7. PROGRAMMING AND NEGOTIATION PROCESS OF INCLUSIVE GROWTH
8.4. First experience with implementation
Although a bit delayed, the implementation of 2014-2020 programmes is currently ongoing. As part of the study an important aspect was to understand to what extent projects of inclusive growth measure were already launched and selected and if any difficulties with the beneficiaries were encountered.
Results from the survey help shedding some light on this issue. While we report here below the findings from the survey, an additional source of evidence will be the analysis of a selected number of calls that will be carried out in the next step of the study.
Figure 39 shows that – in most of the sampled OPs- activities related to inclusive growth had already begun, not only with publication of the calls and selection of the projects but, in the vast majority of cases, even with the implementation of selected projects.
72 Such as the national strategies for deinstitutionalization of children, the elderly, for Poverty Reduction and Promotion of Social Inclusion, higher education, health and Roma in Bulgaria; the Strategy on the Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion in Croatia or the "National Health Strategy" in Poland
Figure 40 Has the implementation of activities in the Operational Programme relating to inclusive growth already begun? (N° of respondents: 44)
*Not relevant, no opinion, part of the projects has already started.
Source: Own survey results
Respondents were also asked to declare whether the interpretation and implementation of specific content related elements (without specifying which ones) proved to be difficult. In general, the survey suggests that most of respondents had no difficulties in this process. On the other hand, responses to open-ended questions on specific areas of difficulties, point clearly to Result indicators as the most difficult element to apply and interpret. This is in line with previous findings concerning the usefulness of the performance framework and the criticalities during the negotiations with the Commission.
4 3 3 3 29 2 No Other*
Yes, calls have already been published
Yes, projects have already been selected
Yes, projects have already started
Figure 41 Have you encountered specific content-related new elements that are difficult to interpret and/or correctly apply in implementation (the calls or project implementation)? (N° of respondents: 44)
Source: Own survey results
Figure 42 below shows that there are not significant regional disparities concerning the easiness of the implementation and application of the specific-content related new elements.
Figure 42 Have you encountered specific content-related new elements that are difficult to interpret and/or correctly apply in implementation (the calls or project implementation)? (Regional breakdown)
Less Developed In transition More Developed
Source: Own survey results
Another important step in the implementation phase is the discussion with the Commission. Respondents were asked to declare whether there were differences with the Commission in the in the interpretation and application of the specific content related to new provisions. In most of the cases there were not, as Figure 43 early shows. 8 33 3 Yes No No response
Figure 43 Have you had any discussion with the Commission on how specific content related new elements should be applied?
Source: Own survey results
Region-wise, we noticed that in transition regions score better than the others. The results for less developed and more developed are balanced.
Figure 44 Have you had any discussion with the Commission on how specific content-related new elements should be applied?
Less Developed
In transition More Developed
Source: Own survey results
An additional aspect of the implementation is the perspective of project beneficiary. In general, the survey results suggest that, according to the MAs, most of project promoters had no difficulties in complying with the new content specific elements. According to the MAs, project promoters who had compliance related issues are mostly located in less developed regions. The most cited constraints among open-ended questions are linked to the lack of technical expertise or resource to comply with the new provisions. Indeed, these appear rather burdensome for small project promoters.
Figure 45 In your view, are there significant numbers of project promoters (beneficiaries) who have difficultiesin complying with the specific content- related new elements? (N° of respondents: 44)
Source: Own survey results
Figure 46 In your view, are there significant numbers of project promoters (beneficiaries) who have difficulties in complying with the specific content- related new elements? (N° of respondents: 44)
Less Developed
In transition More Developed
Source: Own survey results
The overall easiness in compliance is confirmed also by the fact that most of the responding MAs did not need further guidance from the Commission. Those who needed further guidance were especially located in less developed regions – which is consistent with the previous findings highlighting that compliance related issues are more common in this typology of region.
Figure 47 Do you need help or further guidance from the Commission in establishing how to best comply with the specific content-related new elements? (N° of respondents: 44)
Source: Own survey results
Figure 48 Do you need help or further guidance from the Commission in establishing how to best comply with the specific content-related new elements? (N° of respondents: 44) – Regional breakdown
Less Developed
In transition More Developed
Source: Own survey results
Additional anecdotal evidence coming from interviews point to the following aspects:
Implementation seems to be on track in most of the cases and calls have already been issued and beneficiaries selected.
Problems and delays in the implementation of specific interventions are reported as being the reflection of delays in implementing national regulatory and sectoral reforms, especially in the health, education and social service sectors. Specific problems are also encountered for measures jointly financed by ESF and ERDF, for different degree of preparedness, for example when ESF is used to finance the more analytical and strategic aspect of the design of reforms and the ERDF should then follow with financing the measure to implement the strategy.
No major difficulties were reported by project beneficiaries, however there is the awareness that typical beneficiaries (and calls’ applicants)
are municipalities and civil society organisations with rather limited capacity and experience (especially in Eastern and Central European Countries). Representatives of vulnerable groups at the national level have more expertise and are more active in responding to calls.
