COTER-VI/001
113th plenary session, 8-9 July 2015
DRAFT OPINION
Outcome of the negotiations on the partnership agreements and operational
programmes
_____________
Rapporteur: Ivan Žagar (SI/EPP)
Mayor of Slovenska Bistrica
_____________
Deadline for tabling amendments:
3 p.m. (Brussels time) on Tuesday, 23 June 2015. Amendments must be submitted using the online
tool for tabling amendments (available through the Members' Portal at http://cor.europa.eu/members).
Number of signatures required: 6
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 1/12
— Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel — BELGIQUE/BELGIË —
Tel. +32 22822211 — Fax +32 22822325 — Internet: http://www.cor.europa.eu
EN
Reference document
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 2/12
Draft opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Outcome of the negotiations on
the partnership agreements and operational programmes
I.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
General assessment and objectives of this opinion
1.
stresses that the document is political and its aim is to assess the agreed Partnership Agreements
(PAs) and Operational Programmes (OPs) from the perspective of beneficiaries from regional
and local authorities (LRAs); this opinion will also:


identify barriers to proper planning and implementation and point to possible solutions to
overcome obstacles,
promote appropriate administrative structures and simplified procedures while combating
red tape and administrative burdens;
2.
underlines the crucial role of cohesion policy in achieving the Treaty objective of economic,
social and territorial cohesion through "reducing disparities between levels of development of
the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions." In fact, the Structural
and Investment Funds are, as a general rule, the European Union's only tools for promoting
harmonious overall development in many Member States;
3.
points out that, since its inception, cohesion policy has made progress in reducing disparities
between and within European regions and, since the economic crisis began in 2008, has made it
possible to contain its effects in terms of cohesion. However, significant imbalances, which are
aggravated by the ongoing crisis, remain and the future cohesion policy must have the resources
to reduce these disparities further. As envisaged by Article 96.2 (a) of the Common Provisions
Regulation (CPR), these efforts must be based on the development needs of regions, cities and
municipalities;
4.
notes that cohesion policy changed significantly in character following its reform in 2013. The
CoR is pleased that the reform has strengthened the connection with the EU's priorities (greater
synergies between cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 Strategy). New implementation
methods, new tools and a stronger focus on effectiveness, efficiency and results in particular
have been introduced in the new 2014-2020 programming period. The CoR is interested to see
how the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of European Structural and Investment Funds
(ESIF) can be maximised in practice;
5.
observes that links between cohesion policy and other EU policies and initiatives (rural
development policy, Horizon 2020, Connecting Europe Facility, etc.) have also been
strengthened. The CoR believes that more should have been done to ensure further alignment of
all EU policies and funds having a territorial impact, and hopes this can have a positive impact
on the development of the regions;
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 3/12
6.
welcomes that, through the creation of the Common Strategic Framework, the European
Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund have aligned their priorities with
those of the EU funds for Rural Development and Maritime and Fisheries, expressed in each
Member State through a Partnership Agreement common to all these funds. This is undoubtedly
a very significant step to achieve more policy coherence. Thus the Committee regrets that these
synergies have not been fully exploited further at the moment of drawing-up Operational
Programmes at national, regional and local levels;
7.
agrees that the investment strategy within PAs and OPs should also be comprehensive and
consistent with the National Reform Programmes and should address the reforms described in
the country-specific recommendations of the European Semester. In times of economic crisis
and budgetary constraints, coordination between the EU budget and national budgets is essential
for improving economic governance, transparency and the efficiency of public spending;
8.
reiterates that the Juncker Commission's first new core initiative, the Investment Plan for
Europe, highlights cohesion policy's potential for promoting growth and jobs in Europe, but it
should be emphasised that because the Investment Plan for Europe and European Structural and
Investment Fund policies (cohesion, but also rural development, fisheries, etc.) target different
policy and institutional levels, they need to strengthen each other, not least in terms of
resources. The Investment Plan for Europe must be additional to existing EU programmes and
traditional European Investment Bank activities, and it is important that the resources allocated
to the Structural Funds are not automatically recycled into the Investment Plan;
9.
notes that strategic planning is crucial for the successful implementation of cohesion policy. In
this respect, the most important strategic elements of cohesion policy are the PAs and OPs as
they outline how the Structural and Investment Funds are to be spent in a particular Member
State or region. Regrets that the late adoption of the cohesion policy legislative package and the
curtailment and underestimation of the time Member States and LRAs need for highly complex
programming (multi-instrument, multi-level and multi-actor) in the adoption of the PAs and
OPs have led to purely superficial partnerships being established and have delayed the start of
the new programming period. Regrets that no clear, common methodology or methodologies
have been created for drafting Partnership Agreements that would help to meet the objectives.
