Stakeholder survey on the future of
pre-accession assistance post 2013
Basic information about your organisation
Please provide the following information about your organisation:
Name
Contact email (or, alternatively,
a postal address)
The type of your organisation:
Business representation
Private company
Trade union
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Research institute or think tank
National public administration/body
Regional or local public administration/body
Institution of the European Union
International funding institution
Other (to specify)
If 'Other', please specify:
{if NGO}
Which is the main field of
activity of your organisation
(e.g.
human
rights,
transparency,
environment
protection,
equal
opportunities)?
{if National public administration}
Are you a National IPA Coordinator (NIPAC)?
Yes
No
{if European Institution}
Which institution of the European Union?
DG Enlargement
DG Regional Policy
DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion
Other (to specify)
If 'Other', please specify:
Are you a member of any of the following bodies?
IPA Management Committee
IPA Joint Monitoring Committee
Monitoring Committee of IPA Component I
Monitoring Committee of IPA Component II
Monitoring Committee of IPA Component III
Monitoring Committee of IPA Component III
Monitoring Committee of IPA Component V
Your organisation's country of
establishment:
Regional/local
National
European (multi-country)
Global
Does your organisation benefit (or has it benefited in the past) from EU funding under
the IPA instrument, or under any other EU financial instruments?
Yes
No
Please specify which projects and instruments (the 3 most significant ones):
Does your organisation co-finance projects (also) funded by the IPA instrument, or by
any other EU financial instruments?
Yes
No
Please specify which instruments (the 3 most significant ones):
Do you wish to respond to this questionnaire referring in your answers generally to all
beneficiary countries or only selected ones?
A. All beneficiary countries
B. Certain specific beneficiary countries
Please specify which countries:
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Iceland
Kosovo1
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey
C. Another perspective (to specify)
If ‘Other perspective',
specify which:
1
please
(under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/1999)
Future needs in beneficiary countries after 2013
The ultimate aim of EU financial assistance has been to support beneficiary
countries' progressive alignment with the standards and policies of the EU, with a
view to EU membership. To ensure performance of assistance in terms of its
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, and impact/results, and taking due
account of the scarcity of funds compared to needs, the successor to IPA should
address the most significant needs, taking also into account that the funds available
to the EU are limited. The period of reference should be the next Multi-annual
Framework of the EU, i.e. a period of 5 to 7 years starting in 2014.
Q1.1 Please indicate below the importance of different needs to be addressed in the
beneficiary countries - either through financial assistance or through other policy
activities.
Please score from 1 (not a need) to 5 (highly significant need).
A. Political criteria
1 (not a
need)
2
3
4
5 (highly
significant
need)
No
opinion
1 (not a
need)
2
3
4
5 (highly
significant
need)
No
opinion
A1. Democracy, democratic
institutions
A2. The rule of law
- Fight against organised crime
- Fight against corruption
A3. The promotion and the
protection of human rights
A4. Respect for and protection of
minority rights
A5. The promotion of gender
equality and non-discrimination
A6. The development of civil
society
A7. Reconciliation, confidencebuilding measures and
reconstruction
B. Economic criteria
B1. Existence of a functioning
marketing economy
- Macroeconomic stability
- Free interplay of market forces
- Adequate legal system
B2. Capacity to cope with
competitive pressures and market
forces within the European Union
- Availability of sufficient human
capital
- The development of civil society
- Availability of sufficient physical
capital (incl. RTD, infrastructure)
- Availability of adequate sectoral
and enterprise structures (incl.
support for SMEs)
C. Ability to take on the obligations of membership
1 (not a
need)
2
3
4
5 (highly
significant
need)
No
opinion
C1. Adoption of or alignment with
the acquis
C2. Implementation and
enforcement of the acquis
D. Supporting structures and measures for compliance with the criteria
1 (not a
need)
2
3
4
5 (highly
significant
need)
No
opinion
1 (not a
need)
2
3
4
5 (highly
significant
need)
No
opinion
D1. Public administration reform
D2. Fiscal reform, improving
domestic revenue collection
D3. Cross-border cooperation
measures
D4. Investment needs in regional
development
D5. Investment needs in human
resources development
D6. Investment needs in to
develop rural areas/economies to
increase living standards
E. Management of funds
E1. Decentralisation of the
management of EU pre-accession
assistance
E2. Preparing for the
implementation and management
of the EU's regional and cohesion
policy, including Territorial
Cooperation
E3. Preparing for the
implementation of the EU's
common agricultural policy
Other
1 (not a
need)
Other need (to specify)
If 'Other need', please specify:
Comments (optional):
2
3
4
5 (highly
significant
need)
No
opinion
The overall European added value of pre-accession
assistance
The identification of a European added value is a key criterion for the justification for
spending at EU level. EU pre-accession assistance should therefore focus on
actions which beneficiary countries cannot do or finance themselves; which cannot
be funded from other external resources; or where EU action can secure better
results, e.g. through providing specialist knowledge.
