Unit E.2 Subsidiarity Network / Europe Mayors / EGTC results... · Results of the online...

of 19

The EU's Assembly of Regional and Local Representatives

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel — BELGIQUE/BELGIË — Tel. +32 22822122 — Fax +32 22822330

Unit E.2 – Subsidiarity Network / Europe

2020 Monitoring Platform / Covenant of

Mayors / EGTC

The Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform Team

Brussels, 26/03/2014

PZAM/bgen/NI/1915-2014

Results of the online survey/consultation on the execution of the EU budget

This document summarises the results of a survey/consultation of local and regional

authorities carried out by the Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform on the execution of the EU

budget.

The survey results will be fed into the Committee of the Regions' own-initiative opinion on

the execution of the EU budget; the rapporteur for this opinion is Mr Adam Struzik (PL/EPP),

Marshal of the Mazovia region.

EN

of 19

Summary of the results

Absorption of the EU funds at local and regional level, success factors and bottlenecks

The answers submitted by a group of 427 respondents from 27 EU Member States (no

answers from Luxembourg) allow preliminary conclusions to be drawn on their views and

perceptions of the execution of the EU budget and the use of EU funds.

When asked which level of the government or which institution has the greatest impact on

the speed and quality of absorption of EU funds at the level of local authorities and

government, the respondents indicated the national administration as the one having the

biggest impact (42%), followed by themselves, the local and regional authorities (32%).

According to participants, the speed and quality of absorption at local and regional level is

only partly dependent (22% of answers) on the EU institutions.

As to the question of what factor has the greatest impact on the quality of EU-financed

projects at local and regional level, there is no one particular answer visibly favoured by all

participants. However, three answers were chosen by more than 50% of respondents:

Option F: Local and regional administrative capacity (55% of respondents);

Option F: Efficiency of coordination, multilevel governance and partnership systems

(54% of respondents);

Option D: the availability of funds at local and regional levels for co-financing (52% of

respondents).

When asked which factors have the greatest impact on the speed of execution (absorption)

of EU co-financed projects, the respondents chose most often the local and regional

administrative capacity (53%), followed by the availability of (public or private) funds at local

and regional level for co-financing (42%) and the complexity of the rules concerning

individual EU funds (36%).

of 19

The new programming period and the ESIF regulations 2014-2020

Respondents to the CoR survey on the execution of the EU budget see the new regulations

governing the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) 2014-20201 as an

improvement in comparison to the previous programming period and expect that their

application will improve the absorption rate. This view was shared by 73% of respondents,

with 64% expecting an improvement and 9% a significant improvement.

For 42% of respondents the increased focus on results and the introduction of the

mandatory performance framework within the new ESIF Regulations will have a beneficial

impact on the effectiveness of EU budget spending. For 16% of respondents there will be a

beneficial effect on the timeliness of EU budget execution. However, these factors are seen

as having no direct beneficial impact by 20% of respondents and 22% had no opinion on this

matter.

As to the question of whether the new ESIF Regulations would facilitate coordination of the

ESIF with centrally-managed EU funds (such as Horizon 2020), while the largest group of

respondents confirmed this (44%), a quite substantial number of respondents (40%) also

denied it. 15% of respondents did not have a view on the matter.

Answers from EU Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 (EU CF) eligible and non-eligible countries

The breakdown of answers into two groups of countries (EU Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 eligible and

non-eligible) shows differences in regard to the perception of the main factors having an impact on

the speed of the absorption of the EU funds as well as on the quality of EU-financed projects.

Respondents from CF eligible countries, within the limitations of this survey, tend to assign a bigger

role to their national administration than those from the non-eligible countries.

Example: answers to Question 2

Respondents from the EU CF eligible countries chose more often the option saying that more

responsibility for the speed and quality of absorption/spending of EU funds lies on the side of

the Member States (59% compared with 30% of respondents from the EU CF non-eligible

countries).

