1. Programming for 2014-20 and the Implications for Performance John Bachtler Cohesion Policy 2014-20: Towards Evidence-Based Programming and Evaluation International Evaluation Conference, 4-5 July 2013, Vilnius

2. 2 2 Programming for 2014-20 an the implications for performance Budget and legislative framework for 2014-20 State-of-play of programming Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes Programme architecture Improving performance –strategic coherence –thematic concentration –results focus Implementation problems

3. 3 Survey of IQ-Net managing authorities (April-May 2013) Austria Niederösterreich Steiermark Belgium Vlaanderen Czech Republic Min. for Regional Development Denmark Danish Business Authority Finland Keski-Suomi Min. of Employment & the Interior France DATAR Germany Nordrhein-Westfalen Sachsen-Anhalt Greece Ministry of Economy & Finance Poland Marshal Office of Śląskie Voivodeship Portugal Financial Institute for Regional Development (IFDR) Slovenia  Ministry of Economic Development and Technology Spain País Vasco (Bizkaia) United Kingdom Dept for Communities & Local Government (DCLG) Wales (WEFO) Scottish Government Italy Promuovi Italia SpA Min. of Economic Development

4. 4 4 Cohesion policy allocations 2014-20: projected funding by Member State

5. 5 5 Cohesion policy allocations 2014-20: projected changes by Member State

6. 6 6 2014-20 Legislative Framework

7. 7 7 2014-20 Partnership Agreements Drafting underway in all Member State, but complete drafts only available in a limited number of countries –formal decisions not taken on allocations to OPs, Funds and themes in many cases Informal dialogue with the Commission launched –position Papers have clarified EC position.… –.…influencing domestic debate/programming, but disagreements on procedure and content Main trends –stronger strategic alignment with Europe 2020 –more coordinated approach to programming of Funds –major changes in OP architecture in several countries

8. 8 8 Programme architecture: 2014-20 shifts Structural changes to OP architecture

9. 9 9 Programme architecture: 2014-20 shifts Major changes to management structures –centralisation in CZ, FI, UK –decentralisation in FR (regional councils), PL (Marshal’s offices) Rationalisation of intermediate /implementing bodies Possible localisation through options for territorial dimension –strong interest in Integrated Territorial Investments (BE, DE, CZ, ES, FI, GR, PL, SI)

10. 10 Operational Programmes 2014-20 current state of play Operational Programmes at different stages submission dates range from September 2013 – March 2014 public consultations and ex ante evaluations underway socio-economic analysis and SWOT analysis well advanced, but progress with priorities/content and indicators is more variable domestic strategies being developed, especially smart specialisation

11. Improving performance in 2014-20 Ambitions for improving the performance of Cohesion policy spending are based on: –framing the policy as ‘delivering’ Europe 2020 objectives –commitments to ‘improve the quality of spending’ –objectives to increase strategic coherence, ensure greater thematic concentration and greater results-focus of interventions

12. Improving performance: strategic coherence ProblemResponse Funding instruments with different goals, procedures and rules Common Strategic Framework for all funds Lack of commitment among Member States to goals of Cohesion policy Partnership Contracts – between Commission and Member States Fragmented management of the funds, lack of coordination Integration of institutional arrangements

13. Improving performance: strategic coherence Policy and institutional responses Common Strategic Framework agreed; translated into national ‘position papers’ by the Commission Partnership Contracts  Partnership Agreements Member States introducing new organisational arrangements to facilitate ‘more strategic use’ of the Funds e.g. coordinating committees for different Funds joint managing authorities for different programmes single programmes for all Funds simplifying access for applicants to all EU funding (Structural Funds, Horizon 2020 etc)

14. Improving performance: thematic concentration ProblemResponse Lack of coherence of Cohesion policy with EU objectives Maximise contribution of Cohesion policy to Europe 2020 by specifying 11 thematic priorities Dispersal of spending over too many priorities Focus spending by setting minimum thresholds for spending on key priorities

15. 15 Improving performance: thematic concentration Programming preparations indicate more spending on: energy-related themes (energy efficiency, renewables and low-carbon economy) research, technological development and innovation; ICT education/human capital social inclusion and health Less support for 'hard' infrastructure, such as transport New profile of beneficiaries may bring challenges

16. Improving performance: focus on results ProblemResponse Unrealistic or unjustified policy objectives Requirement for objectives to be framed with reference to results (intervention logic) Weaknesses in the policy or institutional context in Member States Ex ante ‘conditionalities’ Lack of incentives to encourage good performance Performance reserve Poor information on achievementsPerformance framework to improve reporting, monitoring, evaluation

17. 17 Improving performance: focus on results Member States are making some effort to: improve coherence of programme objectives with indicators and targets use fewer monitoring indicators ensure better availability of data (engagement with national statistical offices) increase comparability of monitoring data across regions, programmes However, there appears to be a major gap between Commission expectations and action at programme level

18. 18 Implementation problems: spending the money

19. 19 Implementation problems: spending the money

20. 20 Implementation problems: administrative capacity Legality of spending –management and control systems – stopping of programmes –compliance with public procurement, State aid etc; corruption Quality of spending –instability – changes to organisations, turnover of staff –politicisation of project selection –lack of specialist expertise in areas such as innovation, financial instruments –weaknesses of monitoring systems Wider issue of quality of government and governance

21. 21 Implementation problems: weak EU control mechanisms Member States are reluctant to give the Commission powers to enforce improvements in performance –proposals for stronger performance management and control weakened in Council negotiations –compliance is uneven –the decommitment rule is the main control that has been effective – but focuses on absorption and has had unintended consequences Better performance in 2014-20 will depend on –commitment of Member States –European Parliament oversight –transparent reporting and Council response

22. Conclusions Commission has an ambitious agenda for improving performance Mixed Member State reactions on principles and/or practicalities –opposition to conditionalities and performance reserve –concern about additional obligations, less flexibility in programming, more administrative and reporting burdens Restructuring of programme architecture, content and management…but implications for performance are unclear Do the Commission and Member States have the requisite implementation capacity ?

23. 23 Thank you for your attention. john.bachtler@strath.ac.uk