The role, advantages and

disadvantages of shared

implementation:

Partnership Principle

Seventh meeting of the High Level Expert Group

on simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds

Brussels, 24 January 2017

Massimo Sabatini

Regional Policy and Territorial Cohesion

Confindustria

PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION

2

Defining the role of partnership within the main

principles of actual cohesion policy and its evolution

Assessing the current implementation

Summarizing some key points for next

programming period as shared by the HLG

Putting forward some proposals on how to reform

the principle for post-2020

PARTNERSHIP DEFINITION

3

• Is one of the main principles of Cohesion

policy

• Is strictly related to multilevel governance

• It implies close cooperation between public

authorities and any other relevant partner

• It increases the quality of interventions and of

the policy itself

PARTNERSHIP IN THE CURRENT REGULATION

4

- A broad and inclusive system…..

-…. with many tasks

In a nutshell, partnership principle is seen as part of

administrative capacity of institutional authorities

“The institutional capacity is not just a technical issue, but it depends also on

the way public administration interacts with business and citizens and

provides them with the services they need” (6th Cohesion report)

In other terms, the capacity to interact with all the

partners involved is a part of a well-functioning P.A.

A EUROPEAN CODE OF CONDUCT

5

Main contents

• Adoption of a common legal basis

• Clearer extension of partnership rules to all MS

• Transparent procedures for identification of relevant

partners for PA and for OP

• A broader involvement in the implementation phase

(e.g. in the calls for proposals)

•Main principles and good practices concerning the

involvement

• Use of the ESI Funds to strengthen the institutional

capacity of relevant partners

FIRST ASSESSMENT

6

• Principle satisfactorily respected in a wide range of

countries and programmes.

• Challenges across MS on partners’ mobilization;

• The modified legal framework increased awareness

and visibility of the partnership principle.

•Stakeholder involvement improved since 2007-13 PP

•Sometimes differences between content of

programming documents and perception of

stakeholders

Implementation of the partnership principle and multi-level

governance during the 2014-2020 ESI Funds, July 2016

…. AND SOME CLARIFICATIONS

7

…. from the partner’s point of view,

Main lessons:

- A fundamental principle not applied in a coherent and uniform

way all across the MS :

- sometimes seen as an “obligation” to be fulfilled rather than an

added value from which take advantage of;

- partnership principle part of a system more focused on formal

compliance and less on results

- the Code of Conduct: a “compliance” approach;

- Advantages and disadvantages of extension to new partners;

- The role of intermediate organized bodies: the need of

differentiated involvement

SOME KEY POINTS

8

Starting from HLG recommendations & common points

- fully adopting the beneficiaries point of view:

- ensuring effective involvement of relevant stakeholders

- promoting more trust amongst the different political

and administrative level involved, to increase

subsidiarity, and certainty;

But mainly, we have agreed on the necessity to tend to a

more “result oriented” cohesion policy

A POLICY FOCUSED ON RESULTS

9

- Diversifying results from MS to MS

- Concentration issue

- a policy more focused on results, less on formal

compliance

- establishing results to be achieved linked to CSR

- a consistent partnership system, “result oriented”

- A streamlined, clear and effective delivery system,

with clear responsibilities at each single level

EX ANTE CONDITIONALITIES: A CRUCIAL ROLE

10

- One of the EAC must be the set up of a mechanism of

involvement regarding all the partners concerned:

- MS have to demonstrate:

- how to fulfill not only the requirements of ECCP but…

- mainly, which added value is expected from each partner;

- how to gain it;

- and how to give evidence of concrete contributions obtained

In the current system, responsibility is in charge of MS that, in accordance with

its institutional and legal framework, have to organize a partnership with the

competent regional and local authorities and other relevant partners

- Involvement is now not binding: commitment must be strengthen

MONITORING COMMITTEES

11

In this context, the role of Monitoring Committee, and

the role of the partners within the MC, should be

modified accordingly

- from financial management to strategy assessment

- (direct impact on partners’ selection);

- increasing role for monitoring and evaluation

- decision making role on follow up actions

- a wider & better use of partners’ competences

- a targeted technical assistance

PARTNERS CAPACITY

12

In this new framework, partners have to modify their

concrete involvement, and more accountability from

their side is needed. It means:

• to be able to identify the needs and expectations of

members/represented in terms of expected results;

• to develop strategic programming capacity;

• to develop planning capacity

• to be able to participate in projects selection;

•to increase involvement in evaluation, and in use of

results

A MORE EFFECTIVE SHARED MANAGEMENT NEEDS…

13

Partnership

Subsidiarity

Competences

The beneficiaries’ point of view

Results

Thank you for your attention

Massimo Sabatini

Regional Policy and Territorial Cohesion - Confindustria

m.sabatini@confindustria.it