In some MSs, especially in central and Eastern Europe, national authorities, such as Ministry of labour or of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy, play a coordinating and advisory role in the preparation of the calls for projects, for example in some cases the necessary documentation and background information for the calls is being developed with support and coordination with the ministry. In more than one case it was mentioned that social partners and third-sector representatives are involved in the implementation and monitoring of inclusive growth measures through their representatives.
It has been pointed by some interviewees that actions such as social housing for disadvantaged groups, incl. Roma, may face some difficulties of implementation on the ground due to the social and cultural attitudes of the beneficiaries and the population. This is confirmed in the analysis of the call for proposal below.
While being too early to draw conclusions on the implementation of inclusive growth measures it seems that most of the problems faced during the programming and negotiation phases were then not reflected in the implementation.
Analysis of selected calls for proposals
8.4.1.
Sixteen calls for proposals in seven countries and under six different thematic areas have been analysed in order to assess how inclusive growth actions are implemented in practice. The division of these calls by area and per country is shown in Table 46.
Table 46 Calls for proposals divided by area per country and call
Area Country Call name
Health
Romania
Call under the Investment Priority 8.1 and Specific
Objective 8.2
Poland RPWP.09.01.01-IZ-00-30-Health Care Infrastructure 001/17 Shift to community-based services Bulgaria Support for deinstitutionalisation of social services for children BG16RFOP001-5.001
Hungary
Improving the transition from institutional care to community-based services -
replacing institutional placement by 2023
Area Country Call name
EFOP-2.2.5-17
Education and training
Romania
Supporting sustainable urban development
POR/4/2017/4.4/4.4/1
Bulgaria Support for vocational schools in the Republic of Bulgaria BG16RFOP001-3.002
Access to childcare facilities and early childhood education
and care
Czech Republic
Call number 15 on the infrastructure for early childhood education for socially segregated localities
Slovakia OPLZ-PO6-SC612-2016-1b
Social regeneration of deprived communities in
urban and rural areas
Poland RPWM.09.02.00-IZ.00-28-Social Infrastructure 002/17
Romania
Improvement of the urban environment and preservation,
protection and sustainable valorisation of cultural heritage
POR/2016/5/5.2/1
Social housing
Czech Republic Call number 35 Social housing for marginalised areas
Poland
Development of social housing, assisted and protected, and social services infrastructure
RPSL.10.02.01-IZ.01-24- 096/16
Support to social enterprises
Czech Republic
Call number 25 on support for creation and development of
social enterprises and protected working
environments
Czech Republic
Call number 6 on support for creation of social enterprises
and protected working environments Educational and spatial
segregation of marginalized
communities Hungary
Eliminating segregated life situations (ERDF)
Area Country Call name
Slovakia OPLZ-PO6-SC611-2016-3
The analysis concentrated on numerous aspects, such as the objectives of the calls, target groups, policy backgrounds, activities, outcomes, indicators, horizontal principles and eligibility and selections criteria. No disparities or inconsistencies were found in these aspects, with the objectives and outcomes being in line with the areas, Thematic Objectives and social inclusion principles. The vast majority of the calls have been successfully closed, containing up to three rounds.
Nonetheless, further desk research has revealed some mistakes or bad practices in the implementation processes. For instance, newspaper in Hungary have found mistakes in the call EFOP–2.2.5–17: shift to community based services. The article highlights that at times, the call contradicts the original objectives and principles of social integration, placing resettlement facilities in smaller towns or villages where access to full range of services might not be provided. In most cases, the authorities opted to build just small, 10-12 people, housing for people with disabilities. Being built in either villages or small towns, such facilities would provide less favoured conditions with smaller chances for integration. The article also critiques the fact that there was hardly any professional dialogue or consultation on the composition of the call. According to the article the human rights aspect is scarcely present in the Hungarian practice of caring for people with disabilities, which reflects in the calls for proposals.73
Poland, on the other hand, reports obstacles in lack of available funds in the health area. The call RPWP.09.01.01-IZ-00-30-001/17 registered many more applications than available funds. In the end, only 16 projects out of 26 were selected despite the high quality and ratings for all of the projects.74 Additionally, it was reported that larger and more prestigious regional hospitals had more facilities to obtain the needed rating. Regional commission changed qualification rules on numerous occasions during the procedure, which resulted in some hospitals not being granted with the funding they hoped for,75 Contrary to the high demand in the health area, the call for social regeneration in Poland received less proposals than expected.
