Working Paper On The Partnership Principle In The EU Cohesion Policy

8/4/2019 Working Paper On The Partnership Principle In The EU Cohesion Policy

1/18

WORKING PAPER ON THE

APPLICATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP

PRINCIPLE IN

EU COHESION POLICY

This working paper is prepared as a basis for discussion at theOpen Days forum of 7 October on partnership. It is the first stage in

a project bringing together ECAS and three Regions-Lazio (Italy),Region du Centre (France) and Lower Saxony (Germany).

However this document is the responsibility of ECAS alone anddoes not commit the partners.

It should be seen as parallel to the separate case studies from the 3regions which are also presented at the forum


2/18

2

I. INTRODUCTION

This working paper on the application of the Partnership principle in EU cohesion policy is abasis for discussion at the civil society forum during the open days for regions and cities on 7

October 2009 in Brussels. This event is held this year as a partnership between ECAS and

Region du Centre (France), Saxony Anhalt (Germany) and Lazio (Italy). This overview should

be read alongside the specific case studies each region will present at the Open Days forum.The case studies are based on a questionnaire from ECAS. The forum and other events will

provide more input allowing us to develop this working paper and complete our report by theend of November. Open days is also an opportunity for finding more participants, so that a

critical mass of regions come together to exchange personnel and best practice on partnership.

The collective efforts of different stakeholders are regarded by the European Union (EU) ascentral to the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. Partnership is one of the guiding principles

promoted as fundamental to the implementation of European Cohesion policy where it is

seen as enhancing legitimacy, greater coordination of funds1

Both in EU policy documents and the academic literature, it is pointed out that partnershiptakes very different forms and is applied in different context:

- A distinction is made between vertical partnership among the European Commission,member states and regions and horizontal partnership between public authorities and

private stakeholders: social partners, universities and civil society more generally.

- Partnership according to the regulations setting up the cohesion funds applies to allstages of the elaboration of strategies, programming, implementation and evaluation ofthe funds. A distinction is made therefore between two forms of partnership which in

the social fund regulation is made quite explicit: partnership as a governance

mechanism (art. 5) and partnership in relation to projects (art. 3).

- Partnership can take on a wide range of forms, depending on the size and constitutionalstructure of the member states and be more or less institutional or more or less legally

binding, sometimes bringing together leading actors from organisations, sometimes theorganisation themselves. Capacity building and delivery mechanism can be located in public authorities (ministries or regions) or be devolved to special overarching

structures or technical assistance mechanisms.

In this working paper, the main focus is on horizontal partnership. The reason for this is that

research has tended to concentrate on vertical partnership. This is because partnership as a

system of multi-level governance among public authorities is an attractive topic for researchand is part of managing programmes more effectively to achieve strategic objectives in meeting

the complex demands of cohesion policy. The emphasis is on government, rather than on

governance with its strong implication that public authorities cannot achieve their objectivealone, but have to work in concert with civil society. There is in practice considerable overlap

between vertical and horizontal partnership, but the conclusions of different studies that the

partnership principle progressed in the 2000 2006 are based primarily on more evidence ofthe former, and scattered evidence of the latter.2

1 European Commission, Partnership in the 2000 -2006 Programming Period, Analysis of the

implementation of the partnership principle. Discussion paper of DG Regio, 20052

Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2000-06 co-financed by ERDF working package 11

final report


3/18

3

II. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLE IN

EU COHESION POLICY TO INCLUDE CIVIL SOCIETY

The salient feature of this development has been on the one hand to extend vertical

partnership - from member states to regions or other competent authorities and on the

other to introduce and extend horizontal partnership to the social partners, which

remain the privileged partners3, to civil society more generally.

From a European perspective, the partnership principle was first introduced in 1988

as one the four fundamental principles governing the structural funds. Since then, the

principle has evolved significantly starting from a narrow definition, which only

included the Commission and the member states, to a wider partnership.

In the negotiations for the 2007-2113 structural funds, member states were at first

reluctant but finally accepted at the instigation of the European Commission the

European Parliament and a coalition of European NGOs to add the following

broadening out of the partnership principle in article 11:

(c) any other appropriate body representing civil society, environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible forpromoting equality between men and women.

