Structure of Presentation

1. STUDY TOUR ROP PODLASKIE, Brussel, 19-20 October 2011Effective implementation of regional programmes – the best examplesGenerating best projects for successful ProgrammesPascal Boijmans, Deputy Head of UnitDirectorate General for Regional PolicyEuropean Commission

2. Structure of Presentation • Lessons learnt from the previous perspective • Structural Funds in Poland: 2007-13 • Current progress in implementation • Main challenges • Conclusions Structure

3. Poland: lessons learned from the previous perspective • Structural Funds performed on average quite well • Cohesion Fund (large infrastructure projects) lagging behind: transport better than environment • EC advocated for devolving more responsibility to the regional level • Poland made successful use of the available resources under 2004-06 – but still an effort is needed to conduct the closure of the assistance in a timely and correct manner Lessons learned

4. Poland: lessons learnt from the previous perspective • lack of a strategic approach • problems related to the selection of projects/dispersion of projects • significant cost overruns, especially in CF • Exchange rate Euro/zloty • EIA, public procurement issues • staff turnover • unstable legal framework • evaluation framework Lessons learned

5. Priorities EU for Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 Contents • Lisbon strategy: growth and jobs • Innovation: investments in RTD and entrepreneurship • Transport: Trans-European Networks • Information society for all • Energy: energy efficiency and renewables • Improve access to finance • More and better jobs: adaptability of workers and enterprises and flexibility of the labour market Priorities for EU Regional Policy

6. Priorities EU for Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 • Implementation • Need for stable, long-term strategies: focus on a limited number of priorities • Necessity of stable and efficient institutional implementation system • Coherence (integrated, multi-sector development) • Stability (multi-annual programming and EU budgeting) • Collaborative working (partnership, networking) Priorities for EU Regional Policy

7. EU Cohesion Policy in Poland 2007-13: some facts • Budget for Poland: 67.3 billion € (19.4% of budget for EU27) • Co-financing Poland: 14.1 billion € (public) and 2.7 billion € (private) – the largest beneficiary of Cohesion Policy • 21 Operational Programmes • 5 national (74.3%) • 16 regional (24.6%) • 13 territorial cooperation (1.1%) • Implementation: • National: Ministry for Regional Development (MRD) • Regional: regional self-governments • Territorial cooperation: MRD Poland: some facts

8. Programming of Cohesion Policy in Poland Community Strategic Guidelines 1 National Reform Programme NSRF – National Strategic Reference Framework Programming 2 Operational Programmes (incl. 16 Regional Operational Programmes) 3 4 Programme management and project selection 5 Monitoring, evaluation, revision

9. Programme management European Commission Managing authority (Ministry for Regional Development or Marshal offices) Intermediate bodies I (Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Economy, etc.) Intermediate bodies II (e.g. PAED, Centre for Transport Projects Implementation, National Fund for Environment Protection, Institute of Fuels and Renewable Energy, etc.) Beneficiaries Management

10. The main challenges • Coordination of various policies and programmes – special task for national authorities (especially Ministry for Regional Development): strategic approach • Administrative capacity, especially at regional and local levels • Demanding legal environment and economic constraints (budgetary constraints, inflationary tendencies, shortage of labour, continuous problems with compliance with EU law) • Unprecedented challenge for spending (n+3/n+2 rule), especially for large projects Main Challenges

11. Implementation system • Selection of projects based on selection criteria approved by MC of each OP: • objective, transparent, measurable and in line with text of OP priorities • Competition projects vs. ‘Key Projects’ • Key projects also broken down into regular and major projects • Regular projects vs. major projects • Most projects adopted directly by MA of a particular OP • Major projects submitted to EC for adoption Implemen- -tation. system

12. Selection criteria and appeal procedure • Applicable to all projects without exception (also key projects) • Objective, transparent and clear selection criteria are primordial • Ongoing monitoring process of selection procedure with a view to avoiding red tape and redundancies • Law on Development Policy will introduce the right to effective judicial appeal procedure for applicants Selection criteria

13. Key Projects • Concept devised by Polish authorities • System of ‘pre-selection’ of strategic projects • Projects selected on basis of strategic criteria and placed on an indicative list • No need to compete for funding with other projects • Guaranteed co-financing if project above threshold based on regular selection criteria • Beneficiaries qualify for technical assistance in preparing their key projects Key Projects

