CoR Online consultation on the outcome of the negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes

Transcription

1 Draft questions for a survey on the outcome of negotiations on the PAs and OPs Ver CoR Online consultation on the outcome of the negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes This consultation of local and regional authorities will feed into the Committee of the Regions' owninitiative opinion on the outcome of the negotiations on the Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes. This opinion will be drawn up by the rapporteur, Ivan Žagar (SI/EPP), mayor of Slovenska Bistrica. The rapporteur will also ensure that the messages of the opinion (and thus also of the survey) will be heard by the European Commission and other European institutions. Besides this survey, the opinion will also draw on the results of our previous surveys on the PAs and ESIF cofinancing. The main goal of the CoR opinion is to assess the partnership agreements (PA) and operational programmes (OP) from the perspective of regional and local authorities which will use the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). The document will focus mainly on negotiation processes, the quality of the PAs and OPs, adherence to the Code of Conduct on Partnership, and the barriers to proper planning and implementation of ESIF. It will also contain suggestions on how to overcome obstacles. The draft opinion will be discussed in the CoR's Territorial Cohesion Policy commission (COTER) on 2 March It will be discussed for a second time and adopted by COTER on 13 May The opinion will subsequently be submitted for adoption to the CoR plenary session on 8-9 July The Committee of the Regions therefore invites you to express your views through the following online survey, which should not take longer than 15 minutes. The survey is open until 6 March Thank you for your participation.

2 Details of respondent Name: address: Organisation: Function/position held: Country: Please tick those boxes that apply to your situation: A) I am a member of the Committee of the Regions Yes No B) If you are a politician I am a politician representing a local government (e.g. town, municipality, NUTS 3 level) I am a politician representing a regional government (e.g. region, NUTS 2 level) I am a politician representing the national government C) If you are an official/clerk/expert I represent/work for a public administration at national level I represent/work for a public administration at regional level I represent/work for a public administration at local level D) I represent or work for an association grouping local or regional authorities Yes No E) Other, please specify. 1. Analysing the partnership agreements and operational programmes: Overall assessment: 1.1. On the whole, are you satisfied with the negotiation process, drafting and content published of the? Assessment Partnership Agreement Operational Programmes a) very satisfied b) satisfied c) fairly satisfied d) not satisfied e) no opinion

3 Section on partnership agreements: 1.2. To what extent were you/your organisation involved in the drafting of the Partnership Agreements? (multiple answers possible) a) I/my organisation was involved in the drafting b) I/my organisation was consulted and could provide input c) I/my organisation received information but without the possibility of providing any input d) I/my organisation was not involved at all 1.3. Do you feel that the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Partnership Agreements? a) Yes b) Partly c) No, they were not taken into account d) Don't know 1.4. Please provide any additional information you consider relevant concerning the quality of partnership agreements. Maximum length 2000 characters You may send additional documents that illustrate your viewpoint to: Section on operational programmes: To what extent were you involved in the drafting of the Operational Programmes? a) I/my organisation was involved in the drafting b) I/my organisation was consulted and could provide input c) I/my organisation received information but without the possibility of providing any input d) I/my organisation was not involved at all 1.6. Do you feel that the needs and specificities of regions and cities were taken into account when drafting the Operational Programmes? a) Yes b) Partly c) No, they were not taken into consideration d) Don't know

4 1.7. Please provide any additional information you consider relevant concerning the negotiations on the operational programmes. Please add information if you would like to comment on a particular operational programme. Maximum length 2000 characters You may send additional documents that illustrate your viewpoint to: europe2020@cor.europa.eu Please use "PA, OP survey 2015" as the subject of your Awareness of the tools available in, or introduced during, the programming period: 2.1. The new cohesion policy programming period introduces several new tools. Please indicate whether the following tools will be used in your country/region/city. Tool Financial Instruments (Article 37 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) (Article 36 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) Community Led Local Development (CLLD) (Article 32 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) European Investment Bank Structural Programme Loan (SPL) (Article 31 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) Joint Action Plans (Article 104 Common Provisions Regulation (1303/2013) a) Yes, it will be used b) No, it won't be used c) I don't know 2.2. In your view, did local and regional authorities experience any of the following obstacles in your country/region/city concerning the programming period ? Lack of information: sub-national policy levels do not have access to the same quantity and quality of information when formulating and implementing policies Lack of financial resources: at lower levels, a) Yes, it was a big obstacle b) Yes, it was an obstacle to a certain extent c) It was not an obstacle d) I don't know

5 revenues are not sufficient to undertake the investment set out in the OPs. (note: this relates to the programming phase of the ESIF ) Insufficient administrative capacity: not enough personnel/knowledge/infrastructure to implement specific tasks Administrative boundaries: administrative boundaries (due to national or EU restrictions) are not always consistent with functional, economic and social areas, leading to fragmentation of policies Political obstacles: ministries carry out primarily sectoral policies without involving regional or local authorities. 3. Simplification and administrative capacity in the governance of the programming period for EU funds 3.1. Please state the degree of importance of the following measures/principles with respect to simplification and increasing administrative capacity: Degree of importance Measure/principle a) essential b) important c) not important focusing on results thematic concentration guidance/technical assistance from the European Commission application of the partnership principle additional financial resources for capacity building simplifying eligibility rules avoiding 'gold-plating' (national rules going beyond EU requirements) use of simplified cost options absorption pressures (pressures to spend money in a given amount of time regardless of results) the one-stop-shop principle for beneficiaries d) I don't know

6 simpler rules for projects which generate their own revenue 3.2. Please provide any additional information you consider relevant concerning simplification and administrative capacity. You may also wish to share your ideas on how to overcome obstacles and to ensure that strategic framework documents related to EU funds are high in quality (especially operational programmes and partnership agreements) and are implemented effectively. (Maximum length: 2000 characters.) You may send additional documents that illustrate your viewpoint to: Please use "PA, OP survey 2015" as the subject of your .