The clear historical trend is therefore for the theory and practice of partnership to

progress, as the quid pro quo of the increasing decentralisation and application of the

subsidiarity principle to structural fund operations.

The inclusion of civil society generally as a partner in EU Cohesion policy from 2007

appears to have had a positive effect, even though it is too early to judge actual results.

The fund regulation in the previous period created some uncertainty by singling out

environmental partners and bodies responsible for promoting equality between men and

women as to which NGOs should be involved. Authorities in the new member states in particular were not certain about the extent to which they should adopt an inclusive

approach. They are now under more of an obligation to include the broad span of

interests which can make a contribution to the strategy and programmes. There is also

some evidence that the broader horizontal partnership has led to more consideration of

civil society and the scope and limits of its participation in Cohesion policy by

national authorities. Since the broader definition of partnership could build on the

experience of the previous round of structural funds (2000 2006), socio-economic

actors could begin to feel less like critical outsiders and more like participants in the

process (cf. case study by Lazio). A narrow application of the previous definition of

horizontal partnership input to policy and the execution of projects requiring the

coming together a wide range of stakeholders was problematic.

There is no simple definition of a civil society which is impossible to categorise:

- The common features of this sector are independence from governments,political parties or commercial interests i.e. definition in terms of what it is

not.

3Partnership in cohesion policy: European social fund support to social partners in the 2007-2013 period


4/18

4

- Unlike SMEs, (small and medium-sized enterprises) NGOs cannot becategorised according to size, since some are large organisations with important

assets in land or property whilst others are run on a largely voluntary basis.

- There is a tendency to categorise NGOs in terms of advocacy (i.e.campaigning for authorities to provide services on introduce new laws in the

public interest) or service delivery (i.e. providing assistance to their members

or to a wider community with government support). Many organisations

however cover both functions.

- There is no particular type of activity which does not have a civil societydimension, but as the box below suggests, NGOs are generally either

concentrating on specific themes or on specific target groups in the population.

The range of activity is so broad that nothing is typical, except that it tends to be

replicated by government or the private sector.

Themes

Arts and culture

Development and aidEnvironment

Education and training

Human rights and civil liberties

Health

Peace and conflict resolution

Poverty and hunger

Rural development

Social enterprise/economic development

Social rights and employment issues

Wildlife and animal welfare

Target groups

Alcohol/drug addicts

Children and youth

Consumers

Disabled

Elderly

Ethnic minorities

Immigrants

Refugees/asylum seekers

Unemployed

Women

One of the problems for applying the partnership principle is the question what is civil

society? to which there is no easy answer. Where answers are found, the definition

and make-up of a particular civil society will shadow but is unlikely to correspond to

the make-up of the public sector and the line ministries. The first step must be to

overcome this barrier to understanding and dialogue. The advantage of the label civil

society is that whilst it includes non-governmental organizations (NGOs), it is broader

and can cover a wider range of interests and has in practice eroded the distinction


5/18

5

between stakeholder and citizen participation. Within the context of EU cohesion

policies, there is often emphasis on definitions which stress the contribution NGOs

make at the local level such as community development or their contribution to those

parts of the economy which are more social than market. Thus for example in

some countries, NGOs are seen as part of a broader social economy grouping

associations, co-operatives, mutuals, and foundations. The notion of the Third Sector

as distinct from the other two - the public and private sectors - denotes something

similar. The label voluntary sector is also useful because it stresses the huge asset of

NGOs in their ability to mobilize citizens and benefit from volunteers. All these labels

are valid but none is entirely adequate for a sector which escapes easy categorisation.

That is why the broad term civil society fits.

The diffuse nature of civil society both raises unanswerable questions and tends to hide

its real potential as a partner, since its real size and strength is invisible, undocumented

and not even included in the national accounts: A study on global civil society in 40

countries conducted by the Johns Hopkins University has revealed that national and

international quantitative and qualitative surveys of the sector tend to underestimate its

real economic value, partly because it is not recognised as such in the national accounts

and official statistics. This set of institutions is in fact a major economic and socialforce in virtually every country throughout the world (i.e. both industrialized and

developing countries). In Europe, it represents about the same size as the construction

industry and the financial services sector. Also, the Third Sector has been the most

significant source of new jobs compared to other traditional sectors of the economy.

