Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION 1 STUDY TOUR ROP PODLASKIE, Brussel, 19-20 October 2011 Effective implementation of regional programmes – the best.
Post on 16-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
1
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
STUDY TOUR ROP PODLASKIE, Brussel, STUDY TOUR ROP PODLASKIE, Brussel, 19-20 October 201119-20 October 2011
Effective implementation of Effective implementation of regional programmes – the best regional programmes – the best
examplesexamplesGeneratGenerating best projects for ing best projects for
successful Programmessuccessful Programmes
Pascal Boijmans, Deputy Head of UnitPascal Boijmans, Deputy Head of UnitDirectorate General for Regional PolicyDirectorate General for Regional Policy
European CommissionEuropean Commission
STUDY TOUR ROP PODLASKIE, Brussel, STUDY TOUR ROP PODLASKIE, Brussel, 19-20 October 201119-20 October 2011
Effective implementation of Effective implementation of regional programmes – the best regional programmes – the best
examplesexamplesGeneratGenerating best projects for ing best projects for
successful Programmessuccessful Programmes
Pascal Boijmans, Deputy Head of UnitPascal Boijmans, Deputy Head of UnitDirectorate General for Regional PolicyDirectorate General for Regional Policy
European CommissionEuropean Commission
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
22
Structure of PresentationStructure of Presentation
• Lessons learnt from the previous perspective
• Structural Funds in Poland: 2007-13
• Current progress in implementation
• Main challenges
• Conclusions
StructureStructure
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
33
Poland: lessons learned from the Poland: lessons learned from the previous perspectiveprevious perspective
• Structural Funds performed on average quite well
• Cohesion Fund (large infrastructure projects) lagging behind: transport better than environment
• EC advocated for devolving more responsibility to the regional level
• Poland made successful use of the available resources under 2004-06 – but still an effort is needed to conduct the closure of the assistance in a timely and correct manner
Lessons learnedLessons learned
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
44
Poland: lessons learnt from the Poland: lessons learnt from the previous perspectiveprevious perspective
• lack of a strategic approach
• problems related to the selection of projects/dispersion of projects
• significant cost overruns, especially in CF
• Exchange rate Euro/zloty
• EIA, public procurement issues
• staff turnover
• unstable legal framework
• evaluation framework
Lessons learnedLessons learned
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
55
Priorities EU for Cohesion Policy Priorities EU for Cohesion Policy 2007-20132007-2013
Contents– Lisbon strategy: growth and jobs– Innovation: investments in RTD and
entrepreneurship– Transport: Trans-European Networks– Information society for all– Energy: energy efficiency and
renewables– Improve access to finance– More and better jobs: adaptability of
workers and enterprises and flexibility of the labour market
Priorities for EU
Regional Policy
Priorities for EU
Regional Policy
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
66
Priorities EU for Cohesion Policy Priorities EU for Cohesion Policy 2007-20132007-2013
• Implementation– Need for stable, long-term strategies:
focus on a limited number of priorities– Necessity of stable and efficient
institutional implementation system– Coherence (integrated, multi-sector
development) – Stability (multi-annual programming
and EU budgeting)– Collaborative working (partnership,
networking)
Priorities for EU
Regional Policy
Priorities for EU
Regional Policy
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
77
EU Cohesion Policy in Poland 2007-13: EU Cohesion Policy in Poland 2007-13: some factssome facts
• Budget for Poland: 67.3 billion € (19.4% of budget for EU27)– Co-financing Poland: 14.1 billion € (public) and 2.7
billion € (private) – the largest beneficiary of Cohesion Policy
• 21 Operational Programmes– 5 national (74.3%)– 16 regional (24.6%) – 13 territorial cooperation (1.1%)
• Implementation:– National: Ministry for Regional Development (MRD)– Regional: regional self-governments– Territorial cooperation: MRD
Poland: some facts
Poland: some facts
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
88
Community Strategic GuidelinesCommunity Strategic Guidelines11
NSRF – National Strategic Reference FrameworkNSRF – National Strategic Reference Framework22
Operational Programmes
(incl. 16 Regional Operational Programmes)(incl. 16 Regional Operational Programmes)33
Programme management and project selection44
Programming of Cohesion Policy Programming of Cohesion Policy in Polandin Poland
Monitoring, evaluation, revision55
National Reform ProgrammeNational Reform Programme
Programming Programming
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
99
Programme managementProgramme managementEuropean Commission
Managing authority (Ministry for Regional Development or Marshal offices)
Intermediate bodies I (Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Economy, etc.)
