EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
REGIONAL POLICY
DG REGIONAL POLICY STAFF DRAFT REPORT
PARTNERSHIP IN THE 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD
ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLE
JUNE 2007
Commission européenne, 1049 Brussel, BELGIUM - Tel. +32 22991111
Office: CSM1 09/30 - Tel. direct line +32 229-94613
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xx.xxxxxx.xx
DG REGIONAL POLICY STAFF DRAFT REPORT
Partnership in the 2007-2013 programming period
Analysis of the implementation of the Partnership principle
Disclaimer: This document is a Directorate-General for Regional Policy staff draft and internal
report, for information purposes. It has been drawn up on the basis of questionnaires completed
by the geographical units of DG Regional Policy. It does not prejudge the nature or content of any
act that may be prepared by the Commission or the DG. It does not represent an official position
of the Commission or the Directorate-General for Regional Policy on this issue, nor does it
anticipate such a position.
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
Partnership is one of the core principles of the implementation of EU Structural Funds. The idea
was already present in the Treaty of Rome in 1957 as regards the European Social Fund. It was
later established as a common key principle for the Structural Funds by the 1988 reform.
As a principle of involvement and consultation on the objectives and priorities of the Structural
Funds, the partnership principle aims at:
- Increasing the efficiency of the policy-making – better identification and knowledge of local
problems;
- Increasing the effectiveness in pursuing the final goals – rationalisation of the efforts;
- Promoting the territorial development factors – multi-level governance;
- The democratisation of the EU – subsidiarity.
For the current programming period (2007-2013), and in accordance with article 11 of the
Structural Funds General Regulation1, an obligation of partnership is established on the
Commission (partnership at European level) and on the Member State (partnership at Member
State level).
At European level, the annual consultation meeting with the European economic and social
partners on assistance from the Funds (article 11.3) is organised by the Directorate-General for
Regional Policy jointly with the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and
Inclusion. In order to benefit from the input and expertise of organisations working on the
implementation of Funds other than socio-economic partners, the scope of this annual consultation
has been enlarged to other organisations working on Cohesion Policy at EU level.
The
structured dialogue with civil society organisations currently involves the traditional
economic and social partners, but also associations or networks representing local, regional, urban
authorities, as well as other representatives of civil society. This enlarged scope is to be
understood as an alignment of the same type of partners required at both Member State2 and EU
levels.
At Member State level the modification of the "partnership clause" in 2006 included a more
precise list of partners than in the previous programming period. Civil society, environmental
partners, non-governmental organisations and bodies responsible for promoting equality between
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999, OJ L 210, 31.7.2006.
2 Article 11.1 of Regulation 1086/2006 mentions the following partners at Member State level: "a) the competent
regional, local, urban and other public authorities; b) the economic and social partners; c) any other appropriate
body representing civil society, environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible
for promoting equality between men and women.
2
men and women are mentioned for the first time in the current General Regulation. At present, the
partnership principle shall be implemented "in accordance with national rules and practices".
Practically, the current EU Regulation makes partnership an important part of the governance of
the Cohesion Policy, whilst leaving considerable margin of manoeuvre to national and regional
authorities as to how it should be applied.
Progress on partnership has taken place across the programming periods. In this context, article 5
of the recent Commission proposals for a Common Provisions Regulation on CSF funds goes in
the direction of strengthening this principle3.
Partnership must be seen in
close liaison with the multi-level governance approach and the
respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. As highlighted by the Committee of
the Regions in its White Paper issued in 20094, multi-level governance means coordinated action
by the European Union, the Member States and local and regional authorities, based on
partnership and aimed at implementing EU policies. The multi-level governance approach
reinforces the implementation of the partnership principle both vertically – between regional and
local authorities (RLAs), national government and the European Union – and horizontally –
between these different levels, economic and social partners and civil society organisations.
Other bodies and institutions also call for the strengthening of this principle in cohesion policy.
The European Parliament endorsed the Beaupuy report on governance and partnership in 20085.