From the same study, a similar picture emerged from data on expenditure. Overall, the

Third Sector represents around 5% of the combined GDP in the countries studied. The

comparative research carried out has also demonstrated that even in periods of

recession the sector can grow and that it is the fastest creator of new jobs to meet new

social needs in the services sector. In EU 27, 9-10% of the active population including

volunteers are included in civil society.

The origins and sources for considering partnership as a governance mechanism and asa tool for projects and are quite different:

- Partnership as a governance mechanism. The Commissions white paper onEuropean governance of 2001 is still regarded by academics as the source for

introducing the partnership principle in EU regional policy. In its guidelines for

cohesion policy 2007-2013, the Commission shows itself to be a strong

advocate for partnership which applies not only to the economic agenda but

also to the broader effort to involve citizens who, through the partnership and

multilevel governance arrangements under which cohesion policy is managed,

can become directly involved in the Unions growth and jobs strategy The

white paper resulted in the Commissions minimum standards of consultation of

December 2002, which provides a useful guide, but applied only to European-level and not to decentralised policies. Further consideration of European

governance was moved to the very different context of the Convention on the

future of Europe, and in turn frozen by the negative French and Dutch referenda

on the constitutional Treaty. Assuming the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, the

governance debate is likely to be revisited in terms of article 11 and the

principle of participatory democracy. Since the publication of the white

paper, progress has also been made with plan D for democracy, dialogue and

debate with experiments such as the citizens panels on the future of European

rural policy OECD has also progressed the state of the art significantly, both


6/18

6

under the LEED forum on partnerships and local governance and its more

general and comprehensive handbook for governments in information,

consultation and participation.

- Partnership as a tool for projects

In parallel, there has been a perceptible trend in EU policy making and projects

to require broad partnerships round cross-cutting agendas for growth and jobs,

sustainable development or migration. As the Commission puts it in the

guidelines for cohesion policy:

In this context, measures are important that seek to rehabilitate the

physical environment, redevelop brownfield sites especially in old

industrial areas, and preserve and develop the historical and cultural heritage

with potential spin-offs for tourism development in order to create more

attractive cities in which people want to live. The regeneration of existing

public spaces and industrial sites can play an important role in avoiding

suburbanization and urban sprawl, thereby helping to create the conditions

necessary for sustainable economic development. More generally, byimproving the planning, design and maintenance of public spaces, cities can

plan out crime helping to create attractive streets, parks and open spaces

which are safe and feel safe. In urban areas, the environmental, economic

and social dimensions are strongly interlinked. A high quality urban

environment contributes to the priority of the renewed Lisbon Strategy to

make Europe a more attractive place to work, live and invest

Such place-based approaches which can apply as much to rural as to urban

developments require underpinning by a strong civil society.

In parallel to the pull factors to develop the interface between public authorities and the

citizen by introducing cross-cutting reforms in favour of more transparency, access andparticipation, there has been a corresponding push factor from the challenges cohesion

policy has to face on the ground through more place-based, less sectoral, interventions.

III. ADVANTAGES CLAIMED FOR PARTNERSHIP, BUT ALSO SOME

OF THE OBSTACLES

A key resource manual is the Guidebook how ESF managing authorities and

intermediate bodies support partnership produced by the community of practice on

partnership, which in turn grew out of the collaboration of a group of managing

authorities in the EQUAL programme. The first part of the study analyses 10 reasons

for partnership, which are summarised below, but also the obstacles faced. The secondpart called the key success factor framework starts with overarching pointers of good

governance: accountability, participation and engagement, skills-building, appreciation

of time.

A detailed framework is then provided that shares a series of factors that have been

successfully used in different Member States to promote partnership during each

distinct phase of the programme cycle:


7/18

7

Operational Programme Analysis and Design carrying out a contextualanalysis, promoting an enabling environment, identifying synergies with other

programmes, and encouraging stakeholder engagement in the analysis and design

process.

Operation Programme Delivery Planning integrating stakeholders intoprogramme procedures and setting up mechanisms for stakeholder involvement in

projects

Calls For and Appraisal Of Proposals supporting incorporation of partnership in project proposals and assessing partnership rationale and

implementation mechanisms.

Animation during Project Implementation providing ongoing support topartnership projects and building the capacity of stakeholders to actively participate

in programme governance.

