach is taken

by all authorities involved).

In the words of the

Managing Authority,

the main problem is

that ‘in this case, one

risks being smarter in

hindsight’, i.e. once

the performance

framework is up and

running.

N/A May 2014.

The Managing Authority will be

responsible for monitoring and

reporting; no extra management

structure will be established.


preparation

To be developed by the fund

managers by June 2014.

N/A The main problem is staff fluctuation, despite

significant efforts made in terms of training

newcomers in Structural Funds, IT systems,

and data-handling. This staff fluctuation is due

to a regulatory problem in Germany, namely

the provision that staff can be employed in a

public institution only for two years and

cannot be employed in a governmental

institution again for another five years after

the end of contract.

Autumn 2014.

Project appraisal To be developed by the fund

managers by June 2014.

N/A N/A Autumn 2014.


Advanced

The European Commission

Regulation is still developing

and there may be changes.

N/A N/A Autumn 2014.


110

Programme elements State of implementation How difficult has




Control mechanism

Has started.

Once the control mechanism

system is finalised, it will

have to be approved by the

Saxon cabinet and then sent

to the European Commission

for a final approval. It will

include specifications about

the institutions and actors

responsible for

implementation, the

modalities of application and

controls, the monitoring of

the aid, risk descriptions, etc.

N/A A new system is planned that ensures that

regular checks are carried out to avoid the

situation where the Audit Authority first

identifies any mistakes.

Autumn 2014.

The Managing Authority will still

be the responsible entity.

Consideration is being given to

centralising the control

mechanism for all funds.

Monitoring

Advanced

N/A The performance indicators will be taken into

account in the monitoring process. There will

be more exchanges with the fund managers.

Autumn 2014.

Evaluation Not started. N/A N/A N/A

Simplification

Advanced N/A ERDF will be working with flat rates.

There is a plan to put together provisions that

are common for the ERDF and the ESF in

order to create one comprehensive and simple

guide for all.

N/A

Communication channels

Completed

N/A There is a new common communication

strategy for the ERDF and the ESF.

The non-discriminatory access to

communication material has been improved.

Autumn 2014.


Advanced

N/A A new instrument has been introduced with a

view to supporting the market entry of SMEs

(combining grants and loans).

Same system as 2007-2013 (fund

managers). Most probably, the

Sächsische Aufbaubank will be in

charge, unless a cheaper

alternative is found in the

meantime.


Advanced

N/A It is planned that social and economic partners (the same as the five representatives that participated in the drafting team) will participate at the Monitoring Committee meetings.



111

7.4 Capacity issues– lessons learned

The Intermediate Bodies will remain the same as in the 2007-2013 programming period,

based on theirestablished experience and routine.


Programme

elements

Central

coordination Programme management

Programme

implementation



/ thematic

concentration

N/A N/A +

Performance

framework

N/A N/A N/A


preparation

N/A

+ Some types of projects took very long in 2007-2013 (construction projects, road construction, flood protection), mainly due to environmental impact assessment processes and critiques from the local residents. These delays are expected to be repeated in the 2014-2020 programming period.

+

Project appraisal N/A +

Financial management N/A + N/A

Monitoring N/A + N/A

Evaluation

N/A + There is room for improvement with regard to evaluation. In the past, evaluations were always carried out by Priority Axis,

which did not result in meaningful evaluations. The new evaluation plan is currently being developed.

N/A

Simplification

N/A + A framework regulation for the ERDF and the ESF is now being developed. This is to be used as a guideline for fund managers with regard to the financial regulations. According to Saxon public law, an agreement on a commitment/ earmarking period has to be made for each funding agreement, depending on the attributing purpose. For infrastructure and construction projects this commitment period can last up to 25 years. In the context of financing projects under the ERDF, Saxony follows

the earmarking period provision of Article 71 of the CPR (Regulation (EU) 1303/2014), and the applicable state aid rules provisions. These EU provisions have been applied to the Saxon state laws (SächsABl. Nr. 32, S. 927) which results in

+ A fund manager is currently working on a concept to introduce flat rates for the ERDF, which will be discussed with the Ministry of Finance.


112

Programme

elements

Central

coordination Programme management

Programme

implementation


certain simplifications compared to the previously applicable state law. The ERDF/ESF regulation for

Saxony will result in simplifications of private procurement.

Communication with

beneficiaries

N/A + In the past, the non-discriminatory access to communication material was underestimated. A new communication plan common to the ERDF and ESF is currently being developed.

+ The Aufbaubank has established a call-centre that offers advice and support to SMEs.


N/A N/A + The instruments established in the 2007-2013 period due to the economic crisis will be offered in 2014-2020 as well; in addition, an instrument combining grants and loans will be offered to SMEs.


N/A ++ There were no critiques in 2007-2013. In the preparation phase of the PA 2014-2020, the Managing

Authority asked the social and economic partners to nominate 5 representatives for the drafting group. Given that this has proven to be a positive experience, these 5 representatives will participate in the Monitoring Committee. A ‘partnership-speaker’ has been nominated to manage the partnership principle (e.g. organise thematic workshops, send out newsletters and disseminate information,...)

N/A


functions.

Action taken

The following solutions are planned with regard to the main weaknesses identified:

Staff fluctuation: The main problem in 2007-2013 was the significant staff

fluctuation, which is due to a German-wide employment law that limits employment

contracts in governmental institutions to two years (after the end of contract, there

is a short-term period of five years in which the person cannot work for any other

governmental institution). This law also applies to employees of the Saxon

Aufbaubank. The know-how and experience built up by the Managing Authority is

therefore lost, despite the regular training organised by the authorities. In 2014-

2020, the Managing Authority of the ERDF OP Saxony plans to organise regular

training for fund managers, Intermediate Bodies, the Managing Authority, etc. on

various topics ranging from ESIFunds to data-handling, IT systems (standardised

system for all users), etc. These training sessions are expected to take place twice a

year;


113

Reporting by fund managers: A central audit group will be created in 2014-2020 to

make regular checks and find errors in the accounts in advance of the Audit

Authority's checks. This measure should preclude requests from the Audit Authority

for a deduction of payment in cases when it finds errors;

Simplification in the ERDF by introducing flat rates: A concept is now being

developed by a fund manager, after which this idea will be discussed with the


Evaluations: In 2007-2013, each Priority Axis was evaluated one-by-one, which did

not lead to any constructive results, given that the evaluations were carried out at

early stages where no results and no data were yet available for that particular Axis.

A new evaluation plan is now being developed that will guarantee an on-going

evaluation of all Axes;

Communication to beneficiaries: In the past, the non-discriminatory access to

communication material was underestimated. A new communication plan common

to the ERDF and ESF is currently being developed;

Project preparation: The Saxon Aufbaubank established a call-centre that offers first

aid support to applicants. A hotline for complaints was also planned, but due to the

lack of an agreement between the social and economic partners, the idea has been

dropped;

Partnership: A partnership-speaker in the Ministry of Economics is responsible for

ensuring the involvement of economic and social partners in the processes (e.g.

organising thematic workshops). The social and economic partners also have

restricted access to information on the website of the Ministry of Economics. There

were no critiques in 2007-2013. In the preparation phase of the PA 2014-2020, the

Managing Authority asked the social and economic partners to nominate five

representatives for the drafting group. Given that this has proven to be a positive

experience, these five representatives will participate in the Monitoring Committee;

Financial instrument fund managers follow the internal Saxon regulations and not

the Structural Funds regulations with regard to the distribution of budget to the fund

managers (Article 124, paragraph 2 of the CPR). This led to problems in 2007-2013.

Therefore, a new internal regulation was drafted in January 2014, which lays out

how the budget is to be distributed to fund managers in 2014-2020. It should be

finalised in autumn 2014, once the Managing Authority has checked that it

corresponds to the EU Regulations.


One example is the fact that local residents have complained significantly about road

construction and flood protection projects in the past. This has delayed project

implementation. There is clearly a lack of capacity for better implementing infrastructure

projects with increased participation of residents. The participation process requires

significant resources and should be included in the project planning.

The PA describes the following simplification measures for beneficiaries to be implemented

at the level of the Länder:45

45 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2013) Partnerschaftsvereinbarung zwischen Deutschland



114

Simple and clear rules at European and national levels. This requires clarity at all

levels with regard to any regulations (including procurement laws, standards,

indicators and so forth). For instance, in North-Rhine Westphalia the procurement

laws will be simplified for particular beneficiaries;

The thematic concentration of the available resources on selected Priorities can also

lead to simplifications. The prioritisation makes funding more easily understandable

and more manageable. It also results in fewer funding rules, fewer bodies involved,

and therefore a reduced administrative burden for funding recipients. The

administrative procedures can be standardised and the application procedures can

become simpler. Some Länder are planning minimum funding sums and de minimis

thresholds in order to keep a balance between the funding and the administrative

burden. Other Länder are planning to reduce the number of Intermediate Bodies or

to merge certain administrative units;

Flat rates can now be applied either in the form of standard costs, lump-sums

(which cannot exceed €100,000 national funds), or lump-rates (percentage rates for

one or more cost categories);

E-cohesion is to be strengthened. Data are to be entered only once and be

accessible to all users. The communication with the beneficiaries and between the

responsible institutions will be simplified through the use of e-cohesion, and the

handling of the existing data and reporting will be facilitated.



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation + + +

2) ICT + + +

3) SME + + +

4) Low-carbon economy + +(related measures in

PA 5)

+

5) Climate change adaptation + + +


efficiency

N/A+ N/A N/A


networks

+ ++ +


mobility

+ + +


combating poverty

+ + +


lifelong learning

+ + +





Staff fluctuation was considerably high (see above). External experts will still be hired, as

previous experience was positive.


None.


115



Programme

manageme

nt level

Will there fewer

or more (new?)

actors?

How/how clear are

tasks and

responsibilities

assigned?



administrative procedures and

which not?

Strategic

programmin

g / thematic

concentratio

n

More or less the

same number of

actors.

The responsibilities are

assigned in a clear

manner.

The fund managers are located in

Ministry departments.

The ERDF is not separated from

the national regional policies, but

rather it is integrated in the

existing structures to complement

non-EU public funding within

regional and national systems.

Performance

framework

N/A N/A N/A

Project

generation /

preparation

Same number of

actors.

N/A N/A

Project

appraisal

Same number of

actors.

N/A N/A

Financial

management

Same number of

actors.

The on-the-spot controls

will be reduced to 5 and

there will be a 20%

reduction with regard to

control of expenses,

given that Germany has

proven it can manage

this well.

N/A

Monitoring Same number of

actors.

N/A N/A

Evaluation Same number of

actors.

N/A N/A

Simplificatio

n

N/A N/A N/A

Communicati

on with

beneficiaries

Same number of

actors.

N/A N/A

Financial

instruments

Same number of

actors.

N/A N/A

Partnership

principle

Five representatives

of social and

economic partners

to participate in

Monitoring

Committee

meetings.

N/A N/A



116

Positive/negative implications for administrative capacity and anticipated future

capacity issues

The persisting staff-fluctuation problem does not seem to be solvable by any new rules

foreseen for the 2014-2020 programming period at EU level, due to the aforementioned

German law according to which staff in government institutions are offered two-year

contracts after the expiration of which he/she cannot work in another government

institution for another five years. Considering this fact, there will most probably be no

change in the 2014-2020 programming period.



The EC Position Paper did not criticise the administrative capacity. The EC Position Paper

stated that, after the reunification, all public administration at the federal, Länder and

communal levels were fundamentally rebuilt, and strengthening administrative efficiency is

aon-going challenge supported by national funds. Moreover, it argued that a reduction in

administrative burden for beneficiaries should be ensured, and the following actions were

envisaged:46

simplified costs (the use of the flat-rate indirect cost system was limited and so is

the use of standard scales of unit cost);

uniform and clear guidance provided to the beneficiaries (guidance should be precise

and regularly updated to integrate the lessons learned by deficiencies identified; a

certain stability in the methodology used for justifying the expenses would be

advisable);

appropriate training to improve the administrative capacity of beneficiaries and the

capacity of social and environmental partners;

regular evaluation ofthe administrative burden (regular actions for reduction of the

administrative burden; dissemination of good practices as a part of monitoring and

reporting on the processes within the implementation system; using national or

regional benchmarking);

user-friendly e-cohesion platform (on the basis of existing good practices) allowing

for a digitalised exchange of information with beneficiaries.

46

European Commission (2012) Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership

Agreement and programmes in Germany for the period 2014-2020, 9/11/2012.


117

8. CASE STUDY - GREECE


Strategic planning for the new programming period started in April 2012,47 with the

involvement of all relevant ministries and stakeholders in the preparation and submission of

proposals, in order to frame the strategic priorities at national, sectoral and regional levels.

Following the processing of proposals, in March 201348 the Ministry for Development and

Competitiveness set the general objectives of the National Development Policy for 2014-

2020 in parallel withthe announcement of the MFF. From that moment on, the policy-

makers at all levels started to draft their proposals for 2014-2020 in cooperation with social

partners and representatives from the scientific, business and industry sectors.

Based on the EC Position Paper, the ministries, regions and Managing Authorities

responsible for the implementation of the ESIFunds worked closely together on the

preparation of the PA and the OPs. The European Commission proposed to group and limit

EU funding to the key challenges outlined in the EC Position Paper. In this context,

technical meetings and 13 regional conferences were organised in order to give all local

bodies the opportunity to participate in the planning process. For that purpose, the

Management Organisation Unit for development programmes designed and operated a

common information sharing point (DIAVLOS) for data and document exchange between

central, regional and local authorities and partners for the purpose of strategic planning for

2014-2020.

In addition, to contribute to the process of identifying the critical activities to focus on in

theresearch and technology activities planned for the 2014-2020 programming period, the

General Secretariat for Research and Technology developed seven different innovation

platforms serving as afocal consultation point for representatives from research centres,

universities, ministries and regions. Specifically, the General Secretariat coordinates the

following platforms: Transportation and Logistics, Agro-Nutrition, Environment and

Sustainable Development, Information and Communication Technologies, Energy, Health

and Drugs and Tourism. The aim isto create a national Innovation Strategy for 2014-2020

(RIS3) taking into account theRIS3 strategies formed in parallel by the regions.

In the informal consultations with the European Commission between August 2013 and

January 2014, the Greek Government submitted drafts of the PA. In addition, in January

2014, the third regulation act for preparing the OPs presented the progress of the PA as

well as the planned time schedule for the submission of both the PA and the OPs. According

to the third regulation act, the PA was planned to be formally submitted by the end of

March 2014 and adopted on 23 May 2014, whereas the OPs were to be submitted three

months after the approval of the PA. Most of the ERDF OPs were submitted in July 2014

and are now in the process of inter-service consultation. The last available draft of the PA49

describes the full coverage of all 11 Thematic Objectives as well as the funding allocation

per ESIFund. The new elements in monitoring and management procedures for 2014-2020

are presented in the draft, but the role and nature of involvement of the new bodies is not

specified.

47

First Regulation Act for development planning for 2014-2020, April 2012. 48

Second Regulation Act for development planning for 2014-2020, March 2013. 49

Draft PA published 14 March 2014.


118

The discussion about the national institutional framework for the 2014-2020 programming

period is still in progress and there is no further information about the launch of the new

law that will regulate all these issues.

At the time of writing, many changes compared to the 2007-2013 programming periodwere

apparent.

The main EU-driven changes are as follows:

For all Member States, the concentration of financial support must ensure a

significant contribution to the achievement of Union objectives in line with specific

national and regional development needs;

Ex-ante conditionalities have been introduced in order to ensure that the necessary

prerequisites for the effective and efficient use of Union support are in place;

ESF resources have been increased and are proportionally allocated, mainly for

2014-2016;

In order to facilitate the focus on performance and attainment of the objectives of

the EU strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, a performance reserve

has been established, consisting of 6% of the total allocation;

Multi-funded programmes can now be established for both sectoral and ROPs,

enabling integrated and innovative interventions;

In order to monitor and manage sectoral OPs, every ministry will be assisted by a

special Task Force team;

Simplification of management and implementation processes has been introduced.


119

Table 36: Progress in fulfilling ex-ante conditionalities

TO Ex-ante conditionality Status of criteria fulfilment

1

1.1. Smart specialisation strategy. Partially Fulfilled The National Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation (ESPEK), which will define the objectives and priorities of R&I by Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3) at national level, taking into account the regional dimension, is in progress. The monitoring and management system is under preparation, as well as the appropriate resources for funding research and innovation. Completion Expected: 20/4/2014.

1.2. Research and Innovation infrastructure. Not Fulfilled

The Roadmap for Research and Technology is in progress and will highlight the priorities on strengthening research infrastructure. Completion Expected: 31/3/2014.

2

2.1. Strategic policy framework for digital growth. Partially Fulfilled

The Digital Growth Strategy Draft was submitted for public consultation on 28/3/2014.

Completion Expected: end April 2014.

2.2. Next Generation Network (NGN) Infrastructure. Partially Fulfilled

The National Plan for infrastructure networks is in preparation.

Completion Expected: end of June 2014.

3 3.1. Taking into account the Small Business Act. Fulfilled

4 4.1. Cost-effective improvements. Partially Fulfilled

There are still some actions to be taken in order to meet the requirements of Article 5 of Directive

2010/31.

Completion Expected: 28/02/2015.

In addition, strategic planning for energy efficiency, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive

2012/27/EE, is in progress and will be completed by the end of 2014.

4.2. Promote high-efficiency co-generation of heat and

power.

Fulfilled

4.3. Promote the production and distribution of

renewable energy sources.

Fulfilled

5 5.1. Risk prevention and risk management. Fulfilled

6 6.1. The existence of (a) a water pricing policy which

provides adequate incentives for users to use water

resources efficiently and (b) an adequate contribution of

different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water

services at a rate determined in the approved river basin

management plan for investment supported by the

programmes.

Partially Fulfilled Final specification and adoption of water-pricing is expected to be completed by early 2015 and for other uses of water by 30/9/2015.

Completion and approval of Management Plans for Water Districtsis expected by the end of 2014.


120


6.2. Promoting economically and environmentally

sustainable investments in the waste sector particularly

through the development of waste management plans

consistent with Directive 2008/98/EC, and with the

waste hierarchy.

Partially Fulfilled Both the study for the update of the National Plan for Waste Management and the necessary adjustments

to the requirements of Directive 2008/98/EC are in progress.

7 7.1. The existence of a comprehensive plan or plans or

framework or frameworks for transport investment in

accordance with the Member States' institutional set-up

that supports infrastructure development and improves

connectivity to the TEN-T comprehensive and core

networks.

Partially Fulfilled The Strategic Investment Framework for Transport (SPEM) determines the development strategy for the country's transport for the 2014-2025 period and will cover all modes of transport (road, rail, sea, air and freight transport) and all regions of the country, provided that it is approved in finalised form by 30/09/2014.

7.2. The existence within the comprehensive transport

plan or plans or framework of a specific section on

railway development in accordance with the Member

State's institutional set-up.

7.3. Other modes of transport, including

inlandwaterways and maritime transport, ports,

multimodal links and airport infrastructure.

7.4. Development of smart energy distribution, storage

and transmission systems.

Fulfilled

8 8.1. Active labour market policies are designed and

delivered in the light of the employment guidelines.

Partially Fulfilled The conditionality is partially fulfilled; the necessary steps to fully complete the criteria have been initiated. Completion Expected 31/12/2016.

8.2. Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business

creation: the existence of a strategic policy framework

for inclusive start-up.

Fulfilled

8.3. Labour market institutions are modernised and

strengthened.

Partially Fulfilled The conditionality is fulfilled, partly because it fully met all the criteria. But various stages have been

completed and the necessary steps to fulfil the criteria have been initiated. Completion Expected

31/12/2016.

8.4. Active and healthy ageing. Partially Fulfilled The Ministry of Labour and Social Security will complete the Action Plan for Active Aging by 31/12/2014.

8.5. Adaptation of workers, enterprises and

entrepreneurs to change.

Partially Fulfilled

8.6. The existence of a strategic policy framework for

promoting youth employment.

Fulfilled


121


9 9.1. The existence and the implementation of a national

strategic policy framework for poverty reduction.

Partially Fulfilled

The National Strategic Policy Framework for Poverty Reduction is in progress and expected to be completed by 31 December 2014.

9.2. A national Roma-inclusion strategic policy

framework.

Partially Fulfilled

A monitoring and implementation system for Roma strategy will be completed by June 2014.

9.3. The existence of a national or regional strategic

policy framework for health.

Partially Fulfilled

10 10.1. The existence of a strategic policy framework to

reduce early school-leaving.

Partially Fulfilled The Ministry of Education plans to establish an Early School Leavers Observatory at national and regional levels. Completion Expected: 30 June 2014.


policy framework for increasing tertiary education

attainment, quality and efficiency.

Partially Fulfilled

Action Plans of Greek Universities are expected to be submitted in the first trimester 2015.

10.3. The existence of a national and/or regional

strategic policy framework for lifelong learning.

Fulfilled


policy framework for increasing the quality and efficiency

of VET systems.

Partially Fulfilled

The National Framework for Apprenticeship will be completed by the end of 2015.

11 11.1. The existence of a strategic policy framework for

reinforcing the Member State's administrative efficiency,

including public administration reform.

Partially Fulfilled

Public consultation for the E-government Strategic Framework was completed in 20/2/2014. The final documentation and Action Plan for administrative reform and e-government should be finalised by 30/6/2014.



122


The basic change that seems disadvantageous is that with the adoption of the CPR the

focus on the 11 Thematic Objectives linked to Europe 2020 is an obligation, meaning that

the ultimate goal of the PAand the OPs is to achieve the broader objectives of the EU,

particularly those of Europe 2020 and, by contrast, a limited number of priorities at country

level. The latter seems to neglect the main challenges that should be met by Greek OPs

and lacks the necessary ‘flexibility’ for policy design in Member States and regions.

According to an interviewee representing the central Greek administration, the

conditionality on the macro-economic objectives for Cohesion policy funding runs the risk

ofdepriving resources from precisely where they are most needed. This is particularly due

to the fact that macro-economic goals are strongly affected by the international macro-

economic situation. The macro-economic goals therefore do not always reflect the long-

term effort to promote sustainable and socially equitable development. Cohesion policy

funding disbursement should concern only the proper use of resources and issues of good

governance, rather than achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. According to

an interviewee representing a Greek island region, the concept of using the average GDP in

2007-2009 prices as a criterion for funding creates a misleading picture ofregional data. In

order to categorise Greek regions, more recent statistical data should be used in order to

reflect the economic crisis effects after 2008. Furthermore, regions with special

geographical characteristics (i.e. islands) should be considered as transition regions,

regardless of per capita income. Finally, the so-called simplificationsin the monitoring and

management processes are still not visible to the central or regional authorities, and by

contrast, it is believed that the 2014-2020 programming period will be characterised by

more complexity and difficulty in implementing interventions.

On the other hand, the total funds allocated for research and innovation have doubled in

2014-2020 (8% in comparison to 4% in the 2007-2013 programming period), and there is

a special focus on supporting entrepreneurship of businesses and export-orientation. In

addition, the emphasis on measures promoting social cohesion has increased due to the

future use of boththe ERDF and the ESF, in contrast toonly using ESF funding for such

measures in the 2007-2013 programming period. Concerning spatial allocation, during the

2014-2020 programming period, the regional authorities will have to manage 12% more

funds in every region in comparison to the resources allocated at regional level in the 2007-

2013 programming period. Finally, with regard to the advantages of the new instrument,

the integration of EAFRD and EMFF in the general Cohesion policy provisions is considered

as an advantage, especially at regional level.


