EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/1

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘How to foster efficient partnership in the management of cohesion policy programmes, based on good practices from the 2007-2013 cycle’ (exploratory opinion)

2011/C 44/01

Rapporteur: Mr OLSSON

On 23 February 2009, Ms Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission asked the European Economic and Social Committee, to draw up an exploratory opinion on

How to foster efficient partnership in the management of cohesion policy programmes, based on good practices from 2007-2013 cycle.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 23 June 2010.

At its 464th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 July 2010 (meeting of 14 July), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 141 votes to one with three abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC strongly believes that genuine and profound partnership greatly improves the effectiveness and overall success of the EU's cohesion policy. Partnership is a tool for sustainable, economic and social development: it makes EU funds responsive to the needs of actors on the ground; it increases the visibility of the EU; and it strengthens democracy. Successful partnership must be based on a long-term perspective of real participation, providing equal opportunities for private partners to play an active role alongside the public authorities. IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.

1.2 The current regulations still leave too much room for national interpretation of the concept of partnership. A strengthening of these rules is needed, particularly of Article 11 of the general Regulation 1083/2006. The EESC proposes, for the future, a number of changes to the wording of that article, thus establishing minimum requirements for partnership.

1.3 The EESC regrets that the European Commission's role has, in recent times, focussed more on procedure and thereby less on results. The EESC firmly believes in a stronger and much more pro-active role for the Commission as guardian of the partnership principle. The Commission should, jointly with the Member States (hereafter MS), regions and together with organised civil society, strengthen propagation of the principle based on the Open Method of Coordination.

1.4 Continuous capacity-building of the partners is crucial: technical assistance resources should be made available to social partners and civil society in all operational programmes.

1.5 The EESC underlines that global grants are a very efficient instrument to achieve real participation of partners - particularly small enterprises and the social economy - and should therefore be extensively used by all Member States in both ESF and ERDF programmes.

1.6 The EESC also advocates a return to simplified Community initiative programmes targeted at social innovation and local development.

1.7 For post-2013 EU cohesion policy, programme structures and regulations should facilitate the implementation of the partnership principle. This is in line with the Barca Report, which focuses strongly on the link between a ‘place-based approach’ and partnership, and which is particularly relevant for the ERDF and should be part of the Europe 2020 strategy.

1.8 In order to ensure a stronger involvement of civil society in all phases of cohesion policy, a Code of Good Practice should be established at European level, agreed upon with the appropriate European partners.

1.9 Simplification is imperative in order to enhance – the positive impact of programmes, notably for projects involving smaller players. Controls on projects must be rationalised. Financial payments to such players must be better facilitated and speeded up through pre-financing and payments made in due time.

1.10 The EESC is acutely aware that no one size fits all. Nevertheless, good practice can and should be disseminated widely. Such good practice has been identified and is described in the annex to the current opinion. The EU Commission should support its dissemination.

1.11 In most MS, regions play a crucial role in implementing the partnership principle. The EESC therefore proposes that regions wanting to share their experience and disseminate good practice set up a network of ‘regions of excellence in partnership’ and believes the Committee of the Regions would be the appropriate mentor for such a network.

2. Introduction

2.1 In February 2009, the European Commission asked the EESC for an exploratory opinion on how to ‘foster efficient partnership in the management of the cohesion policy’s programme based on good practices from the 2007-13 cycle’; the opinion should also ‘help to prepare the future cohesion policy’. The EESC was asked to look in particular at the aspects of partnership and participation of civil society in the development of cohesion policy. This opinion does not cover, however, ‘vertical’ partnership within the public sphere, i.e. between the EU Commission, MS, regional, local and other public authorities.

2.2 The opinion has benefited from close collaboration with the Commission services. Considerable field work was carried out by the Rapporteur, involving members of the EESC, national economic and social committees, social partners and other civil society organisations to identify and document good practice. Hearings were held in Katowice, Porto and Schwerin; which were supplemented by field visits to various other MS. Valuable assistance was also given by the European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions.

