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