The architecture of the new development strategy is considerably limited in comparison to

the 2007-2013 programming period. Specifically, in the 2014-2020 programming period,

Greece will implement seven sectoral OPs and 13 ROPs, in order to promote synergies and

enhance complementarity between various development sectors:

OP Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ERDF, ESF);

OP Public Sector Reform (ERDF, ESF);

OP Transport, Environment and Sustainable Development (ERDF, CF);

OP Employment Development, Education and Lifelong Learning (ESF);

OP Rural Development (EAFRD);

OP Fisheries (EMFF);

13 ROPs (ERDF, ESF and CF).


123


Compared to 2007-2013, the availability and the flow of funding are limited by several

factors. More precisely, Greece has to meet both the macro-economic conditionalities

aligned with the Stability and Growth Pact and the ex-ante conditionalities in relation to

structural changes in the National Reform Programme and the PA. In addition, failure to

achieve the milestones of continuous evaluation and binding directions to specific

Investment Priorities with European added value may result in a suspensionof payments,

whilea serious lag in achieving the objectives of a programme may lead to corrections of

public finances at the end of the programming period.

In addition, Greece is expected to receive, in absolute numbers, fewer resources from the

Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF), because it has only five regions which fall into the category

of less-developed regions, and which can leverage more funds. On the other hand, more

funds are oriented towards ‘soft actions’ (human resources interventions), because most

regions have moved to the ‘developed’ or ‘transition’ categories.

The merger of some sectoral OPs (i.e. in 2007-2013 there was a separate OP for Transport

and another OP for Environment Protection) constitutes a positive challenge to upgrade and

integrate the quality of ESI Fund interventions, but it risks serious delays for their

implementation depending on the coordination of two or three different ministries. Taking

into account the public administration reform carried out in the Greek central and regional

government in addition to the political changes of the past two years, the coordination of

different central administration groups is quite complicated. In addition, in the last two

years the coordination teams had to deal with the redirection of planning due to

government reorganisation.

Main challenges

The main challenges for the 2014-2020 Greek development strategy are to prepare within

a short period the implementation framework of the 2014-2020 OPs in order to efficiently

and effectively absorb the allocated resources. In the past, the authorities lost valuable

time in preparing and selecting activities, which resulted in project cancellation or

ineligibility of expenditure. In addition, the integrated interventions should avoid bad

practices aimed primarily at absorbing resources.

The management and monitoring system for 2014-2020 has been included in the draft PA,

but there is still no institutional framework to regulate what is proposed in the PA. The

main problems encountered in the OP management of the 2007-2013 programming period

related to the large number of assignments carried out by the Intermediate Managing

Authorities and the complex and time-consuming procedures in the management and

control system.

The basic improvements planned in OP management in the 2014-2020 programming period

are:

limiting the number of assignments and Intermediate Management Agencies, except

those deriving from regulation guidelines;

simplification of the management and control system;

a separate Managing Authority responsible for the implementation of every OP,

whether sectoral or regional. In cases of multi-funded programmes, the structure of

the Managing Authority will use the model from the 2007-2013 programming period.


124


All OPs have made considerable progress with regard to describingtheir overall strategy and

preliminary structures; more specifically, they have defined their planned Priority Axes and

categories of intervention. At the time of the interview, all draft sectoral Ops were in the

process of public consultation. The ROPs, on the other hand, were not as advanced.

However, the majority of regions had submitted their proposals for smart specialisations

and the territorial dimension.

Concerning the presentation of indicators and targets, no progress had been made

compared to the 2007-2013 programming period. All OPs describe the main results planned

in a draft intervention logic, but without any quantitative approach. In addition, no

reference was made to financial allocations to the regions or selected measures.

The main difference between the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 OPs is that the 2014-2020

development programmes aim first to mitigatethe recession and second to support the

country's development through targeted interventions. In addition, the fiscal reform taking

place in Greece in the context of the Memorandum refers to cost-cutting and a significant

reduction in the Public Investment Programme.50 Furthermore, provided that the Greek

investment programme contribution during the 2014-2020 programming period will be as

minimal as possible, Cohesion policy resources targeting development activities should

leverage a maximum of private investments.

At implementation level, changes mainly relate to making payment flows more dependent

upon the achievement of specific objectives, extending the application of innovative

financing tools (such as Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas

programme JESSICA and the Joint European Resources for Micro to medium Enterprises

programme JEREMIE), reintroducing multi-funded OPs, and increasing the efforts to

simplify the management process.


Due to the on-going financial crisis and the recession, since 2009 the Greek economy has

been characterised by acontinuing deterioration of the labour market, as reflected in the

high unemployment rates, in addition to acontinued deterioration of the country’s

internationalposition in terms of competitiveness. The audit surveillance of the Greek

economy of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – European Central Bank (ECB) – EU,

the decrease in public expenditure especially through the Public Investment Programme,

and society’s general disapproval of the structural reforms are among the main factors

related to the negative developments in the OP implementation in the 2007-2013

programming period. However, in reality, due to the strict control in the Greek economy,

the absorption of EU funding was made a binding requirement. Namely, in the

Memorandum for Economic Adjustment programme, Greece adopted a system for the quick

implementation of delayed projects.

50

Since May 2010, the euro area Member States and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been providing

financial support to Greece through an Economic Adjustment Programme in the context of a sharp deterioration in its financing conditions. The aim is to support the Greek Government's efforts to restore fiscal sustainability and to implement structural reforms in order to improve the competitiveness of the economy, thereby laying the foundations for sustainable economic growth. The release of each disbursement to Greece must be approved by both the Eurogroup and the IMF's Executive Board. Prior to this decision, the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF staff conduct joint review missions to Greece in order to monitor compliance with the terms and conditions of the Programme. On 14 March 2012, the euro area finance ministers approved financing of the Second Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece. The policy package contains the following programme documents: the Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies (MEFP); the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality (MoU); and the Technical Memorandum of Understanding (TMU).


125


The central character of the political structure is reflected in all steps of development

strategy planning. During the last three years, the Greek Government has changed four

times, resulting in a constant reallocation of responsibilities between the ministries, not to

mention the changes in policy priorities made by different political groups. In addition to

that, the Greek Government has implemented public administration reforms including the

closure of central public sector departments and restructuring into more efficient units.


126


Programme

elements

State of




Strategic

programming/

thematic

concentration

Advanced There is a lot of experience in the Managing

Authority.

The Position Paper of Commission Services

had clearly set the general objectives.

There is a lot of support from external

experts and consultants.

Policy development must be

speeded up.

The Managing Authority is

responsible in cooperation with

the Task Forces from the relevant

ministries.

Most of the documentation is out

for public consultation.

Expected time frame is August

2014.

Performance

framework

Advanced The National Coordination Authority should

record the methodology and criteria for

selecting indicators for the Performance

Framework as well as the identification of

milestones and objectives during the

preparation of the OP which should be

available to the EU when requested.

N/A N/A


preparation

Not started. N/A The first projects in the new

programming period are often

those transferred from the

previous programming period.

N/A

Project appraisal

Not started. N/A N/A

N/A

Financial

management

Advanced Allocation of available funds. Based on existing system. Ministry of Development in

cooperation with Task Force.

Control mechanism Advanced Based on the existing system. N/A Ministry of Development – end

2014.

Monitoring Advanced Based on the existing system. N/A Ministry of Development – end

2014.

Evaluation Initial N/A N/A N/A

Simplification

Advanced Most of the simplification derives from

findings of the 2007-2013 programming

period.

Weaknesses were detected in

management process that

resulted in revision of the

Management and Control

System.

Ministry of Development – end

2014.


127

Programme

elements

State of




Communication

channels

Completed More difficulties were met when planning for

platforms for Research and Innovation. The

DIAVLOS common share point was easy to

launch and introduce with the support from

the Management Organisation Unit of

Development Programmes.

N/A N/A

Financial

instruments

Advanced N/A N/A N/A


Initial Some concepts such as partnership principle

are difficult to convey to all actors concerned

and can therefore bring about lengthy

processes.

N/A N/A



128




coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)



+ + -

Performance framework + - --


preparation

+ + -

Project appraisal + ++ +

Financial management + + -

Monitoring + + +

Evaluation + ++ +

Simplification - - -

Communication with

beneficiaries

+ + ++

Financial instruments + + +

Partnership principle - - +



functions.


As seen from the experience of previous programming periods, the major problems are not

related to management, butto implementation. The main cause canbe attributed toaseries

of deficits identified in the cooperation between the regional public administration, the

central governmentand the beneficiaries. With regardto the political leadership, it is said

that there are adverse effects,a discontinuity of policy choices and fiscal mismanagement, a

lack of co-ordination,co-responsibilities, and a duplication of responsibilities horizontally

(between ministries) and vertically (between services of the same Ministry). To remedy

these obstacles, the Greek Government proceeded with the simplification of processes and

reallocated the responsibilities to one single authority.

The lack of qualified staff in several departments of the public sector must also be

mentioned, mainly with regard to the capability of translating the desired reforms and

operational needs into integrated interventions. There is also an inadequate number of staff

in the Managing Authority, primarily for monitoring units and verification.

On the other hand, since the Greek Government deficit has discouraged public

procurement, financial management systems haveintroduced the obligation of making

advance payments to the contractor in order to boost project implementation. In addition,

the ministries have helpedto strengthen the liquidity of contracting firms with a series of

measures to enable the financing of projects.


129

Capacity issues across Thematic Objectives

According to interviewees, the capacities have been most effective in implementing ICT,

innovation and sustainable transport. In terms of SME support, implementation has been

less successful due to inefficient Intermediate Bodies, whereas the implementation of

renewable energy systems has been very successful while involving local Intermediate

Bodies.



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation + + +

2) ICT + + -

3) SME N/A + -

4) Low-carbon economy N/A - +

5) Climate change adaptation N/A - -


efficiency

N/A - +


networks

N/A + +


mobility

N/A N/A N/A


combating poverty

N/A N/A N/A


lifelong learning

N/A N/A N/A

11) Institutional capacity + + N/A



Actions taken

A major reform took place in the Greek administrative structure during the 2007-2013

programming period, namely in 2010. The Greek Law No. 3852/2010 gave legal status to

the ‘Kallikratis’ reform, introducing key changes in regional and local policies. Before the

implementation of the Kallikratisreform, the administrative structure included 13

decentralised regions, 54 prefectures as second-level self-governments, and 1034 local

governments as first-level self-governments. A number of decentralised departments in

ministries and independent public law entities existed at regional and local levels. After the

Kallikratis implementation, there are now seven general directorates (decentralised

authorities), 13 regional self-governments (second-level self-government) with sub-

regional departments, and 325 local governments (first-level self-government). Finally, the

existing departments in decentralised ministries and independent public law entities have

been subject to a process of reorganisation.

The Kalikratis reform leads to more effectiveness in terms of the central government as a

coordinating structure and empowering regional and local governments with financial

responsibilities. Regional and local governments are obliged to improve cooperation with

the private sector, which should enhance flexible managerial structures that are closer to

the needs and demands of the population and more transparent and cost effective. The

transformed relationship between the local and regional entities from a hierarchical to a

cooperativeapproach could be considered as an example of good practice.


130



Programme

management

levels

Will there be

fewer or

more (new?)

actors?

How/ clear are tasks and






will not?

Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

Fewer actors. All procedures will be

simplified and

responsibilities clearly

assigned.

Integrated

Performance

framework

N/A Framework is in progress. Integrated


preparation

Fewer The establishment of the

system is still in progress.

Integrated

Project appraisal N/A N/A Integrated

Financial

management

Fewer N/A Integrated

Monitoring Fewer N/A Integrated

Evaluation

The same as

in previous

programming

period.

N/A Integrated

Simplification

The same as

in previous

programming

period.

N/A Integrated

Communication with

beneficiaries

More N/A Integrated

Financial instruments More N/A Integrated

Partnership principle N/A N/A Integrated


The structure and operation of the management and control system will be simplified and

decentralised. A simple and effective programme structure will be promoted by (i) the

reduction of Managing Authorities based on the principle of ‘one Managing Authority per

programme’, (ii) the reduction of the number of beneficiaries as a result of the evaluation

study for the administrative and operational capacity which is in progress in order to ensure

the effective implementation of co-financed projects, and (iii) the decrease in assignments

to avoid overlapping responsibilities.


131

9. CASE STUDY - HUNGARY


According to the website of the Office for National Economic Planning,51 the work on the PA

started in early 2013. In July 2013, the Hungarian draft PA was suitably developed to be

reviewed by the European Commission. Hungary reached this stage early compared to

other Member States (second among the Member States, after Finland). The EC Position

Paper was published in July 2013.

In the summer of 2013, the PA was also opened to a wider consultation process, and

various stakeholder organisations were invited to comment on the draft both electronically

and during events. More than 500 responses were received. In October 2013, the (public)

consultations were further extended to encompass the development of the OPs and the

associated public consultations.

Once the results from the public consultations were integrated into the PA, Hungary

submitted the final version to the European Commission on 7 March 2014. The

development of the final versions of the OPs was underway at the time of writing, and in

accordance with the formal obligations the final OPs were submitted in June 2014.


In Hungary, the implementation of the thematic ex-ante conditionalitiesis still underway

and will not be finished before the end of 2014 (see Table 41: below). The responsible

ministries have not provided any reasons for this delay.

51 https://www.nth.gov.hu/hu/tevekenysegek/eu-2014-2020/partnersegi-megallapodas#

https://www.nth.gov.hu/hu/tevekenysegek/eu-2014-2020/partnersegi-megallapodas


132

Table 41: Stage in the process of fulfilling of ex-ante conditionalities and their documentation

Ex-ante conditionality Criteria fulfilled?

According to PA

Criteria fulfilled?

According to COM Assessment52

Thematic ex-ante conditionalities

1.1. Smart specialisation strategy. No No Agreement: No

1.2. Research and Innovation infrastructure. No No Agreement: No

2.1. Strategic policy framework for digital growth. Yes No (partly)

Dissent with regard to criteria 2 & 4 (opinion

provided)

2.2. Next Generation Network (NGN) Infrastructure. Yes No (partly)

Dissent with regard to criteria 2, 3 & 4 (opinion provided)

3.1. Taking into account the Small Business Act. Yes Yes No assessment

4.1. Cost-effective improvements. Yes No (partly)

Dissent with regard to criteria 1, 2 and 3 (opinion provided)

4.2. Promote high-efficiency co-generation of heat and power. Not applied by Hungary.

4.3. Promote the production and distribution of renewable energy sources.

Yes Yes Agreement: Yes

5.1. Risk prevention and risk management. Partly: No for criterion 1, Yes for criteria 2& 3.

Partly (as in PA) Agreement: Partly

6.1. The existence of (a) a water pricing policy that provides adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently and (b) an adequate contribution of different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services at a rate determined in the approved river basin management plan for investment supported by the programmes.


6.2. Promoting economically and environmentally sustainable investments in the waste sector, particularly through the development of waste management plans consistent with Directive 2008/98/EC and with the waste hierarchy.

Yes No Dissent with regard to both criteria (1&2) – opinion provided

7.1. The existence of a comprehensive plan or plans or framework or frameworks for transport investment in accordance with the Member

States' institutional set-up, which supports infrastructure development and improves connectivity to the TEN-T comprehensive and core networks.

No No Agreement: No

7.2. The existence within the comprehensive transport plan or plans or framework of a specific section on railway development in accordance with the Member State's institutional set-up.

No No Agreement: No

7.3: Other modes of transport, including inlandwaterways and maritime transport, ports, multimodal links and airport infrastructure.

No No Agreement: No

7.4. Development of smart energy distribution, storage and transmission systems.

Not applied by Hungary.

52 The assessment is only provided in case of disagreement between the Hungarian Government and the EC.


133

Ex-ante conditionality Criteria fulfilled?

According to PA

Criteria fulfilled?

According to COM Assessment52

8.1. Active labour market policies designed and delivered in the light of the employment guidelines.

Partly: No for criterion 1, Yes to criteria 2 & 3.


8.2. Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation: the existence of a strategic policy framework for inclusive start-up.


8.3. Labour market institutions are modernised and strengthened. Not applied by Hungary.

8.4. Active and healthy ageing. Not applied by Hungary.

8.5. Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change. Yes Yes Agreement: Yes

8.6. The existence of a strategic policy framework for promoting youth employment.


9.1. The existence and the implementation of a national strategic policy framework for poverty reduction.

Yes No Dissent (all criteria)

9.2. A national Roma-inclusion strategic policy framework. Yes No Dissent (all criteria)

9.3. The existence of a national or regional strategic policy framework for health.

No No Agreement: No

10.1. The existence of a strategic policy framework to reduce early school-leaving.


10.2. The existence of a national or regional strategic policy framework for increasing tertiary education attainment, quality and efficiency.


10.3. The existence of a national and/or regional strategic policy framework for lifelong learning.


10.4. The existence of a national or regional strategic policy framework for increasing the quality and efficiency of VET systems.


11.1. The existence of a strategic policy framework for reinforcing the Member State's administrative efficiency, including public administration reform.

Partly: No for criteria 1, 3& 6; Yes for criteria 2, 4& 5.


G1 Anti-discrimination Partly: Yes to criterion 1, No to criterion 2.

No Dissent (partly, where PA is ’yes’)

G2 Gender Partly: Yes to criterion 1, No to criterion 2.


G3 Disability Partly: Yes to criteria 1 & 3, No to criterion 2.


G4 Public procurement Yes No (partly) Dissent with regard to criterion 4

G5 State aid Yes Yes Agreement: Yes

G6 Environmental legislation to EIA and SEA Yes Yes Agreement: Yes

G7 Statistical systems No No Agreement: No Source: Interview conducted by Metis/EPRC, April 2014.


134


The number of OPs has been reduced from 15 to nine in order to have a more focused and

target-oriented planning process. In terms of thematic areas, there is more focus on

economic development. In terms of territorial/regional planning, the main difference is that

during the 2007-2013 programming period there were seven ROPs, and territorial planning

and management was carried out at NUTS2 level. According to the latest available

information at the time of writing, in the 2014-2020 programming period there will be one

territorial programme (Territorial and Settlement Development OP), and the level of

territorial planning will be primarily at NUTS3 (county) level. Some of the OPs will be multi-

funded. The programmes will be managed by the relevant ministries, while the

Coordination OP will fall under the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Office (as

summarised in Table 42: below).

Table 42: Hungary: Operational Programmes for 2014-2020

Operational Programmes Funds Managing Authority

Economic Development and Innovation OP (EDIOP) ERDF & ESF Ministry for National Economy

Territorial and Settlement Development OP (TOP) ERDF & ESF Ministry for National Economy

Competitive Central-Hungary OP (CCHOP) ERDF & ESF Ministry for National Economy

Human Resources Development OP (HDOP) ERDF & ESF Ministry of Human Resources

Environmental and Energy Efficiency OP (EEEOP) CF & ERDF Ministry for National Development

Transport-Mobility Development OP (MOP) CF Ministry for National Development

Coordination OP (COP) CF & ERDF Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)

Rural Development OP (RP) EAFRD Ministry for Rural Development

Fisheries and Aquaculture OP (FAOP) EMFF Ministry for Rural Development

Source: PA, Draft of 2 July 2013.


During the 2007-2013 programming period, 15 OPs were implemented in total. As

described above, the number of OPs for the 2014-2020 programming period has been

reduced to nine in order to achieve more targeted planning (and thematic focus) in line

with the 11 Thematic Objectives. The main changes are summarised in Table 43 below.

Table 43: Cohesion policy changes from 2007-2013 to 2014-20

Programme

management

levels

2007-2013 2014-2020

Operational

Programmes

15 OPs. 9 OPs, more targeted planning at EU and

national levels (11 thematic areas).

Priorities

The OP Economic Development covers 24%

of the Structural Funds resources

includingemployment as a social issue.

Economic development covers 60% of the

ESIFunds including employment as part of

economic development.

Institutional system

Central management (National

Development Agency)

Regional deconcentration (regional

development agencies).

Decentralised institutional system

(Managing Authorities at relevant

ministries) with central coordination by the

Prime Minister’s Office.

Real territorial decentralisation (at county

level).

Administrative

procedures

Serious administrative commitments

since 2010: rationalisation, simplifications.

Simpler administrative procedures with

central coordination.

Source: Ildikó Czéghér, A 2014-2020-as fejlesztési időszak uniós forrásainak tervezése és intézményrendszere

Széchenyi Programirodák létrehozása, működtetése, Széchenyi Programme Office,

http://slideplayer.hu/slide/2036139/ [accessed between April and September 2014].

http://slideplayer.hu/slide/2036139/


135


Programme






Strategic

programming/

thematic

concentration

PA completed and submitted to the Commission on 7 March 2014.

The relatively ‘rigid’ format of the PA limited the scope for development of the PA and OPs (according to national specificities). There were some weaknesses in terms of overall coordination/ strategic planning (integrating all policy perspectives/OPs) in the PA at national level.

The inclusion of financial allocations to various OPs (by Thematic Objectives) left little scope for manoeuvre/refinements.

Following the submission of the revised draft PA on 7 March 2014, the OPs were submitted in June 2014.

Performance

framework

Work in progress. Relevant programme

indicators are currently being developed.

The main challenge is to

identify the right indicators (as stricter sanctions are foreseen in case of non-compliance with planned outputs): for more complex indicators, there is often no ‘baseline’ indicator available; if indicators are ‘vague’, this would not be approved.

The system previously did not

exist in this form. The main challenge is that there will be more scrutiny and more serious sanctions if a Member State does not perform according to the planned (financial and output) indicators.

The Performance Framework is still under

development. According to the PA, during 2013/14 the implementation capacities of the institutional system must be improved through training and regulations in order to ensure the systematic collection of data at programmelevel and projectlevel. In 2016 and 2017, Hungary plans to prepare a self-assessment of progress with the purpose of earlywarning. In 2018, an annual report will be produced outlining progress in the fulfilment of the performance framework. Indicators are currently being developed (likely to be finalised in parallel with the development of OPs, by earlyJune).

Project

generation /

preparation

In progress. The Széchenyi Programme Office has been appointed as a support organisation for local/territorial development stakeholders and for beneficiaries (PA) for the 2014-2020 programming period. Some of the projects from 2007-2013 (especially some larger infrastructural projects) will continue during the 2014-

2020 programming period. The preparation of some larger projects

N/A The performance of Intermediate Bodies in this regard was mixed during the 2007-2013 period. There was a general lack of knowledge about the services of the Széchenyi Programme Offices among beneficiaries to date. For a better balance of projects,

there will not be public calls for certain (public sector) projects – but these will be selected

According to the PA: By the end of summer 2014, the main steps related to the institutions and rules and procedures among them will be planned, and the elaboration of an action plan for the further preparation of beneficiaries will be prepared.

The action plan will be implemented from 2014.


136

Programme






(managed by the government) is already well underway.

according to the relevant sectoral policy priorities.

The first calls for proposals are expected in September 2014.

Project

appraisal

In progress. N/A N/A N/A

Financial

management

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Control

mechanism

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Monitoring N/A N/A N/A N/A

Evaluation

Ex-ante evaluation of OPs is in progress. The main challenge will be the more limited resources (less EU Funds/ more national funding – overall less funds) for evaluations.

Sufficient resources were allocated to evaluations that resulted in detailed evaluations (there was a separate OP for this).

N/A

Simplification

In progress. A range of simplification measures are planned (see below).

N/A N/A According to the PA, by the end of 2014 the procedural rules to reduce the administrative burden, develop the performance framework mechanisms and promote e-data exchange will be developed.

Communication

channels

See project preparation above (also has relevance for communication with beneficiaries).

N/A N/A As above.