1

Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and regulations for specific funds (e.g. ERDF Regulation, ESF Regulation, ETC Regulation,

EGTC Regulation). To see a full list and access the regulations please visit the website of the European Commission containing legal

texts for European Structural and Investment Funds Regulations 2014-2020:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/legislation/index_en.cfm


of 19

Example: answers to Question 3 and Question 4

When it comes to assessing the role of the effectiveness of management systems in the

Member States and the quality of the national legal framework (incl. the transposition of EU

legislation) there are also differences between the two groups of respondents. Respondents

from EU CF eligible countries chose more often answers indicating a greater impact of national

management systems and national frameworks on the speed of EU funds absorption and the

quality of the co-financed projects.

The role of the Committee of the Regions

As regards possible ways of improving the role of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) in the

discussion on the execution of the budget and other related strategic debates taking place in the EU,

53% of respondents indicated that the most effective would be to increase CoR involvement in the

work of other EU institutions (e.g. though reports, studies, policy papers). The second most popular

option, with 23% of the responses, was to improve this role through more frequent meetings and

conferences between CoR members and representatives of the other institutions.

of 19

Background information and methodology

The proposal for an own-initiative opinion on the execution of the EU budget was approved by the

CoR Bureau on 7 October 2013. The legal bases are Article 307 of the TFEU and Rule 42 of the CoR

Rules of Procedure. Mr Adam Struzik (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Mazovia Region is the rapporteur.

The draft opinion is scheduled for discussion and adoption at the BUDG ad-hoc commission meeting

on 14 May 2014. Adoption of the final opinion is scheduled for 25-26 June at the CoR plenary

session.

This document presents the preliminary results of an online survey carried out by the CoR Europe

2020 Monitoring Platform as a contribution to the preparatory work on the draft text of the own-

initiative report. The questionnaire was a collaborative effort drawn up by the rapporteur, Mr

Struzik, the secretariat of the CoR BUDG commission and the CoR Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform

team.

The online survey was composed of 8 multiple-choice questions and was made available in all EU

official languages. The questionnaire was distributed to members of the CoR Europe 2020

Monitoring Platform, European associations, the Brussels offices of local and regional authorities

and participants in the INTERREG project. The online questionnaire was open from 20 February to

12 March 2014.

In order to look for and analyse the possible correlations between the responses and the countries

they were sent from, the eligibility criteria for the EU Cohesion Fund (CF) 2007-20132 were used. In

total, there were 174 responses from EU CF eligible countries (Gross National Income per inhabitant

is less than 90 % of the EU average) and 245 from non-eligible ones. Eight responses were submitted

by EU-level associations. In this summary report, the answers from the EU-level associations are

counted together with the ones from CF non-eligible countries. Therefore, in the first group of CF

eligible countries, there are in total 174 responses and in the second one there are 253 responses.

2

Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 eligible countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,

Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. For more information, please visit:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/eligibility/index_en.cfm


of 19

Results

There were in total 427 respondents to the survey, coming from 27 EU Member States. No answers

were submitted from Luxembourg. The graph below shows the distribution of answers by country

and by groups of countries according to the EU Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 eligibility criteria.3

Respondents from the EU Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 eligible countries submitted 41% of responses

and 57% came from countries not eligible for this fund. Eight answers (approximately 2%) were

submitted by EU-level associations.

Figure 1: Distribution of respondents by country

Cohesion Fund eligible countries

(Gross National Income per inhabitant less than 90 %

of the EU average)

Cohesion Fund non-eligible Countries

(GNI > 90% of EU average)

EU-level associations

3

To access the map of countries eligible for the Cohesion Fund 2007-2013, please visit:


of 19

Most of the responses (73%) were submitted by representatives of local and regional authorities

(56%) or LRA Agencies (17%). The "LRA Agencies" category includes, for example, water

management boards and regional energy agencies. Various types of regional or thematic

associations that were consulted for this survey submitted 13% of all answers with a further 6%

coming from academia and 4% from research institutes. Answers from LRA associations at EU or

national/regional level (e.g. the Valencian Federation of Municipalities and Provinces, the

Conference of European Regional Legislative Assemblies) make up 3% of all responses.

Representatives of other public authorities submitted 2% of all answers and 2 answers came from

enterprises. The breakdown of all answers by category is illustrated below. A full list of respondents

is available on the website of the CoR Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform.