More recently, the Manescu Report on good governance (2010)6 considered that satisfactory
multi-level governance should be based on a bottom-up approach and called on the Member States
to identify the most efficient means of implementing governance at various levels and to improve
their cooperation with the regional and local authorities as well as with the Community’s
administration. The report also recommended the enhancement of the partnership practice and
urged the Commission to come up with an agreed definition of the concept of partnership as a
condition for building up real partnerships with regional and local authorities and civil society
actors. As mentioned above, the Committee of the Regions issued a White Paper on multi-level
governance in 2009. The follow-up report to this White Paper has been adopted on February
20127. The European Economic and Social Committee adopted an exploratory opinion on the
3 COM (2011) 615 final, "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down
common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion
Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) N°
1083/2006
4 See: http://web.cor.europa.eu/epp/Ourviews/Documents/White%20Paper%20on%20MLG.pdf
5 See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A6-2008-0356&language=EN
6 See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-0280&language=EN
7 See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:113:0062:0072:EN:PDF
3
involvement of civil society organisations (CSO) in the current programming period in 2010 – the
so called "Olsson report"8, carried out at the request of the Commission.
2.
METHODOLOGY
The present analysis is based on two questionnaires for both National Strategic Reference
Framework (NSRFs) and Operational Programmes (OPs) filled in by the geographical units of DG
Regional Policy. The questionnaires were aimed at gathering information on the involvement of
partners in the programming process established by the Member States or the Managing
Authorities (MAs): preparation of strategic documents and also other stages of the implementation
process, including their participation in the Monitoring Committees.
This analysis concerns the replies on the partnership arrangements for programmes supported by
both the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund.
As a starting point, the Commission prepared an internal evaluation of the involvement of partners
during the preparation of strategic documents and implementation of the Structural Funds. The
geographical desks in DG Regional Policy examined the situation in each of the Member States
analysing the partnership arrangements involving stakeholders in the different stages of the
programming process. The analysis was supported by two questionnaires prepared DG Regional
Policy, focusing on the participation of partners in the programming process and differentiating
the NSRFs and the OPs. Each geographic unit chose the most representative OP from a
partnership point of view. Altogether, 35 questionnaires for both NSRFs and OPs were completed.
3.
PARTNERSHIP IN 2007 – 2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD
3.1.
Role of partners during 2007 – 2013 Structural and Cohesion Funds – results of
the survey
This section describes the perceptions of DG Regional Policy's desk officers regarding the role
and involvement of partners in the different stages of the programming cycle during the current
programming period. Some best practices are presented in Annex 1.
Partners can perform a variety of functions in the programming cycle, from conception to
monitoring. This is summarised in the following table9:
8See:http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/EESCopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=ces\eco\eco258\ces967-
2010_ac.doc&language=EN
9 Source: previous analysis of the implementation of the partnership principle "Partnership in the 2000-2006
programming period", Discussion paper of DG Regional Policy, November 2005.
4
Table 1 - Actors and their participation in the programming cycle 2007-2013
Phase
Actors
Role of partners
1. Programming
National Development Plan
MS (MAs), EC + national, Consultative role
regional
and
local
authorities, economic and
social
partners,
civil
society
National
Strategic MS+ national, regional and Consultative role
Reference Framework
local authorities, economic
and social partners, civil
society + EC
Operational Programmes
MS (MAs) + national, Consultative role
regional
and
local
authorities, economic and
social
partners,
civil
society + EC
2. Implementation
MS (MAs) + national, Consultative role
regional
and
local
authorities, economic and
social
partners,
civil
society
3. Monitoring
MS (MAs) + national, Participation in the
regional
and
local Monitoring Committees
authorities, economic and with voting rights or as
social
partners,
civil observers
society + EC
Possibility to comment on
the AIRs (according to the
Rules of organisation and
functioning and statutes of
the Monitoring
Committees) when they
are discussed during the
MC meetings.
4. Evaluation
Ex-ante evaluation
Independent evaluators
Consultative role – some
selected by open tender,
of
the
partners
are
under the coordination of
interviewed
by
the
MAs/national coordinator
evaluators. Partners are
of Structural Funds
also
consulted
in
the
evaluation
process
as
members
of
the
Monitoring Committees
Mid-term/ongoing
Independent
evaluators Consultative role – some
evaluation
selected by open tender, of
the
partners
are
under the coordination of interviewed
by
the
the MAs
evaluators. Partners are
also
consulted
in
the
evaluation
process
as
members
of
the
Monitoring Committees
5
3.2.