Financial

instruments

In progress. N/A Experience with the JEREMIE programme and various financial instruments will be maintained.

There are still funds available from the 2007-2013 programming period. Considerable resources are also planned for JEREMIE during the 2014-2020 programming period.

Partnership

principle

Public consultations with regard to the PA and OPs have already been carried out.

N/A N/A The partnership procedures were reduced to online public consultations; the application of the partnership principle has been criticised in the Final Evaluation Report of implementation systems.

Public consultations are mostly finalised.



137




coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)


thematic concentration - - N/A



preparation N/A - +/-

Project appraisal N/A + N/A

Financial management N/A N/A N/A

Monitoring + +/- N/A

Evaluation + + N/A

Simplification + + +

Communication with

beneficiaries N/A - +/-

Financial instruments + + N/A

Partnership principle - - N/A



Strategic programming/thematic concentration

According to the Final Evaluation Report on the ‘Implementation functions of 2007-2013

programming period’,53 one of the main weaknesses of the 2007-2013 programming period

was the lack of central coordination that would have, inter alia, ensured the coordination of

various policies in an integrated manner. As the Final Evaluation Report states, the function

of coordinating strategy implementation was missing. While the responsibilities assigned

with regard to planning and implementingsectoral programmes were clear, there was no

specific organisation responsible for the overarching strategy at nationallevel. Instead, the

task was kept at the level of the national government, an institutional level that was felt to

be ‘too high’ to operate any efficient coordination mechanisms.

The Final Evaluation Report recommends creating a stronger coordination function (one

option being the delegation of this function to the Prime Minister’s Office). The

harmonisation of policies and support for integrated initiatives are also identified for

improvement in the draft PA.

Nevertheless, weaknesses have been identified with regard to strategic programming for

the 2014-2020 programming period. The Office for National Economic Planning (which

belongs to the Ministry for National Economy) had a strategic role in the planning for the

2014-2020 programming period and the development of the PA (as well as three of the

OPs). However, according to some opinions, the overall strategic planning was still

fragmented, since the other OPs had not been developed by the Office, and there had not

been any full coordination of their integration into the PA.

53

Záró Értékelési Jelentés a 2007-2013 időszak végrehajtási funkcióinak értékeléséről, March 2013. AAM

Consulting.


138


The Performance Framework is seen as a new formal element of the 2014-2020

programming, and therefore there is no account of the experience so far. The main

challenges are described in Table 44.

Project generation, preparation

According to the evaluation report on the implementation functions, the institutional

capacity with regard to beneficiary support was insufficient. The level and quality of support

provided by theIntermediate Bodies varied considerably. Intermediate Bodies could not

fully harmonise their support functions with their controlling role, and most of the time

there was more emphasis on the latter. The most efficient actors in this regard were the

Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), which provided more efficient beneficiarysupport

thanks to their local presence. Based on these findings, the evaluation made a number of

recommendations, including:

Separation of the beneficiary-support and control functions;

Whereas the control function can be centralised, the supportfunction needs to be

developed across the country, including the local level;

A formal relationship must be established between the support function and the

county-level territorial development planning functions;

The unified support-structure needs to include rural development.

Beneficiary support, professional and administrative support, and an advanced service

approach have also been identified in the PA areas for improvement.

Communication with beneficiaries

Some weaknesses were identified with regard to the ‘communication with beneficiaries’

during the 2007-2013 programming period. The final evaluation report on the

implementation system argued that, in general, the institution of ‘one-stopshops’ is missing

from the system. With the exception of RDAs and the VATI (Hungarian Non-profit Limited

Liability Company for Regional Development and Town Planning), Intermediate Bodies have

no local offices.

Furthermore, beneficiarysupport provided by the network of representatives at the micro-

regional level was set up relatively late (and the process involved a lot of changes in staff)

in the form of the Széchenyi Programme Offices. Although there are about 30 offices across

the country, the beneficiaries still have little knowledge about them, and therefore they

generally do not turn to these offices for support and information.


During the 2014-2020 programming period, there is more scope to use innovative financial

aid management solutions (financial instruments). According to the final evaluation report

on the implementation functions, the use of such instruments will be facilitated by the fact

that they were already tested during the 2007-2013 programming period (e.g. venture

capital, intermediaries). Hungary has already accumulated experience with regard to the

JEREMIE programme (including refinanced loan programmes, credit guarantee and venture

capital) with management by Magyar VállalkozásfinanszírozásiZrt (Venture Finance

Hungary plc).


139

The final evaluation report suggests assessing how far these (and similar) innovative

instruments can be used in various development areas during the 2014-2020 programming

period.

Monitoring

The draft PA identifies the ‘uniform monitoring experience’ across various Structural and

Cohesion Fund programmes as one element of a ‘favourable starting situation’ with regard

to current institutional capacities. At the same time, the evaluation report on the

implementation functions identifies that the way in which the Monitoring Committees have

been operating is one of the weaknesses of the 2007-2013 programming period.

Furthermore, the report highlights weaknesses related to capacities at the beneficiary level

in this regard, and it stresses the challenges related to the in-depth monitoring of projects.

Evaluation

According to one of the interviews, ‘evaluation practices’ for Cohesion policies and

programmes were well developed in the 2007-2013 programming period. The PA also

identifies ‘relevant evaluations on progress’ as one of the main strengths of the existing

institutional capacities. This is partly due to the allocation of appropriate resources (among

others, TA support from the Implementation OP) that allowed in-depth evaluations of

different aspects of the programmes.

Partnership

According to the Final Evaluation Report on the implementation functions (as well as

informal comments/email-exchanges with various stakeholders), the partnership principle

was applied in a formal manner, and in most cases no ‘real’ partnership consultations took

place during the 2007-2013 programming period. This aspect was identified as one of the

key weaknesses by the Final Evaluation Report on the implementation functions: ‘The

functioning of partnership is rather formal. Typically, this obligation is fulfilled through

electronic exchange of opinions through the homepage of the National Development

Agency. In-depth technical exchanges with representatives of civil partners are very rare’.

However, according to public administration interviewees involved in preparing the 2014-

2020 programming period, wide consultations took place with regard to the current

planning (including public consultation procedures on the SEA).

General findings

A further area of weakness (according to the evaluation report on the implementation

system) was the management of human resources (and human resources policy in general)

within the various government institutions. Therefore, the evaluation recommends the

creation of a unified ‘career programme’ for public employees, which would relate to their

specific competences, the rewards system, and a rotation between functions (combined

with public official training). Furthermore, the evaluation report highlighted the need to

strengthen the knowledge-management system and training. The PA foresees the

establishment of a ‘career programme’ inpublic administration (in line with the

recommendations of the evaluation).


140

Furthermore, one of the factors that negatively influenced the performance of the

institutions was the lack of stability. According to the evaluation report, the number of

legislative, procedural and organisational changes largely exceeded the usual level of

changeswithin a public administration, and this in turn had a negative impact on the

performance of the institutions as well as the development of know-how amongst the staff.

During the 2007-2013 programming period, the institutional system for support

management was created outside the existing legal and organisational structure of public

administration. The regulatory background did not precisely define the tasks and scope for

decisions of the various institutions (such as the ministries, Managing Authorities and

Intermediate Bodies).


141



Programme

management

levels

Will there be fewer or more (new?)

actors?

How clear are tasks and





which will not?


/ thematic

concentration

N/A The tasks and responsibilities are changing from the 2007-2013 to the 2014-2020 programming period. The Managing Authority of programmes (previously located within the National Development Agency) will be located within the relevant ministries. The central coordination function will be within the Prime Minister’s Office.

N/A

Performance

framework

N/A Currently being developed. According to the PA, the operation of the mechanisms connected to the PF is a task of the central coordination body (Prime Minister’s Office). Progress evaluation concerning the performance framework will be one of the on-going major tasks of the central coordination body and the Monitoring Committees of the programmes.

N/A


preparation

The ‘reinforcing of professional and administrative support provided for project implementation (e.g. project doctor service) in order to avoid early exit’ is foreseen by the PA. Certain target groups will be given priority, such as territorial stakeholders (with regard to the planning and implementation of integrated territorial approaches), project owners of major development projects implemented by the public sector, and economic actors.

N/A N/A

Project appraisal

N/A The selection of some projects will be based on calls for applications (measures will be managed by various ministries/Managing Authorities). However, this process is seen as raising a significant administrative burden. Partly for this reason, a set of projects will be identified based on ‘well-justified’ policy decisions (and not on the basis of calls).

N/A


142

Programme

management

levels

Will there be fewer or more (new?)

actors?






which will not?

Financial management N/A N/A N/A

Monitoring N/A N/A N/A

Evaluation The TA allocation will be reduced considerably. Therefore, it is likely that fewer resources will be allocated for evaluation.

N/A N/A

Simplification

N/A N/A It is planned (according to the PA) that

‘before making funding decisions, the administrative obligations related to potential beneficiaries should be reduced to a minimum’.

Communication with

beneficiaries

N/A N/A N/A


The PA states that during the 2014-2020 programming period the refundable subsidies and the application of supporting financial instruments (e.g. credit funds, risk capital funds) will gradually increase in proportion. Considerable resources are likely to be allocated during 2014-2020 to the JEREMIE programme (funds still remaining from 2007-2013).

N/A N/A

Partnership principle N/A N/A N/A


Questionnaire - The Member States’ preparedness for Cohesion policy 2014-2020

143

Background

Considerable institutional changes have been introduced for the 2014-2020 programming

period (see Section 9.4), and therefore a number of new actors and processes will be put in

place. However, the PA also argues that the transition to the new system is ‘based on the

principle of continuity and does not threaten the implementation and results of the 2007-

2013 programming period, but builds upon experience’. A change-management project

aims to facilitate this transition.

Due to these recent changes, as well as the recent elections held in Hungary (on 6 April

2014), further personnel and institutional changes are expected (although the government

has been re-elected), but at the time of writing (May 2014) little information was available

on the details of the 2014-2020 implementation system.

Overall, most of the resources (human and financial) related to coordination and

management tasks are likely to be reduced during the 2014-2020 programming period.

There will be no separate (Implementation) OP, and the TA budget will be reduced.

New management system of ESI Funds

During the 2007-2013 programming period, the Managing Authorities of Structural Funds

programmes were located within the National Development Agency. The Intermediate

Bodies were organised in the form of majority state-owned organisations, government

agencies, non-profit companies or companies operating under strict national rules. These

Intermediate Bodies operated as ‘market-based’ organisations, and signed performance-

based (business service) contracts. Furthermore, institutional development, capacity-

building and TA were supported by a separate OP (the Implementation OP).

The tasks and responsibilities of various institutions will change considerably during the

2014-2020 programming period. The PA describes the principles of the following main

institutional changes:

Planning and management responsibilities of the ministries responsible for policy-

making must be reinforced in the new institutional system. In order to ensure their

professional independence, the Managing Authorities will directly report to the line

minister;

At the same time, efficient central coordination functions are needed through which

the well-coordinated operation of the institutional system can be established;

In order to retain the current human capacities and competences within the

institutions, a career programme will be prepared for the employees of the

institutions;

The Intermediate Bodies will operate under the supervision of the relevant minister.

According to the draft PA, from 1 January 2014 onwards the Managing Authorities

implementing the EU programmes in 2014-2020 are located in the ministries, and regional

development agencies are placed under the direction of county governments that are

competent in their territory.


144

Technical Assistance funding

In the 2014-2020 programming period, no separate OP will be set up for TA, and the TA

funding will be reduced considerably overall. For instance, evaluations are likely to be

mostly supported through national funding (and therefore the amount allocated to

evaluations will be reduced).

Simplification

According to the draft PA, there will be a strong emphasis on simplification and

rationalisation within the institutional system, including:54

The same rules and procedural regulations should apply to the same types of

beneficiaries, and there should be uniform interpretation of the law for each

Managing Authority and any other organisation;

In the implementation of projects and programmes, stable rules of arrangements

should be ensured as far as possible;

There will be an extension of the electronic and online services and a further

development of the applicants’ project administration;

Procedures supporting the preparation and development of projects are to be

introduced. Follow-up and consultancy phases supporting the increase of

professional added value should be built into the procedures;

The sector-thematic divisions that were used until now should be developed by

allowing the possibility of integration. Regarding the different programmes, funds

and TA a project-based division should be allowed (Hungarian Partnership

Agreement, 2 July 2014).

Furthermore, the Magyary Zoltan Public Administration Development Programme has been

adopted (and updated) as a base for administrative reform/developments and also for

actions to address a country-specific recommendation in this area. Simplification is a

priority objective of the Magyary Programme, which influences all fields within the public

administration and services operated by the state.

54 Partnership Agreement for Hungary, Draft of 2 July 2013.


145

10 CASE STUDY - ITALY


A first draft Italian PA was informally sent to the European Commission on 9 December

2013.55 The Italian authorities received feedback from the European Commission on 10

March 2014. Some indication of the European Commission’s remarks can be found in an

article published by the daily La Stampa on 8 March.56 The formal submission of the PA

dated 22 April 2014.

This article stated that,‘the PA written by Minister Trigilia will be dismantled and will have to

be largely rewritten, despite the hard work put in by the Italian administration’, noting that

the European Commission had raised 351 observations. The article quotes the European

Commission as saying that the 11 Thematic Objectives outlined by the government are,

‘presented in a general manner and with weak references’, that it is ‘impossible in the

document to identify a clear strategy of intervention’, that expected results ‘are difficult to

quantify’ and that it will be necessary to ‘clarify the choices made towards maximum added

value’. In short, the PA was found to be unclear, unspecific and not sufficiently results-

oriented.

It is difficult to anticipate whether the revisions that will be made to the document will

entail a reorientation of the thematic choices made. A radical change is unlikely; however it

is possible that the regional authorities – who are not considered to have had a strong

input into the document – might use the opportunity to introduce changes to the document

in line with their priorities. Thematically, the change compared to the 2007-2013

programming period shows a significant decrease in the field of transport infrastructure and

systems, and important increases in the fields of innovation and the competitiveness of

firms, employment and social inclusion/fight against poverty.

A criticism made of the document domestically related to its excessive focus on procedural

aspects and the generality of the strategic choices, which seems somewhat in line with the

criticism made by the European Commission. The regional authorities, in a document issued

on 19 March 2014, indicated the necessity of‘defining as soon as possible, together with the

regions, the implementation of clear and focused strategic goals, of methods centred on

expected results defined as concrete and specific goals for development and the

improvement of the quality of life of citizens’.57 The regions also lamented the lack of clarity

on the content of the national OPs foreseen in the PA, which obviously affects the strategic

choices to be made within the ROPs.

55

Ministro per la Coesione Territoriale (2013) Italia. Accordo di Partenariato 2014-2020, versione 9 dicembre

2013, http://www.coesioneterritoriale.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Bozza-AP-ITALIA_9_12_2013.pdf (last downloaded 7 April 2014).

56 http://www.lastampa.it/2014/03/08/italia/politica/fondi-ue-nuovi-compiti-a-casa-per-renzi-

8KmGw0sRgXmd0vftAdhHNN/pagina.html . 57 Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province Autonome (2014) Documento di confronto con le regioni,

14/030/CR01/C1-C2-C3-C4-C5-C7-C8-C9-C11, 19 March 2014, file:///C:/Users/hls03103/Downloads/cms-file-CONFERENZE-340452-XYDOC.CR.P.01)-Documento-strutturale-Incontro-Governo-Renzi-17032014.pdf (last downloaded 7 April 2014).

http://www.coesioneterritoriale.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Bozza-AP-ITALIA_9_12_2013.pdf

http://www.lastampa.it/2014/03/08/italia/politica/fondi-ue-nuovi-compiti-a-casa-per-renzi-8KmGw0sRgXmd0vftAdhHNN/pagina.html

http://www.lastampa.it/2014/03/08/italia/politica/fondi-ue-nuovi-compiti-a-casa-per-renzi-8KmGw0sRgXmd0vftAdhHNN/pagina.html


146


With regard to the ex-ante conditionalities, the Italian authorities have done extensive work

on this issue, with a number of working groups dealing with different areas, and with a

synthesis of the work beingincluded in the PA that was submitted to the European

Commission. It has to be noted in this context, that the European Commission has

circulated various updates of the guidelines on ex-ante conditionalities, which made the

preparatory workeven more difficult for the Italian authorities. In some cases, the

guidelines were also felt to go beyond the criteria of Annex IX of the CPR. For instance, one

of the versions of the guidelines included stringent criteria on public procurement, which

relates to legislation that (at the time of the interview in April 2014) was not yet in force in

Italy.

A reflection on lessons learnt from the PA process is probably premature. However, a

number of issues linked to political instability have impacted negatively on the process.

Political instability at national level

There have been three different governments since the start of the PA drafting process. The

whole process of drafting the PA was started under Minister Barca, who had a clear vision

based on his past experience as Head of Department and as an expert (he drafted the so-

called ‘Barca report’58 in 2009 for the European Commission, which is at the heart of the

current programming approach). The change of government slowed the process down and

to an extent interrupted this strong sense of ownership and vision. Furthermore, the last

change of government also entailed the abolition of the post of a dedicated Minister for

Territorial Cohesion.

The following key aspects have caused the above-mentioned instability and delays:

Low degree of political commitment in the regions at apical level, i.e. the regions'

Presidents have not engaged in strategic discussions with the centre, mostly leaving

this task to the technical levels;

Institutional reform currently taking shape nationally, i.e. the creation of an Agency

for Territorial Cohesion and the related reorganisation of the Department for

Development and Economic Cohesion Policies (which historically has been in charge

of the oversight and coordination of regional development policy) have added a

degree of uncertainty to the process, effectively reducing the political weight and

clout of the Department in its dialogue with the regional authorities;

Fundamentally, the significant delays in the implementation of the 2007-2013

Cohesion policy programmes, compounded by the effects of the economic crisis and

the related austerity measures (particularly in the Convergence regions), have

meant that a lot of efforts had to be made, both nationally and in the regions, to

limit the damages of possible loss of resources and accelerate the progression of

expenditure. Measures put in place have included reprogramming the OPs, the

setting-up of dedicated taskforces with representatives from the European

Commission, the national government and the regions (in Campania, Sicily and,

more recently, in Calabria), and the agreement with the European Commission on

reduced co-financing rates, with the subsequent reassignment of the removed co-

financing resources to a dedicated (domestic) Cohesion Action Plan. These measures

paid off, with a significant catching-up of expenditure, but distracted human

resources and time from the equally important task of programming for the new

2014-2020 programming period (particularly in the regions).

58 Barca, F (2009) An Agenda for a reformed Cohesion policy, A place-based approach to meeting European Union

challenges and expectations. Independent Report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, April 2009


147

All of these factors have likely affected the ability of the Italian Government to propose a

PA that includes a clear strategy and makes clear-cut choices. Observers from the regional

authorities expressed the view that there has not been a real dialogue on strategies with

the regional authorities, and that the process has been dominated by technicalities (e.g.

listing types of actions, identifying processes), rather than reflecting strategically on what

needs to be changed and how the programmes could deliver such change, particularly in

terms of key areas.


There will be a mixture of ROPs (which are likely to be mostly mono-fund, although no hard

evidence is yet available on this); national OPs operating in the less-developed and

transition regions; National Operational Programmes (NOPs) operating across the entire

national territory; and NOPs operating only in the less-developed regions. The NOPs are

summarised in Table 47: below.

There is a preliminary decision on the subdivision of the resources between the regions, but

it is not yet finalised.59In fact, the imperative to quickly close this matter was raised in a

document signed by the Conference of Regions and Autonomous provinces, issued on 19

March 2014.60

Table 47: National Operational Programmes foreseen in the Italian

PA 2014-2020

National Operational

Programmes

ESI-Funds Thematic objectives and Investment priority

ERDF ESF Metropolitan Cities ERDF

TO2 IP2c strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and ehealth;

TO4 IP4csupporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures and in the housing sector; IP4e promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas;

TO9 IP9b support for physical and economic regeneration of deprived urban and rural communities;

ESF TO9 IP9i Active inclusion; IP9ii Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma; IP9iv Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest; IP9vi Community-led local development strategies;

ERDF ESF NOP Governance

Institutional Capacity

ERDF TO2 IP2c strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e-health;

TO11 IP11a enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support of actions in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the ESF.

59

Chiellino G (2014)Fondi europei, accordo con le regioni, in Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 February 2014. 60 Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province Autonome (2014) op. cit.


148


Programmes


ESF TO11 IP11i Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;

ERDF ESF NOP Legalità ERDF TO2 IP2c strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and ehealth;

TO3 IP3b developing new business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation;

TO9 IP9b support for physical and economic regeneration of deprived urban and rural communities;

ESF TO9 IP9vi Community-led local development strategies;

TO11 IP11i Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and

public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;

ERDF ESF Skills for School and

Learning Environments

ERDF TO10 IP10a investing in education, skills and lifelong learning by developing education and training infrastructure;

TO11 IP11a enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support of actions in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the ESF.

ESF TO10 IP10i Reducing early school-leaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education; IP10iii Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training systems; IP10iv Improving the labour market relevance

of education and training systems, facilitating

the transition from education to work, and

strengthening vocational education and

training systems and their quality

TO11 IP11i Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;

ERDF NOP Infrastructures and

Networks

ERDF TO7 IP7a supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) network; IP7b enhancing regional mobility through connecting secondary and tertiary nodes to TEN-T infrastructure; IP7c developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems and promoting sustainable urban mobility;

ERDF NOP Cultura ERDF TO6 IP6c protecting, promoting and developing cultural heritage;

TO3 IP3b developing new business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation;

IP3c supporting the creation and the

extension of advanced

capacities for product and service

development;

TO11 IP11a enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by

strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public


149


Programmes


services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support of actions in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the ESF.

ERDF (Enterprises and

Competitiveness)

ERDF TO1 IP1b promoting business R&I investment, product and service development, technology transfer, social innovation and public service applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation;

TO3 IP3a promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new firms; IP3b developing new business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation; IP3c, supporting the creation and the

extension of advanced capacities for product

and service development;

IP3d supporting the capacity of SMEs to grow

in regional, national and international

markets, and to engage in innovation

processes;

TO4 IP4c supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures and in the housing sector; IP4d developing smart distribution systems at low voltage levels;

ESF Active Policies ESF TO 8 IPi Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility; IPii Sustainable integration of young people not in employment, education or training into the labour market; IPv Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change; IPvii Modernisation and strengthening of labour market institutions, including actions to enhance transnational labour mobility;

TO10 IPi Reducing early school-leaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education; IPii Improving the quality, efficiency and openness of tertiary and equivalent education with a view to increasing participation and attainment levels; IPiii Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training systems; IPiv Improving the labour market relevance of

education and training systems, facilitating

the transition from education to work, and

strengthening vocational education and

training systems and their quality

TO11 IPi Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance; IPii Capacity building for stakeholders delivering employment, education and social policies and sectoral and territorial pacts to mobilise for reform at national, regional and local level.

ESF Inclusione ESF TO9 IP9i Active inclusion; IP9ii Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma;


150


Programmes


IP9iv Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest;

TO11 11i Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;

ESF Systems for active policies ESF N/A

Source: Ministro per la Coesione Territoriale (2012) Accordo di Partenariato per il ciclo di programmazione dei

Fondi strutturali 2014-2020, Presentazione alla stampa della Bozza di Accordo, 10December 2013.


In Calabria, the preparations for the 2014-2020 programmes are not advanced at the time

of writing, but despite an anticipated delay, they are not seen as a cause for concern by the

authorities of the Calabria region. Once the PA is finalised (expectedly by 22 April), the

programmes are expected to be submitted within three months (i.e. by the end of July). At

the time of writing, this deadline is seen as unlikely to be met, but the programmes are

expected to be submitted before the end of the year at the latest.