Intermediate bodies II (e.g. PAED, Centre for Transport Projects Implementation, National Fund for Environment Protection, Institute of Fuels and Renewable
Energy, etc.)
Beneficiaries
ManagementManagement
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1010
The main challengesThe main challenges• Coordination of various policies and
programmes – special task for national authorities (especially Ministry for Regional Development): strategic approach
• Administrative capacity, especially at regional and local levels
• Demanding legal environment and economic constraints (budgetary constraints, inflationary tendencies, shortage of labour, continuous problems with compliance with EU law)
• Unprecedented challenge for spending (n+3/n+2 rule), especially for large projects
Main Challenges
Main Challenges
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1111
Implementation systemImplementation system
• Selection of projects based on selection criteria approved by MC of each OP:– objective, transparent, measurable and in
line with text of OP priorities
• Competition projects vs. ‘Key Projects’– Key projects also broken down into regular
and major projects
• Regular projects vs. major projects– Most projects adopted directly by MA of a
particular OP– Major projects submitted to EC for adoption
Implemen--tation. system
Implemen--tation. system
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1212
Selection criteria and appeal procedureSelection criteria and appeal procedure
• Applicable to all projects without exception (also key projects)
• Objective, transparent and clear selection criteria are primordial
• Ongoing monitoring process of selection procedure with a view to avoiding red tape and redundancies
• Law on Development Policy will introduce the right to effective judicial appeal procedure for applicants
Selection Selection criteriacriteria
Selection Selection criteriacriteria
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1313
Key ProjectsKey Projects
• Concept devised by Polish authorities
• System of ‘pre-selection’ of strategic projects– Projects selected on basis of strategic criteria
and placed on an indicative list
• No need to compete for funding with other projects– Guaranteed co-financing if project above
threshold based on regular selection criteria
• Beneficiaries qualify for technical assistance in preparing their key projects
Key ProjectsKey Projects
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1414
SF implementation in Poland – Major SF implementation in Poland – Major ProjectsProjects
• 251 planned (~25% of all major projects in EU-27)– Includes both competition and key projects– Greatest share: transport
• 108 received by EC
• 48 adopted
• Long process – in terms of both preparation (PL) and adoption (EC)
ProgressProgress
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1515
SF implementation in Poland – major SF implementation in Poland – major and key projectsand key projects
• Timeline for submission changes often and is continuously postponed
• New key projects added continuously– but original ones not progressing
• Competition projects progressing better than key projects
• EC has limited information on project preparation and next to no impact on procedure prior to submission of project– Responsibility of PL authorities to get procedures
in place and paperwork ready
ProgressProgress
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1616
SF implementation in Poland – generalSF implementation in Poland – general
• Overall situation: satisfactory, but not equally spread across programmes and sectors– Regional OP’s perform better than national OP’s– Small OP’s perform better than larger OP’s
• Some sectors much more problematic than others:– Culture, health, higher education progressing very
well– Support to SMEs, innovation – reasonable
progress – Railways, energy, and information society –
progress much slower
• Poland’s progress is just above the average of EU-27 in commitments and payments in % terms– 32.7% paid, no. 13 of EU27 MS
ProgressProgress
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1717
All SF: paid/decided ratios in EU 27
45,3%
40,3%38,7% 38,3%
36,8% 36,0% 35,6%34,6% 34,4% 34,4% 33,6% 32,9% 32,7% 32,6%
29,0% 28,9% 28,9% 28,6% 28,5% 28,2%
25,6% 25,6% 25,1%23,1%
18,6% 18,1%
14,7%
29,18 %
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Paid / Decided
Average
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1818
Financial execution: EC payments - ranking of OPs
63,0%61,3%
59,2%
53,8%51,5%
48,6% 48,0% 47,2% 47,1% 46,6%45,0%
43,0% 42,8%39,8% 39,4%
37,9% 37,3%
28,9%31,6%
24,1%
31,79%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Paid/decided Average
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1919
Contracting: ranking of OPs (SIMIK data)
94,8%92,2% 91,3%
84,3%
79,0%77,0%