Selection of partners
The identification and inclusion of partners is an important step in the preparation of planning and
programming. Their involvement at a stage as early as possible is crucial for the Partnership
principle and their ownership at a later stage. The result of the survey indicates that each country
applies its specific approach to determining the social and economic partners, NGOs and business
structures. In general, the following categories have been stressed:
a) Government/Public Administration partners:
Government institutions, ministries, and agencies
Regional and local authorities, representatives of municipalities
b) Social and economic partners
Social and economic partners for the country - i.e. trade unions, employer and
industrial organisations, professional associations and organisations, and so on
Business and trade associations and members, leading companies operating in the
country
c) Civil society
Non-governmental organisations representing important interest groups: equal
opportunities, environmental protection and so on
Research and education entities
3.2.1. Identification
The participants in the process were identified using certain criteria, namely:
- Representativeness, like in the Czech Republic, Romania or Greece
- Transparency and visibility of the process as in Latvia
- Scope of interests and relevance for the respective OP: in Greece, Ireland, Slovakia, Austria,
UK, Estonia, Luxembourg
- Balanced distribution of interest groups: Greece, UK, Hungary, Malta, Estonia
- Institutional basis, like in France with the Midi-Pyrénées OP
3.2.2. Selection
Pre-determined procedures or a legislative basis for the selection of partners as in Finland are rare.
Some of the countries, especially those already experienced in accessing Structural Funds – the
6
Netherlands, France, Austria, Slovenia, and Germany for instance – rather took into account the
traditional partners of the previous programming periods.
Some countries did not apply any selection criteria for setting up the partnership. The authorities
used "inclusive" criteria, being interested in involving as many entities as possible in the process,
like in Poland.
Representatives of regional and local authorities were usually selected in order to represent
different territorial levels – e.g. Portugal – and in accordance with their specific responsibilities, as
in Estonia. Some other partners were selected mainly on the basis of their specific expertise, as
they may have a substantial contribution to the topics discussed and, implicitly, to the elaboration
of the strategic documents (NSRF, OP, Programme Complements).
In some cases selection is based on an open application made by any interested partner, to be sent
to the Managing Authority.
For the civil society category, usually representatives of NGOs specialised in one or more of the
following sectors were selected: environmental protection, disabled people, Roma people, equality
between men and women. Their representatives were invited to participate in the working groups
organised for the elaboration of NSRF and OPs. In some of the respondent countries – like Latvia,
Belgium or Italy – cooperation memoranda were signed between NGOs or economic and social
partners and the government.
3.3.
Participation of partners in the programming process
In most Member States, partnership is an accepted part of the programming of the Structural and
Cohesion Funds and the drafting of national/regional programmes is based on a wide-ranging
partnership. Similarly, a wide range of regional and local authorities, socio-economic partners and
civil society representatives are involved from the development stage of the strategic documents –
NSRFs and OPs, under various forms:
- questionnaires
- public dialogues, seminars
- workshops
- intergovernmental consultations
- conferences
- specific websites
- consultative
and
technical
- press conferences
committees
- working groups
In some Member States, the involvement of civil society has a long and valued tradition
– e.g. Malta, Ireland, the Netherlands, or Sweden – as it provides independent views on
politics, culture, social and environmental issues and other important society aspects. On
7
a macro-level, civil society plays an active role in the political reforms and in
educational, environmental, cultural and social development.
Involvement of partners in the programming process was even encouraged by creating
various types of
cooperation platforms which aim at raising awareness for participation:
Romania, Greece, Portugal, Hungary, Ireland, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Finland, Latvia,
Belgium, France, Austria, Italy, and Poland.
Notwithstanding these facilitation tools, the survey revealed the general perception that
participation and involvement of partners could be improved at strategic level, thus in
various phases of the programming cycle of the Structural Funds.
Regardless the extent of partners' involvement in the programming stage (preparation of
NSRF/OPs), all the Member States appreciated as important and substantial the
contribution of partners. The relevant comments received from the partners were taken
into account by the Managing Authorities.
As regards the
obstacles faced during the programming process from partners'
involvement perspective, the results of the survey conducted at DG Regional policy level
is shown in the graphic below:
Problems in partnerships
9%
28%
12%
No problems
Limited capacity
3%
Centralisation
Lack of interest
No answer
27%
21%
Lack of communication
In several Member States – Romania, Hungary, Estonia and Latvia– as well as in more
experienced countries – as in Germany, France or Italy – authorities pointed out the
lack
of capacity of civil society organisations to engage with national and regional economic
policy and their lack of resources to become active participants.
8
Centralisation of the decision-making process was mentioned among the most relevant
obstacles to a sound functioning of the partnership in Portugal, Hungary, Malta, Ireland,
Slovakia, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Spain for instance.
3.4.
