Template and guidance for the content of the Partnership Agreement 24 May 20013

Main issues raised by the experts The role of the COM services position paper The structure of the PA: Concerns of experts that the PA would not be sufficiently political in its presentation; Views that a binding structure will not be sufficiently flexible especially if there are character limits for each sub-section Concerns expressed over "automatic adjustment" of data included in PA on the basis of data in programmes Some experts noted duplication between the PA and the OP We also received many questions on the draft legislation itself

Main changes (1) 3 As regards the structure and submission modalities of the PA: Openness to different submission modalities, no rigid character limits proposed per section, but overall length should remain reasonable The general structure of the PA (the order of elements) is set out in Article 14 and has been subject to considerable negotiation prior to agreement. A guidance document cannot derogate from provisions agreed by the co-legislators Close link with OPs (automatic revision of the PA following certain modification of programmes, Article 87 (8) etc). At least tabular data should be structured to facilitate all scenarios envisaged in the CPR MS should ensure that programmes are consistent with the PA submitted to the COM – with the last programme submitted the numbers in the PA should add up correctly (SFC check)

Main changes (2) 4 Reflection on the implementation of Article 87 (8) in practice: Advanced stage of preparation of OP is necessary to use this possibility Technical options as regards SFC are still being explored PA template now sets out in more details the implications of the use of this possibility as regards the content of the PA

Main changes (3) Clarifications as a response to inquiries: Role of the COM services position paper "Funding priorities" The presentation of information on ex-ante conditionalities etc.

The complementarity of PA and programmes under cohesion policy The content envisaged in the CPR for the OP mirrors closely the content of the PA The difference is in the level of information provided – in PA for the 5 ESI Funds at a strategic level, in programme at a more operational level Article 87 (8) was proposed by co-legislators to address overlaps in small MS where programmes are prepared at national level No need for duplication – OP should complement the PA as necessary, but not duplicate the same information

Q and A – ETC in PA The PA is a national document ETC is generally not covered by the PA However, ETC is relevant in the context of: (national) priorities for cooperation including under the ETC goal; arrangements to ensure coordination between ESI Funds.

Q and A - CLLD CLLD is bottom-up BUT - Member State should decide: which ESI Funds it will use for CLLD; the allocation set aside for CLLD; how it will coordinate the use of these Funds and ensure their complementarity; whether it will target CLLD territorially or thematically etc. This section is not subject to COM decision in the PA, but there should be clarity of arrangements from the onset to ensure a coherent approach and avoid implementation issues later on

Outstanding issues The agreement between the co-legislators on the performance reserve and its implementation arrangements Pending agreements on other areas such as N+2/N+3, additionality etc. Timing of adoption of Fund-specific rules – close tracking of developments, specific rules potentially necessary A revision of the template is likely to be necessary following a political agreement on all blocks

The template and guidance on the content of the operational programmes under the Investment in growth and jobs goal and the model for such programmes

Main issues raised by experts 11 The use of a structured model for the purposes of consultation and communication on the strategy and content of the operational programme Proposals to raise or to abolish character limits, concerns over restrictions The need to clarify the requirements as regards operational programmes dedicated exclusively to technical assistance Calls for simplification of certain sections (on partnership, the integrated approach to poverty) Proposals for reduction of duplication Many questions on the legislation itself – particularly on the links between different elements of the priority axis

Main changes (1) The introduction of a voluntary "citizens summary" to facilitate consultation and communication. This is: Not required by the CPR and therefore not obligatory; Not subject to the Commission decision approving the operational programme; Document upload - "free-format" and without character restrictions; Can include a desciption of each priority axis.

Main changes (2) An operational programme is not only a strategic and a communication document, it is a practical programming and management tool The structure of the priority axis is preserved: It is the outcome of a lengthy negotiation process and has been agreed by the co-legislators The presentation of information in the programme, including the precise order of elements and nature of the links between them were considered essential many Member States The cross referencing option can be used where certain elements have already been described under another part of the programme - no duplication necessary

Main changes (3) TA operational programmes Article 87 does not envisage any specific rules on operational programmes dedicated exclusively to technical assistance Nevertheless, certain sections are generally less relevant for TA programmes than for other operational programmes Since TA does not fall under any of the thematic objectives or investment priorities certain fields will be "not applicable" The aim has been to elaborate when the different sections set out in the template/model are relevant for TA operational programmes and to outline guidance on the content of those sections in such programmes

Main changes (4) Streamlining of the section on partnership, reordering Streamlining of the section on the integrated approach to poverty, notably the structured information

Q and A – intervention logic Investment priorities are objectives set out at EU level, not lists of eligible actions. Specific objectives define the investment priority (objective set out at EU level) in the specific national and regional context One can support any action falling into the scope of the Fund concerned as long as it contributes to the thematic objective, investment priority and the specific objectives defined by the Member State Result indicators are linked to specific objectives Output indicators are more closely linked to the types of actions supported but should be coherent with the specific objectives

Q and A - intervention logic (2) All types of actions outlined in progammes (and eventually all operations supported) should contribute to specific objectives set out in the programme (and therefore also to investment priorities and thematic objectives) See PGA on Article 114 (3) of the CPR Effect on attainment of milestones and targets set for the programme

Q and A - other Character limits should establish a maximum for largest programmes in any language The list of major projects is part of the operational programme but not subject to COM decision – can be modified at national/regional level Many sections and tables are to be filled in "where appropriate". E.g. there is no requirement to use CLLD or ITIs, some MS have no major projects etc. There are additional fiches on categorisation and tracking of climate change related expenditure and on the performance framework

Open issues The performance reserve and its implementation N+2/N+3 We are still open to proposals on character limits (part of the IA) to ensure that these are appropriate

Thank you!