One explanation for the delay is that the main preoccupation for the regional authority in

Calabria has been the implementation of the 2007-2013 programmes. Nevertheless, the

regional authority has also been working extensively on a Regional Strategy Document

(Documento Strategico), which aims to set the strategic lines for both the ERDF and ESF

ROPs, based on rich data and analyses. The Regional Strategy Document is planned to be

finalised in April 2014.


The terminology used in the interview checklist for the present study– ‘effectiveness of

capacities’ – is particularly ambiguous and difficult to operationalise meaningfully. In some

fields, capacities within the administration, whether regional or national, may well be

adequate, but this may not translate into effective delivery of processes. For instance, in

relation to evaluation, there is an evaluation unit in Calabria (as required by national

legislation), but this has been mostly utilised to assist the Managing Authority with

strategy-setting and the selection procedures of integrated projects, rather than for

undertaking actual evaluation work. This does not mean that the capacities are not there. It

means that they are not effective in the realisation of evaluation activities (evaluation

activities carried out in the region have been very few and mostly contracted out).

Bearing the above caveat in mind, the Table 48: below attempts to provide an assessment

of the degree to which administrative capacity is stronger/weaker by type of actor and level

of governance, as indicated by the degree to which processes have been adequately

fulfilled or, by contrast, by the bottlenecks and problems associated with given processes

(taken as a broad and obviously imprecise proxy for the adequacy/inadequacy of levels of

administrative capacity). The views gauged during fieldwork have also been utilised to fill in

the table, but nevertheless it should be taken as indicative.


151



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

Strategic programming / thematic

concentration

- - -

Performance framework + - -

Project generation / preparation Not applicable. -- --

Project appraisal Not applicable. + Variable


Monitoring + + N/A

Evaluation + - Not applicable

Communication with beneficiaries - - -


Partnership principle - -- --



Table 48: can be explained as follows:

Capacities in the area of strategic programming at central level, intended as the

ability to analyse the needs of the territories and devise adequate strategic

responses and clear-cut choices to attain them, is considered to be weak on the

whole. At the national level, this weakness relates to the difficulty to make strong

and clear-cut choices and to consult with the regions on these choices. This is partly

a consequence of the institutional and political weakness that has characterised the

national coordinating authority over the past decade, compounded by a limited

degree of engagement by the political leaders in the regions in these discussions. In

the regions, on the other hand, whereas there is a good understanding of societal

needs and economic development opportunities, it is difficult to translate these into

operational and results-orientated strategies, partly due to political interference at

all levels and partly due to the lack of demand from civil society and the

entrepreneurial fabric. Multi-level dialogue between centre and periphery has also

been difficult (in terms of the involvement of the regional authorities in the strategic

choices made relating to the NOPs for instance), and the communication channels

between these two levels have not always been capable of supporting an effective,

multi-level process of strategic programming. At the same time, the availability of

data on needs and past implementation, and the ability to interpret this, is strong,

at least at national level. In the regions, the dominance of political priorities in

policy-making processes and a weak push from stakeholders have meant that the

real needs and priorities have sometimes been obfuscated or could not be pursued

effectively (e.g. leading to calls for projects that did not meet demand, or simply to

the prioritisation of investments that should not have been prioritised);

In the region of Calabria, capacities are particularly weak in relation to the targeting

of calls for projects and project selection. This is clearly reflected, in terms of

outputs, in calls that yield only limited interest or no interest at all, and in the time-

consuming nature of the whole public tendering cycle, from preparing and publishing

calls for tenders to the selection of projects. A further undermining factor in this

sphere is the limited human resources available amongst some types of recipients to

effectively deal with project design, a problem particularly relevant for smaller

municipalities and organisations;


152

Project delivery, particularly in relation to interventions implemented by local

authorities, can be very slow and this is due to the limited human resources that are

available in the local authorities. Municipalities are often responsible for more than

one project, yet small municipalities may have just one official in charge of following

all the projects. This has a negative impact on the timetable of the completion of

projects – and thus on the progress in spending– but also, and even more crucially,

on the project-design capacity and proactivity of such municipalities;

Communication with beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries and the implementation

of the partnership principle are also weak or even very weak. The involvement of

social and economic partners is extremely limited, essentially confined to the

participation of some main organisations atthe Monitoring Committee meetings.

However, their role remains passive. This passivity and absence of explicit demand

to be involved makes it difficult for the regional authority to be proactive. That is, it

is extremely difficult to mobilise civil society and horizontal partners, for example by

way of seminars, discussion meetings and other events intended to foster a dialogue

between different stakeholders and the administration. This is in essence a vicious

circle, which is difficult to overcome, and which goes beyond the mere scope of

Cohesion policy;

Multi-level communication, particularly between the national government and the

regional authority, has not been straightforward either. The setting-up of a task

force was a direct response to the need to find more effective ways to channel

information both upstream (especially from the regional authority to the national

government) and downstream (from the national government to the regional

authority), as well as to support the regional authority with the management and

delivery of the programmes.

However, in some areas improvements can be reported upon, such asthe new system of

controls introduced in the 2007-2013 programming period (anaspect that is included under

'financial management'in Table 48: above). This was an area of weakness in the region,

which had major difficulties with the first-level controls and had its payments suspended for

two years.61 As a consequence, substantial investments were made to strengthen the

control procedures, to the point that the region has now become a reference point for other

regions in this field.

Some important nuances need to be added to the above analysis. The problem in the

region of Calabria, and possibly also in other regions of the Mezzogiorno, is not just one of

administrative capacity (which is weak beyond Cohesion policy and at different levels of

government, regional and sub-regional), but is a wider problem of societal weakness. The

entrepreneurial fabric, the network of local authorities, the universities located in the region

and civil society at large are all weak. All of these elements need to be strengthened in

order for the regional authority to have interlocutors that are demanding in terms of

development and able to inform the strategic choices to be made.

61

This has been an area of difficulty for other regions too. For instance, the region of Puglia had c. €80 million

withdrawn from its 2000-06 allocations because of ineffective audit and control procedures, which caused ‘grave deficits and systemic irregularities’.


153

Furthermore, administrative capacity has been hampered by political disinterest (on macro-

strategic choices) and at the same time political interference (on micro, allocative choices).

These factors mean that, in terms of policy responses, it is the distribution of competencies

and the task divisionthat needs to be changed, and therefore a simple increase in the

number of civil servantsor improvements made in the training they receive is not sufficient.

Administrative capacity is of course important, and it is a crucial factor across the board for

a region such as Calabria (i.e. beyond Cohesion policy), but it is not the only factor to be

taken into consideration. A wider challenge, which is not directly related to the specific

theme of administrative capacity, is the availability of domestic funding for both co-

financing and ordinary investments, which is nevertheless instrumental for allowing

Cohesion policy to achieve its objectives.


Looking to the future, according to the interviewee, when the 2014-2020 programmes will

be launched, the main aspect that will have been strengthened in terms of administrative

capacity at the regional level will be the ability to track and audit Cohesion policy

expenditure. This is an area where considerable improvements have been made over the

past few years, with dedicated investments in the design of procedures and training of

officials. The regional Managing Authority now has a very advanced control system, and the

intention is to extend it beyond the ERDF programme and mainstream it across the regional

administration for all regional expenditure and policies.

On the other hand, a major challenge will be, to use the words of a regional official

interviewee, ‘to issue calls for projects that will not be left deserted’. That is, to identify the

specific needs of the entrepreneurial fabric, for example, and address these with adequate

instruments. In essence, there is still a need to improve the ability of the regional authority

to interact with the territories and to improve the communication channels available to local

stakeholders to dialogue with the regional authority, in order to allow for a more responsive

process of elicitation of needs. Another problem that still needs to be addressed is the

efficiency of the regional offices in charge of issuing and dealing with calls for projects.

Timetables for these procedures are still by and large too long, particularly for

infrastructure projects that involve local authorities.

The adequacy of administrative capacities has been a theme that the DGs responsible for

Cohesion policy within the European Commission – DG Regional and Urban Policy, and DG

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion – have increasingly insisted upon, not least in the

light of the poor spending performance of the 2007-2013 programmes. At the beginning of

April 2014, the two DGs sent a letter to the national government and to all the regional

Managing Authorities, asking them to provide as soon as possible some ‘Administrative

Strengthening Plans’, which should indicate the available resources and their competencies,

and demonstrate that these are adequate to allow the programmes to be implemented

according to plan and towards the desired results. These plans are supposed to be slim

documents (of c. 10 pages), which should include: (i) a reappraisal of the competences and

skills of all the staff in charge of functions related to the management and delivery of the

programmes (i.e. a reappraisal of the CVs of such staff); (ii) demonstration that the

conditions are in place to guarantee timely implementation; (iii) evidence that some key

‘horizontal functions’ are being strengthened (e.g. financial procedures and control

systems, IT and data management systems, legislative simplification); (iv) illustration of

how transparency on every aspect of the OPs will be assured; and (v) the identification of

the person responsible for administrative capacity.


154

This letter will be followed by a joint document, signed by the European Commission and

the Italian Ministry for Economic Development, Department for Development and Economic

Cohesion Policies, providing a template for the Plans. The Plans will have to be submitted to

the Euopean Commission at the same time as the OPs.62

As far as the number of staff dedicated to or involved in the implementation of the

programmes is concerned, when fieldwork was carried out, no indication emerged as to an

intention to increase the number of actors employed for different types of tasks (although

the regional evaluation unit has recently been strengthened with a few additional

colleagues). This would be an ambition difficult to fulfil, given the austerity measures and

the freeze on public sector employment. This may change, however, as a result of

submission and negotiation (presumably) of the above-mentioned Administrative

Strengthening Plans.

62

Chiellino G (2014)Il diktat Ue per salvare I fondi, in Il Sole 24 Ore, 4 April 2014.


155

11. CASE STUDY - LUXEMBOURG


The first draft of the PA was presented to the European Commission in September 2013 for

inter-service consultation. The European Commission’s comments and recommendations on

the draft were received almost five months later, in late February 2014. Although the

comments mainly consisted of requests for more information and detail, this resulted in

significant amounts of work for the authors of the PA. The PA was being finalised at the

time of the interview and actual submission took place on 30 April 2014.

The PA represents an unnecessary additional workload, according to the interviewees,

given that the regional level equals to the national territorial level due to the small size of

the country. Since there will be only one OP for each ESIFund, the PA is merely a sum of all

OPs and therefore seems like repetitive work. According to the interviewee (responsible for

Structural Funds at the Ministry of the Economy and Foreign Trade, Managing Authority of

the ERDF OP), there is no ‘cost-benefit balance’ in the sense that the financial envelope is

too small compared to the administrative burden. The responsible authorities do not

consider the PA to be advantageous.


The PA was developed in a partnership process that included the Managing Authorities of

the ERDF, ESF and EAFRD programmes, the economic and social partners, and civil society.

With a view to coordinating the Managing Authorities, a committee was created that was

coordinated by the ERDF Managing Authority (Directorate of Regional Policy at the Ministry

of the Economy and Foreign Trade). The PA process included regular meetings of the

committee from 17 December 2012. The Committee included the following bodies:

Ministry of the Economy and Foreign Trade, Managing Authority of the ERDF OP;

Ministry of Labour, Employment and the Social and Solidarity Economy, Managing

Authority of the ESF OP;

Ministry of Agriculture, Viticulture and Rural Development, Managing Authority of

the EAFRD OP;

Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, responsible for the

programmes INTERREG B and C, ESPON, URBACT and INTERACT;

Ministry for the Interior, responsible for the INTERREG A programme of the Greater

Region.

In addition to the ministries listed above, other ministries as well as external partners were

consulted through a double approach of ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’. The list of the partners

consulted is included in the PA.63

The regular meetings and workshops organised were interactive, according to the PA, with

a view to promoting informative and consultative development. The Managing Authorities

ensured that the partners involved were informed at least one month in advance in order to

leave sufficient time to draw up recommendations.

63

Le Gouvernement du Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2013), Accord de partenariat entre le Grand-Duché de

Luxembourg et la Commission européenne relatif aux Fonds relevant du cadre stratégique commun pour la période de programmation 2014-2020, Version provisoire, 26 septembre 2013, p. 25.


156

In the 2007-2013 programming period, the ERDF OP had two Priority Axes, namely ‘Axis 1:

Attractiveness for investment and jobs’, and ‘Axis 2: Knowledge and innovation’. The ERDF

funds were mostly concentrated on the policy areas of ‘enterprise environment and RTDI’

and ‘environment and energy’ (renewable energy sources and energy efficiency

management). The share of ERDF resources spent on energy-related activities exceeded

the resources planned in the OP (9% planned in 2007; 26% spent in 2011).

Concentrating 80% of the ERDF on innovation, competitiveness and energy, as required by

the ERDF Regulation, has not been considered problematic for Luxembourg, because the

2007-2013 ERDF interventions already concentrated on these objectives.64 In fact,

Luxembourg wanted to maintain continuity and stability between the 2007-2013 period and

the 2014-2020 programming period (with regard to the management set-up and also

thematically). Seven Thematic Objectives were selected based on the territorial analysis

carried out in the framework of developing the PA, namelyTOs 1 (Research and innovation),

3 (SMEs), 4 (Low-carbon economy), 6 (Environmental protection and resource efficiency),

8 (Employment and labour mobility), 9 (Social inclusion and combating poverty) and 10

(Education, skills and lifelong learning).65 However, the European Commission required the

OPs to be even more thematically focused. As a result, the management of industrial sites

had to be dropped from the OP. In other words, while the PA and the 2014-2020 OP had

been planned to be consistent with their predecessors, after months of waiting for the

European Commission’s feedback, the number of Thematic Objectives had to be reduced.

Table 49: Comparison between the thematic priorities of the ERDF OP

2007-2013 and the Thematic Objectives chosen for the ERDF OP

2014-2020

Thematic

priority 2007-2013 2014-2020

ERDF contribution

(%) according to

OP

ERDF contribution

(million euro)

according to OP

Corresponding

Thematic

Objective

ERDF contribution

(million euro)

according to PA

RTDI and

entrepreneurship

64 16.1 TO1 RTDI 5.3

TO3 SME 5.3

Information

Society

5 1.2 TO1 RTDI 5.3

Energy 9 2.3 TO4 Energy and

CO2 reduction

5.3

Environment and

risk prevention

15 3.8 TO6 Environment 3.3

Urban

rehabilitation

3 0.76 N/A N/A

Technical

Assistance

4 1.01 Technical

Assistance

1.2

Source: Own elaboration based on draft PA and ERDF OP 2007-2013.

64

Lacave (2013) Expert evaluation network delivering policy analyses of the performance of Cohesion policy

2007-2013, Year 2-2012, Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy Luxembourg; Final Version, A report to the European Commission, DG REGIO; Technopolis.

65 Le Gouvernement du Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2013) Accord de partenariat entre le Grand-Duché de

Luxembourg et la Commission européenne relatif aux Fonds relevant du cadre stratégique commun pour la période de programmation 2014-2020, Version provisoire, 26 septembre 2013.


157


The EC Position Paper and the Council recommendations were integrated in the first draft of

the PA (September 2013). In that document, the ex-ante evaluators concluded that the

selection of Thematic Objectives was coherent and corresponded to the development needs

of Luxembourg. By contrast, the coherence between the programmes and the country-

specific recommendations were criticised, because the interventions of the Funds were only

partially relevant to Annex I of the Common Provision Regulation (in the budgetary and

fiscal areas, salary and pension reforms); nevertheless, they were confirmed to contribute

to the reduction of youth unemployment (ESF), the support of Research, Technolgy

Development and Innovation (RTDI), and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (ERDF

and EAFRD). The first versions of these strategies had to be consolidated by establishing a

clearer link between the strategic choices and the challenges identified by taking into

account the relevant existing national measures. The internal coherence of the programmes

was characterised as particularly high, with measures also contributing to the achievement

of objectives other than the ones for which they were foreseen.66 The ex-ante

conditionalities were fulfilled and are being revised for the new version of the PAin a timely

manner.



The first contact with the European Commission with regard to the PA was made in July

2013. After the first draft of the PA was submitted in September 2013, the Commission

sent 10 pages of comments and recommendations to the Ministry in February 2014. On 13

February 2014, European Commission representatives came to Luxembourg to discuss the

next draft of the PA. The contact was very professional, but the process was seen as

lengthy and inefficient by the authorities from the Ministry of the Economy and Foreign

Trade due to the need to revise the documents to a large extent and the associated

administrative burden.



There have been no changes in the programme architecture in Luxembourg. There will be

three programmes in Luxembourg, with no multi-fund OPs:

ERDF OP 2014-2020 (Investment for Growth and Jobs);

ESF OP 2014-2020 (Investment for Growth and Jobs);

EAFRD OP 2014-2020.

The representatives from the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade explained that the

reason for the absence of any changesis‘continuity and stability’. If they had mixed or

combined the funds, there would have been too many complications with regard to inter-

ministerial coordination. By leaving the OPs separate, the same experienced persons

responsible for their management and implementation could continue carrying out their

activities. In fact, no major changes are foreseen in the management team either. The

programme implementation seems to have been efficient in the past with regard to

progress in implementation and the absorption rate as confirmed by several sources.67

66

Le Gouvernement du Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2013), Accord de partenariat entre le Grand-Duché de


67 See for instance:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/country_reports/luxemburg.pdf or http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/iqnet/downloads/IQ-Net_Reports(Public)/ReviewPaper29(1)Final.pdf.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/country_reports/luxemburg.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/country_reports/luxemburg.pdf

http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/iqnet/downloads/IQ-Net_Reports(Public)/ReviewPaper29(1)Final.pdf


158

By the end of 2011, 88.9% of ERDF allocated funds had already been committed, and a

100% absorption rate was expected by the end of the period.68

Allocation of funding

The allocation of funding to the programmes has been decided upon. Based on

governmental decisions, the ESF will be allocated slightly more resources than the ERDF.

More precisely, the ERDF will be allocated €19.5 million and the ESF will be allocated €20.1

million.


Progress with individual programme elements

The ERDF OP 2014-2020 was being prepared at the time of the interview, including its

overall strategy, which will be a continuation of the 2007-2013 OP but more thematically

concentrated (dropping the measure of ‘Transformation of the south of Luxembourg into a

second economic centre by redeveloping vacant industrial sites’ from the OP).

By limiting the ERDF intervention areas to only two Thematic Objectives, the Ministry of

Economy and Foreign Trade hoped to reach some simplification. In fact, this also implied

that there would be fewer indicators and ex-ante conditionalities to fulfil.

The OP was to be sent to the European Commission before the summer of 2014.


The three main priority areas of the 2007-2013 ERDF programme were: (i) Innovation and

growth economy, (ii) Environment and risk prevention, and (iii) ICT. As mentioned above,

the ERDF OP 2014-2020 will differ from the 2007-2013 OP in that it will be thematically

more focused.


Although the macro-economic situation in Luxembourg has deteriorated due to the

economic crisis that started in 2007/2008, as in other EU countries,69neither the financial

crisis nor political instability has any impact on administration or capacity, according to the

representatives of the Ministry.70


Regional policy is administered centrally by the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade,

without direct involvement of sub-national government levels.71 The management and

implementation structures of the ERDF are strongly bound to the established national

structures of the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade. The Managing Authority of the

ERDF Programme is located in the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade (Directorate for

Regional Policy).

68 Lacave (2013) Expert evaluation network delivering policy analyses of the performance of Cohesion policy

2007-2013, Year 2 -2012, Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy Luxembourg; Final Version, A report to the European Commission DG REGIO; Technopolis.

69 Lacave (2013) Expert evaluation network delivering policy analyses of the performance of Cohesion policy

2007-2013, Year 2 -2012, Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy Luxembourg; Final Version, A report to the European Commission DG REGIO; Technopolis.

70 See for instance: Tödtling-Schönhoferet al.(2012) Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and

financial crisis, Commissioned by the European Commission DG EMPL, Metis GmbH/ wiiw, March 2013. 71

EPRC (2009) Ex post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the ERDF

(Objective 1 and 2); WP 11: Management and Implementation Systems for Cohesion policy. Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio).


159

The Certifying Authority is located in the Directorate for Budget and Administration in the

same Ministry, as well as in the Directorate for Financial Control at the Ministry of Finance.

The Audit Authority is also located within the Ministry of Finance. TA staff within the

Managing Authority plays a crucial role in day-to-day programme management. Processes

are straightforward and streamlined.72

The nature and objectives of regional policy are determined by the small size of the

economy and the country. As a result, regional policy is largely identical with national

industrial and economic policy. Moreover, Human resources management in ERDF

implementation is integrated in the public administration structures. The number of persons

involved in Structural Funds management is very small. According to the interviewees, the

consultation processes and all other strategy and policy-development processes are very

efficient due to the small size of structures. TA is used to ensure the smooth operation of

the programme, by giving the Managing Authority the resources to guarantee successful

management of the programme throughout the implementation phase and to comply with

the European Commission’s various data-exchange and transmission requirements.

Moreover, TA co-finances the staff costs of the persons involved in managing and

implementing the ERDF.


influence

The process of finalising the PA and the OP is difficult and lengthy, mainly due to the

belated response and feedback from the European Commission, but the exchange has been

professional, according to the interviewees. The interviewees also stated that some data

from the European Semester was used for the set-up of the smart specialisation strategy.

72

Official Website of the ERDF in Luxembourg: http://www.feder.public.lu/

http://www.feder.public.lu/


160


Programme








Finalised

Lengthy and burdensome

for the administration in

relation to the financial

allocation to the country.

The regulation was

published very late. The

numerous and frequent

changes in the regulations

required several

adaptations of the OPs and

Priority Axes.

In general, for all elements in first column,

the authorities would have wished for stability

and a continuity of the 2007-2013 period (the

administrative burden was acceptable in

2007-2013); the 2014-2020 period is too

capacity-demanding compared to the financial

resources at hand.

Good practice: 2 of 4 Thematic Objectives

that worked well in the 2007-2013 period

were retained: R&I and energy/CO2reduction.

For projects in those areas, consumption was

fast. Work in progress was up to

expectations.

The process started in

December 2012 (a consultant

was hired to develop the PA and

the OP).

The same management

structure will be maintained as

for 2007-2013.


Advanced

N/A Good practice: The indicators in the 2007-

2013 programming period were always well

communicated by the project partners and

collected by the Managing Authority for the

reports to the European Commission.

N/A


preparation

Advanced: In the past, calls were

issued. The the Managing

Authoritieswere however already

familiar with the project partners.

The the Managing

Authoritiesusually know the project

partners well; the project partners

in turn are familiar with the

processes and documents to be

completed in view of being eligible

for co-financing. The same applies

for the 2014-2020 period, given

that the project partners or

potential beneficiaries are well

known to the the Managing

Authorities.

N/A In the previous programming period, the

Managing Authority had to publish calls for

tender, but given that the Managing

Authoritiesare already very familiar with their

project partners, more spontaneous

applications are expected in addition to the

calls for tenders. The programme authorities

have already ‘pre-tested’ the situation and

expect concrete projects to receive co-

financing.

N/A

Project appraisal


Advanced N/A The N+2 rules were always respected, thanks

to a well-functioning system of financial

management that planned the potential

expenses of the beneficiaries well in advance.

N/A


161

Programme






Monitoring

Advanced N/A The the Managing Authorityvisited the

beneficiaries once or twice in the 2007-

2013period. In the 2014-2020period, only

one visit is planned in order to reduce the

burden for the beneficiaries. There will be no

new measures in this respect.

The same management

structure as 2007-2013.

Evaluation

Advanced

N/A There will be six output indicators and three

result indicators for the 2014-2020 period.