The absence of this methodology means that each Member State has taken its own entirely
individual approach to drafting Partnership Agreements, so that they are not comparable with
one another and their implementation will also be difficult to compare (particularly with regard
to implementation of Integrated Territorial Investments, in terms of actual use and an
appropriate implementation and management structure);
10.
notes that the CoR has conducted an extensive online survey, which support the views
expressed in this opinion1;
1
317 valid contributions to the survey were sent by a wide range of stakeholders, authorities and services. Most contributions
(70%) were sent by representatives of public administrations. 89 respondents also provided contributions in the form of open
comments. A detailed analysis of the consultation results can be found on the CoR website.
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 4/12
11.
asks the European Commission to take into consideration the opinion of LRAs, expressed in the
following paragraphs of this opinion, when drafting its report on the outcome of negotiations on
the PAs and OPs by the end of 2015;
Multi-level governance and partnership
12.
is pleased that the reform of cohesion policy has strengthened the provisions on partnership.
Article 5 of the Common Provisions Regulation now states: "For the Partnership Agreement and
each programme, each Member State shall in accordance with its institutional and legal
framework organise a partnership with the competent LRAs." Moreover, the Commission has
passed a delegated act, the European Code of Conduct on Partnership, which outlines how the
partnership principle should be applied and which the CoR particularly welcomes as the first
ever piece of legally enforceable EU legislation dealing with Multi-Level Governance;
13.
the quality of partnership in European funds is of crucial importance and the CoR expects the
real needs detected at regional and local level to be reflected in the PAs and OPs;
14.
underlines that effective partnership means faster development for EU citizens. In countries
where the partnership is not properly established and is purely superficial, the European
Commission should also assist in examining mechanisms to put the partnership on the right
track and avoid complexity and excessive and disproportionate administrative burdens that
might further delay implementation of structural and investment funds across the EU;
15.
points out that the partnership principle is not an empty concept but a precondition for the
success of cohesion policy, particularly as "de facto" competences are distributed between at
least three policy levels (EU, Member States and LRAs). In fact, good practice in the area of the
partnership principle leads to:






16.
bottom-up identification of real and specific needs of European cities, municipalities and
regions,
common development of feasible and acceptable solutions,
better implementation as all stakeholders are working towards common objectives and share
responsibilities and tasks,
fewer errors as actors understand the logic underpinning the procedures,
better and lasting measurable results, which have been achieved more efficiently,
better quality programming by the relevant actors;
underlines that proper application of the partnership principle helps increase the effectiveness of
EU spending and makes reference to the European Court of Auditors' analysis whereby "the
effectiveness of EU spending is reduced because there is inadequate assessment of needs,
unclear objectives, contradictory or incompatible objectives and priorities, and inadequate
selection procedures to prioritise projects that maximise impact." Genuine partnership can
remedy all of these shortcomings;
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 5/12
17.
is concerned that the partnership principle cannot be applied appropriately in all Member States.
The negotiations on the PAs and OPs showed that while LRAs were consulted in most cases,
their involvement did not amount to full partnership as outlined in the European Code of
Conduct on Partnership. In fact, the Committee regrets that LRAs have rarely been sufficiently
involved in drafting the PAs and OPs as their role is often more that of a stakeholder rather than
that of a partner2. The European Commission should also consider partnership mechanisms and
the time needed for talks with multi-level institutional structures to allow for more in-depth and
informed discussion, matching the time needed for the procedure. This would strike a balance
between the time needed for adoption at European level and that for presentation of the
programmes at national level;
18.
regrets the fact that no methodology for using Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) was set
out clearly before Partnership Agreements were drafted and adopted. As a result, each country
takes a completely different approach to ITIs, if it takes any approach at all. In those cases
where the ITI instrument has, however, been used in a Partnership Agreement, those drawing up
the individual ITIs continue to encounter a lack of clarity at both national and Commission
level. Added to this in many cases is a reluctance on the part of managing authorities to include
ITIs in their Operational Programmes at all. The Committee of the Regions therefore calls on
the European Commission to make sure that, in countries that have opted to use the ITI
instrument, it will be possible to use it to the appropriate extent in all Operational Programmes
and that appropriate implementation and management systems will be quickly created so that
ITIs really can be used and effects of synergy generated;
19.