Monitoring and Evaluation Reporting on the status of partnership projects,

promoting participatory evaluation at both programme and project level, andsystematically feeding back lessons about partnership into practice.

At each stage of the cycle examples of practices that have worked successfully to

endorse partnership in different Member States are given. A series of partnership in

different Member States are given. A series of partnership pointers and tips from

programme and project representatives, individual experts, NGO and social partner

groupings are also provided.

Advantages claimed for partnership

The ten point rationale for partnership, extracted and summarised from the guidebook:

1. FOCUSWe are able to more clearly identify gaps, needs and prioritiesand develop

targeted approaches to address them.

2. COORDINATIONWorking in partnership can improve and synchronise policy coordination so

that reach is improved and duplication avoided.

3. ACCESS TO RESOURCESA range of diverse resources from different stakeholders can be accessed in

order to address particular problems and challenges.

4. SOCIAL CAPITALConnections reinforce social networks while also promoting a deeper shared

understanding

5. INNOVATIONMore creative approaches by sharing diverse perspectives, ideas and

resources


8/18

8

6. CAPACITY BUIDLINGWorking in partnership with different actors can also enhance the opportunities

for improving strategic and operative capacity

7. EMPOWERMENTDirect engagement with target groups should enable those who are

disadvantaged/marginalised to have a stronger voice in the political arena

8. LEGITIMACYWider stakeholder mobilisation can give a more democratic policy mandate as

involvement and support of organisations that are trusted by society can

increase public acceptance of necessary reforms

9. STABILITYThe inclusion of civil society concernscan contribute to a more integrated and

cohesive society.

10.SUSTAINABILITY

Working in collaboration can promote long-term, durable and positive change


9/18

9

The obstacles to partnership

The spread of good practice on partnership faces however obstacles which are often of

a basic kind, before a partnership has even been bought into existence. When it has, as

the ESF guidebook points out, working in partnership is not an easy option.

Combining diverse organisational approaches resources and styles requires a

considerable investment of time and energy Moreover, partnership has come under

increased scrutiny to show that it makes an impact and that the sum is genuinely more

important than the parts. This is not always easy to demonstrate Obstacles include:

- Information gaps to potential partners Whilst information on EU Cohesionpolicy has improved, stakeholders in either vertical or horizontal partnership do

not always have a clear perception of the European policy context within which

they are working. It helps if the European context is closely linked to the

national development plan or regional policy. However, it is significant that a

region like Lazio which is advanced in terms of the application of participatory

democracy, feels that it is necessary to launch a new website on regional policy.

Without better information and understanding, many actors whose participation

is voluntary, do not make a link between their own activity and the policy anddo not know where to start. Requirements for information and training are often

too sophisticated and target those which are already insiders.

- The difficulty of adding horizontal to vertical partnership. The partnershipbetween national and regional authorities and with the European Commission is

in itself not an easy option, with many studies pointing to the distrust which can

exist among different levels of governance. Adding on consultation and

participation of stakeholders is seen as an additional burden. The latter often

feel they are boarding the train late without a clear sense of its destination and

the rules of engagement. Partnership can often create expectations which are

not fulfilled, with NGOs finding that some of their arguments progress only to

be rejected at the point of decision-making by powerful line ministries orregional authorities. The implication is that social partners, civil society and

other stakeholders need to shadow the vertical partnership and also link up and

operate at different geographical levels.

- Other difficulties in running a successful partnership. Although the difficultiescould be encountered in almost any setting and in relation to any policy, there is

still a sense that the most serious of these relate to the difficulties of managing a

particularly demanding and complex policy, rather than resistance to partnership

as such. Lack of time is the most frequently mentioned obstacle to creating

partnerships. Such are the demands of management, reporting and the

increasing frequency of checks and audits that it becomes increasingly difficult

to add on partnership. This is even more the case, when all the advice goes inthe direction of the need to invest in considerable prior preparation and on going

efforts to nurture the partnership.

- Lack of capacity of the partners. Particularly in the new member states,authorities point to the lack of capacity of civil society organisations to engage

with national and regional economic policy and their lack of resources to

become active participants. Equally, whilst there are solutions to such

problems, they require in turn time and effort to introduce facilities such as the

use of technical assistance for capacity building or global grants.