73,9% 73,0% 72,7% 71,6% 71,4%
62,4%59,1%
62,4%64,9%
70,2%
65,8% 65,7%65,2%
70,7%
68,53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Contracting Average (ERDF+CF)
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2020
Problematic sectorsProblematic sectors• Railways:
– Strategy– Planning capacity– Public procurement issues
• Energy:– Infringements– State aid– Public procurement
• Information society: broadband– State aid– Public procurement– Identification of ‘white spots’
Problem areas
Problem areas
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2121
Major bottlenecksMajor bottlenecks
• State aid schemes
• New national law on EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
• Correct application of public procurement
Problem areas
Problem areas
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2222
Major bottlenecks – state aidMajor bottlenecks – state aid
• PL notified schemes very late
• Delays in providing replies to DG COMP questions
• Result – blockage in spending of funds for some sectors– Implementation of some priority axes in some
programmes started effectively later
• Ongoing discussions between three parties to speed up acceptance
• Administrative capacity– Competition Office is partly supported from
OP TA
Problem areas
Problem areas
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2323
Major Major bottlenecksbottlenecks - EIA - EIA• Non-compliance of PL legislation
– Insufficient public consultations– Decisions too early – not all info available
• Lengthy negotiations with DG ENV resulted in modus operandi– positive opinion can be given on basis of
localisation decision
• Temporary solution – transitional phase
• Need to process backlog of affected projects
• Administrative capacity– GDOS & regional bodies supported by OP
TA from OP I&E
Problem areas
Problem areas
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2424
Major bottlenecks – public procurementMajor bottlenecks – public procurement• Non-compliance of PL legislation…
• Rules for cancelling tenders
• Limited possibility for beneficiaries to correct offers
• Rules for introducing changes to tender notices, etc.
• … and irregularities• Tenders not published of OJ
• Usage of limited tenders without appropriate conditions being met
• Beneficiaries not informed of changes to tender notices after publication
• Result: risk of financial corrections in a significant number of projects
• PL legislation amended after lengthy discussions with EC
Problem areas
Problem areas
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2525
Measures to speed up implementationMeasures to speed up implementation
• POL: allocation of performance reserve (1.3 bn €) and technical adjustment (632 mln €)– Access criteria pushed OP’s to increase absorption– Focus on EU2020 relevant areas– Midterm review
• EC: annual review meetings– Follow up of recommendations
• EC: tripartite sector meetings on major projects– EC, POL, Jaspers– Upstream involvement in project preparation
Corrective measuresCorrective measures
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2626
Points for discussion and Points for discussion and recommendationsrecommendations
• Transport– It is essential to have a focussed and
strategic approach – Cohesion Fund: TEN-T projects– Railway masterplan condition for support to
railways– Masterplan for airports and support to
regional airports– It is crucial to link the regional and local
roads to the main transport corridors and/or growth poles
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2727
Points for discussion and Points for discussion and recommendationsrecommendations
• Climate change
- Energy efficiency as a horizontal principle- Increased allocation for renewable energy sources- Energy security- In line with market liberalisation
• Protection of Environment
- Fulfilment of the commitments made by Poland in the Accession Treaty- Environment as regional asset
- Application of the sustainable development principle
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2828
Points for discussion and Points for discussion and recommendationsrecommendations
• concentrate more on business environment and less on direct business support– e.g. roads, education, technology transfer, business
parks
• direct business support: concentrate on SMEs, innovation and use more revolving funds– e.g. JEREMIE, less classical investment schemes
• focus support on innovation and cooperation science and business sector– e.g. networks and clusters, «innovation at regional
level», no future for competition on labour costs
29
Regional Policy
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Thank you for your Thank you for your attention!attention!
Thank you for your Thank you for your attention!attention!
Inforegio website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy
top related