Template and guidance for the
content of the Partnership
Agreement
24 May 20013
Main issues raised by the experts
• The role of the COM services position paper
• The structure of the PA:
• Concerns of experts that the PA would not be sufficiently
political in its presentation;
• Views that a binding structure will not be sufficiently
flexible especially if there are character limits for each
sub-section
• Concerns expressed over "automatic adjustment" of
data included in PA on the basis of data in programmes
• Some experts noted duplication between the PA and the OP
• We also received many questions on the draft legislation
itself
Main changes (1)
As regards the structure and submission modalities of the PA:
• Openness to different submission modalities, no rigid character
limits proposed per section, but overall length should remain
reasonable
• The general structure of the PA (the order of elements) is set
out in Article 14 and has been subject to considerable
negotiation prior to agreement. A guidance document cannot
derogate from provisions agreed by the co-legislators
• Close link with OPs (automatic revision of the PA following
certain modification of programmes, Article 87 (8) etc). At
least tabular data should be structured to facilitate all
scenarios envisaged in the CPR
• MS should ensure that programmes are consistent with the PA
submitted to the COM – with the last programme submitted
the numbers in the PA should add up correctly (SFC check)
3
Main changes (2)
• Reflection on the implementation of Article 87 (8)
in practice:
• Advanced stage of preparation of OP is necessary to use
this possibility
• Technical options as regards SFC are still being explored
• PA template now sets out in more details the
implications of the use of this possibility as regards the
content of the PA
4
Main changes (3)
Clarifications as a response to inquiries:
• Role of the COM services position paper
• "Funding priorities"
• The presentation of information on ex-ante
conditionalities
• etc.
The complementarity of PA and
programmes under cohesion policy
• The content envisaged in the CPR for the OP mirrors closely
the content of the PA
• The difference is in the level of information provided – in PA
for the 5 ESI Funds at a strategic level, in programme at a
more operational level
• Article 87 (8) was proposed by co-legislators to address
overlaps in small MS where programmes are prepared at
national level
• No need for duplication – OP should complement the PA as
necessary, but not duplicate the same information
Q and A – ETC in PA
• The PA is a national document
• ETC is generally not covered by the PA
• However, ETC is relevant in the context of:
• (national) priorities for cooperation including
under the ETC goal;
• arrangements to ensure coordination between
ESI Funds.
Q and A - CLLD
• CLLD is bottom-up
BUT - Member State should decide:
• which ESI Funds it will use for CLLD;
• the allocation set aside for CLLD;
• how it will coordinate the use of these Funds and
ensure their complementarity;
• whether it will target CLLD territorially or thematically
• etc.
This section is not subject to COM decision in the PA, but
there should be clarity of arrangements from the onset to
ensure a coherent approach and avoid implementation issues
later on
Outstanding issues
• The agreement between the co-legislators on the
performance reserve and its implementation
arrangements
• Pending agreements on other areas such as
N+2/N+3, additionality etc.
• Timing of adoption of Fund-specific rules – close
tracking of developments, specific rules
potentially necessary
• A revision of the template is likely to be
necessary following a political agreement on all
blocks
The template and guidance on the
content of the operational
programmes under the Investment
in growth and jobs goal and the
model for such programmes
Main issues raised by experts
• The use of a structured model for the purposes of
consultation and communication on the strategy and
content of the operational programme
• Proposals to raise or to abolish character limits, concerns
over restrictions
• The need to clarify the requirements as regards operational
programmes dedicated exclusively to technical assistance
• Calls for simplification of certain sections (on partnership,
the integrated approach to poverty)
• Proposals for reduction of duplication
• Many questions on the legislation itself – particularly on the
links between different elements of the priority axis
11
Main changes (1)
• The introduction of a voluntary "citizens summary" to
facilitate consultation and communication. This is:
• Not required by the CPR and therefore not obligatory;
• Not subject to the Commission decision approving the
operational programme;
• Document upload - "free-format" and without character
restrictions;
• Can include a desciption of each priority axis.
Main changes (2)
An operational programme is not only a strategic and a
communication document, it is a practical programming and
management tool
The structure of the priority axis is preserved:
• It is the outcome of a lengthy negotiation process and has
been agreed by the co-legislators
• The presentation of information in the programme,
including the precise order of elements and nature of the
links between them were considered essential many
Member States
• The cross referencing option can be used where certain
elements have already been described under another part
of the programme - no duplication necessary
Main changes (3)
TA operational programmes
• Article 87 does not envisage any specific rules on
operational programmes dedicated exclusively to technical
assistance
• Nevertheless, certain sections are generally less relevant
for TA programmes than for other operational programmes
• Since TA does not fall under any of the thematic objectives
or investment priorities certain fields will be "not
applicable"
• The aim has been to elaborate when the different sections
set out in the template/model are relevant for TA
operational programmes and to outline guidance on the
content of those sections in such programmes
Main changes (4)
• Streamlining of the section on partnership,
reordering
• Streamlining of the section on the integrated
approach to poverty, notably the structured
information
Q and A – intervention logic
• Investment priorities are objectives set out at EU level, not
lists of eligible actions.
• Specific objectives define the investment priority (objective
set out at EU level) in the specific national and regional
context
• One can support any action falling into the scope of the
Fund concerned as long as it contributes to the thematic
objective, investment priority and the specific objectives
defined by the Member State
• Result indicators are linked to specific objectives
• Output indicators are more closely linked to the types of
actions supported but should be coherent with the specific
objectives
Q and A - intervention logic (2)
• All types of actions outlined in progammes (and
eventually all operations supported) should
contribute to specific objectives set out in the
programme (and therefore also to investment
priorities and thematic objectives)
• See PGA on Article 114 (3) of the CPR
• Effect on attainment of milestones and targets
set for the programme
Q and A - other
• Character limits should establish a maximum for largest
programmes in any language
• The list of major projects is part of the operational
programme but not subject to COM decision – can be
modified at national/regional level
• Many sections and tables are to be filled in "where
appropriate". E.g. there is no requirement to use CLLD or
ITIs, some MS have no major projects etc.
• There are additional fiches on categorisation and tracking of
climate change related expenditure and on the performance
framework
Open issues
• The performance reserve and its implementation
• N+2/N+3
• We are still open to proposals on character limits
(part of the IA) to ensure that these are
appropriate
Thank you!