3. The partnership principle and its evolution

3.1 The partnership principle is one of the cornerstones of EU cohesion policy. Its earliest roots can be found in the Treaty of Rome of 1957, when the European Social Fund was set up. A new step was taken in 1988 when the principle was established as a common instrument for the structural funds. In the beginning, partnership focussed on traditional economic and social actors only; now it includes ‘any other appropriate body representing civil society, environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality between men and women’ (1). This evolution reflects the EU's strategic objective of good governance, most recently reaffirmed in the Europe 2020 vision.

3.1.1 Article 11 of the general regulation is key in defining the scope and application of the partnership principle. MS shall involve the relevant partners in the different stages of programming. Further, they shall designate the most representative partners at national, regional and local level in the economic, social, environmental or other spheres ‘in accordance with national rules and practices’. Each year, the Commission shall consult the organisations representing the economic and social partners at European level.

3.2 The regulation provides for ‘global grants’; management of such funds can be entrusted to intermediate bodies, including regional development bodies or non-governmental organisations (Art. 42).

3.2.1 Measures of technical assistance can be aimed at all partners, beneficiaries of the funds and the general public. Information, networking, raising awareness, promoting cooperation and exchanging experiences are such measures (Art. 45-46).

3.3 Articles 163 of the TFEU and 104 of the afore-mentioned Council Regulation confer a particular role to the social partners for the European Social Fund (ESF). In administering the ESF the Commission is assisted by a committee composed of representatives from governments, trade unions and employer organisations.

3.4 For the ESF, partnership is developed in Regulation (EC) 1081/2006.

3.4.1 Good governance, partnership, capacity-building and lessons learnt from the EQUAL programme are highlighted and should be promoted by involving the social partners and other stakeholders (Preamble and Art. 5).

3.4.2 The ESF should promote partnerships, pacts and initiatives through networking of relevant stakeholders, such as the social partners and non-governmental organisations, at transnational, national, regional and local levels (Art. 3.1e). This should be supported by capacity building (Art. 3.2b).

3.4.3 The ESF has a particular task to strengthen social partners and social dialogue in the convergence regions. NGOs in particular should play an active role in programmes for social inclusion, gender equality, equal opportunities (Art. 5).

3.4.4 Particular attention shall be paid to innovative activities in the context of partnership (Art. 7).

3.5 Contrary to the ESF or EAFRD Regulations, Regulation (EC) 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) has no specific provisions on to partnership. The EESC feels that the ERDF should reorient its focus more on small enterprise, innovation and local development using instruments that favour partnership (e.g. targeted measures, global grants) for this.

4. Partnership in practice

4.1 The factors for success and effectiveness of cohesion policy attributed to the partnership principle can be summarised as follows:

— Diverse view-points and knowledge are brought in highlighting the realities on the ground.

— There is a better response to the needs and perspectives of the partners.

— By going local, interventions can be even more adapted to the realities of business, workers and the citizens in general.

— Environment, gender equality and measures to combat social exclusion will have a higher profile in the programmes.

— Value added from integrated policies become more visible.

— Partnership is a key instrument of collective commitment and contributes to better efficiency of public expenditure and public policies.

— Partners will bring EU cohesion policy closer to the citizens.

4.2 However, successful partnership relies largely on whether a tradition of consultation and participation is part of the national and political culture. Where this is the case, partners are more involved and able to formulate, and even implement, programmes and projects.

4.3 Experience shows that overall the implementation of the partnership principle seems to have improved over the years even if the appraisal thereof varies between partners. Major obstacles, which vary from country to country, and sometimes also within countries, still remain. Nevertheless, in some MS the perception of civil society is that there were some set-backs compared the programming period 2000-2006.

4.4 In recent years, the Commission has become more than ever focussed on formalities and audit requirements. There is less scope for small enterprise and organisations to run projects. Adequate resources to support small projects have to a large extent disappeared. Community initiative programmes have been abolished and mainstreaming them has failed in most MS.

4.5 Partnership is still viewed in a formalistic manner: often there is distrust between the authorities and the partners as they have no common or clear view on the purpose of their partnership. There is no clear understanding of what constitutes organised civil society and its role; this is reinforced by the unclear rules of the Regulation and by authorities perceiving partnership as an additional burden. The legitimacy and representativeness of partners is questioned and fears arise that excessive and time-consuming consultations might slow down the implementation of programmes.