The same management


Simplification

Advanced

The number of on-the-spot

controls will be reduced from 2 to

1 for the entire period.

A study is currently being

developed with a view to

establishing a secure electronic

programme that can be used by

the beneficiaries to upload their

documents.

N/A N/A The same management


Communication channels Advanced

N/A Communication and personal assistance for

beneficiaries with very regular contact.

N/A


N/A Not possible due to limited

resources.

No financial instruments were used in 2007-

2013. In order to implement Financial

Instruments in 2014-2020, the authorities

contacted financial institutions (e.g.

SociétéNationale de Crédit et

d'Investissement, European Investment

Bank, …), but they were not interested due to

the limited financial resources in question and

the administrative burden involved.

Therefore, no innovative financial instruments

are planned to be introduced in 2014-2020.

Will not be applied.


Advanced N/A N/A The same management


Consultation processes have

been organised.



162


Whereas the representatives from the Ministries highlighted the effectiveness of

administrative capacity in the 2007-2013 programming period, other studies have indicated

a relatively high staff fluctuation amounting to 33%, although it decreased over the course

of the 2007-2013 programming period.

The TA team amounts to merely three members (Full-Time Equivalent), of which one is an

economist, another is a legal officer, and the third is an administrative and financial

assistant.73 According to an interview with the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade in a

different study, the high level of staff turnover is a persisting challenge for the ERDF OP

management and implementation, and it is likely to be due to a lack of career prospects as

well as the termination of contracts with limited duration. However, given that only two

contractual agents are co-financed by the ERDF, this implies that most work is carried out

by the civil servants at the Ministry. Also, the authorities report that there is no demand

but also no time and resources to carry out any training. In sum, although the

administration seems to be well established, programme management faces a few

persisting human resource challenges.

However, according to the interviewees, the administrative burden in 2007-2013 was

manageable compared to what is foreseen in the 2014-2020 programming period.

Human resources: According to the PA, the role of the ERDF the Managing

Authorityis carried out by a high-ranking civil servant with a team of officials with

adequate professional experience. With a view to supporting the Managing Authority

and carrying out communication and information activities, a TA team is in place.

The TA activities are co-financed by the ERDF and ESF. The TA team is led by the

Managing Authority and is composed of three policy assistants. The PA mentions

explicitly that these available human resources are limited compared to the

demands for the 2014-2020 programming period.74;

Reporting requirements: There will be more reports to be delivered to the European

Commission, the performance framework is a novelty, and the Managing Authority is

expected to reply to a number of requests (from the European Commission, the

European Parliament, the European Court of Auditors, national administration

reports, etc.), which are highly time-intensive activities;

E-cohesion: Each Member State is requested to carry out e-cohesion, and an

automatic system of data transmission will have to be established. However,

according to the Managing Authorities, the financial resources allocated to

Luxembourg are considered to be limited with regard to financing a new electronic

system.

The costs that come with these changes are not in proportion to the financial resources

available and the benefits to be gained. The financial resources have been reduced to a

degree where a joint support system between the ERDF and the ESF in Luxembourg has

become debatable.

73

Autorité de Gestion FEDER 2007-2013 (2013) Programme Opérationnel FEDER 2007-2013 Compétitivité et

Emploi, Rapport annuel d’exécution 2012 – Version approuvée par le Comité de Suivi le 23 mai 2013. 74

Le Gouvernement du Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2013) Accord de partenariat entre le Grand-Duché de


163



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)



++ ++ N/A



preparation

++ ++ N/A

Project appraisal ++ ++ N/A

Financial management ++ ++ N/A

Monitoring ++ ++ N/A

Evaluation ++ ++ N/A

Simplification ++ ++ N/A

Communication with

beneficiaries

++ ++ N/A


Partnership principle ++ ++ N/A



functions.


The persons involved in the tasks listed in Table 50: are the same ones. The administration

is so small, that the representatives interviewed mentioned that they are even acquainted

with all the project representatives.

Action taken to address weaknesses in capacity

The interviewees did not identify any areas in which capacity could be considered to be

weak, because in the 2007-2013 programming period the tasks were manageable.

However, according to a different study,75 no measures are in place to support the

professional (skills) development of ERDF co-financed staff. This is due to a lack of financial

resources as well as a lack of time due to the heavy workload, according to an interview

with the Ministry of the Economy and Foreign Trade in the aforementioned study.

Professional training is provided only when it is really needed and estimated as essential

within the Structural Funds.

Good practice

In the 2007-2013 programming period, the Managing Authority sent questionnaires to the

beneficiaries about their satisfaction with the management and coordination. These surveys

revealed increasingly better results each time. This client satisfaction survey is in line with

the ISO9001:2008 requirements.

The interviewees identified two projects in the field of low-carbon economy as examples of

particularly ‘excellent’ quality. The first project comprised the construction of a bio-

composting facility in the south of Luxembourg to generate energy. The construction was

carried out by engineers from German and Czech firms, and the coordination, management

and implementation of this project ran very smoothly. The second project, which was also

implemented efficiently, related to generating renewable energy by building briquettes out

of mud.

75 Radzyner A, Frangenheim A and Tödtling-Schönhofer H (2014) Co-financing salaries, bonuses, top-ups from

Structural Funds during the 2007-2013 period, Final Report. Metis GmbH on behalf of the European Commission, DG Regio, February 2013.


164


According to the PA, in order to define the actions for reducing the administrative burden

on beneficiaries, an analysis of the 2007-2013 programming period has been carried out.

The main administrative tasks faced by beneficiaries receiving financing under each of the

three funds are:76

Obtaining and sending the application form, including the budget and the qualitative

and quantitative objectives of the project;

Filling in the financial data (demand for automatic reimbursement, insurance

declaration, etc.);

Obtaining and sending receipts and invoices;

Availability during on-the-spot controls of the Managing Authority, the Audit

Authority or Intermediate Body;

Controls by various actors: the Managing Authority (where the number of controls

has already been reduced from two to one), the Audit Authority, the European Court

of Auditors, and the European Commission. For one project, three controllers from

different institutions were present in the same room, which demonstrates that many

demands are ‘exaggerated, or even superfluous and ridiculous’, according to a

representative of the Ministry of the Economy and Foreign Trade;

Providing information in the framework of annual or final reports;

Preparing audit reports (for the European Court of Auditors), which takes about six

months, and the Managing Authority often has only two weeks to reply. The on-

going activities of the Managing Authority sometimes have to be put on hold in order

to reply to the spontaneous requests of third-party administrations or organisations;

Developing proof of payment files (receipts, proof of payment, and relevant public

documents);

The Managing Authority has to reply to numerous requests or send various reports

at the request of the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Court of

Auditors, national administrations and so forth, which takes significant time;

Participating in various participative meetings for implementing the project and

Monitoring Committee meetings related to indicators;

The Managing Authority is sometimes invited to Brussels to participate in working

groups unrelated to its function. An associated problem is the organisation of those

meetings: sometimes, the European Commission schedules two meetings on non-

consecutive days (e.g. on a Tuesday and on a Thursday), which leads to tremendous

time losses.

76

Le Gouvernement du Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2013) Accord de partenariat entre le Grand-Duché de

Luxembourg et la Commission européenne relatif aux Fonds relevant du cadre stratégique commun pour la période de programmation 2014-2020, Version provisoire, 26 septembre 2013, p.39.

165


Thematic Objective

Central

coordination

Programme

management

(Managing

Authority OP

ERDF)

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation + + N/A

2) ICT + + N/A

3) SME + + N/A

4) Low-carbon economy ++

++

(A lot of activities and

projects were carried

out in this area, and

they were implemented

very efficiently)

N/A

5) Climate change adaptation + + N/A


efficiency

+ + N/A


networks

N/A N/A N/A


mobility

N/A N/A N/A


combating poverty

N/A N/A N/A


lifelong learning

N/A N/A N/A




functions.



During the 2007-2013 programming period the following could be observed related to

capacity:

Procedural issues (process of Structural Funds applications): The interviewees

mentioned problems with regard to audit and control and described a situation

where one person working half-time in the Structural Funds administration had to

deal with nine first-level controllers (Court of Auditors, Audit Authority, the

Managing Authority and a representative of the beneficiaries);

Human-resources-related issues: the team is small, but there was never a lack of

capacities to carry out the activities required in the 2007-2013 programming period;

External expertise (e.g. consultancies): The management team also included two

externally contracted agents who were familiar with Structural Funds and

experienced in working with the ERDF. Consultants were also hired to carry out an

ex-ante evaluation, develop the PA, carry out a strategic environment assessment,

and set up a computerised system for the communication with beneficiaries.


There were no major changes in administrative structures within the last few years of the

2007-2013 programming period.


166


In order to define actions to reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries, an analysis

of the 2007-2013 programming period was carried out. This resulted in the identification of

a number of measures aimed at simplifying the procedures in place. The expected results

are:

ameliorating the information exchange substantially;

ameliorating the quality of the Managing Authorities;

effective reduction of the administration costs.

The measures and the results foreseen are summarised in Table 53:

Table 53: Simplifications planned to reduce the administrative burden

and expected results

Planned simplification measures

In

form

ati

on

exch

an

ge

Man

ag

em

en

t

co

sts

Man

ag

em

en

t

syste

m q

uality

Tim

e-s

avin

g

IT and online

systems

Possibility of downloading all ERDF, ESF and EAFRD

documents online (simplified and quick access) N/A N/A

Replacing the sites feder.public.lu with a single

common e- portal for the ERDF, ESF and ETC OPs

N/A

New portal enabling the online establishment of

forms: facilitates demands

Improving the users’ guide for beneficiaries N/A N/A

Introducing the possibility to send all

documents through an online system guaranteeing

the identification of the beneficiary

User-friendly interface N/A N/A

Automation

of the

process

Permanently ameliorating the automation of data

and data-handling (decreasing the service costs)

N/A

IT system modularity through an integrated

management and payment control system

N/A

Exchange of data through standardised computer

files

Automatic display of indicators N/A

Human

resources

Organising only one single annual control and one

single on-site meeting per project/beneficiary by

Managing Authority (ERDF)

N/A

Optimising and obtaining more fluid internal

procedures in the Managing Authorities

N/A N/A

Establishing Monitoring Committees of the ESF

projects for each project financed

Reinforcing the effectiveness of controls by

permanently adapting control checklists N/A

Legislation Simplifying national eligibility rules, especially

simplifications related to costs N/A

Source: Own translation of Table 10 in: Le Gouvernement du Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2013), Accord de

partenariat entre le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg et la Commission européenne relatif aux Fonds relevant du cadre

stratégique commun pour la période de programmation 2014-2020, Version provisoire, 26 septembre 2013, p.40.

167


Programme management

levels

Will there be fewer

or more (new?)

actors?



Which CP-related tasks will be integrated into existing

administrative procedures and which will not?



No changes. N/A No changes planned. The authorities will try to maintain the

system as far as possible.


No changes. N/A The existing team will take care of it. No additional staff

members are expected, given that the Managing Authority did

not get such an authorisation from the Ministry.


preparation

No changes. N/A No changes planned.

Project appraisal No changes. N/A No changes planned.





Monitoring




Evaluation




Simplification




Communication with

beneficiaries

No changes. N/A The IT system will be used for transmitting documents.

Personal contacts will be maintained. The existing team will

take care of it. No additional staff members are expected,

given that the Managing Authority did not get such an

authorisation from the Ministry.



N/A This will be implemented in the

steering committee (comité de

concertation) that coordinates

the funds.

N/A



168

Positive/negative implications for administrative capacity and anticipated future

capacity issues

For new actors:

External actors: the project partners are expected to remain almost the same, given

that the same type of projects will be co-financed in 2014-2020 as in 2007-2013. A

few new project partners will be added, such as communities, mainly for the energy/

CO2 projects;

Internal actors: the same team will be maintained for the 2014-2020 programming

period with no changes foreseen or authorised.

The new tasks will be integrated into the existing system. The authorities will try as much

as possible to keep the management and implementation system as it was in 2007-2013.

Although the financial resources are lower than in the 2007-2013period, no reduction of

staff is foreseen.

The authorities expect procedural issues, given that more tasks will be expected (e.g.

performance framework, regular accounts, etc.) with less financial resources. The required

changes represent an administrative burden that is too large compared to the financial

resources available.



According to the interviewees, the European Commission has not criticised the

administrative capacity in Luxembourg, especially because there have never been any

irregularities or delays in reporting.

However, the EC Position Paper stated that:77

Luxembourg should increase its administrative capacities with competent actors in

order to really be able to apply environmental evaluation, state aid and public

markets;

Ensure an efficient controlling environment and ensure the operational capacity of

control systems;

Find a remedy for weak points in the implementation system (particularly first-level

control) and ensure that the selection process for projects is sufficiently selective.

In the EC Position Paper, Luxembourg is also encouraged to improve its financial

management system by focusing on simplification and flexibility through online solutions,

witha view to reducing the burden for beneficiaries. Moreover, partnership is to become

more efficient, and the control of evaluations should become more efficient. Finally, the OPs

are encouraged to introduce an online platform based on external good practice to enable

information exchange with the beneficiaries. The interviewees stated that these changes

would be implemented, but that the lack of resources would hinder the success of their

implementation.

77 European Union (2012), Position des services de la Commission sur le développement d'un Accord de

Partenariat et de programmes au Luxembourg pour la période 2014-2020, Ref. Ares(2012)1369418 - 20/11/2012.


169

12 CASE STUDY - POLAND


The draft PA was accepted at a meeting of the Polish Council of Ministers on 8 January

2014, along with the draft NOPs for 2014-2020. Their acceptance allowed Poland to start

formal negotiations with the European Commission. The final PA was adopted on 23 May

2014.

The Polish side wanted to maintain regular, informal contacts with the European

Commission throughout the drafting process. This established strong links, although the

European Commission's comments on drafts continued to be extensive.

Advantages and disadvantages

Poland found the exercise of developing the PA to be very productive. The PA is regarded

as an important strategic document for development in Poland. The draft version is large

and comprehensive. There are broad areas of agreement, particularly concerning the

diagnoses of challenges where the four Thematic Objectives subject to thematic

concentration and the priorities of Poland’s National Strategy for Regional Development

(KSRR) largely cohere. However, there are some issues of concern, including problems with

ex-ante conditionalities.


The following changes in the proposed share of funding for themes are noted in the draft

PA.

Table 55: Allocation to basic themes, comparison of 2007-2013 and 2014-2020

Theme 2007-2013 (%

share of total) 2014-2020 (% share of total)

Research, training and development,

innovation 21.2 24.9

Social cohesion and labour market 20.7 20.0

Connective infrastructure for growth

and employment 42.2 34.7

Environment and effective

management of resources 16.0 20.4

Source: Ministerstwo Infrastruktury i Rozwoju (2014) Programowaniie perspektywy finansowej 2014-2020, Umowa

Partnerstwa: Dokument przyjęty przez Radę Ministrów w dniu 8 stycznia 2014 r. p. 98.

Based on earlier draft of the PA, Table 56: below presents the structure of financial support

under the specific Thematic Objectives, comparing shares in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020

programming periods.


170

Table 56: Comparison of Cohesion policy allocation to specific

Thematic Objectives, 2007-2013 and 2014-2020

Theme 2007-

2013

2014-

2020

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation 13.9% 14.5%

Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication

technologies

5.3% 5.5%

Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the

agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for

the EMFF)

3.2% 6.1%

Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors 2.1% 10.4%

Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management 1.4% 1.5%

Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency 12.2% 8.4%

Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network

infrastructures

39.1% 29.0%

Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility 6.1% 6.3%

Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty 6.0% 8.1%

Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning 8.2% 5.7%

Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration. 0.7% 0.4%

Total for 11 themes 98.2% 95.7%

TA 0.8% 3.6%

European Territorial Cooperation 1.0% 0.8%

Total 100% 100%

Source: Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego (2013) Programowanie perspektywy finansowej 2014 -2020 - Umowa Partnerstwa – (wstępny projekt), June 2013 [Programming perspective 2014-2020 – PA draft version].

The proposed share of funding for themes related to innovation, competitiveness of firms

and a low-carbon economy is larger than in 2007-2013. At the same time, the most

substantial fall in allocation is apparent in the objective of strengthening transport

infrastructure. This decrease will affect interventions in the development of local transport.

Investment in culture will now be included under the heading of innovation: supporting

‘intelligent projects’ that support creativity, innovation, ICT and the development of human

capital.


To avoid delays in the commencement of use of the resources allocated to Poland under the

MFF 2014-2020, work on fulfilling the ex-ante conditionalities has been underway since the

publication of the European Commission draft regulations. The basic premise of this work

was to meet all conditions before the end of 2013. The degree of fulfilment of

conditionalities varies, and several were the subject of negotiations with the European

Commission. In some policy fields, it proved challenging to develop a single detailed

strategic document, particularly where the sector was already covered by a number of

domestic strategies and documents.


171

Table 57: Progress of implementation of ex-ante conditionalities in Poland, January 2014

Thematic Objective Ex-ante Conditionality Status

1) Innovation 1.1. Smart specialisation strategy. Partially fulfilled, final deadline first quarter 2014.

1.2. Research and Innovation infrastructure. Fulfilled

2) ICT 2.1. Strategic policy framework for digital growth. Partially fulfilled, deadline January 2014.

2.2. Next Generation Network (NGN) Infrastructure. Not fulfilled, deadline January 2014.

3) SME 3.1. Taking into account the Small Business Act. Partially fulfilled, deadline first quarter 2014.

4) Low-carbon economy 4.1. Cost-effective improvements. Partially fulfilled, deadline first quarter 2014.

4.2. Promote high-efficiency co-generation of heat and power. Partially fulfilled, deadline 2014.

4.3. Promote the production and distribution of renewable energy sources. Fulfilled

5) Climate change

adaptation

5.1. Risk prevention and risk management. Fulfilled


resource efficiency

6.1. The existence of (a) a water pricing policy that provides adequate incentives

for users to use water resources efficiently, and (b) an adequate contribution of

different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services at a rate

determined in the approved river basin management plan for investment

supported by the programmes.

Partially fulfilled, deadline end 2014.

6.2. Promoting economically and environmentally sustainable investments in the

waste sector, particularly through the development of waste management plans

consistent with Directive 2008/98/EC, and with the waste hierarchy.

Partially fulfilled, deadline first quarter 2014.

7) Sustainable

transport & networks

7.1. The existence of a comprehensive plan or plans or framework or frameworks

for transport investment in accordance with the Member State's institutional set-

up, which supports infrastructure development and improves connectivity to the

TEN-T comprehensive and core networks.

Not fulfilled, deadline end 2014.

7.2. The existence within the comprehensive transport plan or plans or framework

of a specific section on railway development in accordance with the Member

State's institutional set-up.

Partially fulfilled, deadline April 2014.

7.3. Other modes of transport, including inlandwaterways and maritime transport,

ports, multimodal links and airport infrastructure. N/A

7.4. Development of smart energy distribution, storage and transmission systems. N/A

8) Employment and

labour mobility

8.1. Active labour market policies are designed and delivered in the light of the

employment guidelines. Fulfilled

8.2. Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation: the existence of a

strategic policy framework for inclusive start-up. Partially fulfilled, deadline first quarter 2014.

8.3. Labour market institutions are modernised and strengthened. Fulfilled


172

Thematic Objective Ex-ante Conditionality Status

8.4. Active and healthy ageing. Partially fulfilled, deadline December 2013.

8.5. Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change. Fulfilled

8.6. The existence of a strategic policy framework for promoting youth

employment. N/A


combating poverty

9.1. The existence and the implementation of a national strategic policy

framework for poverty reduction. Unfulfilled, deadline first quarter of 2014.

9.2. A national Roma-inclusion strategic policy framework. Unfulfilled, deadline end of 2013.

9.3. The existence of a national or regional strategic policy framework for health. Partially fulfilled, deadline first quarter of 2014.

10) Education, skills

and lifelong learning

10.1. The existence of a strategic policy framework to reduce early school-leaving. Fulfilled

10.2. The existence of a national or regional strategic policy framework for

increasing tertiary education attainment, quality and efficiency. Partially fulfilled, deadline first half of 2014.

10.3. The existence of a national and/or regional strategic policy framework for

lifelong learning. Fulfilled

10.4. The existence of a national or regional strategic policy framework for

increasing the quality and efficiency of VET systems. N/A

11) Institutional

capacity

11.1. The existence of a strategic policy framework for reinforcing the Member

State's administrative efficiency, including public administration reform. Partially fulfilled, deadline first quarter 2014.

Source: Ministerstwo Rozwoju i Infrastruktury (2014) Programowaniie perspektywy fiinansowej 2014-2020- Załączniik do projektu Umowy Partnerstwa –Stan spełnienia przez

Polskę warunkowości ex-ante dla funduszy europejskich 2014-2020.


173



Since 2012, Poland had had a series of meetings with the European Commission on the

development of the PA. The aim was to ensure that the key issues were discussed in time

and that final negotiations would be largely formal. Nevertheless, the European

Commission comments have still been extensive.


In the 2014-2020 period, Poland will implement eight OPs at the national level, financed by

ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF.

OP Intelligent Development -Innovation, R&D and links to the business environment

(ERDF);

OP Infrastructure and Environment - Low-emission economy, environmental

protection, adaption to climate change, transport and energy (ERDF, ESF);

OP Knowledge, Education, Development -Development of skills and training, social

inclusion and good governance (ESF);

OP Digital Poland - New programme that aims to support information and

communication technologies, including the development of e-government and

broadband networking (ERDF);

OP Eastern Poland (ERDF) – Innovation, SME development, low-emission and

infrastructure;

OP Technical Assistance (ERDF);

OP Territorial cooperation (ERDF);

OP Rural development (EAFRD);

OP Maritime development, fisheries (EMFF).

At the regional level, as in the 2007-2013 programming period, 16 ROPs will be

implemented. These will now be joint-funded by ERDF and ESF (in 2007-2013, they were

ERDF only). Based on experience with the implementation of ROPs in the 2007-2013

programming period, further decentralisation of spending is planned for 2014-2020. There

will be an overall increase in the share of total ERDF and ESF funds managed regionally

from 37.3% to approximately 59.3%. The ERDF contribution for the ROPs in total ERDF

allocation will be a minimum of 55% (up from 49.7%), while in the case of the ESF, this

share will be about 75% of the total allocation for the fund. The division of funds among

regions will be based on an algorithm as well as the amounts specified in the negotiations

of territorial contracts between the national government and the regions.

Thus, the following shares are proposed:

ESF: 75% of the ESF will be allocated to ROPs with the rest dedicated to envelopes

(Priority Axes) in national OPs;

ERDF: about 55% for the ROPs with the rest dedicated to envelopes (Priority Axes)

in NOPs.


174

For the first time in the case of Poland, funding will go to two different types of regions: the

less-developed and more-developed regions. Mazowieckie, the region where Poland’s

capital city Warsaw is located, has exceeded the 90% of GDP threshold and will become the

first Polish region to move from Convergence tomore-developed status. Thus, the regional

programme architecture will include:

15 multi-funded (ERDF, ESF) ROPs for regions classified as less-developed;

1 multi-funded ROP (ERDF, ESF) for Mazowieckie, falling within the more- developed

category.


The decentralisation and increased funding to ROPs reflects growing experience of Cohesion

policy management and implementation at the regional level. The decision to move to joint

ERDF/ESF funding in the ROPs is based on the aim to maximise the integration of Cohesion

policy funding and increase synergies between the actions supported by different funds in

specific territories.