Figure 2: Distribution by category of respondents

Question 1

Do you think that the new EU regulations governing the European Structural and Investment Funds

2014-2020 (ESIF Regulations) (introducing, inter alia, a simplification of procedures, a stronger

results-orientation and a new performance reserve) will accelerate absorption at the level of local

and regional authorities as compared to the previous period? (Please select only 1 option)

Figure 3: Answers to Q1 (427 respondents)

of 19

The new regulations governing the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) 2014-20204

introduce, inter alia, a simplification of procedures, a stronger results-orientation and a new

performance reserve. The majority of respondents (73%) agree with the statement saying that the

new ESIF Regulations will accelerate absorption at the level of local and regional authorities as

compared to the previous period. Respondents think that the impact on the acceleration of

absorption will be either significant (9%) or, anyway, positive but the scale is difficult to estimate

(64%). Only 18% of respondents expect that there will be no change in absorption and 2% that they

will have a negative impact. The distribution of answers is similar in both groups of countries (EU

Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 eligible and non-eligible). Please see Figure 4 for details.

Figure 4: Responses to Q1 within groups of countries (EU CF eligible and EU CF non-eligible)

4

Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) and regulations for specific funds (e.g. ERDF Regulation, ESF Regulation, ETC Regulation,

EGTC Regulation). To see a full list and access the regulations please visit the website the European Commission containing

legal texts for European Structural and Investment Funds Regulations 2014-2020:


Cohesion Fund eligible countries (total of 174 responses)

(Gross National Income per inhabitant less than 90 % of the EU average)

Cohesion Fund non-eligible Countries and EU-level associations (total of 253 responses)

(GNI > 90% EU average)


of 19

Question 2

Which of the following institutions and bodies has the greatest impact on the speed and quality of

spending/absorption of EU funds at the level of local authorities and government? (please select only

1 option)


The answers to Question 2 show that the national administration is the one having the biggest

impact (42%) on the speed and quality of absorption of EU funds in towns and regions. The second

most popular answer was the local and regional authorities themselves (32%). The speed and quality

of absorption at local and regional level, according to the respondents, were only partly dependent

(22%) on the EU institutions.

of 19


The breakdown of answers by groups of countries (EU Cohesion Fund eligible and non-eligible)

shows that opinions vary, particular as regards the perception of the role of national authorities vis-

à-vis local and regional authorities. Respondents from EU CF eligible countries chose more often the

option saying that more responsibility for the speed and quality of absorption/spending of EU funds

lies on the side of the Member States (59% compared with 30% chosen by respondents from the EU

CF non-eligible countries).5 Only 18% of respondents from the eligible countries indicated the local

and regional authorities themselves as having the greatest impact on speed and quality, compared

with 42% support of respondents from the non-eligible countries.

5

It could be argued that there is a relation between the perception of the role of the national authorities in the management of the EU funds

and the administrative structure of each country (centralised vs. decentralised models). Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this

summary report.


(Gross National Income per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the EU average)



of 19

Question 3

Which of the following factors have the greatest impact on the quality of EU-financed projects at

local and regional level? (please select no more than three options)


The distribution of answers does not show one particular dominating factor having the greatest

impact on the quality of EU-financed projects at local and regional level but rather a combination of

three factors (chosen by more than 50% of respondents). The option which was chosen the least

(only 12%) was Option E: A higher level of private co-financing (innovative financial instruments)

with 12 % of respondents. The three most frequently chosen options were:

Option F: Local and regional administrative capacity (55% of respondents);

Option G: Efficiency of coordination, multilevel governance and partnership systems (54% of

respondents);

Option D: the availability of funds at local and regional level for co-financing (52% of

respondents).

of 19


Respondents from both groups generally agree that local and administrative capacity is important or

the most important factor having an impact on the quality of EU-financed projects at local and

regional level. This option was chosen by 59% of respondents from EU CF eligible and 53% of those

from CF non-eligible countries. However, when it comes to assessing the role of the effectiveness of

management systems in the Member States and the quality of the national legal framework (incl.

the transposition of EU legislation) there are differences between the two groups of respondents.