Technical Assistance to partners
Some Member States have encouraged the increase of administrative and financial
capacity of the partners by including specific Technical Assistance budget lines in their
OP for the involvement of the partners. The technical assistance measures for enhancing
the participation of partners have taken different forms:
- United Kingdom: the members of the Monitoring Committee, who are selected
following an open competition, are remunerated in accordance with the rules
specified by the Welsh Assembly Government
- Portugal: the partners' involvement in meetings and events organised by the
Managing Authorities is financed by technical assistance measures
- Slovakia: the Managing Authority decided to make changes in eligibility rules for
technical assistance projects in OP Health so as to finance some of the members of
the Monitoring Committee
- Latvia: technical assistance is available for strengthening the professional capacity of
the partners (training sessions) and in order to increase their participation possibilities
- Poland: under the Technical Assistance programme, partnership is financed without
limit; beneficiaries are economic and social partners and NGOs; besides, the Human
Capital programme finances measures for strengthening the partners' capacity.
3.5.
Implementation
3.5.1. Involvement in project selection process
The conducted survey revealed that in all Member States examined, partners also
participate in elaborating the project selection criteria, the latter being discussed and
approved during the Monitoring Committee meetings.
In some of the Member States, the partners were directly involved in the process of
project selection. For instance, in Portugal, partners have been involved in the project
evaluation process, on individual basis, as consultants. As well, there are situations where
some partners are members of the Project Selection Committees organised at the
Managing Authority level, like in Slovakia or Hungary; or in the technical working
groups or thematic committees set up for the project selection process, as in Belgium, the
Netherlands and France. The question of conflict of interests has not been specifically
raised by the questionnaires but the general lack of functioning rules for the organisation
of the partnership is to be highlighted.
9
3.5.2. Participation in the Monitoring Committees
The participation of partners in Monitoring Committees is one of the more visible aspects
of the application of the partnership principle in the management and implementation of
Structural and Cohesion Funds.
The questionnaires filled in by the desk officers show that all Members States established
clear rules and procedures for the organisation and functioning of the Monitoring
Committees, approved by means of legal acts.
Members of the Monitoring Committee are either nominated or elected by governmental
or regional authorities – like in the Czech Republic or the United Kingdom – or selected
following an open competition, as in Latvia, where the application of a potential member
is discussed and approved during the MC meetings. There can also be delegated
representatives. In the Hungarian example, half of the MC members are delegated by
RLAs and NGOs.
In most of the cases, the partners have the same voting rights, while the European
Commission, the European Investment Bank, and the European Investment Fund have
only an advisory role, as observers. However, there are countries where other partners
play the same advisory role. In Portugal, all the other Managing Authorities are
observers. In Germany, there are only 8 votes in the Monitoring Committee, five
belonging to the Managing Authorities, 2 to the Monitoring Authority and one to the
Audit Authority; all the other members have no voting rights. The French case puts an
accent on representatives of universities. They are present but have only the quality of
observers. In Spain the Intermediate Bodies and the economic and social partners are
present in the Monitoring Committees with an advisory capacity; and in Italy, only public
authorities have voting rights.
Representation of the social partners varies across countries. The questionnaires filled in
by the desk officers in DG Regional Policy demonstrated that in a minority of cases,
partners are only consulted without having direct participatory rights in the
implementation of Structural and Cohesion Funds or the right to vote. In some cases their
main role is to serve as an information channel towards the public. Thus, in France and
Austria, decisions within the Monitoring Committees are taken by consensus; while in
Slovenia, the voting system is so formalistic that the members of the Monitoring
Committees are, in practice, merely following the Managing Authority decisions.
In certain Member States – e.g. Spain –, in spite of a quite centralised approach in
relation with the Structural and Cohesion Funds programming and implementation, a
working group composed of representatives of RLAs, social and economic partners and
civil society was created in order to smoothen the functioning of the Monitoring
10
Committee. The aim of the working group was to analyse the socio-economic situation of
the specific regions and bring added-value during the Monitoring Committee meetings.
As regards the
Annual Implementation Reports, in all the Member States, the Managing
Authorities are involved in their preparation. However, an important contribution from
different partners has to be mentioned, as reports are discussed during the Monitoring
Committee's meetings, where the members have the real possibility to express their
opinions and formulate comments and recommendations for the improvement of the
documents.
3.6.
Involvement in the Evaluation process
The partnership principle is expressed in terms of encouraging the participation of the
relevant stakeholders during the evaluation planning and implementing processes, as well
as in the analysis of their results. In particular, the partnership between the Commission
and the Member State deserves highlighting, bearing in mind the regulatory provision
determining that the funds’ objectives be realised through their close cooperation,
covering “the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of operational
programmes” (Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006).
