Synthesis of
Questionnaires
1
Thematic concentration
 Most of the new member states support the suggested
principle while maintaining the element of flexibility and
keeping in mind that primary objective of the policy set in
Treaty remains.
 There are still some questions …
 How will the maximum number of thematic priorities be
determined at programme level?
 Will some priorities be obligatory? What sort of flexibility
will be provided for Member States?
Linkage to the Europe 2020,
obligatory priorities
 Informal proposals might potentially not be fully consistent
with place-based approach (description of actions rather
than results to obtain). The concept of mandatory
thematic priorities is unclear up-to-date.
 Cohesion policy should support Europe 2020 goals, but its
main priority is defined by the Treaty.
 Definition of obligatory priorities is not welcomed; needs
further discussion.
 Member states should be allowed to invest part of the
cohesion policy funding into basic infrastructure.
Linkage to the National
Reform Programme
 Common Strategic Framework – may contribute to an
enhanced coordination between cohesion policy and other
policies, should outline EU level.
 Contract – legal status has not been clarified yet, detailed
rules are to be communicated; some countries feel that
this contract should be a true contract, laying down
responsibilities and rights of both parties signing it
 National Reform Programmes – are prepared differently
from the EU Cohesion policy programming and strategic
documents – formal interrelations are not clear, they differ
in their scope, period and area of implementation.
Cohesion policy
strengthening
Most states agree that future Cohesion policy should be
result-oriented (focusing on results achieved. not money
spent). The Cohesion Policy could be strengthened mainly
through:
 simplification of procedures (including audit, control, simplified cost
options..)
 no additional administrative burden
 clear set of indicators
 allowing enough time for each operation ( programming,
implementation, monitoring, evaluation), however additional level of
control might have a negative effect
 increasing the role of ex-ante evaluations
 applying appropriate mechanism of conditionalities
Performance reserve
Most states are skeptical about establishing obligatory
performance reserve at the EU level because of many
reasons (while agree on “national reserve“):
 the MS would choose less ambitious ways of achieving the
Europe 2020 objectives;
 starting points of Member States in relation to Europe
2020 targets are too different;
 investment results are seen after some time, not
immediately;
 reduction of the long-term strategic planning of cohesion
policy in EU regions and member states.
Structural preconditions
 All agree that the application of reasonable conditions, if
the conditions are appropriately developed (tailor made
avoiding one-size-fits-all approach), could enhance the
effectiveness and credibility of Cohesion Policy.
 Structural pre-conditions might increase administrative
burden or put at risk the achievement of Cohesion policy
objectives and reduce its flexibility.
 Pre-conditions should not be defined at the EU level for all
Member States and regions; but should result from the
negotiations between a Member State or a region and the
Commission.
Management and control
systems
 The periodical clearance of accounts procedure is not
supported by most states.
 System of annual accounts and partial closure does not
correspond to the multiannual planning cycle of cohesion
policy and would increase the administrative burden;
current system should remain.
 According to the annual report of the European Court of
Auditors, error rate (comparing 2008 and 2009) had
decreased – current system is functional and capable of
improvement.
 Simple analogy to Common Agriculture Policy could be
dangerous and meaning a step back.
Delivery simplification
 Selection of elements of the delivery system, which
should be simplified, differs from one state to another,
as delivery system is very broad and complex issue.
 Most states are of the opinion that public procurement,
cost-related methodologies, common eligibility rules for
different funds, monitoring and control system of
Cohesion Policy post 2013 should be simplified.
Harmonization of rules,
co-financing level
 All agree that harmonization of rules for different funds is
needed; most haven’t specified the way how they should
be harmonized.
 Majority do not support the mono-fund approach after
2013; it can provide more obstacles than benefits, but the
approach should be decided by a Member State.
 Most states are in general in favour of existing co-financing
level. Some agree that the co-financing rates needs to be
reviewed and significantly differentiated according to the
development level of the EU member state/ EU added
value /type of activity and recipient.
Transition category
 Most states support the mechanism for transition
regions, however this system cannot be set up in
a manner that will take away from the allocation of
Objective One.
 Only one state thinks that the present category of
transition regions should not exist in the programming
period post 2013 – goes against the policy basic idea,
i.e. to support less developed regions).
Territorial cohesion
 There is general support for strengthening the role of
cities and urban areas in the next programming period
(through the Contract).
 How to strengthen a role of cities – respect placedbased approach and regional peculiarities; examining the
possibility of using financial instrument for urban
development; more flexibility for the implementation of
integrated local development strategies.
Thank you for your attention.