Abstract
EU institutions and MS broadly recognise the benefits in supporting positive interactions between ESI Funds, both internally and externally with RRF: supporting more efficient absorption by identifying risks of duplication; encouraging more strategic investment by exploring complementarities and potential synergy effects; and strengthening implementation through sharing of capacities, resource and knowledge across funding bodies. However, the pursuit of positive interactions is challenged by regulatory gaps between EU Funds and instruments and differences in governance systems: internally, in spite of the CPR being a ‘common rulebook’, Funds continue to have their own regulations; externally, positive ESIF interactions with the new RRF are important, but the ESIF model is very different and much more complex than the RRF framework, which is under ‘direct management’.
Governance structures and mechanisms are being used to encourage positive interactions, usually in the form of working groups or networks dedicated to exploring complementarities and synergies between specific instruments or through specific programme architectures (multi-Fund OPs and bodies that combine management tasks across multiple programmes). Setting shared strategic priorities strengthens the scope for positive interactions, but this varies across thematic fields. Notable examples are R&D, social
inclusion, SUD. Implementation systems are crucial to realise plans for achieving these interactions, but it is often the case that the impetus for developing complementarities and synergies declines over time. Achieving these positive interactions is demanding. Input from the programme level in setting and implementing provisions for achieving complementarities in practice for this is vital.
Close complementarity or synergy across Funds should not always be seen as the ultimate goal. Demarcation rather than complementarity may be the focus. Thus, efforts to develop complementarities and synergies though potentially valuable must
be clearly justified in terms of strategic impacts, implementation efficiency and programme performance.
Governance structures and mechanisms are being used to encourage positive interactions, usually in the form of working groups or networks dedicated to exploring complementarities and synergies between specific instruments or through specific programme architectures (multi-Fund OPs and bodies that combine management tasks across multiple programmes). Setting shared strategic priorities strengthens the scope for positive interactions, but this varies across thematic fields. Notable examples are R&D, social
inclusion, SUD. Implementation systems are crucial to realise plans for achieving these interactions, but it is often the case that the impetus for developing complementarities and synergies declines over time. Achieving these positive interactions is demanding. Input from the programme level in setting and implementing provisions for achieving complementarities in practice for this is vital.
Close complementarity or synergy across Funds should not always be seen as the ultimate goal. Demarcation rather than complementarity may be the focus. Thus, efforts to develop complementarities and synergies though potentially valuable must
be clearly justified in terms of strategic impacts, implementation efficiency and programme performance.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Place of Publication | Delft |
| Number of pages | 64 |
| Publication status | Published - 23 Jun 2021 |
| Event | 50th IQ-Net Conference : Pursuing Positive Interactions & Programmes in the context of COVID-19 - Virtual Duration: 21 Jun 2021 → 23 Jun 2021 |
Keywords
- cohesion policy
- recovery and resilience facility
- synergies