Q2.1 In which areas will pre-accession assistance bring the most European added
value in the next period after 2013?
Please rate the level of added value from 1 ‘the least’ to 5 ‘the most’ for each of the
intervention areas listed.
Transition Assistance & Institution Building
1
(the
least)
Strengthening of democratic
institutions and the rule of law
Promotion and protection of
human rights and fundamental
freedoms
Promotion of gender equality and
non-discrimination
Promotion of minority integration,
reconciliation and confidencebuilding measures
Reform in the field of justice and
home affairs, including the fight
against corruption and organised
crime
Public administration reform,
strengthening institutional
capacity and the efficiency of
public administrations
Development of civil society and
dialogue with the national
authorities
Removal of obstacles to social
inclusion and support for inclusive
labour markets
Preparatory action to manage and
implement Structural, Cohesion
and common Agricultural Policy
funds
Strengthening of the market
economy, economic reform and
support for a sustainable
economic growth
2
3
4
5
(the
most)
No
opinion
Modernisation of the regulatory
framework and support for the
adoption of the acquis
Cross-border cooperation: geographical scope
Cross-border cooperation between
EU member states and beneficiary
countries
Cross-border cooperation between
beneficiary countries
Transnational cooperation with EU
member states
Cooperation between beneficiary
and neighbourhood countries
Cross-border cooperation: subject
Promoting sustainable economic
and social development in the
border areas
Addressing common challenges in
fields such as environment,
natural and cultural heritage or
public health
Prevention of and fight against
organised crime
Ensuring efficient and secure
borders
Promoting joint small scale
actions involving local actors from
the border regions
Regional Development
Upgrading transport infrastructure
Environment measures
Enhancing regional
competitiveness
Energy efficiency resources
Human Resource Development
Increasing adaptability of workers,
enterprises and entrepreneurs
Enhancing access to employment
Reinforcing social inclusion of
disadvantaged people
Promoting partnerships, pacts and
initiatives through networking
Expanding and enhancing
investment in human capital
Rural Development
Improving market efficiency and
implementation of Community
standards
- Investments in agricultural
holdings
- Support for the setting-up of
producer groups
- Investments in the processing
and marketing of agriculture and
fishery products
Preparatory actions for
implementation of the agrienvironmental measures and local
rural development strategies
- Actions to improve the
environment and the countryside
- Preparation and implementation
of local rural development
strategies
Development of the rural economy
- Improvement and development of
rural infrastructure
- Diversification and development
of rural economic activities
- Improvement of training
Comments. Please explain the reasons for the views expressed above and provide
evidence to support the views.
Particularly explain why EU would be in a better position to provide added value as
compared to other sources of financing.
The indicative amount of for pre-accession under the current financial framework is €
11.5 billion over the period 2007-2013, currently distributed between the 5 IPA
Components (Transition assistance and Institution Building, Cross Border
Cooperation, Regional Development, Human Resources Development and Rural
Development.
Q2.2 To what extent do you agree with
Please rate from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
1 (totally
disagree)
The current structure of IPA is
appropriate for pre-accession
assistance
Sufficient synergies exist between
activities under the different
components of EU pre accession
assistance
The different components of EU
pre-accession assistance should
2
the
3
following
4
statements?
5 (totally
agree)
No
opinion
be better coordinated
More EU resources are required to
meet Pre accession needs
Pre accession needs could be met
with less EU resources
Comments. Please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your views in the
box below:
Future policy objectives of EU Pre accession
assistance
Q3.1 Please indicate how you think the relevance of the policy objectives will change
for the next financial framework (after 2013)?
Will they be…
Much
less
relevant
Less
releva
nt
Remai
n the
same
More
releva
nt
Much
more
releva
nt
No
opinio
n
Strengthening democratic
institutions, the rule of law and
human rights
Supporting the adoption of or
alignment with the acquis,
preparing for membership and
manage structural, cohesion
and rural development policy
funds
Addressing the challenges of
European integration through
reforms in governance and the
economy
Contributing to sustainable
socio-economic development
Advancing regional
cooperation
Improving social inclusion and
reconciliation and reducing
poverty
Other (to specify)
If 'Other', please specify:
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Coherence with EU priorities
Strengthening the coherence between the EU’s actions and its overarching
objectives and priorities is key in all EU policy areas in order to maximise the overall
gains from public interventions and to ensure the sustainability of effects. Preaccession assistance is no exception to this principle, and will be aligned, to an
appropriate degree, with relevant EU priorities falling outside the actual scope of
enlargement. Beneficiary countries of EU Pre accession assistance, pursuing EU
membership, may also be interested in aligning their policies with the EU priorities.