Main challenges

Several issues are prominent in the preparations for 2014-2020:

The more-developed status of Mazowieckie– the challenge is to ensure balanced

coverage for the whole of the region, given substantial divergence between Warsaw

and the rest of the territory;

Decentralisation– the on-going decentralisation of the Cohesion policy

implementation system means a much larger role in managing and implementing

programmes at the regional level. The larger pool of funds allocated to the regional

level will mean greater responsibility for the decisions and actions implemented;

Joint-funded ROPs – the introduction of joint ERDF/ESF ROPs requires coordination

between the programmes, funds and instruments. Regions will have to configure

Managing Authority responsibilities to take this shift into account. Emphasis is being

placed on developing solutions to ensure efficient and effective coordination and

complementarity of interventions.

Management of multi-fund OPs

In the 2014-2020 programming period, ROPs will be joint-funded by ERDF/ESF. As a result,

the Mazowieckie region plans to maintain separate ERDF and ESF departments with

responsibilities for the management of specific priorities in the new ROP. Both units have

considerable experience in managing interventions under these headings. However, a new

regional development unit has been created to act as an overarching Managing Authority,

with a particular focus on strategic issues.


The Table 58: below sets out the allocation of funding to programmes, according to the

draft PA accepted by the Polish Council of Ministers in January 2014.


175

Table 58: Allocation of resources to Operational Programmes (€ million)

OP Thematic objective Fund Allocation to OP

(€ million)

OP Intelligent

Development

1 Supporting scientific research, technological

development and innovation

ERDF 7,487

3. Increasing competitiveness of SMEs, the agriculture

and fisheries sectors.

ERDF 829.9

TA ERDF 297

Total 8,613.9

OP

Infrastructure

and

Environment

4 Supporting the low emission economy in all sectors. ERFD/ESF 3,537.6

5 Promoting adaptation to climate change, risk

prevention and risk management.

CF 700

6 Protection of the natural environment and supporting

the effective use of resources.

ERDF/ESF 3,575.5

7 Promoting sustainable transport and removing

bottlenecks in key infrastructure networks.

ERDF/CF 18,802.4

9 Supporting social inclusion and tackling poverty. ERDF 468.3

TA CF 330

Total 27,413.7

OP

Knowledge,

education,

development

8 Supporting employment and labour mobility ESF 1,595.8

YEI 252.4

9 Supporting social inclusion and tackling poverty. ESF 255.3

10 investing in education, skills and lifelong learning ESF 1,591.5

11 enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient

public administration.

ESF 189

Allocation to innovative projects and international cooperation 670.5

TA ESF 134.7

Total 4,436.8

OP Digital

Poland

2 enhancing access to, and use and quality of,

information and communication technologies;

ERDF 2,104.8

TA ERDF 67.7

Total 2,172.5

OP TA Total CF 700.1

3 Increasing competitiveness of SMEs, the agriculture


ERDF 769.4

4 Supporting the low emission economy in all sectors. ERDF 440.1



ERDF 756.5

TA ERDF 34

Total 2,000

Regional

operational

programmes

1 Supporting scientific research, technological

development and innovation

ERDF 2,433.5

2 Enhancing access to, and use and quality of

information and communication technologies

ERDF 977.3

3 Increasing competitiveness of SMEs, the agriculture


ERDF 4,009.4

4 Supporting the low emission economy in all sectors. ERDF 5,212.2

5 Promoting adaptation to climate change, risk

prevention and risk management.

ERDF 419

6 Protection of the natural environment and supporting

the effective use of resources.

ERDF 2,296.7



ERDF 4,237.2

8 Supporting employment and labour mobility ERDF/ESF 3,700.9

9 Supporting social inclusion and tackling poverty. ERDF/ESF 4,539.1

10 investing in education, skills and lifelong learning ERDF/ESF 2,399.4

TA ESF 1,052.2

Total 31,276.9

Total OPs 76,866.5

Source: Ministerstwo Infrastruktury i Rozwoju (2014) Programowaniie perspektywy finansowej 2014-2020, Umowa

Partnerstwa: Dokument przyjęty przez Radę Ministrów w dniu 21 maja 2014 r. p. 165.


176


Case: ROP Śląskie 2007-2013/2014-2020

The ROPs were developed in spring/summer 2013, although the process was gradual as

work was simultaneously underway on regional development strategies and territorial

contracts. The regions submitted their ROPs to the Ministry of Infrastructure and

Development at the end of October. The Ministry subsequently provided comments

alongside relevant feedback from the European Commission on the PA. The revised ROPs

were sent to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development by 10 April 2014 for review

before formal negotiations with the European Commission.

The main challenge is developing indicators that allow national analyses but are also

relevant and can be monitored at programme and project levels. As in the 2007-2013

programming period, there is strong guidance from Ministry of Infrastructure and

Development: national and regional Managing Authorities have been sent a Common List

of Key Indicators (WLWK 2014) to choose from. The latest draft of the Śląskie ROP 2014-

2020 at the time of the interview included corrections and adjustments of the system of

indicators in line with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development methodology,

including the construction of a system of indicators and the selection of indicators in

keeping with the WLWK 2014. The indicator system in the draft of the Śląskie ROP 2014-

2020 did not include targets, but the programme did have a financial table (see Table 59

below).

Table 59: ROP Śląskie 2014-2020 financial table (€ million)

Priority Fund EU share Domestic share Total

1. Modern economy ERDF 257 45.4 302.4

2. Digital Śląskie ERDF 140.5 24.8 165.3

3. Competitiveness of SMEs ERDF 264.6 46.7 311.3

4. Energy efficiency, renewable

energy resources and low-carbon

economy

ERDF 748.3 132 880.3

5. Environmental protection and

effective use of resources

ERDF 233.9 41.3 275.1

6. Transport ERDF 503.9 88.9 592.9

7. Regional labour market ESF 245.8 43.4 289.2

8. Regional labour force based on

knowledge economy

ESF 189.7 33.5 223.2

9. Social inclusion ESF 233 41.1 274.1

10. Revitalisation, social and health

infrastructure

ERDF 275.2 48.6 323.8

11. Strengthening educational

potential

ESF 190.2 33.6 223.8

12. Education infrastructure ERDF 81.4 14.4 95.8

13. Technical assistance ESF 110 19.4 129.4

Total 3473.6 613 4086.6

Source: Zarząd Województwa Śląskiego (2014) Projekt Regionalnego Programu Operacyjnego Województwa

Śląskiego 2014-2020 (wersja 4) p. 233.


177

With regard to simplification in the 2014-2020 programming period, there will be greater

decentralisation of the implementation system by increasing the share of regional

programmes in the allocation of the total resources. Compared to the 2007-2013

programming period, voivodeship self-governments will be entrusted with the partial

management of the ESF (within two of the funding programmes); and mechanisms to

support integrated programmes will be introduced (the implementation of which will be

entrusted to urban centres – Zit/RIT). They will also be responsible for using flexible forms

of financing projects, ensuring wider access to support thematic reorientation, as well as

providing easy access for potential beneficiaries to comprehensive information via an

extensive network of information points for each Fund.

Simplification measures are planned, including the use of revenue-generating projects, the

widest possible use of lump sums, and a reduction in the level of co-financing under the

relevant Priority Axis.

In order to reduce the administrative burden, the Local System for Grant Applications will

be launched in December 2014. This represents the introduction of electronic

communication for grant applications in order to accelerate the selection and

implementation of projects, and to improve the storage of project documents in accordance

with Article 140 of the CPR. The systems will be made available free of charge, and will be

available also outside office hours (i.e. 24/7) via the internet.


As mentioned above, based on experience with the implementation of ROPs in the 2007-

2013 programming period, further decentralisation of spending is planned for 2014-2020.

There will be an overall increase in the share of total ERDF and ESF funds managed

regionally from 37.3% to approximately 59.3%. The ERDF contribution for the ROPs in the

total ERDF allocation will be a minimum of 55% (up from 49.7%), while in the case of the

ESF, this share will be about 75% of the total allocation for the fund.

There will be some thematic reorientation. The three main themes being supported are

innovation/R&D, energy and transport (the development of regional transport

infrastructure). Within this, there will be an overall increase in support for innovation in the

economy and for interventions connected with the low-carbon economy. There will also be

stronger concentration on the development of human capital (particularly for strengthening

the quality of education at all levels and developing workforce skills in the R&D sector). At

the same time, there will be a decrease in support for the development of transport

infrastructure, most notably in terms of local transport infrastructure. One of the main

reasons for the changes is the ring-fencing rule (thematic concentration requirements). The

region still has significant needs in terms of basic infrastructure, and if no thematic

concentration were being imposed, the next ROP would probably include more support for

basic infrastructure (sewage systems, roads). Moreover, there will be no dedicated

priorities for culture and tourism in the 2014-2020 ROP. Some changes also result from

significant shifts in the demarcation line between national and regional funding.

There will be a switch from mono-fund to multi-fund ROPs. As noted above, the Śląskie

ROP 2007-2013 is mono-fund OP (ERDF). For the 2007-2013 programming period, the

Marshal’s Office of each of Poland’s 16 regional self-governments had the role of Managing

Authority for the ROPs, funded through ERDF, and the Intermediate Body manages the

regional priorities in the OP Human Capital (HCOP), funded under ESF (the Managing

Authority is the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy).However, the 2014-2020 ROPs will be

joint-funded by ERDF/ESF with a single Managing Authority in the regional Marshals’

Offices.


178


In terms of organisational stability, the administrative and staffing arrangements were

consistent during the 2007-2013 programming period. Nevertheless, staff turnover was an

important issue between the 2004-2006 and the 2007-2013 programming periods.


Poland has a regionalised unitary system.The key administrative issues are the coordination

of regional administration and the aim ofensuring sufficient administrative capacity at

regional levels to fulfil their responsibilities, including as Managing Authoritiesfor ROPs. The

regional self-governments are now responsible for the development and implementation of

ROPs, including the evaluation and selection of projects to be co-financed, making

payments for beneficiaries, project control and programme evaluation and monitoring.

While in some Marshal Offices some functions of the Managing Authorities and Intermediate

Bodies were carried out by existing departments or units that were involved in the

preparation of the OPs, in other Marshal Offices organisational changes resulted in the

introduction ofnew organisational units. The increased share of funding for ROPs and the

shift towards multi-funded ROPs emphasises the role of regional administrative capacity in

the 2014-2020 programming period.


influence

The European Commission has supported the principle of joint-funded programmes to

enhance integration and produce synergies. This was one of the motivations for the shift to

joint-funded ROPs in the 2014-2020 programming period. In turn, this is prompting

administrative review and reform in Polish regional governments.


179

Table 60: Implementation assessment– Preparation for programme-cycle stages and elements

Programme

elements

State of

implementation

How difficult has




Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

Completed Some issues with


and ‘ring-fencing’:

beneficiaries expect

continued support for a

wide range of

interventions, but this is

no longer the case.

Also, the ‘demarcation

line’ between national

and regional

interventions has

influenced strategic

thinking.

Overall, the approach to strategy development has been more

focused than in 2004-2006. Some areas will no longer be supported

by the ROP i.e. no local social, health, sport, tourism infrastructure

(only integrated revitalisation projects); no broadband network

(only internet services); and no local roads or cycle paths. The

general idea is to support existing infrastructure rather than to build

new infrastructure.

The Managing Authority

programming unit is the

responsible entity.Completed.

Performance

framework

Advanced The main challenge is

how to respond to a

new approach to

defining performance

(i.e. beyond absorption

to include impact). This

requires a performance

framework that

measures the impact of

a programme on the

development of the

region and its

competitiveness, and

how to comply the

result indicators.

In the 2007-2013 period, the performance and results-driven

approach was understood in terms of timely spending and

absorption, sound financial management, the limitation of

irregularities, and the fulfilment of spending agreements. There is a

need for a clearer picture of what the parties have committed to,

how it fits with broader objectives, and the anticipated outcomes.

Responsibility of the Managing

Authority in conjunction with

Ministry of Infrastructure and

Development. To be completed

by end 2014.

Project

generation /

preparation

Initial - Looking ahead to the 2014-2020 programming period, the following

recommendationwas made by the 2012 evaluation that assessed

the impact of the ROP:

The selection of part of the projects following non-competitive

procedures should be continued, as these were assessed to be an

efficient means of involving beneficiaries in strategic development.


Authority. To be completed by

end 2014.


180

Programme

elements

State of

implementation

How difficult has




Project

appraisal

Initial Work involved in selecting non-competitive projects, both on the

side of the beneficiaries and the Managing Authority, lasted many

months prior to the submission of the applications and incurred

substantial costs. The selection process should be streamlined and

more weight given to strategic coherence in project assessment

criteria.



end 2014.

Financial

management

Advanced The main issue is the

shift of Certifying

Authority functions from

the state office in the

region to a dedicated

unit in the regional

government (i.e. in the

body that also has

Managing Authority

responsibilities).

N/A Responsibility of the Managing


end 2014.

Control

mechanism

Initial N/A N/A Responsibility of the Managing


end 2014.

Monitoring

Advanced The Śląskie ROP is

considered to have a

strong system. There

are some challenges

with regard to

introducing new,

performance-oriented

indicators and targets,

as well as adapting to a

new national monitoring

system.

To build on the existing system. Responsibility of the Managing


end 2014.

Evaluation

Advanced Experience and capacity

grew significantly in the

2007-2013 period. The

main focus is on

developing a more

strategic plan for

evaluations in the 2014-

2020 period.

To build on the existing system. Responsibility of the Managing


end 2014.


181

Programme

elements

State of

implementation

How difficult has




Simplification

Initial Challenges involve

responding to a joint-

funded ROP, flexible

forms of financing

projects, and thematic

reorientation. All of this

should simplify

procedures for

beneficiaries, but only

with significant efforts

from programme

management

N/A Responsibility of the Managing


end 2014.

Communication

channels

Advanced Need to provide

potential beneficiaries

with easy access to

comprehensive

information via an

extensive network of

information points for

each Fund.

- Responsibility of the Managing


end 2014.

Financial

instruments

Initial Some new instruments

will be launched under

ESF (social inclusion/

revitalisation) and under

the low-carbon

economy heading

(ERDF).

Will build on the positive experience of the JESSICA initiative in the

2007-2013 period.



end 2014.

Partnership

principle

Advanced Increased focus on

strengthening of

partnership through the

CLLD. Another challenge

is building partnership

in the new thematic

context – e.g. with

universities, research

centres and firms.

Building on the experience of sub-regional programme platforms. Responsibility of the Managing


end 2014.



182




coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)



+ - N/A

Performance framework + - N/A

Project generation / preparation N/A + +

Project appraisal N/A + N/A


Monitoring + + N/A

Evaluation + + N/A

Simplification - - N/A

Communication with

beneficiaries

N/A - N/A

Financial instruments N/A + N/A

Partnership principle N/A + N/A



Action taken to address weaknesses in capacity at central level

For the 2007-2013 period, the process of strategic programming was led from the centre,

as regional authorities were still developing experience and capacity. Central government

provided strong guidance and carried out ex-ante evaluation. For 2014-2020, regional-level

capacity has been developed. There is still central-level guidance, but ROP programming is

being carried out in closer proximity to the regional development unit in the regional

government that is responsible for the domestic Śląskie regional Development Strategy.

The regional evaluation unit is stronger: it has carried out an ex-post analysis of the 2007-

2013 ROP and is carrying out ex-ante studies for 2014-2020. Moreover, as with all regions,

a regional territorial observatory is now in operation, gathering data and conducting

analyses of the regional socio-economic situation. All of this should ensure that there is a

stronger regional dimension to the ROP strategy.

Good practice

The expansion of evaluation capacity in Poland can be seen as an example of good practice.

This refers mostly to the national level, where the National Evaluation Unit developed

several initiatives and tools during the 2007-2013 programming period. The unit

established an evaluation database that gathered studies completed during the 2007-2013

programming period. In 2009, Poland launched an innovative initiative by building an

integrated system for managing conclusions and recommendations from evaluation

studies.The system was created in order to coordinate the process of implementation and

strengthen the monitoring of recommendations formulated within completed studies.

Managing Authorities play the main role in the system (making decisions on using

recommendations, followed by monitoring the process of their implementation) alongside

the National Evaluation Unit (managing the database of conclusions and recommendations,

analysing and monitoring key recommendations). Evaluation was a crucial theme in the

Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union. Poland organised a series of high-

level conferences and seminars to highlight and discuss the key issues.


183

This included a meta-analysis of evaluation and other empirical studies (from the European

Commission and Member States) organised by the Polish Government and conducted by a

team of external experts. In 2014-2020, there will also be a strong emphasis on meta-

analysis of the results of evaluations carried out under specific themes. Poland plans to

encourage more advanced evaluation methodologies, particularly counterfactual analysis

and theory-based evaluation. The National Evaluation Unit is producing methodological

guidelines and training, particularly at regional level, where the share of funding is

increasing, programme management responsibilities are growing, and evaluation units in

Managing Authorities are building capacity.


There have been some issues with the capacity of beneficiaries, especially under RTDI,

which involves complicated projects and a wide range of beneficiaries that often have little

experience in these types of interventions.

Table 62: Governance and delivery of the themes

Thematic objective Central

coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation + - N/A

2) ICT N/A + N/A

3) SME N/A + N/A

4) Low-carbon economy N/A N/A N/A

5) Climate change

adaptation

N/A N/A N/A


resource efficiency

N/A + N/A


networks

N/A + N/A


mobility

N/A + N/A


combating poverty

N/A + N/A


lifelong learning

N/A + N/A

11) Institutional capacity N/A + N/A



Action taken to address weaknesses in capacity at beneficiary level

Procedural and institutional issues between national and regional levels in the distribution

of Cohesion policy capacities are still evident. In order to avoid duplication, the Ministry of

Infrastructure and Development introduced a so-called demarcation line. This was based on

a table of common areas of EU funds interventions and introduced different criteria to avoid

double-financing of projects in different Operational Programmes. Identification criteria

included the type of project beneficiary, the value of the project, and its location. The

demarcation line between the national Innovative Economy OP and the Śląskie ROP has

created some problems for the implementation of support for innovation and R&D activities

in micro-enterprises and SMEs in the region.


184

The demarcation line determines the level and type of eligible funding from national and

sub-national levels. To an extent, this constrains the capacity of the ROP Managing

Authority to administer funding in this field. For the 2014-2020 programming period, there

has been further decentralisation of Cohesion policy funding to the regions, and although

the demarcation line will still be used, it is anticipated that the role of regional authorities

will be strengthened.

The system for SME support is also fragmented in the region. The Managing Authority uses

the Silesian Centre for Entrepreneurship as an Intermediate Body, but there is a range of

regional and local development agencies and centres that compete to provide business

advice and support.


There were no major changes over the past two years, but recent months have seen

considerable reorganisation for the 2014-2020 programming period. For the shift to joint-

funded 2014-2020 ROPs, the region has maintained separate ERDF and ESF units with

responsibilities for the management of specific priorities in the new ROP. Both units have

considerable experience in managing interventions under these headings. However, a new

regional development unit has been created to act as an overarching Managing Authority,

with a particular focus on strategic issues.

Examples of administrative procedures and/or capacity development measures

which can be recommended as good practice

The ex-post evaluation of the Śląskie ROP included an analysis of its management and

implementation capacity that produced several insights. Implementation arrangements

were found to be flexible: staff could be transferred between units to adapt to changing

circumstances and the emergence of unexpected issues. The ex-post evaluation found that

a good system of training or staff development operated in both the Managing Authority

and the Intermediate Body: at least once a year, the training needs of staff are addressed.

Staff use the knowledge offered through training, although there was some scope to tailor

it more to practical, everyday tasks. The level of qualifications of staff was also appraised

positively.


185



Programme

management

levels

Will there be

fewer or more

(new?) actors?

How clear are tasks

and responsibilities

assigned?




procedures and which will

not?

Strategic

programming

/ thematic

concentration

More actors. Stronger integration of CP

programming and

domestic programming of

regional development

strategy.

Integrated

Performance

framework

Not known at the

moment, although

there will certainly

be a stronger focus

on this issue.

Framework is still being

developed.

Integrated

Project

generation /

preparation

Not known at the

moment, although

there will certainly

be a stronger focus

on this issue.

Still being developed. Integrated

Project

appraisal

Likely to remain

roughly the same.

The ex-post of the ROP

2007-2013 noted some

duplication of tasks –

being addressed in 2014-

2020.

Integrated

Financial

management

Likely to remain

roughly the same.

Certifying Authority

moving from government

office in the region to

regional government – will

have separate status.

Integrated

Monitoring

Will have a stronger

focus due to

emphasis on results

orientation.

No problems encountered. Integrated

Evaluation

Will have a stronger

focus due to

emphasis on results

orientation.

No problems encountered. Integrated

Simplification Likely to remain

roughly the same.


Communicatio

n with

beneficiaries

Likely to remain

roughly the same.


Financial

instruments

Will be expanding,

as new instruments

are being

introduced.


Partnership

principle

Likely to remain

roughly the same.




186


The regionalisation of more funding, the shift to joint-funded ROPs, thematic reorientation

and the continued use of a national ‘demarcation line’ represent significant challenges. At

the same time, the region recognises this as an important opportunity to integrate and

enhance capacity for Cohesion policy management and implementation. This opportunity is

particularly apparent in priorities such as social inclusion and combating poverty, education,

skills and lifelong learning and the Integrated Territorial Investments.


Institutional and procedural issues will be crucial. Although, overall, the level of staffing is

likely to remain the same, there will be internal restructuring and a focus on training under

specific headings in order to boost capacity (e.g. on financial instruments, generating

innovative projects, state aid issues etc.).


187

13 CASE STUDY - SWEDEN


In Sweden, the development of the PA is the joint responsibility of the Ministry of

Enterprise, Energy and Communications, the Ministry of Employment, and the Ministry of

Rural Affairs. The development of the PA took place in parallel with the development of the

OPs.

The first hearing concerning the PA was held on 18 June 2013. The aim of this hearing was

to discuss the overall priorities linked to the analysis of the PA. All comments received in

relation to the PA, including those that emerged at the hearing, were then addressed in the

Government Offices. The second and last hearing was held on 5 February 2014. The aim of

this hearing was to discuss the entire PA.78 At the time of writing, all the different elements

of the PA, as well as the process of fulfilling the ex-ante conditionalities and their

documentation, were close to being finalised. The PA was submitted to the European

Commission on 17 April 2014. At the time of the interview, the submission had not yet

taken place.


The basic idea behind the PA is considered to be good. The coordination of funds is

regarded as important in order to enable more effective programme implementation and

provide better value for money. The process of developing the PA was time-consuming and

compromises were necessary, but overall the exercise was viewed as useful and instructive.


The coverage of the different Thematic Objectives is considered to be clear in the PA. The

PA addresses TOs 1-10thus all TOs with the exception of TO11. Institutional capacity, and

the ROPs address TOs 1-4 (1. RTDI, 2. ICT, 3. SMEs, 4. Low-carbon economy) as well as

TO7 (Transport). In comparison to 2007-2013, there is clearly more focus within the

priorities and a greater concentration of resources within the ROPs. In addition, in

comparison to the 2007-2013 programme period, there is a stronger focus on green

investments with at least a fifth of the funds to be invested in the transition to a low-carbon

economy, i.e. renewable energy and energy efficiency.79 The concentration of resources on

these Thematic Objectives did not take place without certain difficulties. Indeed, taking into

consideration the earmarking of resources (e.g. green investments) as well as the needs

and wishes of different regionswas a complex process.



The dialogue with the European Commission was largely carried out by the Government

Offices. The Managing Authority contributed to this process by providing opinions. Overall,

the European Commission’s feedback was viewed as valuable in the development of the PA

and the OPs.