10/18

10

- Lack of stability. Despite the broad acceptance of partnership, it still meetswith resistance from silo working by both public officials and NGOs or other

civil society organisations. The case studies from the 3 regions also point out

that there are inevitably different levels of engagement, with some partners

more active than others and not necessarily sharing the same interests. In

general, partnerships are a network of people, and so are not helped by frequent

changes in personnel both in the administration and among stakeholders.

IV. ASSESSMENTS OF PARTNERSHIP WORKING IN PRACTICE

The assessments are extremely difficult to make, except on the case-by-case basis

shown by the three partner regions. This is made more complicated by the different

national institutional arrangements for regional policy, which the ex-post evaluation

report clarifies as follows:

A regional government managed approach, as in Austria, Belgium, Germany(except for Objective 1 federal Ops) and Italy (Objective 2). States or provinces

designed the programmes. Federal/national governments tended to be involvedin the process late and to a limited extent, focusing on regulatory compliance

issues and/or national funding issues.

A regional approach, with national coordination or steering, as in Denmark,Finland, France, Italy (Objective 1), the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the

United Kingdom. Regional authorities (provinces, regional councils, counties,

devolved administrations) were responsible for the development of strategic

priorities and drafting all or parts of programmes, but within a national

framework or subject to national approval.

A national government led approach, with regional input, as in Greece and

Hungary. Programming consisted of a mix of programmes developed bynational ministries based on standard national interventions (applied to each

regional programme) and regionally defined elements. Programme drafts were

shaped and approved by national inter-ministerial committees. Where

Integrated Regional Operational Programmes were in place, regional authorities

played a more active role (Poland).

A national government managed approach, as in Cyprus, the Czech Republic,Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia and

Slovenia. Programming was undertaken by government offices or inter-

ministerial groups, with regional/local and other bodies making inputs at

various stages of the design process.

The different constitutional arrangements are not the only variable factor. There are

also a number of different influences on partnership stemming from the particular

decision-making process for the management of the funds.

In some countries, i.e. new member states there is a close relationship betweenEU cohesion policy and domestic spending or the national plan. This may make

mobilisation of a wide range of actors easier than in cases where the European

funds are seen as a specialised addition to regional development.


11/18

11

In several countries, there are special instruments committees, working parties linking the different levels of government but it is not always apparent to what

extent these are primarily coordination instruments, or also directed towards

partnership. An example of the latter would be the National Thematic Group on

Partnership in Sweden.

In the evaluation report, the research for the European Parliament and the casestudy of Lower Saxony, there are examples of intermediate bodies to help

develop capacity for the partnership. For example, in 1992 the Irish

Government set up a company called Pobal which has responsibility for the

national management, coordination and support of partnerships. It would make

sense to review the achievements of such bodies and the regional development

agencies which often play a similar role.

Cross-cutting themes demand special or reformed partnerships. The ex-postevaluation of cohesion policy programmes contains an interesting chapter on

sustainable development, which was subject to numerous different

interpretations across member states and forms of partnership.

Finally, there is a wide range of different consultation bodies. Some are formalforums also used for domestic economic and social policy, which gives them a

certain weight and representativity (i.e. Austria). The disadvantage is that the

actors in EU regional policy are to some extent specialised with their European

links. In other cases, as in the UK, the practice appears to be more open

invitations to respond to consultations on draft documents and public hearings.

There could be a case for using both established mechanisms and more adhoc

open systems.

Here is what the ex-post evaluation report says of enhanced partnership working over

the period.

Overall, there is evidence that partnership-working increased in the 2000-06

period. Among specific examples, Cohesion policy management in Ireland saw an

increase in regional involvement following the creation of two new NUTS II

regions. In Greece, a transition began to be made from top-down planning

approach to more regional involvement with enhanced partnership working. In

Spain and France, a system of co-responsibility between regional and central

governments was introduced which allowed regions to take on more significant

tasks and capacity in regional administrations. In the EU10, the introduction of

partnership-working was sometimes difficult due to a lack of resources and

experience (Latvia) and often remained at a rather formal level (Lithuania,

Slovakia). However, some reported progress in collaborative working relationships

during the course of the 2004-06 period, notably in Cyprus, where partnerships and

public consultation schemes were strengthened and institutionalised. Lastly, in

some Member States (Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom), it is clear that the

experience of partnership within Cohesion policy programmes was being adopted

within aspects of domestic regional development policy implementation.