Participation adds value — the more participatory the process is, the more value can
potentially be added to the program, as learning is extended to the programme, the
implementing stakeholders, and its beneficiaries during the evaluation process.
Ultimately, participation in evaluation facilitates consensus-building and ownership of
evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Accordingly to the questionnaires, the partnership in evaluation within DG Regional
Policy was implemented differently, depending on national and regional practice.
External consultants were selected for the NSRF/OPs evaluations, according to the
national public procurement rules. However, in some Member States – e.g. Portugal or
Estonia – the relevant partners were also involved in the evaluation process conducted at
NSRF level, through interviews and consultations. Thus, the independent experts
consulted the partners during the preparation of the evaluation studies.
The presentation of the evaluation reports to the Monitoring Committee broadened the
involvement of partnership in the process. The partners members of the Monitoring
Committees have then the opportunity to express their opinion on the evaluation reports.
A substantial contribution from different partners was also recorded in relation to the
Action Plan, which had to be drafted for implementation of the recommendations,
included in the evaluation reports.
Partners are sometimes members in the evaluation working groups organised at the
Managing Authorities' level. It is the case in the United Kingdom (Evaluation Advisory
Groups), Latvia (Advisory Working Group on thematic evaluations), France (Regional
11
Evaluation Committee), Italy (Evaluation Steering Committee), Poland (Evaluation
Steering Group), and Sweden (Evaluation sub-groups of the Monitoring Committee) for
instance. The issue of conflict of interest is also to be addressed and deepened in this
regard.
On the other hand, certain countries complained about the lack of the partners'
involvement in the evaluation process, stating that there was only a theoretical possibility
for the latter to have a real contribution to the evaluation report, since only its summary
was made available for all interested stakeholders (like in Romania, Malta, or Slovakia);
while, for example, in Germany, no information on the evaluation at all was made
available for the public.
4.
CONCLUSION
The analysis shows that efforts have been done in order to improve the functioning of
partnership. Where it is well implemented, genuine partnerships have generated further
benefits such as a better inter-institutional coordination and communication at the
national level, and a better involvement of civil society. The broad participation at
various levels and the participation – at national and regional level - of the same partners,
as well as transparency in the flows of information did prevent incoherencies between the
NSRF and the programmes in Greece for instance. In Poland, assistance for partners and
non-governmental organisations is connected with the role of those entities in the process
of supporting the modernisation of state structures and is conducive to increasing their
participation in the implementation process of necessary reforms, optimisation of the law
constituting process and implementation of the good governance principle.
The successful application of the partnership principle ensures the achievement of the
objectives set in the programming documents. The main conclusions could be
summarised as follows:
o Partnership is an integral part of all stages in the programming of the Structural
Funds and the extending of partnership through the inclusion of civil society and
Regional and Local Associations boosts programme effectiveness;
o Involvement of partners at the different stages: their role is greater at the stage of
planning and project selection; their role in the specific operational tasks is
varied; their role with regard to the monitoring and evaluation is more limited;
o The extending and consolidation of partnership results in: greater effectiveness of
programme development, monitoring and project selection; transparency of the
decision-making processes; greater engagement in and fostering of the
programme results;
For the next period, the partnership principle will be implemented in accordance with the
provisions of the new Council Regulation for 2014 – 2020. The Commission’s proposal
seeks to notably reinforce the partnership principle. Therefore, the cooperation between
12
regional and local authorities, on one hand, and the national governments and the
Commission, on the other hand, should be intensified, thus encouraging a "bottom-up
approach". As recommended by the Beaupuy Report, regular meetings should take place
between officials from different tiers of government. The role of regional and local
authorities should be therefore strengthened in programme preparation, management and
implementation10.
10 "Report on good governance with regards to the EU regional policy: procedures of assistance and
control by the European Commission", European parliament, Committee on Regional Development,
Rapporteur Ramona Manescu (07/10/2010).
13
ANNEX 1
EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE
o
Selection of partners
More than sixty bodies (social partners, regions, and ministries) were involved in the
consultation procedures for drafting
Greece's NSRF. Their selection was based on
criteria related to the representation of all policy areas and social groups at national and
regional level, ensuring full coverage of thematic and horizontal themes addressed in the
NSRF, according to the provisions of the General Regulation.
The broad participation at various levels and the participation – at national and regional
level - of the same partners, as well as transparency in the flows of information did
prevent incoherencies between the NSRF and the OPs.