4.6 Consequently, consultation procedures are often inadequate, being too bureaucratic, too technical and with insufficient time-lines granted to partners. There is a large information gap between the competent authorities and the partners. Often, the latter are only partially involved in policy-shaping and implementation. Disregarding partners means that they are not being listened to. There is also a resistance towards new thinking and innovative ideas. The current rules and their implementation are not adapted to promote partnership. As a result, partners are discouraged from taking part and becoming committed.

4.7 In order to fulfil their role as partner, many socio-economic players and NGOs require appropriate knowledge, organisation, professional capacity and financial resources. It is particularly difficult for small organisations to take part fully.

4.8 A BusinessEurope survey shows significant improvement for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the previous one, due to more experience from authorities and social partners, more transparency in discussions and better organised consultation and implementation procedures. Involvement is generally seen as more satisfactory at national level than at regional level. Improvements are certainly needed in those MS that joined the EU recently but this is also true for countries with long membership in the EU. BusinessEurope highlights the gap of a short consultation process and a long delay in programme implementation and asks for better feedback from the consultation process.

4.9 UEAPME favours a bottom-up and ‘think small first’ approach, adapted to the needs of local enterprises and communities. Partnership should be developed within a framework of multi-level and multi-actor governance. UEAPME underlines the notion of horizontal subsidiarity as a factor for success i.e. engaging socio-economic partners simultaneously at European, national and local levels. Administrative and financial rules must be simplified, and there is a need for larger advance payments, as well as global grants, which are very effective. According to UEAPME, there are regions in which small enterprises receive just 1-2 per cent of available EU funding. To access funds, SMEs must work in partnership and through intermediary organisations. Technical assistance here is indispensable. UEAPME demands that the Commission publish a vademecum on how funds can be used.

4.10 ETUC believes there has not been so much improvement in the last programming period. It demands clear rules in the Regulation to define partnership and asks for minimum requirements. The quality of partnership depends much on the will of authorities to implement the principle. ETUC agrees that national and regional partnership is working better than local partnership. It is important to share experience. Interregional cooperation programmes have to be strengthened particularly through the involvement of Interregional Trade Union Councils. ETUC has published a handbook based on practical experience from its members on how trade unions can work with the ESF.

4.11 In February 2010, the European social partners (ETUC, BE, CEEP) published a joint report on the ESF. The major conclusion is that capacity-building is crucial to improve the Fund's effectiveness. Other obstacles highlighted are administrative rigidities and low understanding of partnership in some MS. The social partners call for a stronger partnership between themselves and the regional/local authorities.

4.12 The European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) suggests that consultation should be broad and deep covering different types of organisations and using a multiplicity of methods. Participation costs should be met and meetings sufficiently frequent. For EAPN it is important to integrate the lessons of EQUAL in the ESF, focussing on the principles for innovation, partnership, gender mainstreaming and transnationality. More room should be made for small projects, as in the previous programming period.

4.13 ECAS proposes that MS and regions should draw up an information, consultation and participation plan covering all stages of programmes and their projects. Those plans should be published and evaluated within a framework of multilevel governance and partnership bringing together local leaders. ECAS suggests that a community of practice be established by regions wanting to take leadership on sharing experience.

4.14 In a 2008 report published by CpKP of the Czech Republic, NGOs from Central and Eastern Europe analysed through their SF platform team partnership in six countries (BG, HU, LT, PO, RO, SK) and concluded that limited capacity of NGOs in the biggest issue. CpKP also found there is low political support for partnership. NGOs need to educate their experts and managers through technical assistance of programmes; this assistance is more usually used directly by the public administration. The selection process to participate in the Monitoring Committees and other bodies should be made with greater care.

4.15 An EP report (2) based on case studies says that moving governance to lower territorial levels is important, as is the creation of intermediary platforms or bodies for coordination and informal networks. It also recommends reducing the complexity of programmes. Policy learning and capacity building should be organised through specific measures, such as strategic discussions, transnational actions, support structures, dissemination of good practices.

5. General remarks

5.1 The EESC is convinced and indeed has repeatedly argued in past opinions that partnership which is genuine and profound in character will lead to more targeted and effective use of the structural funds and thereby to more successful projects. Partnership must be based on a long-term perspective of real participation providing equal opportunities for private partners to take part alongside with the public authorities. Real partnership creates a win-win situation for all stakeholders.

5.2 The citizen must be at heart of all Community policies. Therefore, partnership in the context of the structural funds should reflect a bottom-up approach and provide opportunities for all citizens and their organisations to become involved in cohesion policy and the projects it funds. Where the partnership principle permeates programming and implementation, it leads to active participation of citizens and organised civil society in cohesion policy thereby strengthening democracy.

5.3 Achieving a culture of real partnership is a process of learning. It is about empowering partners and creating equal opportunities for all of them to take part in all phases of cohesion policy implementation. Evidence shows that resources for capacity-building have played a crucial role to make partnership more efficient. Therefore such resources should be used for all partners, both private and public and in all operational programmes – not only in the convergence regions Further ‘joint training’ between public and private partners is greatly needed.

5.4 An imbalance between partners exists with regard to influence and power, access to information, financial means, professional capacity, etc. For the post-2013 period there is a strong need to establish a framework that will create a new balance between the public authorities and the private sector through a governance model based on the partnership principle in which regional and local dimensions as well as private social and economic actors are cornerstones.

5.5 All private and public partners must trust each other and rise beyond their own particular interests; this requires a change of mindset. A new culture of dialogue, based on ‘think small first’ which meets the needs of local enterprises and organisations is required. Public authorities must be open to the inputs provided; private partners need to be committed, which can be stimulated by allowing more private co-financing in the projects. Partners' involvement must be sought from an early stage, empowering them to play a decisive and constructive role.

5.6 Social partners as key socio-economic actors must be involved, as well as social economy organisations and NGOs. It is important to encourage pluralism by including small innovative enterprises, organisations and other actors who can be protagonists for the future. However partnership should also be made flexible and targeted according to the specific needs of the various programmes.

5.7 As was stated above, political culture, tradition and experience determine how the partnership principle is put into practice in MS. As these vary widely within a Union of 27 Member States, there is no single homogenous model to fit all contexts. Therefore practices must be shared in a mutual learning process; all stakeholders share a common responsibility for the dissemination of good practice thus rendering the funds more efficient.

5.8 Responsibilities, rights and obligations within the partnership are different according to the respective role and the status of the partners. This is particularly the case when the right of participation is confronted with the decision making powers regarding budgets. Even so, this dichotomy can be overcome if all partners pursue a consensual approach on strategy and funding.

5.9 In the current Regulation, it is the MS that manages the application of the partnership principle in accordance with national rules and practices. For the EESC there is a strong and urgent need to establish European minimum requirements on how to organise a high standard of partnership. Therefore the EESC feels that the ERDF should reorient its focus more on small enterprise, innovation and local development, to use instruments that favour and benefit partnership like targeted programmes, global grants and so on.

5.10 Programming in general can and must be reformed to reinforce partnership. This will happen by making programmes more targeted and problem-oriented in objective and scope (e.g. geographical area, sector, task).

5.11 That programme structures directly determine the prospects for successful partnership was clear in Community initiatives, such as EQUAL and URBAN II, where partnership was explicitly required. That these initiatives were abolished can be seen as a regression of the partnership principle in comparison to the 2000-06 programming period. Many MS have failed to mainstream the EQUAL experience in the present programming period despite such a provision existing in the ESF Regulation.

5.12 Targeted at rural areas, LEADER was, from the start, a forerunner of implementing the partnership principle. Even if no longer a Community initiative, it must be noted that the LEADER method is fully mainstreamed as a mandatory axis of the rural development programmes in the current period, both thanks to the success of the initiative and to the more stringent provisions of the EAFRD regulation (EC) 1698/2005, article 6. Its aim is to involve and mobilise local actors by creating territorial alliances for endogenous local development. Setting up a local partnership known as a ‘local action group’ (LAG) is an original feature. At local decision-making level, socio-economic partners and civil society are in majority. LEADER is supported by national rural networks, composed of a broad partnership that links the local projects with the national and EU level.

5.13 The EESC regrets that the European Commission's role has become, in recent times, rather procedural and formal thereby focussing more on auditing and less on real results. The EESC underlines that the Commission should be stronger and more proactive in implementing the partnership principle. In a return to the philosophy of the cohesion policy of the past, the Commission should transform itself from just being an observer to becoming a real and involved ‘partner’.

5.14 The EESC has found that complex administrative and financial procedures related to programmes and projects of the structural funds have a stifling, discouraging and even dissuasive effect, for notably SMEs, micro enterprises and social economy organisations, to benefit from the structural funds. For the EESC, simplification of such procedures both at EU and national level is, therefore, a logical corollary to the need to arrive at successful partnership as is the speeding up of payments. This is a matter of absolute urgency.

5.15 Global grants have proved to be extremely efficient in bringing the management of the funds closer to the beneficiaries and their needs. Such grants have been instrumental in funding small projects. The EESC regrets that this system has been severely curtailed in the current round as compared to the period 2000-2006. It argues that all MS make an extended use of global grants in both funds with real ownership by the beneficiaries in order to release the enormous potential of SMEs and the social economy.

5.16 A stronger and more extensive activity of the EIB would be a welcome addition in this respect. The EESC also pleads for reinforcing the JEREMIE programme, with a view to stimulating support for small enterprises and their organisations.

5.17 The EESC reiterates its demand to integrate and coordinate all the funds associated with the Union's cohesion policy, including also the EAFRD and the European Fishery Fund into Single Operational Programmes. Such an integration will further efficient partnership, as partners generally have a holistic view of development. The EESC believes there is also a case for actively pursuing integration with national policies, thus benefiting doubly from an integrated approach at European and national level.

5.18 This demand is fully in line with the April 2009 Barca Report (3) which highlights the role of partnership with organised civil society in order to give the territorial dimension of cohesion policy a key role in European integration. Partnership is crucial for effective and good use of the funds. The report underlines the need to mobilise local actors in the territories and to engage citizens through public debate. Barca suggests that in 2010-2012 a genuine strategic debate involving civil society should precede the future cohesion policy after 2013.

6. European initiatives for improvements

6.1 The EESC argues that a series of compulsory and voluntary actions at European and national level are needed to improve and strengthen partnership in the structural funds and to extend what is perceived as good practice in partnership to all MS. The EESC calls for the various EU regulations to be amended. Furthermore, a code of good practice is needed, linked to stronger guidance given by the European Commission.

6.2 The EESC proposes that article 11 laying down the measures of partnership in the current general Regulation 1083/2006 to be revised as follows (a consolidated text with all proposed changes is attached in Appendix 1) for use in a future new Regulation.

6.2.1 After the wording ‘in accordance with national rules and practices’ paragraph 1 should be completed with the wording ‘after agreement with the relevant partners’. Only by seeking agreement with the partners on the nature of that partnership, can the process be truly legitimised and lead to more successful projects. The EESC subscribes to the provisions already taken in the framework of the ESF Committee to determine who the relevant partners are; this particular provision should be extended to all structural funds.

6.2.2 The EESC believes it is indispensible to incorporate in Article 11 the idea that the implementation of the partnership principle should be monitored jointly by the Commission, the MS and organised civil society. The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) provides an excellent model for this. The Commission, in cooperation with the MS, sets objectives, establishes indicators and guidelines, benchmark performance and exchanges good practices as well as evaluations made through peer reviews.

6.2.3 The Lisbon Treaty recognises the OMC, which is found in articles TFEU 149, 153, 156, 168, 173 and 181. Consequently the EESC suggests introducing a similar formulation which should be added in article 11: ‘The Commission may in close contact with the MS take initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice and preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation’. The major European organisations representing social partners and civil society should also take part.

6.2.4 The consultation of economic and social partners at European level ‘should take place at least twice a year’ and also include concerned and representative organisations quoted in article 11.1.c) as well as rural development organisations in order to create a link to the EAFRD. Such consultations should already be organised now as part of a genuine strategic debate at European level to precede the future cohesion policy after 2013 (see Barca).

6.2.5 Likewise, the EESC suggests that the specific consultation processes of each fund at EU level should be improved. Without reducing the privileged role of the social partners, the ESF Committee should, after appropriate consultations, co-opt a limited number of observers from other representative stakeholders' organisations.

6.2.6 The EESC strongly advocates that the ERDF and EAFRD regulations be amended to take on board the concept developed in article 5 on ‘good governance and partnership’ from the ESF regulation. The Committee also suggests that a Partnership Committee appears in the new ERDF regulation.

6.2.7 The EESC particularly underlines that ‘an appropriate amount of resources shall be allocated to capacity-building open to all private partners’ and suggests therefore that as a guideline 10 per cent of the TA budget should be put aside for capacity-building and learning in all operational programmes. European training benefiting the national level, thereby also facilitating exchange of experience and good practice should also be supported.

6.3 In order to achieve necessary simplification, the EESC thinks that audits and controls on projects should be rationalised. Payments, financial guarantees and pre-financing should be adapted and speeded up to the needs of the beneficiaries, especially where these concern small players. Current possibilities for pre-financing, despite a number of improvements proposed by the Commission in 2009, remain largely inadequate.

6.4 With a view to fulfilling minimum requirements leading to a high standard of partnership, the EESC proposes that the Commission together with representatives of the partner categories mentioned in article 11 should develop a Code of Good Practice regarding the exercise of the partnership principle based on the following guidelines:

— from the outset, the appropriate public and private partners should agree upon an information/consultation/participation plan for programming, implementation and evaluation with clear objectives and a roadmap to follow;

— the competent authorities should report on how they have taken into account the partnership principle in their proposals and reports. The views of the partners should be clearly and openly documented;

— the partnership should be given the responsibility for procedures to select their own members to Management Committees (hereafter MC) and other consultative bodies established within the framework of the structural funds. Selection should be based on interest, representativity and openness towards new, dedicated and innovative actors;

— technical assistance in all operational programmes should be available for all partners for capacity building, coordination and representation; the partners themselves formulating and managing such projects;

— partnership should be involved in setting up criteria for project selection from the beginning;

— partnership should be a criteria for projects financed by the funds;

— transnational partnership should be furthered;

— indicators for an efficient management from the view point of beneficiaries should be established;

— simplification of procedures and controls should be implemented;

— payments to beneficiaries should be speeded up;

— long term strategies should be discussed in the MCs or in other appropriate bodies linked to the NSRF.

6.5 When Operational Programmes are significantly revised during the programming period, the partnership principle should be rigidly observed and highlighted.

6.6 The EESC proposes that regions wanting to share their experience and disseminate good practice set up a network of ‘regions of excellence in partnership’. Embryos for such a network already exist (4). To promote such an initiative the EESC suggest a joint action between itself and the Committee of Regions and the EU Commission. The Committee of the Regions would indeed be an appropriate mentor for such a network.

6.7 Finally, the EESC proposes that the Commission head up the formation of a working group consisting of all relevant partners at European level to promote the partnership principle from different perspectives also that state aid and procurement rules should not have negative effects on partnership.

7. Good practice

7.1 During the drafting of this opinion good practice has been identified from the perspective of the involvement and role of the private partners, not the public authorities. The cases briefly presented in a separate Appendix are just a sample. There are certainly others.

7.2 Good practice has been judged from four perspectives: access to partnership, empowerment of the partners, decision-making partnerships and targeted partnerships.

7.3 Good practice in one of the fields does not necessarily mean an overall good practice. On the other hand the same case may be good practice in two or more fields. There are some cases that should be particularly highlighted like the systematic partnership approach all over England; the successful Peace Programme for Reconciliation in Northern Ireland in which local partnerships and grass-root involvement are a key factors; the partnership management of all funds (including EAFRD) for an integrated development in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (D), the unique civil society management (Fundación ONCE and others) of an ESF operational programme (E), the support structure for the third sector in Wales (3-SET).

7.4 All four perspectives of good practice can be seen in some interesting cases where structural funds are explicitly targeted to respond the needs of the local actors: the innovative partnership (trade unions/cooperatives/banks) which manages the global grant Esprit in Tuscany (I); the strategic and increased use of global grants in Poitou-Charentes (F); the Austrian Territorial Employment Pacts and the decentralised management of the ESF in Baden-Württemberg (D). The local action groups within LEADER should also be mentioned in this context.

7.5 A dynamic process of improving and developing the partnership principle is also good practice. Poland is a case in point where decentralised management of the funds to working groups in which partners have a decisive role should be highlighted. The national framework agreement (Protocollo d'Intesa) on partnership rules in Italy as well as its follow-up in some regions e.g. in Puglia are good intentions to follow up on.

7.6 The EESC notes that generally there is only partial involvement of national and/or regional economic and social committees with the exception for Italian CNEL has a substantial role in regional policy-making and evaluation for Mezzogiorno (South Italy). The Committees in e.g. Portugal, France (regional level), and Malta take part in the programming phase.

7.7 Access raises questions about how and what partners are selected. Procedure of transparency and legitimacy are needed to define partners. Selection is normally not a problem with the social partners but rather with the NGO sector and particularly how to include vulnerable and marginalised groups, e.g. disabled, ex-prisoners, Roma and other ethnic minorities.

7.7.1 To leave responsibility for selection with organised civil society is good practice. One interesting example is found in the Czech Republic (election system).

7.8 Several interesting examples of building capacity and empowering the partnerships have been found like for instance:

— social dialogue learning (e.g. Czech Republic);

— building up professional capacity in the partner organisations (Mezzogiorno, Germany, Spain, Poitou-Charentes, Slovenia);

— creating specific knowledge centers or ‘observatories’ (‘Kompetenzstellen’ in Germany, 3-SET in Wales);

— developing manuals and guidance for the partnership organisations at national (e.g. DGB Brandenburg Germany) and European level (ETUC, EAPN, Bankwatch).

7.9 In some cases real decision-making over which project to finance has been delegated to organisations within the partnership. Global grants is just one case in point (Italy, UK, France).The Sweden model (Västra Götaland and other Structural Fund Partnerships) and the abovementioned ONCE Fundación operational programme are others.

7.10 A few programmes are well targeted; geographically, groups, sectors, communities, specific tasks etc. and thereby also normally closely linked to a specific group of partners which have the real decision-making power. The Peace Programme in Northern Ireland as well as the Growth forums (Denmark) but also the local initiatives mentioned above in point 7.4. belong to this category of good practice.

8. Proposed changes to current article 11 of Council Regulation No 1083/2006:

Article 11

Partnership

1. The objectives of the Funds shall be pursued in the framework of close cooperation, (hereinafter referred to as partnership), between the Commission and each Member State. Each Member State shall organise, a partnership with authorities and bodies such as:

(a) the competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities;

(b) the economic and social partners;

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

Each Member State shall designate the most representative partners at national, regional and local level and in the economic, social, environmental or other spheres (hereinafter referred to as partners), in accordance with national rules and practices, taking account of the need to promote equality between men and women and sustainable development through the integration of environmental protection and improvement requirements.

2. The partnership shall be conducted in full compliance with the respective institutional, legal and financial powers of each partner category as defined in paragraph 1. The partnership shall cover the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of operational programmes. Member States shall involve , each of the relevant partners, and particularly the regions, in the different stages of programming within the time limit set for each stage.

3. he Commission shall consult the organisations representing the partners at European level on assistance from the Funds.

Brussels, 14 July 2010. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) Cfr. Art. 11 of Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 on the structural funds.

(2) ‘Governance and partnership at national and regional levels, and basis for projects in the field of regional policy’, Rapporteur Jean-Marie Beaupuy, European Parliament voted on 21.10.2008.

(3) An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A Place Based Approach to meeting European Union Challenges and expectations – May 2009.

(4) For instance Reves (partnership regional/local authorities and social economy), Bankwatch Network, IQ net (regional management authorities and research), the ECAS initiative, and Community of Practice involving managing authorities of the ESF.