12/18

12

One would have thought that comparisons would be easier by looking at monitoring

committees the main vehicle for partnership, but reading between the lines of the

evaluation report, this is apparently not the case.

The extent of partnership in terms of both vertical and horizontal relationships

differed considerably across the EU25 in the 2000-06 period. At the apex of the

management structure, the Monitoring Committees provided the most important

platform for formal partnership-working in all Member States. The composition of

the Committee varied across countries, but typically included the Managing and

Paying Authorities, regional and sectoral policy Ministries, regional authorities and

development bodies, trades unions, employer organisations, chambers of

commerce, NGOs (particularly in the gender equality and environmental fields),

educational organisations, RTDI bodies and the voluntary sector. The Commission

was also represented in an advisory (but often active) role. The regulatory

requirements ensured wide partnership representation, an important factor in

countries where this was weak in other areas of policymaking and where central

and/or regional government authorities dominated the process. In Slovakia, for

example, the EU requirements ensured that a third of the Monitoring Committee

members were from central private sector and socio-economic partners. InHungary, half of the Committee places were reserved for regional, economic, social

and other partners, and in Lithuania, one third of the places were reserved for socio-

economic partners.

Differences in practice are not explained only by the differences in constitutional

settings or specific decision-making processes for EU Cohesion policy. Whilst there is

probably more progression both towards regionalisation and towards partnership, there

is also a natural tendency for research done for the EU Institutions, because it covers 27

member states, to gloss over the differences and difficulties, which are shown more in

academic studies. Certainly, there is a difference between old and new member states.

Old member states were shown to be able to build on the experience of previous

financial perspectives and improve partnership. New member states were apparentlynot able to benefit enough from EU support prior to membership through Phare and

pre-accession funds, so partnership was new. This difference will disappear over time

and could be speeded up by more exchange of best practice. However, there are

lessons here for future enlargements.

Roughly, we can distinguish three categories:

Regions/governments which pay lip service to the principle, giving purelyformal and general accounts saying article 11 of the basic regulation has been

implemented, but without saying how. Some authorities do not even appear to

acknowledge that there is a specific requirement. However, most do. Not

surprisingly, partnership tends to be viewed in this formalistic way particularlyin new member states, where the emphasis is on compliance with the letter

rather than the spirit of partnership and the overriding priorities are proper

financial management and absorption of the funds.

Those which go further and also describe a mixed picture, stressing both theadvantages of partnership, but also some of its shortcomings, such as the lack of

knowledge, organisation and commitment by the socio-economic partners and

NGOs. Adding civil society to the regulation appears to have encouraged


13/18

13

more thinking about how to consult more widely. This is an interesting group,

probably willing to learn more from best practice in more advanced regions.

Those which go much further mostly the regions rather than the governments in developing wide-spread publicity and a well organised consultation plan.

They also provide more details about what has been done: meetings, hearings,

results and assessments of how partnership worked.

However, it has to be concluded that extracting any worthwhile or comparable

information from the national strategic frameworks and the operational programmes is

a daunting task.


14/18

14

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS

The EU regulations make partnership an important part of the governance of cohesion

policy, whilst leaving considerable latitude to national and regional authorities as to

how it should be applied. This is evidently the right approach in a diverse community

of 27 member states. It is currently however almost impossible to verify without a

large research budget, if the partnership principle is applied correctly. This is one of

the issues dealt with in the recommendations below. The application of the partnership

principle faces a dilemma:

- On the one hand, since the partnership principle is the quid pro quo ofsubsidiarity, it would be paradoxical to attempt to force uniform application

from the centre. There is also some evidence that partnership when seen as an

imported European concept simply creates resistance, mistrust, a formalistic

response, even though its application is fundamentally in the interests of the

member states and regions themselves.

- On the other hand, civil society organizers and reformers in the public sector,where application of the partnership principle is weak, do look to the EuropeanInstitutions and more advanced regions to offer guidance. Institutional

differences can be exaggerated, particularly when it comes to horizontal

partnership with non-state actors.