73 Nepszava (2017), Pusztába száműzik a fogyatékosokat, Available at: http://nepszava.hu/cikk/1144981-pusztaba-szamuzik- a-fogyatekosokat
74 Wyborcza (2017), Unia Europejska pomaga walczyć z chorobami. W Wielkopolsce potrzebne są nowe szpitale, available at: http://poznan.wyborcza.pl/poznan/7,36001,22758280,unia-europejska-pomaga-walczyc-z-
chorobami.html?disableRedirects=true
75 Wyborcza (2017), Unia Europejska pomaga walczyć z chorobami. W Wielkopolsce potrzebne są nowe szpitale, available at: http://poznan.wyborcza.pl/poznan/7,36001,22758280,unia-europejska-pomaga-walczyc-z-
Only 16 applications were submitted and only 71% of the available funding has been allocated.76
In case of Slovakia, the managing authority for the OP Human Resources has created a list of 150 villages with marginalised communities eligible to apply for calls targeting Roma integration. However, the selection of these villages seems quite peculiar, as towns such as Zilina have been selected. Located in the northwest, Zilina region has one of the lowest numbers of Roma population and above that, it is one of the biggest cities in Slovakia. Roma population is present mostly in rural areas in the east of the country. Many villages and smaller towns with Roma population were omitted from this list. No methodology on this selection was provided by the managing authority. As for the two analysed calls for proposal in Slovakia, Zilina has not been awarded any financial allocation.
The interviews with the managing authorities, third sector organisation and geo- desk officers have revealed challenges in particular related to Roma integration in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The political situation in both countries, where poverty is stigmatised and both countries face anti-Roma movements, prevents local authorities from applying for the funding. In most cases mayors of municipalities are very reluctant to such calls, as they fear losing votes in the next elections. Very often the political situation in the countries has a big impact on calls of this type, sometimes leading to low number of applicants. Moreover, in Slovakia the municipalities lack needed human and financial resources for co-financing the projects and drafting proposals. The proposals require a lot of investments without any guarantee of gaining the allocations. There is a poor dissemination of information on the calls’ technicalities with lack of technical support provided from the managing authorities. This problem was partially solved by establishing information centres, however, these are still located in the capital and not in the municipalities. The application process is too complicated and requires human resources small municipalities do not possess. As a result, many consultancies are benefiting from this situation in Slovakia, even though it should be the municipalities drafting the calls. In general, this is also a result of low quality of public procurement in Slovakia. It was suggested that to improve this situation, the Office of the Government for Roma Communities should be given more competences in managing the Priority axis 5 and 6 in Slovakia (devoted to Roma community). Comparing to the ministry, the Office some interviewees state that the Roma Communities has more knowledge and more human resources and experts to disseminate information and offer help to municipalities.
Contrary to the bad practices, many benefits of these calls were highlighted. For example, the Czech Republic welcomed the possibility to create new social enterprises and protected working environments, acknowledging their added value for the society.77 Similarly, the call for housing in Poland was positively assessed as it allows renovation of housing that the municipalities would never be able to perform from their own finances.78 Romania benefitted from the collaboration
76 Sprawozdanie roczne za rok 2016 z wdrażania Regionalnego Programu Operacyjnego Województwa Warmińsko-Mazurskiego na lata 2014–2020, Available at: http://rpo.warmia.mazury.pl/plik/6189/sprawozdanie-roczne-za-rok-2016-z-wdrazania- regionalnego-programu-operacyjnego-wojewodztwa-warminsko-mazurskiego-na-lata-2014%E2%80%932020
77 HN (2016), Kapacity už nestačí. Sociální podnikatelé shánějí pracovníky, available at: https://archiv.ihned.cz/c1-65523340- kapacity-uz-nestaci-socialni-podnikatele-shaneji-pracovniky
78 Onet (2017), Ruda Śląska: nowe mieszkania socjalne, Available at: https://slask.onet.pl/ruda-slaska-nowe-mieszkania- socjalne/83fmp5p
between local authorities which resulted in a construction of a new park and a shopping area.79 Likewise, the impact of the call for proposal for health area in Romania was assessed positively.80
79 Adevarul (2018), Municipiul Târgovişte va beneficia de un un parc nou, cu bibliotecă în aer liber. Cristian Stan:"zona degradată a oraşului va fi transformată radical" Available at: http://adevarul.ro/locale/targoviste/municipiul-targoviste-beneficia- parc-nou-biblioteca-aer-liber-cristian-stanzona-degradata-orasului-transformata-radical-
1_5a584a37df52022f756d2d8a/index.html
80 Obiektiv (2018), Dezbatere publică despre extinderea și dotarea cu echipamente medicale a ambulatoriului din structura Spitalului municipal Fetești, Available at: https://obiectiv.net/dezbatere-publica-despre-extinderea-si-dotarea-cu-echipamente- medicale-a-ambulatoriului-din-structura-spitalului-municipal-fetesti-44294.html/
9.
CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to investigate how Member States have addressed in the 2014-2020 programming period the subject of inclusive growth in their ERDF- co-financed (both mono and multi fund) OPs and the Partnership Agreements; to identify the main strengths, weaknesses and bottlenecks in programming and implementation; and to formulate conclusions on how European cohesion policy should be adjusted in the future to better contribute to inclusive growth, to the promotion of social inclusion, equal opportunities and non-discrimination of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.
ERDF actions under Thematic Objectives 8, 9 and 10, or the third investment priority under TO2 (2c “Strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e- learning, e-inclusion, e-culture and e-health”) were considered relevant for the topic.81