Nessun titolo diapositiva

1
PHARE TWINNING CZ 2002/IB SPP/03 Joint Regional
Operational Programme and Community Support
Framework Building Implementation Capacity
EXPERIENCE IN PARTNERSHIP MECHANISM Luca Celi
Italian Ministry of Economy
2
The Italian Experience in the Use of 2000-2006
European Structural Funds

• In 1998 Italy decided to reform its operational
  structures to manage the 2000-2006 European
  Structural Funds better than before
• A new Department was established in the Ministry
  of Economy in order to develop a new approach to
  all pubblic investments
• People from international bodies went into DPS to
  increase planning capacity and emprove
  development policy

3
The South of Italy - MEZZOGIORNO

Structural funds 2000-2006 50 billion
euro Objective 1 area 112.500 sqkm 19.630.000
people
4
In line with the present trend towards
devolution, the Plan allocates most
responsibilities to local governments
25 National Programmes
7 National Programmes
Regions were assigned most of the funds (71,4 per
cent) and the responsibilities for allocating
them among projects
5
Financial resources distribution per Programme

• National Programmes (PON)
• Research, new technologies and higher training
• Education
• Crime control
• Automatic incentives to enterprises
• Interregional Transportation
• Fishing
• Technical assistance

• Regional Programmes
• Basilicata
• Calabria
• Campania
• Molise
• Puglia
• Sardegna
• Sicilia

6
(No Transcript)
7
Effective members (Decision making)

• Representatives of the Managing Authority
• Representatives of the CSF Managing Authority
• Representatives of the Central Administrations
  leaders for each Fund
• Representative of the Ministry of the Environment
  
• Representative of the Ministry for Equal
  Opportunity
• Representative of other Administration interested
  in the programme

• Representatives of the Managing Authority
• Representatives of the CSF Managing Authority
• Representatives of the Central Administrations
  leaders for each Fund
• Representative of the Ministry of the Environment
  
• Representative of the Ministry for Equal
  Opportunity
• Representative of other Administration interested
  in the programme

8
CSF Managing AuthoritY
CSF Managing AuthoritY
CSF Managing AuthoritY
CSF Managing AuthoritY
Regional Managing Authority
NOP Managing Authority
Regional Managing Authority
NOP Managing Authority
Regional Managing Authority
Department of Egual Opportunity
Regional Managing Authority
Ministry of the Enviroment
Ministry of Welfare


Ministry of Agricultur
European Commission(DG ENV)
European Commission(ESF)
European Commission(FIFG)
European Commission (EAGGF)
European Commission(DG REGIO)
9
OTHER PARTICIPANTS

• Representatives of the European Commission
• Representatives of the EIB, where appropriate
• Representatives of institutional, economic and
  social partners
• Others (observers or experts if invited by the
  president of the MC)

10
Other members
Reporters
Table
Economic and social partners
11
Working Groups of the Monitoring Committee

• Research, innovation and local development
• Information society
• Evaluation and monitoring
• Semplification and mainstreaming of procedures
• Internationalization
• Information and pubblicity
• Expenditure elegibility

12
Working Groups of the Monitoring Committee (2)

• Equal opportunities
• Human resources
• Cultural resources
• Transport
• Fishery
• Agricultural and rural development

13
What is Partnership

• Co-operation among different parties in order to
  achieve a common objective while respecting every
  partys responsabilities

14
Institutional and Socio-economic Partnership

• Institutional partnerships and socio-economic
  partnerships have different importance and weight
  during the planning of CSF
• DPS supports all partnerships, but many
  institutional partners prefere only other
  institutional partners

15
Vertical and Horizontal Partnership for
Institutional Bodies

• The devolution process from State to Regional
  responsibility help vertical partnerships. The
  attribution of responsability of many programs
  changes during the planning period. This fact
  improved co-operation among Ministries and
  Regions.
• Central State and Regions have to co-operate for
  continuity in implementation and planning

16
Vertical and Horizontal Partnership for
Institutional Bodies (2)

• Horizontal partnerships were more difficult.
• All Ministries were able to operate in their
  core business , not in integration with others
  programs.
• Dps uses European issues on integration and
  concentration to remove these obstacles
• All Regions have a very important role in pushing
  interinstitutional cooperation because of the
  need of integrated solutions to territorial
  problems

17
Why Partnership is important in Structural Funds

• The E.U.Commision uses partnership mechanism as a
  condition to examine the programs
• The E.U. Commission looks not only at mechanisms
  but also at the implementation of the program by
  partners proposals
• (cfr European Reg. 1260/1999)

18
Why Partnership is important in Structural Funds
(2)

• The complexity of the socio-economic structure is
  such that every intervention has unforeseen
  results and only an overall vision can verify
  their real impact
• Partnerships reduce asimmetric information thus
  allowing more rational decisions
• Partnerships promote the territorial rooting of
  programs

19
Why Partnership is important in Structural Funds
(3)

• Partnerships allow for the transparent expression
  of interests
• Partnerships are multipliers of consensus and of
  efficacy of interventions

20
Benefits

• Consensus on a common program which goes beyond
  political and social divisions
• Participants increased understanding of current
  development processes
• Widespreading of partnerships on regional and
  local levels
• Improvement of the partecipantstechnical
  capabilities
• Common committment in order to achieve set goals

21
Challenges

• Longer and more complex procedures
• Difficulty in representing the positions of all
  34 partners with only 8 representatives
• Misuse of partnerships for political or
  individual benefits
• Difficulty in steering mediations towards
  challenging goals

22
Lessons learned

• Better formalised agreements lead to quicker
  operations
• Transparency and a clear statement of ones own
  goals is essential in order to achieve a common
  committment
• Decisions based on a rational and technical
  approach can face any partnership confrontation

23
The Evaluation of Partnerships in Italy

• CNEL Document about partnerships in Objective 1
  (2002)
• Indipendent Evaluators final report. Heading on
  partnership relationships (December 2003)
• Annual report to Parliament by DPS. Paragraph on
  institutional and socio-economic
  partnerscapability of co-operating (February
  2004)

24
The Phases of the Italian Experience

• July/December 1998
• The start of Agenda 2000- Meeting in Catania-
  Decision of C.I.P.E.

25
The Phases of the Italian Experience (2)

• January/October 1999
• Interinal Tables- P.S.M.-Q.C.S.-O.P.

26
The Phases of the Italian Experience (3)

• November 1999/July 2000
• Negotiation with E.U.Commission

27
The Phases of the Italian Experience (4)

• August 2000
• E.U. Decision

28
The Phases of the Italian Experience (5)

• September 2000/September 2002
• First Steps of QCS (regional and national
  elections)

29
The Phases of the Italian Experience (6)

• September 2002/December 2003
• Self-Evaluation - Indipendent Evaluation

30
The Phases of the Italian Experience (7)

• January 2004/to day
• Middle Term Review