Q4.1 Please indicate in your opinion to what extent future EU pre-accession assistance
should align with the following EU priorities in the next financial framework (after 2013).
Should future assistance be…
Much
less
aligned
Less
aligne
d
Uncha
nged
More
aligne
d
Much
more
aligne
d
No
opinio
n
The Europe 2020 strategy
(overall)
- Boosting research and
innovation (‘Innovation Union’)
- Increased mobility of young
people (‘Youth on the Move’)
- More efficient use of
resources
- A competitive and sustainable
European industry
- New skills and jobs
- Fighting against poverty
Comments. Please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q4.2 To what extent is current pre-accession assistance linked to the challenges and
needs identified in the enlargement negotiation process?
Please rate from 1 (no link) to 5 (very closely linked).
1 (no link)
2
3
4
5
(very
closely
linked)
No opinion
Comments (optional): please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your
view in the box below:
Q4.3 To what extent is current pre-accession assistance aligned with national
(beneficiary country) priorities?
Please rate from 1 (no link) to 5 (very closely linked).
1 (no link)
2
3
4
5
(very
closely
linked)
No opinion
Comments (optional): please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your
view in the box below:
Q4.4 EU pre-accession assistance should identify different priorities for potential
candidates and candidate countries.
Please rate from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).
1
(completely
disagree)
2
3
4
5
(completely
agree)
No opinion
Comments (optional): please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your
view in the box below:
The policy foundations of programming
Assistance under IPA is required to be in accordance with the general policy
framework for pre-accession. This framework (initially through the European and
Accession Partnerships) sets out short and medium term priorities for the beneficiary
countries, linked to the political and economic criteria for EU accession (Copenhagen
criteria). In the planning of assistance under IPA in the individual beneficiary
countries, due account is also taken of the Country Progress Reports/Opinions and
the EU’s annual Enlargement Strategy Paper. These documents have influence over
the actual activities chosen and to be carried out in the beneficiary countries.
Q5.1 When selecting the range of measures and activities to be undertaken in
beneficiary countries, to what extent should programming decisions reflect the
following strategic documents?
Should these documents be…
Much
less
influent
ial
Less
influe
ntial
Uncha
nged
More
influe
ntial
Much
more
influe
ntial
No
opinio
n
Enlargement Package
(including partnerships,
strategy paper and progress
reports
National policy strategies for
EU integration
National Development Plans
National sector strategies
Comments (optional): please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your
view in the box below:
Q5.2 When programming pre-accession assistance, should more or less influence be
given to the views of the following actors in the next financial framework (after 2013)?
Signific
antly
less
influenc
e
EU Delegations
EU member states
National authorities in
beneficiary countries
Regional and local authorities
in beneficiary countries
Business stakeholders in
beneficiary countries
Slightl
y less
influe
nce
Uncha
nged
Slightl
y
more
influe
nce
Signifi
cantly
more
influe
nce
No
opinio
n
Civil society stakeholders in
beneficiary countries
Comments (optional): please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your
view in the box below:
Strategic planning
Currently all pre-accession countries receive assistance under the Transition
Assistance and Institution Building component (Component I) and under Crossborder cooperation (Component II), whilst Regional Development, Human
Resources Development and Rural Development (Components III to V) apply only to
candidate countries. The individual Multiannual Indicative Planning Documents
(MIPDs) set out - on a three-year rolling basis, updated annually - the main priorities
for all EC assistance over the coming years and form the basis for annual or (under
Components III to V) multi-annual country programmes.
Q6.1 To what extent do you agree with the following general statements?
Please rate from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).
1
2
3
4
5
No
opinion
The MIPDs are sufficiently
focused
Sufficient emphasis is put in
the MIPDs on achieving
measurable results
The MIPDs contain the right
priorities
The current strategic planning
process of IPA is adequate to
guide the programming
process
Comments. Please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below.
What could be done to improve programming?
Q6.2 To what extent are the actions (set of measures) currently offered adequate to
prepare candidate countries to manage and implement cohesion policy/rural
development funds upon accession?
Please feel free to respond to those areas only with which you are familiar, or to
provide one answer for IPA in general.
Please rate from 1 (completely inadequate) to 5 (completely adequate).
1
(completely
inadequate)
IPA in general
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
2
3
4
5
(completely
adequate)
No
opini
on
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q6.3 Is the current programming process adequate to deliver the intended results?
Please rate from 1 (completely inappropriately) to 5 (completely appropriately).