regrets the fact that no extent, purpose and methodology for the use of the territorial dimension
was clearly set out before partnership agreements were drafted and adopted. This is the main
reason why each country deals with the territorial dimension in very different ways and on
radically different scales. This considerably reduces the impact a pan-European implementation
of the territorial dimension could have not only for carrying out the Europe 2020 strategy, but
also for the development of the EU in general;
20.
asks the European Commission to provide for the possibility for LRAs to elaborate their own
"Regional" PA as an integrated part of the general PA concluded at national level. Doing this,
the Commission will give full recognition to Article 4 TEU respecting the internal constitutional
order of the Member States, whilst giving maximum effect to the subsidiarity principle;
21.
asks the European Commission to speak with one voice during the negotiations on the PAs and
OPs and notes in this respect that several LRAs have complained that during the negotiations
different services of the European Commission had different, sometimes contradictory,
demands which were not justified by real, practical requirements and/or existing legislation;
22.
underlines that good practice in the area of the partnership principle requires the right mind-set
and administrative culture rather than force of law. The discrepancy between legislation and the
2
A CoR consultation confirmed that a large majority of LRAs and other stakeholders have been involved in the preparatory phase
of PAs and OPs. However, more than 70% of respondents feel that the needs of LRAs have only been taken into account partially
or not at all.
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 6/12
context in which it must be applied leads to "ticking the box" practices3, jeopardising the
objective of high-quality, effective programming and making it nothing more than an
administrative burden that hinders implementation of the funds themselves across the EU;
23.
therefore, the CoR believes that the partnership principle can be strengthened by the
Commission helping to examine the operating mechanisms and identifying best practices,
including assessment of the time needed for discussion given the complexity of the institutions
and the programme. Welcomes, in this respect, that the European Commission has launched a
study on the partnership principle and plans to hold regular "structured dialogue" meetings
which aim to discuss the implementation of the partnership principle with stakeholders. Points
out that the CoR, as the representative body of LRAs, needs to be the key strategic partner in
this process;
Financial resources, programme structure and performance
Financial resources
24.
points out that the subnational level was responsible for 55% of total public investments in 2013
and thus plays a significant role in promoting economic growth in Europe. In some regions,
ESIF funds are virtually the only source of public investment;
25.
draws attention to the fact that subnational finances are in a difficult situation as LRAs find
themselves confronted with high levels of debt and austerity measures imposed by higher levels.
The CoR notes in this respect that a lack of available subnational financial resources has a direct
impact on the implementation of cohesion policy. The multilevel financing system should
therefore be improved in the future. Calls, consequently, for Member States making use of the
flexibility granted by the Commission to remove the compulsory share of national co-financing
for interventions funded by the ESIF from the constraints of the internal stability pact;
26.
is therefore pleased that in the 2014-2020 programming period, cohesion policy allows financial
instruments to play a stronger role, and notes that financial instruments, if implemented
effectively, can significantly increase the impact of financing for less-developed regions;
27.
points out that difficulties arise when implementing Structural Funds through financial
instruments. In many cases, implementation remains very complex, and even the relevant
Commission departments do not always interpret these provisions identically or consistently,
particularly during the verification and control phase. Despite efforts by the European
Commission to provide guidance, in most cases setting up financial instruments still necessitates
the use of external consultancy firms, which implies additional costs;
28.
welcomes the launch of fi-compass, a new information and advisory hub for the use of financial
instruments under the ESIF. This tool should help to facilitate the implementation of financial
instruments and make it more understandable;
3
Formal compliance with rules but without substantive application of rules.
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 7/12
29.
stresses the role of the EIB, whose Structural Programme Loans could be an excellent means of
mobilising financial resources for viable projects which are of critical size under a given
operational programme. Unfortunately, the possibilities that this source of financing offers are
not recognised enough at all levels4. Points out, moreover, that these possibilities cannot at
present be fully exploited by local authorities, due to the extremely complex procedures for
accessing and implementing such loans. Therefore calls for the rules governing loans for
structural programmes to be simplified;
Programme structure
30.
notes that stronger thematic concentration is one of the key reforms of cohesion policy 20142020. Thematic concentration serves the purpose of concentrating funds on a limited number of
thematic areas in order to reach critical mass and have real impact. As predefined thematic
objectives determine what ESI funds can be spent on, provisions on thematic concentration have
a significant impact on the structure of PAs and OPs;
31.