78 Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications,http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17948/a/230586 79 Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications,http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17513/a/217042

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17948/a/230586



188


There will be no changes to the regional programme areas for 2014-20. The government

has decided to keep the eight regional Structural Funds programmes co-funded by ERDF

(and a separate national programme co-funded by ESF, which will have eight regional

plans) in 2014-2020 in order to build upon the work of 2007-2013, which is viewed to have

worked well. The authorities also consider that this simplifies implementation, in the sense

that all the relevant actors are familiar with the structures, and as such the programmes

are expected to start quicker. There are therefore no significant challenges ahead in terms

of the programme architecture.

The regional programmes that will be retained to the 2014-2020 programming period are

as follows:

East Mid-Sweden;

Mid-North Sweden;

North Mid-Sweden;

North Sweden;

Skåne-Blekinge;

Småland and the Islands;

Stockholm;

West Sweden.

The only significant change for the 2014-2020 programming period is that, in addition to

the regional programmes, there will be a national programme co-funded by the ERDF. The

national programme will have a strategic focus on promoting sectoral and programme

coordination. It will contribute to developing cooperation and coordination between EU,

macro-regional, national, regional and local levels. The programme aims to bring added

value to the regional growth policy and to the implementation of Cohesion policy, which

cannot be achieved within the framework of regional Structural Fund programmes. The

national programme is linked to three of the 11 Thematic Objectives, namely TO1, TO3 and

TO4.

Funding to the programmes has been decided. Effectively, 85% of the resources are

directed to the ROPs, which cover the entire country. The remaining 15% is allocated to the

national programme, which was developed in dialogue with those who write the ROPs.80


Most programme elements were at an advanced stage of development (e.g. strategy) with

drafted proposals (e.g. indicators and targets, financial tables) at the time of the interview.

For instance, concerning the simplification measures, the Managing Authority was then

exploring the practical issues of introducing the different simplification measures presented

by the European Commission. Lessons from the 2007-2013 programming period were used

as a basis for developing the programme for 2014-2020.

80 Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17513/a/217042 .



189

There are some changes from the 2007-2013 programming period. Most importantly, there

is a greater focus and concentration of resources, as well as a clear shift towards green

investments. As noted above, at least a fifth of the funds will be invested in the transition

to a low-carbon economy, i.e. renewable energy and energy efficiency.81 Moreover, with

respect to the different programme elements such as indicators, the key changes from the

2007-2013 programming period are that there will be fewer indicators and there will be a

clear distinction between output and result indicators. The starting point for the Managing

Autority was to limit the common indicators as much as possible, and to supplement these

with a few additional output indicators. Regarding the result indicators, the Managing

Authority produced a comprehensive list of indicators, from which the individual

programmes are able to choose the most appropriate indicators for their purposes.

In Sweden, administrative issues are not a major concern, given the lack of any significant

issues in the past. Issues such as the financial crisis or political instability have not affected

administrative capacities to the extent that changes would have to be implemented.


Programme

elements

State of

implementa

tion

How difficult

has the process

been?

Lessons

learned?

Expected time frame

and management

structure?

Strategic

programmin

g / thematic

concentratio

n

Advanced Time-consuming,

as the

development of

many different

chapters needed

to take place in

parallel.

Yes. For instance,

in one OP proposal

it is mentioned

that

entrepreneurship

projects have

been too broad in

the past.

Similarly, there

has been a need

for a more

coordinated

strategy

concerning energy

efficiency and

renewable

energy.82

The writing process for the

programmes took place in

the regions (typically led

by one region).

The strategy and the

themes were developed in

specific working groups,

which may have involved

experts.

Overall, the OP writing

process took place in a

broad partnership

involving the national and

regional levels, private,

public and not-for-profit

sectors.

They are expected to be

completed by

spring/summer 2014.

Performance

framework

Advanced Not difficult. Yes (no details). Managing Authority is

responsible. Expected to

be completed by

spring/summer 2014.

Project

generation /

preparation

Not started. N/A Yes (no details). Managing Authority is

responsible. Expected time

frame is autumn 2014.

81 Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/17513/a/217042 82 Regionalt strukturfondsprogram för investeringar i tillväxt och sysselsättning, Norra Mellansverige 2014-2020,

version from 30 September 2013 http://www.sfpnorramellansverige.se/download/18.3ff7f3d6140e3c2110180002519/130930+F%C3%96RSLAG+ERUF+NMS.pdf


http://www.sfpnorramellansverige.se/download/18.3ff7f3d6140e3c2110180002519/130930+F%C3%96RSLAG+ERUF+NMS.pdf

http://www.sfpnorramellansverige.se/download/18.3ff7f3d6140e3c2110180002519/130930+F%C3%96RSLAG+ERUF+NMS.pdf


190

Programme

elements

State of

implementa

tion

How difficult

has the process

been?

Lessons

learned?

Expected time frame

and management

structure?

Project

appraisal

Not started. N/A Yes (no details). In the past period, the

Managing Authority was

responsible for the initial

appraisal, after which the

project proposal was

submitted to theStructural

Funds Partnerships.83

Final selection was made

by the Managing Authority

on the basis of the

recommendation of the

Structural Funds

Partnerships.

Expected time frame is

winter 2014/15.

Financial

management

Advanced Time-consuming Yes (no details). Managing Authority is



Control

mechanism

Advanced Time-consuming Yes. This has been

recommended n

the EC Position

Paper.



frame is autumn/winter

2014.

Monitoring Initial Tim- consuming Yes (no details). Managing Authority is



Evaluation Initial Time-consuming Yes, changes have

been introduced to

the number and

type of indicators

used.




Simplificatio

n


responsible for introducing

various simplification

measures. Expected time

frame is winter 2014.

Communicati

on channels



frame is

autumn/winter/spring

2014/15.

Financial

instruments



frame is spring/summer

2014.

Partnership

principle

Advanced Time-consuming Yes (no details). Expected time frame is

spring/summer 2014.


83 In the 2007-2013 programming period, Structural Funds partnerships were formed in every programme area.

The partnerships were created jointly for the ERDF programmes and for the regional plan of the ESF programme. The key task of the Structural Funds partnerships is to prioritise projects, and to ensure that the ERDF OP and the regional plan for the ESF are implemented according to their respective strategic directions. The Structural Funds partnerships together with the MAs are also responsible for overseeing that the programmes are coordinated with other programmes implemented at the regional level (e.g. Regional Growth Programme and the rural programme). The Structural Funds partnerships can, if required, involve relevant specialists in their work.


191




coordination

Programme

management



Strategic programming / thematic

concentration

+ + No Intermediate Bodies in

Sweden.

Performance framework + + N/A

Project generation / preparation + + N/A

Project appraisal + + N/A

Financial management + + N/A

Monitoring + + N/A

Evaluation ++ ++ N/A

Simplification + ++ N/A

Communication with beneficiaries + ++ N/A

Financial instruments ++ ++ Almi invest (a venture capital

firm).

Partnership principle + + N/A



As can be seen in Table 65: above, capacities are not considered to be weak at any point in

the programme cycle. Instead, capacities are regarded either as sufficiently effective or

very effective. As an example, evaluation is identified as an area that is viewed to have

been implemented in an effective way in 2007-2013, and this has also been recognised by

the European Commission. However, interviewees provided no detail as to the reasons why

evaluation has been particularly effective.

In addition to the central coordination, programme management and programme

implementation levels, capacity problems are most commonly experienced at the level of

the beneficiaries.


Thematic Objective Central coordination Programme

management

Programme

implementation


1) Innovation ++ ++ N/A

2) ICT ++ ++ E.g. County Administration

Boards.

3) SME ++ ++ N/A

4) Low-carbon economy ++ + N/A

5) Climate change adaptation ++ + N/A


efficiency

++ + None at the moment.


networks

++ ++ N/A


mobility

++ ++ N/A


combating poverty

N/A N/A N/A

10) Education, skills and lifelong

learning

++ ++ N/A

11) Institutional capacity ++ ++ None at the moment.




192

Capacities are also viewed to be very effective or at least sufficiently effective in the

governance and delivery of the different themes, as can be noted in Table 66:. In terms of

good practices, work with the various cluster initiatives in the field of innovation and with

risk capital funds in the field of SMEs were regarded as particularly effective, although

interviewees gave no concrete information on what had been done in practice.

Capacity issues have been experienced particularly with human resources. There was some

feeling that during 2007-2013 there was an insufficient number of people at the Managing

Authority, and that on occasions they did not have the right expertise for carrying out the

tasks. In addition, some difficulties were encountered with regard to the level of external

experts' knowledge of Structural Funds.

At the start of the programme period, there were also some institutional difficulties that

were caused primarily by the lack of clarity in some programmes in terms of the roles

played by the Structural Funds partnerships84 and the Managing Authority. However, by

2010 the situation had improved considerably, and the overall view was that the

implementation was working well, at least with respect to the organisations’ basic

functions. The experience with the Structural Funds partnerships and the Managing

Authority largely related to the individuals involved, and it was considered that personal

attributes played an important role in many instances. Sometimes just the fact that a new

person became involved resulted in improvements. Over a period, however, dialogue and

routines developed, as well as the personal relationships between the different actors.85

Overall, given the limited challenges with capacities, there was nomajor change in

administrative structures during 2007-2013. At present, it seems that the structures from

2007-2013 will be largely retained for the 2014-2020 programming period. The Swedish

Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (Tillväxtverket) will remain the Managing

Authority for the eight regional Structural Funds programmes. Tillväxtverket has offices in

each of the eight programme regions, and it is responsible for supporting the programming

process and dialogue. For ESF, the Managing Authority functions continue to be carried out

by the Swedish ESF Council, which is also located in each programme region

alongsideTillväxtverket.


Although the overall programme structure is clear for the 2014-2020 programming period,

there are still uncertainties concerning the exact actors and their responsibilities. As a

result, the interviewees were unable to provide an assessment of the numbers and

responsibilities of the actors involved in the different areas of the programme cycle. The

only certainty at this stage concerned the introduction of some new actors, such as the

Energy Authority. While the interviewees considered this to provide a number of new

opportunities, they also expected it to bring along a number of teething problems (again,

no concrete details were provided).

84 There are eight Structural Fund Partnerships established within each ERDF programme area at the NUTS 2 level

and corresponding area for the regional plan of the national ESF OP. Before making decisions on allocating ESF and ERDF funds, the Managing Authorities have to consult with the programme’s Structural Fund Partnership. SFPs are responsible for setting priorities among the approved projects.

85 Savbäck U, Hedin S and Böhme K (2012) EU: sStrukturfonderiSverige 2014-2020, en

genomförandeorganisationförökatregionaltinflytande, SwecoEurofutures, Stockholm.


193

There are also no major changes expected to the partnership principle. Essentially, the

work with the Structural Funds partnership from the 2007-2013 programming period was

viewed as effective and it will continue largely unchanged in 2014-2020.86


Programme

management

levels

Will there

fewer or

more (new?)

actors?

How/how clear

are tasks and

responsibilities

assigned?




which not?

Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

In principle

the same.

Some new

ones, such as

the Energy

Authority.

N/A N/A

Performance

framework

N/A N/A N/A


preparation

N/A N/A N/A

Project appraisal N/A N/A N/A

Financial

management

N/A N/A N/A

Monitoring N/A N/A N/A

Evaluation N/A N/A N/A

Simplification N/A N/A N/A

Communication with

beneficiaries

N/A N/A N/A

Financial

instruments

N/A N/A N/A

Partnership principle Largely

unchanged.

N/A N/A


Capacity issues are expected to be institutional and procedural, as well as touching upon

human resources and external expertise. For instance, with respect to the institutional

issues, the focus is on good coordination between the regional and the national

programmes so that the expected synergy effects can take place.

As concluded in the EC Position Paper, administrative arrangements in Sweden are

generally considered as sound, effective and efficient.87 The future focus of administration

will follow the European Commission’s recommendations, which underline the need to fine-

tune the arrangements and further reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries to

ensure effective access to interventions. Furthermore, the European Commission has noted

that adequate administrative arrangements and capacity should be ensured for the

planning, tracking and reporting of climate-related expenditure. In line with this

recommendation, the focus is very much on this new theme.

86 Larsson AK (2014) Fortsatt regional inflytande under strukturfondsperioden 2014-2020, Näringsbloggen.

http://www.naringsbloggen.se/strukturfonder/strukturfonderna/fortsatt-regionalt-inflytande-under-strukturfondsperioden-2014-2020/ (accessed on 1 April 2014).

87 Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership Agreement and programmes in

SWEDEN for the period 2014-2020, 9 November 2012.

http://www.naringsbloggen.se/strukturfonder/strukturfonderna/fortsatt-regionalt-inflytande-under-strukturfondsperioden-2014-2020/



194


195

14. CASE STUDY - UNITED KINGDOM


The UK PA is made up of separate chapters for England and each of the Devolved

Administrations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The UK’s Department for Business,

Innovation and Skills oversaw the process of developing the PA. The pace of development

of the separate chapters differed across the UK. In one case, the development of the PA

and OPs took place in parallel (Scotland), whereas in others the development of the OPs led

and informed the development and content of the PA chapters (England and Wales).

The content of the English national ERDF OP for 2014-2020 (and therefore the relevant PA

chapter) was informed by the content of local-level strategic documents (the ESIF

strategies of 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)), which had to be prepared and

agreed before the PA/OP content could be finalised.The submission of the UK PA to the

European Commission was made on 17 April 2014.


In terms of the coverage of Thematic Objectives, the Structural Funds represent a modest

proportion of domestic expenditure in the UK, so some themes are expected to be

addressed domestically rather than covered by the PA. In addition, the thematic

concentration requirements are such that 80% of Structural Funds expenditure is already

accounted for in ‘ring-fencing’ requirements. However, the emphasis on a narrower ‘menu’

of options is welcomed, as it is thought that this can deliver more impact than more

diffused spending.

With regard to content, the EC Position Paper has stated, and the UK accepts, that there is

a lag in R&D spending in the UK, and this will therefore be a core theme in the England

ERDF programme. There has also been a lag identified in carbon reduction/renewables;

ring-fencing will apply to carbon reduction, but it is likely to be less emphasis on

renewables. The European Commission’s comments on intermediate skills are also

accepted, and a greater proportion of ESF in England is likely to be spent on intermediate

and higher-level skills (although the majority will still be spent on lower-level skills).



The informal consultation process with the European Commission on the draft PA chapters

and OPs was challenging. The European Commission was seen to be adhering very closely

to the content of the Position Paper, and the main negotiating issues were around the

Thematic Objectives (ICT infrastructure, transport, climate change measures to alleviate

flooding) and how the 5% urban stipulation would be addressed.



The ESIF programme architecture in England will change for the 2014-2020 programming

period, with consolidation of the number of OPs. The model in England for 2014-2020 is of

a single ESIF Growth Programme, made up of one OP each for ERDF, ESF and EAFRD. In

the 2007-2013 programming period, there were 10 sub-national ERDF OPs in England, and

one for each of the other Funds.


196

The changes have been made to streamline the management of ESIF in England, reduce

the number of programmes and associated bureaucracy, and align local allocations from

the funds with future sources of domestic funding. The focus of policy in England is now on

the local rather than regional level, and the content of the new national OPs has been

developed to take into account the content of local strategies drawn up by 39 LEPs in

England. It is anticipated that the national OPs will allow the impact of ESIF to be

demonstrated more clearly.

The challenges stem from the fact that the LEPs are fairly new bodies and vary in terms of

their resources and capacity, as well as their ability to engage with ESIF. However, there is

continuity in terms of programme management arrangements, with LEPs working with sub-

national Growth Delivery Teams to deliver the programmes. These Growth Delivery Teams

comprise representatives of the Managing Authority departments and are located sub-

nationally. They are comparable to the ERDF Managing Authority’s Programme Delivery

Teams, which implemented the regional programmes in the second half of the 2007-2013

programme period, after abolition of the regional development agencies.


The indicative breakdown of 2014-2020 ESIFunding between the constituent parts of the

UK was announced by the UK Government in March 2013. This amended the EU formula for

allocating Structural Funds, agreed by the European Council in February, as it was

considered that it would not have resulted in a fair distribution across the UK, and it would

have resulted in ‘sudden and significant cutbacks in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales’.

The allocations announced were as follows:

Northern Ireland – a total allocation of around €457 million, an uplift of €181 million

compared to the amount that Northern Ireland would receive under the EU formula

for allocation of the Funds to the UK;

Scotland – total funding of around €795 million, representing an uplift of €228

million compared to the amount that Scotland would receive under the EU formula


Wales – total allocation of around €2.145 billion. This represents an uplift of

€375million compared to the amount that Wales would receive under the EU formula


England - a total allocation of €6.174 billion.

This decision means that each Devolved Administration is only subject to an equal

percentage cut of around 5% in funding compared to the 2007-2013 levels. A written

Ministerial Statement to the UK Parliament in June 2013 announced the breakdowns within

the Devolved Administrations and at local level in England. The announcement stated that

the element retained by government for central programmes in England had been

‘dramatically reduced’ from around 50% to under 5%, so that maximum funds would go to

local areas. Each of the 39 LEPs in England has been given an allocation, made up of funds

from ERDF and ESF.


197


Differences between the 2007-2013 and the 2014-2020 programme(s)

At the time of writing, preparation of the England ERDF OP was underway, with work on-

going on the ex-ante evaluation, strategy development, preparation of the intervention

logic, indicators and targets. Public consultation was planned for the end of March 2014,

with submission to the European Commission planned for late May 2014.

The main differences in 2014-2020 are the above-mentioned reduction in ERDF OPs and a

stronger focus on the local rather than the regional level.


Programme

elements

State of

implementation

How difficult

has the

process

been?

Lessons

learned?



Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

Advanced No comments. No

comments.

Expected completion by end

May 2014.

Managing Authority task.

Performance

framework


comments.

Expected completion by end

May 2014.

Managing Authority task.

Project generation

/ preparation

Initial No comments. No

comments.

Project generation likely to

be on-going throughout the

programme period. LEPs will

recommend projects

proposed by local partners;

these will be endorsed by a

sub-committee of the Local

Management Committee.

Managing Authority will issue

funding agreement.

Project appraisal

Initial No comments. Likely to build

on 2007-2013

systems.

Sub-committee of Local

Management Committee will

endorse projects against

agreed selection criteria.

Financial

management

Advanced No comments. To be

strengthened.

Delivery Teams (sub-

national Managing Authority

offices), dedicated team

within Growth Delivery

Teams to oversee

compliance issues.

Control mechanism Advanced No comments. Likely to build

on 2007-2013

systems.

Growth Delivery Teams

(sub-national Managing

Authority offices).

Monitoring Advanced No comments. Likely to build

on 2007-2013

systems.

Growth Delivery Teams


Authority offices).

Evaluation


comments.

Managing Authority, e.g.

Managing Authority -

commissioned ex-ante

evaluation is underway.

Simplification

Initial No comments. Alignment of

administrativ

e processes

across funds;

flat rate for

overheads.

N/A


198

Programme

elements

State of

implementation

How difficult

has the

process

been?

Lessons

learned?



Communication

channels

Advanced No comments. N/A Growth Delivery Teams


Authority offices) will

communicate with and

support LEPs.

Financial

instruments

Initial No comments. Likely to build

on experience

of 2007-

2013.

LEPs/financial intermediaries

to propose.

Partnership

principle


comments.

LEPs included in Local

Management Committee,

along with local authorities,

higher and further education

institutions, environmental

bodies, voluntary and

private sectors and the

business community.



Administrative capacity in terms of Structural Funds programme coordination, management

and implementation is considered to have been effective in 2007-2013. The institutional

framework changed mid-way through the programming period with the abolition of the

RDAs in England in 2010. The RDAs had delegated responsibilities for programme

implementation and acted as Intermediate Bodies. After their abolition by the incoming

Coalition Government, responsibility for programme implementation was transferred over

2010-2011 to the Managing Authority. Many of the ERDF teams that had worked within the

RDAs in the regions (around 250 people) were subsequently employed by the Managing

Authority within new sub-nationally located Programme Delivery Teams (now known as

Growth Delivery Teams). This transfer of management and implementation arrangements

was considered to have worked well,88 and indeed all English ERDF programmes met their

2011 spending targets.

Some specialist ‘wrap-around’ support that had been available within the RDAs was lost to

the programmes (e.g. each RDA had its own legal and procurement experts), but numerous

specialists were retained within the Growth Delivery Teams and thus some pooling of

resources took place.

88 House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee report into the European Regional

Development Fund (2012) http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/erdf/

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/erdf/



199



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)



+ + N/A

Performance framework + + N/A


preparation

+ + N/A

Project appraisal + + N/A

Financial management + + N/A

Monitoring + + N/A

Evaluation + + N/A

Simplification + + N/A

Communication with

beneficiaries

+ + N/A

Financial instruments + + N/A

Partnership principle + + N/A



functions.


Capacity issues in the past and good practice

As Structural Funds programmes have been operating in England for several decades,

beneficiaries tend to be well versed with procedures. Where there are issues, these tend to

be around regulatory aspects rather than capacity issues.

The Growth Delivery Teams appraise and process a wide range of project types, covering

different thematic areas. For some technical areas (e.g. broadband, ICT), there may be a

need to seek expert advice, but this is readily available from colleagues in the Managing

Authority or other government departments. This is seen not seen as a capacity issue.


200



coordination

Programme

management

Programme

implementation

(e.g. Intermediate

Bodies)

1) Innovation + + N/A

2) ICT + + N/A

3) SME + + N/A

4) Low-carbon economy + + N/A

5) Climate change

adaptation

+ + N/A


resource efficiency

+ + N/A


networks

+ + N/A

11) Institutional capacity + + N/A




The EC Position Paper89 identified the administrative arrangements in the UK as being

‘generally sound’, and, given that significant change had taken place part-way through the

2007-2013 programme period in England, broad continuity was expected in 2014-2020,

with some efforts to ‘fine-tune’ them and ‘further reduce the administrative burden for

beneficiaries to ensure effective access to interventions’.

Thus, programme management and implementation in 2014-2020 will include some

elements of continuity and some of change. In terms of continuity, programme

management and delivery at sub-national level will continue to be the responsibility of

Growth Delivery Teams, which comprise representatives of the Managing Authority

departments. In terms of change, the role of the LEPs will be a new feature. The LEPs are

partnerships between local authorities and businesses thatwere involved in the programme

preparation process for 2014-2020, through the submission of ESIF strategies that fed in to

the preparation of the OPs. The LEPs will also have a role in programme implementation, by

facilitating and supporting project preparation and submission in their local areas. Project

proposals will then be assessed and approved by sub-committees of the Local Management

Committees.

The UK Government issued guidance in spring and summer 2013 and also held workshops

to assist the LEPs in the development of their ESIF investment strategies. An additional

£250,000 was given to the LEPs by the government in April 2013 to build the capacity and

capability to develop their ESIF investment strategies in 2013.

89 European Commission (2012), Position of the Commission services on the development of the Partnership

Agreement and programmes in the United Kingdom for the period 2014-2020, November 2012


201


Programme

management

levels

Will there be

fewer or

more (new?)

actors?

How clear are

tasks and

responsibilities

assigned?




which will not?

Strategic

programming /

thematic

concentration

More actors. LEPs asked by

government to

develop ESIF

strategies to feed in

to new OPs.

New procedure, whereby 39 LEP strategies

fed into the development of the national

ESIF OPs. (In 2007-2013, the ERDF OPs

were developed regionally.)

Performance

framework

No change. N/A Existing procedures.


preparation

More actors. LEPs facilitate

project generation

within their

localities.

New procedure, with LEPs taking on some

of the project generation responsibility,

along with other local partners.