As the ESF guidebook points out: While country contexts undoubtedly differ, generic

success factors for endorsing partnership have been identified and the lessons from

these diverse experiences not only provide examples of how partnership can be

promoted and reinforced in line with ESF regulations (as both a governance mechanism

and in relation to projects), but also in finding solutions to address the challenges

encountered in working collaboratively.

Striking the right balance is not easy whilst the partnership principle has extended into

a system of multilevel governance to include civil society, the Commissions

communication on the 2000 2006 funds and the more extensive work package 11 in

the export evaluation of cohesion policy programmes for the same period leave many

questions unanswered. This is partly because of the different perspectives of new and

old member states and the priority to absorbing enlargement. When it comes to

evaluating the 2007 2013 funds these differences will have diminished to an extent,

but this process should be speeded up as much as possible.

Broad objectives should include initiatives to apply the partnership principle in a more

balanced and consistent way across the funds. Based on the example of EQUAL, a

programme to which partnership was central, guidelines have been mainstreamed in theEuropean social fund through a community of practice. There has not been an

equivalent development in regional policy, possibly because national and regional

constitutional factors are a more dominant factor, but they are not such as to make

creating a community of practice impossible. There should also be effort to give more

attention not just to vertical partnership but to horizontal partnership also. For

example, the study done for the European Parliament which was optimistic in its

conclusions on the application of the partnership principle was based primarily on

examining coordination and delivery mechanisms between member states and regions.

Similarly, the European Commission could take the lead by targeting civil society more


15/18

15

deliberately when it consults on aspects of cohesion policy and its development after

2013. Whilst a centralizing approach to enforcement will not work, application of the

partnership principle throughout all stages of the fund operations is nevertheless a legal

requirement. The EU should therefore put the onus on a decentralized approach to

enforcement, requiring member states and regions to apply the regulations and

demonstrate that they have done so.

Suggested recommendations:

(i) The Commission should propose a new framework for multilevelgovernance and partnership

As the former Commissioner for regional policy, Danuta Hubner pointed out The

European Union needs to rethink the concept of governance in order to better

prepare its policies and implement them more efficiently and above all, in order to

get closer to European citizens4. The entry to force of the Lisbon Treaty with its

article 11 on the principle of participatory democracy will encourage such a

process. The white paper on European governance of 2002 with its focus muchmore on stakeholder consultation than wider citizen participation now appears out

of date. There are both new developments specific to partnership in the structural

funds, and other initiatives such as the OECD handbook for governments on

information, consultation and participation, which provide sufficient models for

updating the message.

(ii) The Commission should bring together local leaders in participatorydemocracy

One of the partners in this project Lazio is a region which has developed practices

of participatory democracy involving both citizens and stakeholders on the basis ofa specific regulation. The managing authority rightly points out: The risk that we

constantly run into and that should be avoided entirely is to straight jacket the

partnership exchange into a formal procedure, and especially to jeopardize the

liveliness of the proactive contribution of all participants. This requires leadership

and animation. The participatory democracy toolbox of citizens juries, consultations

or town hall meetings is spreading. In Europe, there is still the challenge of

marrying citizen and civil society consultation. Although such techniques are more

associated with Porto Allegre and the U.S., some 90 citizens in Europe have

introduced participatory budgeting. The spread of such techniques and their

application to EU cohesion policy require above all political leadership. The

Commission should identify and bring together the political leaders at national and

local level who have made citizen participation a central feature of communitybuilding and strategy for the region. This could be lined to the recommendation in

the ex-post evaluation report of the 2000 2006 period for a cohesion policy

leadership programme.

4Quoted y Jean-Marie Beauply, MEP on 30 October 2008


16/18

16

(iii) Member states and regions should draw up an information, consultation andparticipation plan covering all stages of cohesion policy operators

All policy documents point in one way or another to the need for such a plan. The

ESF Guidelines stress that partnership programmes and projects must devote

adequate time and energy to developing an agreed vision. The DG regio

discussion paper on partnership in the 2000 2006 programming period concludes

that member states themselves could decide to organise a seminar at the start of the

next programming period to discuss the envisaged partnership arrangements with

the partners similarly the ex-post evaluation report concludes, particularly in

relation to new member states, but this is equally valid for any region: The

interpretation of partnership needs to be defined more clearly, specifying which

organisations are regarded as partners, the expectations and aims of their

contributions, and the ways in which they are to be involved at each stage of

management and implementation. In this way, both sides understand the rules

of the game which become more predictable. The implication of the ESF

guidelines is that time and conflict with other priorities are the main obstacles to

partnership. Investment of time in preparing the ground and having a plan before

the partnership comes into being are therefore conditions for success. Without sucha plan, accountability and evaluation are not possible.