draws attention to the fact that owing to internal regional disparities, it may still be necessary
even in more developed regions to invest in infrastructure providing basic services in the areas
of environment, transport, and information and communication technologies (ICT);
32.
is pleased that additional flexibility has been introduced through new tools such as CommunityLed Local Development (CLLD) and Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI), which allow for
the use of multi-fund programmes and the implementation of innovative projects. Welcomes
that on paper, many countries and regions are considering using these instruments, however the
Committee is concerned that the regulatory differences across the funds, and the reticence by
Managing Authorities to delegate at the local level, remain an issue that limits the potential on
these new instruments for integrated territorial development;
33.
draws attention to the fact that combining different funding sources and different tools for a
single project may offer significant advantages only if different funding sources and tools entail
equivalent reporting and eligibility requirements, making this combination work by reducing
implementation errors as well as costs incurred through dealing with additional administrative
procedures;
34.
notes that in some Member States new tools have been met with scepticism and will not be
widely implemented where they would be useful, and that in some cases the national level has
impeded LRAs use of new tools; consequently, the European Commission is urged to provide
more detailed background explanations in cases where this option has been ruled out;
35.
calls on the European Commission and the EIB to harmonise administrative and eligibility
requirements when providing support to various cross-cutting projects;
4
More than 50% of the respondents of the CoR consultation stated that they were not aware of Structural Programme Loans.
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 8/12
Performance
36.
is pleased that the reformed cohesion policy puts a stronger emphasis on OP performance. Good
performance can be considered to be achieving objectives efficiently and in accordance with the
rules;
37.
underlines that good performance of cohesion policy is the primary concern of all LRAs as good
results significantly improve the quality of life in regions, cities and municipalities;
38.
specifies that the most important elements of performance should be the long-term results,
resulting in the achievement of predefined objectives. Results may include the number of jobs
created, reduced congestion and less pollution, etc. In contrast, outputs such as number of
training courses offered, kilometres of road built or number of buildings renovated, are only
intermediate steps towards achieving results and are therefore a less important element of
performance;
39.
regrets in particular that the reintroduced performance reserve might encourage the setting of
unambitious objectives with a view to obtaining the additional resources from the performance
reserve easily. However, it will only become clear whether the objectives are ambitious as
implementation moves forward. In any case, holding back financial resources from operational
programmes creates unnecessary uncertainty in financial planning;
40.
moreover, given that cohesion policy is inherently long term, an overly strict emphasis on shortterm or mid-term financial or output indicators undermines the achievement of all long-term
objectives set when the operational programmes are being negotiated, indeed the CoR calls for a
new performance framework based not on outputs but on outcomes to be developed for the next
programming period;
41.
moreover, it is unfortunate that the performance framework makes financial indicators as well
as output indicators mandatory, while results indicators are only optional. Nevertheless, the CoR
believes that a focus on achieving results needs to be a mandatory element of the strategic
planning of all Structural Funds, which should also be taken into account within the
performance framework;
42.
welcomes in this respect that the European Commission will produce annual reports
summarising the implementation reports of the Member States from 2016 onwards and invites
the European Commission to discuss these reports with CoR members. The CoR suggests that
these reports also include an analysis of progress in simplifying the implementation system;
43.
notes that financial indicators, such as the absorption rate of funds, are not a results-oriented
performance indicator. The CoR therefore urges the European Commission to give less
importance to financial indicators within the performance framework;
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 9/12
Simplifying procedures and administrative capacity
Simplifying procedures
44.
notes that in the past, cohesion policy has received considerable criticism for its complex
implementation system. Most of the managing authorities still see the new regulations as
bureaucratic and complex. In this respect, simplifying eligibility rules, avoiding gold plating and
focusing on results were considered as most essential by respondents of the CoR consultation;
45.
points out that gold-plating is still one of the main reasons for the administrative burden. This
overly strict national interpretation of EU rules, coupled with the fact that in many Member
States each Fund is subject to separate Ministerial and management lines, leads to unnecessary
administrative requirements, silo approaches, and an additional bureaucratic burden on
beneficiaries and managing authorities, as well as hampering the use of integrated territorial
development instruments such as ITI or CLLD;
46.
asks the European Commission to monitor national application of EU rules and, in the event of
gold-plating, to convince national authorities to apply EU rules in a less onerous way. Cases of
gold-plating should be made publicly available for mutual learning processes;
47.
however, there is ample room for simplification within EU rules as well (regulations,
implementing and delegated acts). The CoR therefore insists on further simplification in the
management of EU-funded projects. This should include a reduction in the time period for
reimbursement for beneficiaries, the creation of one set of common auditing rules for projects,
simpler rules for projects which generate their own revenue, consistent rules concerning the
eligibility of costs, the wider use of simplified costs, a closer connection between payments and
results, E-cohesion, the "one-stop-shop" principle for beneficiaries, and a proportionate and
unified approach to supervision;
48.