Project appraisal No change. N/A

Existing procedures.

Financial

management


Monitoring No change. N/A Existing procedures.

Evaluation No change. N/A Existing procedures.

Simplification

No change. Growth Delivery

Teams as the

project appraisal

assessors.

Flat rate of 15% of eligible direct staff

costs to be used for calculating indirect

costs.

Communication with

beneficiaries


Financial

instruments

Not yet known. N/A Not yet known.

Partnership principle More actors. N/A Integrated into existing procedures.


Positive implications for administrative capacity and anticipated future capacity

issues

A further aspect of programme implementation going forward, which is expected to have a

positive impact on administrative capacity, is the strengthening of links between ERDF and

ESF within the Managing Authority. The management of the two funds will be more closely

aligned in future, potentially also including co-location within one department. This is

expected to have a major positive impact on programme management in 2014-2020, as

there will be potential cross-fertilisation of skills and expertise. The responsibility of LEPs to

include both ERDF and ESF within their local strategies will bring both challenges and

opportunities, and there will be a need for continued engagement with the LEPs and on-

going support from the Managing Authority. The Managing Authority is confident that they

have sufficient resources to support programme delivery.

The process of approving the LEP ESIF strategies allowed relationships to be built up and

provided an overview of where resources may be needed in future. There were regular

workshops with the LEPs at the time of writing, and a joint ERDF/ESF event was planned

with a range of partners to launch the consultation on the draft ERDF and ESF OPs.


202

Learning from the 2007-2013 programming period will result in major emphasis being

placed on reducing the risk of programme interruptions and building this aspect into

programme management processes. A dedicated team has been put in place within the

Growth Delivery Teams network, managed centrally by the Managing Authority, to examine

audit requirements and ensure compliance in the 2014-2020 programme. The intention is

to build compliance into all processes from the programme start.

Table 72: ERDF and ESF allocation to LEPs in England

LEP Allocation €m

Black Country 177.4

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley 13.9

Cheshire and Warrington 142.2

Coast to Capital 67.3

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly 592.9

Coventry and Warwickshire 136.0

Cumbria 91.4

Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire 249.7

Dorset 47.3

Enterprise M3 45.7

Gloucestershire 38.3

Greater Birmingham and Solihull 255.8

Greater Cambridge & Greater Peterborough 75.5

Greater Lincolnshire 133.5

Greater Manchester 415.6

Heart of the South West 118.3

Hertfordshire 69.5

Humber 102.4

Lancashire 266.3

Leeds City Region 391.2

Leicester and Leicestershire 126.3

Liverpool City Region 221.9

London 748.6

New Anglia 94.5

North Eastern 539.6

Northamptonshire 55.0

Oxfordshire LEP 19.4

Sheffield City Region 203.4

Solent 43.1

South East 185.9

South East Midlands 88.3

Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire 161.6

Swindon and Wiltshire 43.6

Tees Valley 202.6

Thames Valley Berkshire 28.7

The Marches 113.7

West of England 68.6

Worcestershire 68.1

York and North Yorkshire 97.5

Sub-total England 6540.6

Gibraltar 9.0

Total 6549.6

Source: Draft Partnership Agreement UK, November 2013.

Note: The total does not add up to the total announced for England of €6.2 billion.


203

REFERENCES

Bibliography

Bachtler J and Gorzelak G (2007) Reforming EU Cohesion policy: a reappraisal of the

performance of the Structural Funds, Policy Studies 28(4).

Bachtler J, Mendez C andGranqvist K (2013) European Commission Perspectives on

the 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements & Programmes: A Comparative Review of

the Commission’s Position Papers. European Policy Research Paper Number 84, April

2013.

Bachtler J, Mendez C and Kah S (2013) Preparing for 2014-2020: Programming,

concentration and performance. Executive Summary, IQ-Net Thematic Paper 32(2)

EPRC, 8 July 2013.

Bachtler J, Mendez C andOrăze H (2013) From Conditionality to Europeanization in

Central and Eastern Europe: Administrative Performance and Capacity in Cohesion

Policy, European Planning Studies (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.772744

Bachtler J,Polverari L, Orăze H, Clement K, Tödtling-Schönhofer H, Gross F,

McMaster I andNaylon I (2009) Management and Implementation Systems for

Cohesion Policy – Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes Co-financed by

the ERDF 2000–06, Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio), European

Policies Research Centre, Glasgow and Metis GmbH, Vienna.

Barca F (2009) An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-based Approach

to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations, Independent Report

prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, DG

Regio, April 2009, Brussels.

Blažek J (2012) Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy – Czech

Republic, Expert evaluation network delivering policy analysis on the performance of

Cohesion policy 2007-2013, Year 2 – 2012, Final version, A report to the European

Commission.

CCRE, CEMR (2013) Partnership Agreements CEMR Survey Report on ‘Involvement

of national associations of LRAs in the Partnership Agreement preparations’. Council

of European Municipalities and Regions, April 2013.

Charron N (2013) QoG at the sub-national level and the EQI, in NCharron, V

Lapuente and BRothstein (eds) Quality of Government and Corruption from a

European Perspective: A Comparative Study of Good Government in EU Regions,

Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp.70-140.

Eljas‐Taal K and Hamza C (2013) Development of the Smart Specialisation Strategy

in Estonia, DG RTD Expert Group Advising on Development of Smart Specialisation

in Estonia, Final Report, contracted by the European Commission DG Research, July

2013.

EPRC (2009) Ex post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-

financed by the ERDF (Objective 1 and 2); WP 11: Management and Implementation

Systems for Cohesion Policy. Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio).

European Union (2010) Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and

territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy, Communication from the

Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment

Bank, COM(2010) 642 final, Brussels, 9 October 2010.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.772744


204

European Union (2012) 'Commission proposes one programming tool for all

Structural Funds'. Press release IP/12/236. 14.3.2012.

European Union (2012) Elements for a Common Strategic Framework, Brussels.

Commission Staff Working Document. SWD (2012) 61 final. Brussels, 14.3.2012.

Part I.

European Union (2013). C(2013) 9651 final Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)

No 240/2014 of 7 January 2014 on the European code of conduct on partnership in

the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds {SWD(2013) 540

final}, Brussels, 7.1.2014.

European Union (2013) Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development

Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal

and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006. OJ L 347, p. 289. Brussels

20.12.2013.


and of The Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the

European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion

Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European

Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European

Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No

1083/2006, COM(2013) 246 final 2011/0276 (COD). O.J. L 347, p. 320. Brussels

20.12.2013.


and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing

Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006. O.J. L 347, p. 470. Brussels 20.12.2013.

European Court of Auditors (2012) Financial Instruments for SMEs co-financed by

the European Regional Development Fund, Special Report No 2, European Union

2012.

Gaffey V (2011) Future of Cohesion Policy, European Commission DG Regio.

Hapenciuc C andMoroşan A (2013) Absorption of Structural Funds – International

Comparisons and Correlations. Faculty of Economics and Public Administration,

‘Stefan cel Mare’ University, Suceava, Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance

Volume 6, 2013, pp. 259–272.

Garretsen H, McCann P, Martin R and Tyler P (2013) The future of regional policy,

in: Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society.

Ildikó Czéghér, A 2014-2020-as fejlesztési időszak uniós forrásainak tervezése és

intézményrendszere Széchenyi Programirodák létrehozása, működtetése, Széchenyi

Programme Office, <http://slideplayer.hu/slide/2036139/ [accessed between April

and September 2014> [accessed in April 2014]

Kah S (2011) A snapshot of the present and a glimpse of the future of cohesion

policy, review of programme implementation Summer-Autumn 2011, IQ-Net Review

Paper No 29 (1), EPRC, December 2011.

Lacave (2013) Expert evaluation network delivering policy analyses of the

performance of Cohesion policy 2007-2013, Year 2 -2012, Task 2: Country Report

on Achievements of Cohesion Policy Luxembourg; Version. Final, A report to the

European Commission DG REGIO, Technopolis.

http://slideplayer.hu/slide/2036139/


205

Mendez C, Bachtler J andGranqvist K (2013) European Perspectives on the 2014-

2020 Partnership Agreements and Programmes: A comparative review of the

Commission's Position Papers, pp. 63-67, University of Strathclyde, April 2013.

Milio S (2007) Can administrative capacity explains differences in implantation

performances? Evidence from Structural Funds implementation in Southern Italy,

Regional Studies, 41(4), pp. 429–442.

Radzyner A, Frangenheim A and Tödtling-Schönhofer H (2014) Co-financing salaries,

bonuses, top-ups from Structural Funds during the 2007-2013 period, Final Report.

Metis GmbH on behalf of the European Commission, DG Regio, February 2013.

Schneidewind P, Radzyner A, Hahn M and GaspariE (2013) Innovative financial

instruments in Cohesion Policy, European Parliament, May 2013.

Tödtling-Schönhoferet al. (2012) Evaluation of the reaction of the ESF to the

economic and financial crisis, Commissioned by the European Commission DG EMPL,

Metis GmbH/wiiw, March 2013.

Tödtling-Schönhofer H, Hamza C,Polverari L andBachtler J (2011) Barriers for

applicants to Structural Funding, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy

Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Regional Development, 19/12/2011.

Ziel2.NRW (2014) Operationelles Programm NRW 2014-2020 für den Europäischen

Fonds für Regionale Entwicklung ‘Investitionen in Wachstum und Beschäftigung’ (OP

EFRE NRW).

Web sites

The Funds, European Commission DG for Regional and Urban Policy Website

(accessed in April 2014):

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/funding/index_en.cfm

Inside Europe (accessed in April 2014): www.InsidEurope.eu

Community of Practice on Results Based Management website (accessed in April

2014): www.coprbm.eu

Position Papers and Partnership Agreements, European Commission DG for Regional

and Urban Policy Website (accessed in April 2014):

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/program/index_en.cfm

Latest News on Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, European Commission DG for Regional

and Urban Policy Website (accessed in April 2014):

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm#1

Financial Assistance to Greece, European Commission, Economic and Financial

Affairs website (accessed from April to August 2014):

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/greek_loan_facility/

EU economic governance, European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs

website (accessed from April to August 2014):

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/index_en.htm.

Interact website (accessed in June 2014): http://www.interact-

eu.net/about_us/about_interact/22/2911

European Commission Europe 2020 website, European Semester - Country-specific

recommendations (accessed in May 2014):

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-

recommendations/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/funding/index_en.cfm


http://www.coprbm.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/program/index_en.cfm

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/index_en.cfm#1

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/greek_loan_facility/

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/index_en.htm

http://www.interact-eu.net/about_us/about_interact/22/2911

http://www.interact-eu.net/about_us/about_interact/22/2911

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm


206

Case study literature

Austria

National ERDF OP

ÖROK (2013) STRAT.AT 2020 Partnerschaftsvereinbarung Österreich 2014-2020. STRAT.AT

2020. Rohberichtvom 11. Juni 2013.

ÖROK (2014) EFRE-Programm Investitionen in Wachstum und Beschäftigung Österreich 2014-

2020 Operationelles Programm für den Einsatz der EFRE-Mittel Endgültiger Entwurf (‘Version

3.0’) vom 25. März 2014 zur österreichinternen Beschlussfassung Ö-interne Version (inkl.

Maßnahmenübersicht auf Länderebene).

European Commission (2013) Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on Austria’s 2013

national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Austria’s stability programme for

2012 -2017, Brussels, 29.5.2013 COM(2013) 370 final.

Bulgaria

Thematic ERDF OP

European Commission (2012) Position of the Commission Services on the development of

Partnership Agreement and programmes in Bulgaria for the period 2014-2020, 26/10/2012.

Republic of Bulgaria (2013) Draft Partnership Agreement of the Republic of Bulgaria outlining the

Support from the European Structural AND Investment Funds for the 2014-2020 period, Version

3.0, 21 August 2013.

National Regional Development Strategy (2012-2022).

National Concept for Spatial Development (2013-2025).

National Development Programme: Bulgaria 2020.

OP ‘Science and Education for Intelligent Growth’ (2014-2020), draft.

OP ‘Innovations and Competitiveness’ (2014-2020), draft.

OP ‘Regions in Growth’ (2014-2020), draft.

OP ‘Human Resources Development’ (2014-2020), draft.

Rural Areas Development Programme (2014-2020), draft.

Ordinance of the Council of Ministers №69/11 March 2013.

Croatia

ERDF National programme

Ministry of Regional Development (2014)

PartnershipAgreementfortheEuropeanStructuralandInvestmentFundsin theEUFinancialPeriod2014

-2020StimulatingSmart,InclusiveAndSustainableGrowth, April 2014.


Partnership Agreement and programmes in the Republic of Croatia for the period 2014 – 2020.

Sigma Assessment (2009) Croatia Public Procurement System, May 2009.

http://www.mrrfeu.hr/default.aspx?id=866

Czech

Republic

National ERDF OP – Technical Assistance

Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2013) Draft Partnership Agreement for the

2014-2020 programming period. Czech Republic. June 2013.

Ministry of Regional Development Czech Republic (2014) Draft Partnership Agreement for the

2014-2020 programming period. Czech Republic. February 2013.

Operational Programme Technical Assistance Czech Republic 2007-2013.


Partnership Agreement and programmes in the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020,

30/10/2012.

Blažek J (2012) Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy – Czech Republic,

Expert evaluation network delivering policy analysis on the performance of Cohesion policy

2007-2013, Year 2 – 2012, Final version, A report to the European Commission.

Estonia

National ERDF – ESF OP

RahandusMinisteerium - Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia (2014) Partnership

Agreement for the use of European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 2014,

EE16M8PA001, Approved by the Government of the Republic of Estonia on 15.02.2014.

RahandusMinisteerium - Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Estonia (2014) Operational

Programme for Cohesion Policy Funds 2014-2020, Approved by the Government of the Republic

of Estonia on 25.02.2014.


Partnership Agreement and programmes in the Republic of Croatia for the period 2014 – 2020,

30.10.2012.

http://www.struktuurifondid.ee/programming-2014-2020/

http://www.mrrfeu.hr/default.aspx?id=866

http://www.struktuurifondid.ee/programming-2014-2020/


207

Finland


Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2014) Draft Partnership Agreement Finland, February

2014.

Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2013) Talouspoliittinen ministerivaliokunta teki

linjaukset tulevalle rakennerahastokaudelle, Tiedote 2013.


Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2014) Komission yksiköiden kanta

kumppanuussopimuksen ja -ohjelmien kehittämiseen SUOMESSA vuosina 2014–2020.

European Commission (2012) Komission yksiköiden kanta kumppanuussopimuksen ja -ohjelmien

kehittämiseen Suomessa vuosina 2014–2020, 22.10.2012.

Germany

Regional ERDF OP - Saxony

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2014) Partnerschaftsvereinbarung zwischen

Deutschland und der Europäischen Kommission für die Umsetzung der ESI - Fonds unter dem

Gemeinsamen Strategischen Rahmen in der Förderperiode 2014 bis 2020 Teil 1: Kapitel 1 und 2

CCI Nr. 2014DE16M8PA001, E A 3 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, 23. Mai 2014.

SMWA (2014) Operationelles Programme des Freistaates Sachsen, für den Europäischen Fonds

für regionale Entwicklung (EFRE) in der Förderperiode 2014 – 2020, Stand: 7. März 2014.


Partnership Agreement and programmes in Germany for the period 2014-2020, 9.11.2012.

Greece

Competitiveness entrepreneurship and innovation OP

Ministry of development and competitiveness (2014) Draft Partnership Agreement, 14.3.2014.

European Commission (2012) Position of the European Commission Services on the development

of Partnership Agreement and programmes in Greece for the period 2014-2020, 13.11.2012.

Ministry Of Environment, Energy And Climate Change (2014) http://www.ypeka.gr/

Hungary

Thematic ERDF OP

Ministry for National Economy Hungary (2013) Hungarian Partnership Agreement, for the 2014-

2020 programme period. Final draft. 2. July 2013.


of Partnership Agreement and programmes in Hungary for the period 2014-2020, 30.10.2012.

AAM Consulting (2013) ZáróÉrtékelésiJelentés a 2007-2013

időszakvégrehajtásifunkcióinakértékeléséről, March 2013.

http://palyazat.gov.hu/

Italy

Regional ERDF OP - Calabria

Ministro per la Coesione Territoriale (2013) Accordo di Partenariato 2014-2020, versione 9

dicembre 2013, http://www.coesioneterritoriale.gov.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Bozza-AP-

ITALIA_9_12_2013.pdf (last downloaded7 April 2014).

Conferenza delle Regioni e delle Province Autonome (2014) Documento di confronto con le

regioni, 14/030/CR01/C1-C2-C3-C4-C5-C7-C8-C9-C11, 19 March 2014, file:

http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url-

=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regioni.it%2Fdownload.php%3Fid%3D340452%26field%3Dallegato%26

module%3Dnews&ei=iDFGVJKcDlvkaLDlgNAD&usg=AFQjCNHBjQlkGgOlbWOszGzX1vekgnLDKQ

Documento-strutturale-Incontro-Governo-Renzi-17032014.pdf (downloaded 7 April 2014).

Chiellino G (2014) Il diktat Ue per salvare I fondi, in Il Sole 24 Ore, 4 April 2014.


of Partnership Agreement and programmes in Italy for the period 2014-2020, 9.11.2012.

Luxem-

bourg

National ERDF OP

Le Gouvernement du Grand Duché de Luxembourg (2013) Accord de partenariat entre le Grand-

Duché de Luxembourg et la Commission européenne relatif aux Fonds relevant du cadre

stratégique commun pour la période de programmation 2014-2020, Version provisoire, 26

septembre 2013.

Autorité de Gestion FEDER 2007-2013 (2013) Programme Opérationnel FEDER 2007-2013

Compétitivité et Emploi, Rapport annuel d’exécution 2012 – Version approuvée par le Comité de

Suivi le 23 mai 2013.

European Commission (2012) Position des services de la Commission sur le développement d'un

Accord de Partenariat et de programmes au Luxembourg pour la période 2014-2020, Ref.


http://www.ypeka.gr/

http://palyazat.gov.hu/



http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url-=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regioni.it%2Fdownload.php%3Fid%3D340452%26field%3Dallegato%26

http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url-=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regioni.it%2Fdownload.php%3Fid%3D340452%26field%3Dallegato%26


208

Ares(2012)1369418 -20/11/2012.

Lacave (2013) Expert evaluation network delivering policy analyses of the performance of

Cohesion policy 2007-2013, Year 2 -2012, Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion

Policy Luxembourg; Version. Final, A report to the European Commission DG FOR REGIONAL

AND URBAN POLICY, Technopolis.

http://www.feder.public.lu

Poland

Regional ERDF OP - Silesia

Ministry of Regional Development Poland (2013) Assumptions to the Partnership Agreement

programming 2014-2020. 25.9.2012.

Regional Operational Programme for the Lower Silesian Voivodeshipfor 2007-2013


Partnership Agreement and programmes in Poland for the period 2014-2020, 28.9.2012.

Sweden

National ERDF OP


Partnership Agreement and programmes in Sweden for the period 2014-2020, 9.11.2012.

Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications (2013) Partnership Agreement, Draft

Memorandum 2013-07-01.

Savbäck U, Hedin S andBöhme K (2012) EU:sStrukturfonderiSverige 2014-2020, en

genomförandeorganisationförökatregionaltinflytande, SwecoEurofutures, Stockholm.

Larsson A K (2014) Fortsatt regional inflytande under strukturfondsperioden 2014-2020,

Näringsbloggen. http://www.naringsbloggen.se/strukturfonder/strukturfonderna/fortsatt-

regionalt-inflytande-under-strukturfondsperioden-2014-2020/ (accessed 1 April 2014).

Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications http://www.regeringen.se.

UK

Regional ERDF OP - England


Partnership Agreement and programmes in the UK for the period 2014-2020, 8.11.2012.

HM Government (2013) United Kingdom Partnership Agreement, Draft November 2013.

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee report into the

European Regional Development Fund

(2012)http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-

select/communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/erdf/

http://europeanfundingnetwork.eu/news/consultation-on-the-european-regional-development-

fund-operational-programme-2014-2020

http://www.feder.public.lu/



http://www.regeringen.se/



http://europeanfundingnetwork.eu/news/consultation-on-the-european-regional-development-fund-operational-programme-2014-2020

http://europeanfundingnetwork.eu/news/consultation-on-the-european-regional-development-fund-operational-programme-2014-2020


209

Interview partners90

Austria

National ERDF OP

Metis GmbH – drafting of Partnership Agreement.

Representatives of the City of Vienna, OP Strengthening of Regional

Competitiveness and integrated urban development in Vienna 2007-2013.

Convelop – drafting of ERDF programme.

Bulgaria

Thematic ERDF OP

Representatives of Ministry of Labour and Social Policy – Managing Authority of OP

Human Resources Development.

Representatives of Ministry of Regional Development – Managing Authority of OP

Regional Development / the new OP Regions in Growth.

Representative of District Information Center-Sofia (responsible for the promotion

of the EU funds).

Croatia

ERDF National programme

Independent expert for South East Europe.

Representatives of the Ministry of Entrepreneurship.

Representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development.

Czech

Republic

National ERDF OP – Technical Assistance

Representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development, Czech Republic.

Representatives of the Managing Authority of the Operational Programme

Technical Assistance (Managing Authority OP TA), Ministry of Regional

Development, Czech Republic.

Estonia


Representatives of the Ministry of Finance of Estonia.

Representatives of the Foreign Financing Department of the Ministry of

Environment.

Representatives of the Strategy Bureau of the Government office of Estonia.

Finland


Representatives of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy.

Representative of the Regional Council of Central Finland.

Germany

Regional ERDF OP - Saxony

Representatives of the Saxon State Ministry For Economic Affairs, Labour and

Transport, Referat 55 | Managing Authority for the ERDF OP Saxony.

Representatives of the Ex-ante Evaluation Operational Programme Saxony.

Greece

Competitiveness entrepreneurship and innovation OP

Representative of the Special Agency of Strategic Planning and Implementation of

Programmes, Unit A – Unit of Strategic Planning, & Advisor to the Minister,

Ministry of Administrative Reform & E-government.

Representatives of the Special Agency for Implementation of Educational

interventions, Unit A – Unit of Strategic Planning Ministry of Education and

Religion Affairs.

Representative of the Department of Control and Audit, Regional Authority of

Ionian Islands.

Representative of the Environment Directorate Regional Authority of Ionian

Islands.

Representative of the Corfu Business Chamber.

Hungary

Thematic ERDF OP

Representative of the National Development Agency - Managing Authority.

Independent local consultant.

90 In some instances, interview partners did not wish to be named officially.


210

Italy

Regional ERDF OP - Calabria

Representative of the Ministry of Economic Development, Department for

Development Policies, Structural Funds Unit.

Representative of the Managing Authority of the Calabria ERDF OP.

Luxembourg

National ERDF OP

Chargé de direction de la Politique régionale du Ministère de l’Economie,

Luxembourg.

Representatives of the Managing Authority OP ERDF Luxembourg.

Attaché de Gouvernement.

Poland

Regional ERDF OP - Silesia

Representatives of the Department for Coordinating Structural Policy, Ministry of

Infrastructure and Development, Warsaw.

Representative of the regional Development Department, Marshal’s Office,

Katowice.

Representative of the regional Innovation Strategy unit in the Regional

Development Department, Marshal’s Office, Katowice..

Sweden

National ERDF OP

Representative of the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications.

Representatives of the Swedish National Agency for Economic and Regional

Growth (Tillväxtverket).

UK

Regional ERDF OP - England

Senior official, UK Department of Communities and Local Government.

Official, UK Department for Work and Pensions (on secondment to Department of

Communities and Local Government).