Those from EU CF eligible countries chose more often answers indicating a greater role of the

national administration. For example, option A – the effectiveness of management systems in

individual Member States – was chosen by 45% of respondents from EU CF eligible countries and

only by 28% of respondents from the second group. Similarly, option C – the quality of national legal

frameworks – was chosen by 29% of respondents from EU CF eligible countries and only 17% from

the second group.


(Gross National Income per inhabitant less than 90 % of the EU average)



of 19

Question 4

Which of the following factors have the greatest impact on the speed of execution (absorption) of EU

co-financed projects? (please select no more than three options)


As in the responses to the previous question, the local and regional administrative capacity was the

most popular (53%) choice among the factors that have the greatest impact on the speed of

execution (absorption) of EU co-financed projects. It was followed by the availability of (public or

private) funds at local and regional level for co-financing (42%) and the level of complexity of the

rules of individual EU funds (36%). The remaining answers were chosen by far fewer respondents,

e.g. the disciplining effect of the automatic decommitment rule (n+3) was chosen by 5% of

respondents and the option of greater clarity on how beneficiaries can benefit from advance (pre-

financing) payments was chosen by 18% of respondents.

of 19


The biggest difference between the answers to question 4 from the two groups of countries is

related to their perception of the importance of national legal frameworks (incl. the transposition of

EU legislation). This option (Option B) was chosen as one of the three most important factors having

the greatest impact on the speed of execution (absorption) of EU co-financed projects by 39% of

respondents from EU CF eligible countries and by 17% from the non-eligible ones.





of 19

Question 5

An increased focus in the new ESIF Regulations on results and the introduction of the mandatory

performance framework will have a beneficial impact on: (maximum 1 choice)


For 42% of respondents the increased focus on results and the introduction of the mandatory

performance framework within the new ESIF Regulations will have a beneficial impact on the

effectiveness of EU budget spending. For 16% of respondents there will be a beneficial effect on the

timeliness of EU budget execution. However, these factors are seen as having no direct beneficial

impact by 20% of respondents and 22% had no opinion.






of 19

Question 6

Do you think that the new ESIF Regulations will facilitate multi-fund operations between European

Structural and Investment Funds? (please select only one option)


The statement on the possible facilitation of multi-fund operations between different ESIF

programmes resulting from the new ESIF Regulations was supported by 42% of respondents.

However, 44% of respondents did not know whether that would be the case and 15 % disagreed

with such an assumption.


Respondents from CF eligible countries present a slightly more optimistic opinion on the effect the

ESIF regulations will have on the facilitation of multi-fund operations between European Structural

and Investment Funds.




(GNI > 90% EU average)

of 19

Question 7

Do you think that the new ESIF Regulations will facilitate the coordination of ESIF with centrally-

managed EU funds, such as Horizon 2020?


As to the question of whether the new ESIF Regulations would facilitate the coordination of ESIF

with centrally-managed EU funds (such as Horizon 2020), while the largest group of respondents

confirmed this (44%), a quite substantial number of respondents (40%) denied it and 15% of

respondents did not have a view on the matter.






of 19

As with the previous question, respondents from CF eligible countries present a slightly more

optimistic opinion and expect the new ESIF Regulations to facilitate the coordination of ESIF with

centrally-managed EU funds, such as Horizon 2020.

Question 8

In your opinion, what would be the most effective way of improving the role of the Committee of the

Regions (CoR) in the discussion on the execution of the budget and other related strategic debates

taking place in the EU?


As regards possible ways of improving the role of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) in the

discussion on the execution of the budget and other related strategic debates taking place in the EU,

53% of respondents indicated that the most effective would be to increase CoR involvement in the

work of other EU institutions. The second most popular option, with 23% of responses, was to

improve this role through more frequent meetings and conferences between CoR members and the

representatives of other institutions.

of 19






Unit E.2 Subsidiarity Network / Europe Mayors / EGTC results... · Results of the online...

Documents

Transcript of Unit E.2 Subsidiarity Network / Europe Mayors / EGTC results... · Results of the online...