(iv) The plans should be published and outcomes evaluated

Even though there are reporting requirements for including sections on partnership

in the strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes the results are

incomplete and in no way comparable. This is not due to the diversity of structures

across member states and regions, but to the fact that the extent of reporting on

partnership is treated as optional. It is likely that participants in consultation

exercises are also not receiving enough feedback and explanation of why some

proposals were accepted and others rejected. This can be a main cause offrustration. Member states and regions should draw up and publish information,

consultation and participation plans before the programming period. Reports on the

results of the process should compare these to the actual outcomes (schedule of

meetings, numbers of responses to requests for consultation and public

information). In this way, it should be possible for citizens in one region to compare

the results with other regions or across borders and to encourage the spread of the

best practice which does exist. This should be part of a more dynamic and

interactive approach with partners between more official events which in turn

requires resources.

(v) Capacity building of partners

The ex-post evaluation of the 2000-2006 programmes stresses that adequate

capacities have to be available in partner organisations, and basic training on

cohesion policy and the programme cycle is a necessary precondition for effective

inclusion. Technical assistance at all geographical levels can be opened up for this

purpose. A striking feature common to the selection of examples of best practice

on partnership is the extent to which they originate in decisions to set up

intermediate or supportive structures, providing a link between the public and

private sphere for supporting the work of socio-economic actors and of the


17/18

17

managing authorities. Both Austria and Ireland for example have such special

intermediate arrangements. Similarly, the case study of Saxony-Anhalt includes a

competence centre for partnership which helps prepare social partners for

meetings, carries out training and information activities and even prepared

strategies. This is a successful example of supporting social and economic actors

which could well be replicated. Such capacity building is necessary not only

among civil society organisations but often for officials and regions which have

insufficient experience in running information, consultation and participation

exercises.

(vi) Towards a community of practice on partnership in European regionalpolicy

The implementation of the partnership principle should be a bottom-up exercise.

Using technical assistance or the INTERREG programme, there is scope for a

group of regions to establish a community of practice. This should include elected

and appointed officials as well as socio-economic actors in civil society. Over time

such a community of practice could produce for the regional fund the type ofhandbook or guidelines which exist for the social fund. The first step however

would be to provide for an exchange and knowledge-building programme of study

visit and one-to-one mentoring involving protagonists on both sides of the

partnership equation. For example, region A is willing to learn more about the

partnership capacity centre of region B whilst B wishes to learn about participatory

budgeting in region C or the creation of a new website and interactive tools in

region D. From such an exchange programme a network of contacts and one-stop

shops could emerge and guidelines which could then become a model for

mainstreaming the partnership principle.


18/18

18

MAIN SOURCES

Partnership in the 2000 2006 programming period (discussion paper of DG Regio)

(November 2005).

Study done for the European Parliament: Governance and partnership in regional

policy (PE. 397.245) (January 2008)

Guidebook: How ESF managing authorities and intermediate bodies support

partnership (December 2008).

Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2000 2006 Co-financed by ERDF

working package 11 - Final report. European Policies Research Centre, Glasgow

The illusion of inclusion access by NGOs to the structural funds in the new member

states of Eastern and Central Europe, Brian Harvey, ECAS

Available national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes

Partnership and Structural funds: from the principle to the reality social NGOs

demands

Discussion and case studies from the partner regions Lazio, Region du Centre and

Saxony-Anhalt

Policy network and institutional gaps in European Union structural funds management

in Poland, Poznan University of economic ([email protected];

[email protected] )

Civil society participation in the structural and Cohesion policies in the Central

European new member states (Kaman Dezseri, Institute for World Economy Budapest)

Working Paper On The Partnership Principle In The EU Cohesion Policy

Documents

Transcript of Working Paper On The Partnership Principle In The EU Cohesion Policy