14. SF implementation in Poland – Major Projects • 251 planned (~25% of all major projects in EU-27) • Includes both competition and key projects • Greatest share: transport • 108 received by EC • 48 adopted • Long process – in terms of both preparation (PL) and adoption (EC) Progress

15. SF implementation in Poland – major and key projects • Timeline for submission changes often and is continuously postponed • New key projects added continuously • but original ones not progressing • Competition projects progressing better than key projects • EC has limited information on project preparation and next to no impact on procedure prior to submission of project • Responsibility of PL authorities to get procedures in place and paperwork ready Progress

16. SF implementation in Poland – general • Overall situation: satisfactory, but not equally spread across programmes and sectors • Regional OP’s perform better than national OP’s • Small OP’s perform better than larger OP’s • Some sectors much more problematic than others: • Culture, health, higher education progressing very well • Support to SMEs, innovation – reasonable progress • Railways, energy, and information society – progress much slower • Poland’s progress is just above the average of EU-27 in commitments and payments in % terms • 32.7% paid, no. 13 of EU27 MS Progress

20. Problematic sectors • Railways: • Strategy • Planning capacity • Public procurement issues • Energy: • Infringements • State aid • Public procurement • Information society: broadband • State aid • Public procurement • Identification of ‘white spots’ Problem areas

21. Major bottlenecks • State aid schemes • New national law on EIA Environmental Impact Assessment • Correct application of public procurement Problem areas

22. Major bottlenecks – state aid • PL notified schemes very late • Delays in providing replies to DG COMP questions • Result – blockage in spending of funds for some sectors • Implementation of some priority axes in some programmes started effectively later • Ongoing discussions between three parties to speed up acceptance • Administrative capacity • Competition Office is partly supported from OP TA Problem areas

23. Major bottlenecks - EIA • Non-compliance of PL legislation • Insufficient public consultations • Decisions too early – not all info available • Lengthy negotiations with DG ENV resulted in modus operandi • positive opinion can be given on basis of localisation decision • Temporary solution – transitional phase • Need to process backlog of affected projects • Administrative capacity • GDOS & regional bodies supported by OP TA from OP I&E Problem areas

24. Major bottlenecks – public procurement • Non-compliance of PL legislation… • Rules for cancelling tenders • Limited possibility for beneficiaries to correct offers • Rules for introducing changes to tender notices, etc. • … and irregularities • Tenders not published of OJ • Usage of limited tenders without appropriate conditions being met • Beneficiaries not informed of changes to tender notices after publication • Result: risk of financial corrections in a significant number of projects • PL legislation amended after lengthy discussions with EC Problem areas

25. Measures to speed up implementation • POL: allocation of performance reserve (1.3 bn €) and technical adjustment (632 mln €) • Access criteria pushed OP’s to increase absorption • Focus on EU2020 relevant areas • Midterm review • EC: annual review meetings • Follow up of recommendations • EC: tripartite sector meetings on major projects • EC, POL, Jaspers • Upstream involvement in project preparation Corrective measures

26. Points for discussion and recommendations • Transport • It is essential to have a focussed and strategic approach • Cohesion Fund: TEN-T projects • Railway masterplan condition for support to railways • Masterplan for airports and support to regional airports • It is crucial to link the regional and local roads to the maintransport corridors and/or growth poles

27. Points for discussion and recommendations • Climate change -Energy efficiency as a horizontal principle - Increased allocation for renewable energy sources - Energy security - In line with market liberalisation • Protection of Environment -Fulfilment of the commitments made by Poland in the Accession Treaty - Environment as regional asset - Application of the sustainable development principle

28. Points for discussion and recommendations • concentrate more on business environment and less on direct business support • e.g. roads, education, technology transfer, business parks • direct business support: concentrate on SMEs, innovation and use more revolving funds • e.g. JEREMIE, less classical investment schemes • focus support on innovation and cooperation science and business sector • e.g. networks and clusters, «innovation at regional level», no future for competition on labour costs

29. Thank you for your attention! Inforegio website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy