Cohesion
Policy
Clearing house in
Cohesion Policy:
state of play
Paris SI 2010
30 September 2010
1
Cohesion
Policy
Context reminder
2
Cohesion
Context reminder (1/2) Policy
• In January 2007, the Commission presented the Action Programme for
reducing administrative burdens (AB) on businesses by 25% in 2012.
• Action Programme endorsed by European Council in March 2007 and
grouped the AB in 13 areas (including Cohesion Policy).
• A High Level Group was appointed, chaired by Mr Stoiber.
• Outcome:
– Communication COM (2009) 544 adopted on 22/10/2009
– Proposal of implementing National/regional Clearing Houses
• Potential impact : 929M€ to be spared by businesses = 25% of the
reduction of administrative burden in Cohesion Policy
• The EC agreed to perform a feasibility study. However, simplification
is not only an EC matter but also an MS matter
3
Cohesion
Context reminder (2/2) Policy
The Clearing House Recommendation
• Clearing Houses do not store data centrally, but keep track of what information is stored
where. It should enable interactive portals and ensure that all information will be submitted
only once by Final Beneficiaries.
Second pillar : create an
electronic exchange of info with
beneficiaries (« electronic one-
stop-shop ») First pillar : sharing the same info
4
Cohesion
Policy
Set-up of the study
5
Cohesion
Policy
Set-up of the study – data
4 pillar approach:
Interviews of DG REGIO Information Provided By
Geographical Units collection States (Chapter 6 of
Member
MCS)
18 interviews
Approx. 40 interviewees 25 countries analyzed
Approx. 1.330 pages reading material
1 By combining these data sources with 3
our administrative burden
measurement results, adequate input
has been collected.
2 4
Interviews With DG EMPL Online Questionnaire
Geographical Units 130 mails sent out
(70 for national/local programs and 60 for
territorial cooperation programs)
5 interviews 20 countries filled in the survey
Approx. 10 interviewees Target: representatives of national
Managing Authorities and of territorial
cooperation programs
6
6
Cohesion
Policy
Overview of
intermediate results
7
Cohesion
Policy
Main Findings
Findings Overview
The study has produced for the first time an overview of the situation of the
1 Cohesion Policy domain in Europe from an IT systems point of view.
Most Member States have a centralized system / database and have centered
2 their efforts mostly on intergovernmental interoperability in recent years.
Not all Member States offer online portals towards Beneficiaries and there are
3 significant differences in the level of sophistication of these portals.
A focus on transactional self service for Beneficiaries is the main improvement
4 area going forward.
Portals can be improved by advanced functionalities, to ease the work of the
5 Managing Authorities and Beneficiaries.
In terms of Administrative Burden, some MS have already reduced it by
6 implementing intelligent portals.
Best ways to increase the use of such portals are:
- Sharing best practices throughout all MS;
- Decreasing the number and the complexity of the legal obligations.
7 - Clarify their interpretation in the context of e-government and Digital Agenda.
8
8
Cohesion
Policy
Clearing Houses / Centralised IT
systems
9
9
Cohesion
Policy
Most Member States and
Prevalence of Centralized Systems And Clearing Houses In Europe
Territorial Cooperation
Centralized System
Data is stored centrally and administrations that manage ERDF, ESF and Cohesion
Fund connect to this system.
Clearing HouseProgrammes Have a Data is owned and stored in a decentralized way, at administration level, but the
system allows to point to these separate data sources for storage and retrieval
purposes.
Centralised System Or a 13%
Clearing House System In Centralised System or
Clearing House
Place No Centralised System
or Clearing House
87%
Remark: the percentages given in the above chart aggregate the data of the programmes at Member States level and the Territorial Cooperation Programmes
10
10
Cohesion
Policy
Portals
11
11
Cohesion
Policy
Portals For Beneficiaries (1)
72% of Member States and Territorial Cooperation Programmes Have Portals Targeted At
Beneficiaries
Self service Sophisticated portals allow beneficiaries to use e-services such as uploading project
information, consultation of personalised files, e-submission of forms, etc.
The functionalities offered to the Beneficiaries and in particular the level of interactivity
of the portals varies greatly.
Sophistication Scale of Portals for Use by Beneficiaries
Level 1 Basic information provision provided to beneficiaries; passive
website where information can be read.
for beneficiaries
Level 2 One-way interaction on the website. to fill in information;
downloadable forms
Two-way interaction (Electronic forms that allow two way
Level 3 information exchange, meaning information can be uploaded
into the system as well.)
Level 4 ‘Full’ electronic case handling. (eg. Follow-up the status of
your files yourself).
Level 5 Personalisation: pro-active and automatic handling (eg. pre-
filled forms, deadlines, alarms,...)
12
12
Cohesion
Policy
Portals For Beneficiaries (2)
Often, there are Multiple Portals within a Member State or Region.
However, many Member States indicate that information is shared.
Given that in many regions, there are multiple portals, which are often managed by
different administrations, we looked at whether information that is submitted to one
Sharing Data portal was shared between administrations. This also indicates whether there is
strong data sharing between administrations at regional / national level.
In the event that multiple portals exist, do you need to
submit the same information:
Only once. To different authorities (more than once).
19%
81%
Remark: the percentages given in the above chart aggregate the data of the programs at Member States level and the Territorial Cooperation Programs
13
13
Cohesion
Policy
Preliminary measurement results
14
14
Cohesion
Policy
New measurement
(on 07-13 Regulation) € 1.001.713.020
Despite the numerous efforts made in
the different Member States, these
figures show that the aggregate
Administrative Burden of the
implementation of the Cohesion
Policy for the EU has not decreased.
Previous measurement
€ 929.125.000
(on 00-06 Regulation)
Recent efforts made by MS to enhance the IT systems have often been made to diminish the
burden for the Managing Authorities and the focus should now be put on the Beneficiaries’
side.
15
15
Cohesion
Policy
Segment differentiation ABCohesion Policy
Regulation
S egment 1 centralized
/ selfservice portal
5%
15% S egment 2 centralized
2.
Centralized government 15% / no self service portal
&
No Selfservice portal 65% Segment 3
decentralized /
selfservice portal
Segment 4
decentralized / no
selfservice portal
•The biggest Administrative Burden within the Cohesion Policy arise in Member States with
a central administration and where no self service portal are provided to the Beneficiaries.
•There is no evidence of a direct correlation between the size of the Burden and the degree
of centralisation.
•There is however a convincing evidence that the absence of self service portals for
Beneficiaries has a major impact on the Administrative Burden.
16
16
Cohesion
Policy
• Conclusions
17
17
Cohesion
Policy
Centralised, Clearing House Systems and Portals
Conclusions and The Way Ahead
Interoperability Member States have centered efforts mostly on intergovernmental interoperability.
Focus on transactional self service for Beneficiaries is the main improvement area
Portals going forward. A strong drive is needed towards improved two-way electronic file
handling.
Good practice include:
•The ability to submit all information requested by authorities through portals, and not having to send the same
information on paper;
•Electronic forms that allow beneficiaries to upload information directly into the system;
•Personalised files (pre-filled forms) and individual communications. Automated workflows and processes that allow
beneficiaries to follow-up the status of their records;
•Availability of useful relevant documents, such as the EU regulations, examples of quality projects realized in the
past, etc.;
•The access to automatic financial calculations, such as cost-benefit analyses;
•An enhanced help desk and assistance, including the possibility to easily contact consultants that can give
guidance on the projects or explain the legislation, a FAQ section, some e-learnings and tutorials, etc.
Only a limited set of Member States report to have these key capabilities, and none surveyed has them all.
18
18
Cohesion
Policy
Potential future
scenario
19 19
Cohesion
Policy
Future Scenario (1)
Main Potential Future Scenario
To help Member States and leaders of Territorial Cooperation Programmes
to put in place the concept of a portal for Beneficiaries for the 2014 – and
onwards – period ("Europe 2020 Digital Agenda")
Actively showcasing instances where beneficiaries can use a full range
Best practice of e-services such as uploading project information, consultation of
sharing personalised files, e-submission of forms, workflows etc.
Possible forum is http://www.epractice.eu/
+
Working with Member States to establish minimum principles in the
Cohesion Policy Area:
- “Let the data do the walking principle” : allowing businesses to only
Regulation submit information once.
- Minimum level of portal functionalities: e.g. Possibility to send all
information electronically, and avoiding, for information submitted
electronically, having to send the same information on paper.
20
20
Cohesion
Policy
Scenario Evaluation Summary
Value criteria
With legal obligation
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Necessity
Visibility
& Reusability
Risk criteria
Organisational
Complexity
Without legal obligation
Technical
Complexity
Dependencies
Lack of
Stakeholders’ Buy-in
21