In
Latvia, the Cooperation Memorandum between non-governmental organisations and
the cabinet of ministers has been developed with the aim of facilitating operation of an
efficient public administration system that meets the interests of the society by ensuring
involvement of civil society in the decision-making process. Currently the Cooperation
Memorandum involves 237 NGOs. Most active NGOs create the “civil society”.
“Civil society” also involves National Tripartite Cooperation Council which is an
institution working at national level of tripartite social dialogue, where the appointed
representatives of Government, LDDK and Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia
collaborate as social partners.
The aim of National Tripartite Cooperation Council is to foster the cooperation of social
partners at national level and to ensure an integrated way of dealing issues on
socioeconomic development in compliance with the interests of the whole society and
state, that would guarantee social stability, increase of the level of well-being and
economic growth in the country.
14
o
Involvement of partners
In
Romania, for the preparation of the Regional Programme, the following entities were
created:
-
Inter-institutional committee made up of decisions makers from ministries, other
public institutions, regional development agencies, research and higher education
institutions, representatives of economic and social partners;
- At regional level, the
regional coordination committees and the
thematic working
groups which included representatives of the regional development agencies, county
councils, prefects’ offices, de-concentrated services of the central public institutions,
higher education and research institutions and regional economic and social partners.
As well,
consultations and conferences in specific fields of activity were organised with
partners such as professional associations, employers’ associations and trade unions,
local and central authorities, decentralised services, regional development agencies,
NGOs, representatives of the academic and scientific research environment, business
environment. The consultations ended in concrete proposals for the improvement of the
programming documents.
The work on the preparation of the NSRF has relied substantially on the main
conclusions from the consultation process for the OP. The process involved consultation
at MAs level with the following partners: political leaders, ministries with a direct
interest in Structural and Cohesion Funds, other line ministries and government
institutions, local authorities, NGOs (including environmental NGOs), universities and
education establishments, social and economic partners.
15
o
Cooperation platforms
For example, in Austria, within the context of European regional and spatial development
policies, ÖROK (Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning), is a platform where all
responsible authorities on federal and regional level including economic and social
partners and associations for cities and municipalities are involved. It plays an important
role as the coordinating body between the internal and the European level:
− EU Regional Policy - Platform for Co-ordination and Information:
Definition of the Regional Aid Map according to article 87 of the EC Treaty and co-
ordination of the national break-down of EU-Structural Funds; drafting and strategic
monitoring of the “National Strategic Reference Framework” STRAT.AT 2007–2013;
secretariat for the Monitoring Committees for the regional programmes for the objectives
“Convergence“ and “Regional Competitiveness and Employment”; support and
accompany the programme cycle (programming, negotiations, evaluation, closure,);
− European Territorial Cooperation - National Contact Point:
In the period 2007–2013 the ÖROK office continues to act as “National Contact Point”
for transnational and network programmes with Austrian participation under the
“European Territorial Cooperation” objective. The focus of the activities is on the three
programmes covering Central Europe, South East Europe and Alpine Space; Interreg IV
C, Urbact II and Espon are served as well.
16
o
Technical Assistance for the partners
In Poland, among Technical Assistance programme, partnership is financed without any
limit. Recently the list of beneficiaries and target groups directly benefiting from aid has
been expended to NGOs and economic and social partners in some measures but without
setting limits in the budget.
It is worth mentioning that there is also a specific objective in Human Capital programme
which is aimed at strengthening the potential of social partners and non-governmental
organisations (specific objective 4 in priority V: Good governance). Assistance for
partners and non-governmental organisations is connected with the role of those entities
in the process of supporting the modernisation of state structures and is conducive to
increasing their participation in the implementation process of necessary reforms,
optimisation of the law constituting process and implementation of the good governance
principle.
o
Involvement of partners in NSRF/OP Evaluation
In Poland, in case of Human Capital programme (HC OP), in order to support
effectiveness of evaluation both at national and regional level, Polish ESF Managing
Authority had established an Evaluation Steering Group for HC OP.
The Evaluation Steering Group is composed of institutions and entities interested in
participating in the evaluation process, such as representatives of the Managing
Authority, Intermediate Bodies (both central and regional), social partners (all
representatives from the HC OP Monitoring Committee), National Evaluation Unit,
independent evaluation experts.
Additionally, every evaluation study and conclusions or recommendations resulting from
it, is consulted with social partners, represented in the Evaluation Steering Group.
17