The CoR firmly believes that specific measures are immediately required to simplify territorial
cooperation programmes. The results of European territorial cooperation programmes and
projects also need to be made more visible. Complexity is a source of delay and errors which
hamper the effectiveness of EU cohesion policy. Rules that are clearer, more transparent and
simpler to apply lead to fewer problems downstream, at the expenditure certification stage and
during control and audit operations; ex-post controls by the European Commission should also
be harmonised and in any case meet the criteria of consistency, subsidiarity and, most
importantly, proportionality;
Administrative capacity
49.
notes that the administrative capacity of LRAs is key to implementing cohesion policy
successfully, but unfortunately is still lacking in some LRAs;
50.
points out that there are many potential reasons for inadequate administrative capacity,
including:
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 10/12







inefficient distribution of tasks and responsibilities,
inefficient cooperation between levels of governance,
lack of qualified human resources (skills),
lack of financial resources,
inappropriate rules and regulations (e.g. gold-plating),
political obstacles (e.g. inappropriate strategic planning),
internal organisation of bodies unsuited to managing complex projects such as those cofinanced by ESIF;
51.
calls for the Member States, not just less developed ones but all across the EU, to make greater
use of the technical assistance available for operational programmes in order to improve the
capacity of local and regional bodies and other participants to draw and manage EU funds as
well as to support better statistical data being collected at local level;
52.
underlines that strengthening the administrative capacity at local and regional level will lead to
more effective and result oriented implementation of the OPs. Benchmarking, exchange of
experience and knowledge between regions and cities should be supported by EU and Member
states, also by using instruments such as the European Territorial Cooperation programmes;
53.
acknowledges that ex-ante conditionalities (Article 19 CPR) ensure that EU resources are
invested in a legal environment that complies with European law and that they are geared to
reducing competitive advantages derived from non-compliance with the rules, but draws
attention to the following:



the CoR considers it unacceptable that funding on the territory of LRAs should be delayed
due to failings at national institutional level and hopes that in the long-term LRAs will
benefit from the application of ex-ante conditionalities;
the CoR firmly opposes "external conditionality" for ESIF regarding the freezing of
regional aid for Member States which breach EU budget deficit rules. Such measures would
primarily penalise LRAs for the failures of their national governments;
cohesion policy is essentially a regional policy and must remain so, avoiding more or less
centralising policies at all levels of governance.
Brussels,
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 11/12
II.
PROCEDURE
Outcome of the negotiations on the partnership
agreements and operational programmes
N/A
Reference(s)
Article 307 TFEU
Legal basis
Rule 41(b)(ii) of the CoR's Rules of Procedure
Own-initiative opinion
Procedural basis
Date of Council/EP referral/Date of N/A
Commission letter
6 October 2014
Date of Bureau/President's decision
Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and EU
Commission responsible
Budget (COTER)
Ivan Žagar (SI/EPP)
Rapporteur
Mayor of Slovenska Bistrica
21 January 2015
Analysis
2 March 2015
Discussed in commission
12 May 2015
Date adopted by commission
Majority
Result of the vote in commission
(majority, unanimity)
Scheduled for 8 and 9 July 2015
Date adopted in plenary
Previous Committee opinions
 Opinion on Sixth report on economic, social and
territorial cohesion: investment for jobs and growth
(CdR 2014/4896)5
 Opinion on Recommendation of local and regional
Authorities for better spending in the new financial
perspective 2014-2020 (CdR 3609/2013)6
 Opinion on A Common Strategic Framework (CdR
2027/2012)7
 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Code of
Conduct on Partnership (CdR 1683/2012)8
N/A
Date of subsidiarity monitoring
consultation
Title
_____________
5
OJ C 19, 25.1.2015, p. 9
6
OJ C 356, 5.12.2013, p. 3
7
OJ C 17, 19.1.2013, p. 56
8
OJ C 17, 19.1.2013, p. 13
COR-2014-06248-00-00-PAC-TRA (EN) 12/12