1
(completely
inappropriat
ely)
2
3
4
5
(completely
appropriatel
y)
No
opini
on
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments. Please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below.
What should be done to improve the planning process? How could IPA assist?
Q6.4 Would the simplification of administrative and payment procedures (including
control mechanisms) be helpful?
Please rate from 1 (very unhelpful) to 5 (very helpful).
1
(very
unhelpful)
2
3
4
5
(very
helpful)
No
opinion
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q6.5 Are the management structures in place to manage the funds under the individual
IPA Components adequate?
Please rate from 1 (completely inadequate) to 5 (completely adequate).
1
(completely
inadequate)
2
3
4
5
(completely
adequate)
No
opini
on
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below.
What alternative measures should be added, if any?
Q6.6 Is the decentralised management system currently employed under IPA helpful in
building capacity for the management and control of pre-accession assistance?
Please rate from 1 (not helpful at all) to 5 (completely helpful).
1
(not
helpful at
all)
2
3
4
5
(completely
helpful)
No
opinion
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below.
What should be done to prepare beneficiaries adequately?
Q6.7 Would the incorporation of conditionalities in payments on the basis of
performance criteria be helpful in improving the efficiency of IPA (e.g. withholding
funds until financing agreement between beneficiary country and EU is signed)?
Please rate from 1 (not helpful at all) to 5 (completely helpful).
1
(not
helpful at
all)
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
2
3
4
5
(completely
helpful)
No
opinion
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q6.8 Would financial incentives given to beneficiary countries for better programme
performance be helpful in improving the efficiency of IPA (e.g. a performance reserve
from which well-performing beneficiary countries or component programmes can
receive additional funding)?
Please rate from 1 (not helpful at all) to 5 (completely helpful).
1
(not
helpful at
all)
2
3
4
5
(completely
helpful)
No
opinion
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q6.9 Would an extended use of leveraging IPA funding to support strategic
investments (e.g. blending IPA grants and loans from other donors) be helpful in
improving the efficiency of IPA?
Please rate from 1 (not helpful at all) to 5 (completely helpful).
1
(not
helpful at
all)
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
2
3
4
5
(completely
helpful)
No
opinion
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q6.10 To what extent are relevant stakeholders involved in the programming and
implementation of the programmes?
Please rate from 1 (completely insufficiently) to 5 (completely sufficiently).
1
(completely
insufficientl
y)
2
3
4
5
(completely
sufficiently)
No
opini
on
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q6.11 Is the current level of beneficiary ‘ownership’ in the implementation of actions
under the IPA Components adequate (active participation and commitment to results)?
Please rate from 1 (completely inadequate) to 5 (completely adequate).
1
(completely
inadequate)
2
3
4
5
(completely
adequate)
No
opini
on
IPA in general
Transition assistance and
institution building
Cross-border cooperation
Regional development
Human resource development
Rural development
Comments: please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
How could beneficiary ownership be strengthened?
Options for Transition Assistance and Institution
Building
Under the next EU pre-accession assistance instrument after 2013, a range of
mechanisms may be considered that could improve the overall performance of the
assistance provided under Transition Assistance and Institution Building in terms of
its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact/results and sustainability.
Q7.1 In your opinion, how might the following options impact on the overall
performance of Transition Assistance and Institution Building (currently Component I)
actions in the next round of pre-accession assistance (after 2013)?
The structure of pre-accession assistance
Significa
ntly less
influence
Slightly
negative
Neutral
Slightly
positive
Signifi
cantly
positi
ve
No
opinio
n
Significa
ntly less
influence
Slightly
negative
Neutral
Slightly
positive
Signifi
cantly
positi
ve
No
opinio
n
Significa
ntly less
influence
Slightly
negative
Neutral
Slightly
positive
Signifi
cantly
positi
ve
No
opinio
n
Increasing the weight of
regional (multi country)
programmes
Increasing the weight of
national programmes
Increasing the weight of
cross-border
programmes
Programming
Replacing the annual
programmes with multiannual programmes
Strengthening sector
approach in
programming
Increasing access to
other EU programmes
Implementation
Fewer restrictions on
the use of budget
support
More systematic use of
sector budget support
Higher levels of cofinancing contributions
from national budgets
More flexible use of
sector budgetary
support
Increased use of
twinning with EU
Member States
Increased use of joint
management with EU,
Member States, or
international
organisations
Greater use of
decentralised
management
Comments. please provide your arguments and evidence supporting your view in the
box below:
Q7.2 Are there any other options to consider that could improve performance of
assistance?
Overall judgement
Q8.1 Overall, what were IPA’s greatest strengths in your view? What has it done well?
Q8.2 What were its greatest weaknesses? What has it not done well?
Q8.3 Please provide your additional comments or recommendations in the box below: