1
Table of Contents
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Table of Contents
The access of local authorities to European funds Regional analysis of the manner in which Romanian local authorities access EU funds
3
www.soros.ro
Table of Contents
13
Resources of the municipalities and accessing European funds 52 Social inclusion, at the local level, in Romania
86
The local hopes of decentralization
119
European funds: a solution or a problem?
152
Suggestions and recommendations for:
159
2
www.soros.ro
The access of local authorities to European funds
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Daniela Tarnovschi With the EU accession, the main source of funding for development programs is represented by the European funds. Various bodies of the national government consider them to be one of the solutions to overcome the economic and financial crisis. Local authorities (municipalities) are among the main beneficiaries of these funds. Over 50% of these amounts are available to them because they are eligible for multiple funding lines. This is why the Soros Foundation Romania has turned its attention to identifying the causes of the inclusion or exclusion of certain localities - or even regions - from the development funds. We also wished to monitor the efforts of the local authorities focusing on communities with a high risk of marginalization and exclusion from development programs, supported by European funds. If, at first, we have based our research on two simple hypothesis (those who currently have money will have money in the future as well; and the interest of local authorities in vulnerable groups, particularly Roma, is low) over time they have diversified and developed, and in the end we were presented with nine hypotheses. These premises, which we have taken as a starting point in 2008, were further developed in the research methodology.
3
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Assumptions: 1. Local authorities with small budgets, in relation with their population, do not have access to EU funds. 2. Local authorities with experience in drafting projects, especially in European preaccession projects, have access to EU funds. 3. Local authorities sharing the same political orientation as the County Council have access to EU funds (as they can rely on co-financing, advisory services and/ or financial support). 4. Local authorities which have a more developed infrastructure (paved roads, sewers, public water supply system, public lighting, gas supply, etc., in greater proportions) have access to EU funds. 5. Local authorities which were/are in a partnership relationship (with other municipalities, County Council, an NGO) have access to EU funds. 6. Local authorities which are less isolated (they are closer to a European road, to a railway, etc.) have access to EU funds. 7. Local authorities with faster access to means of communication (Internet, a shorter travelling distance to the county capital, etc.) will have access / have access to EU funds. 8. Local authorities with staff trained to access funds and whose main task consists of accessing European funds will have access / have access to EU funds. 9. Well informed local authorities have access to EU funds.
4
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
In 2008, our analysis approach of the phenomenon was focused on four development regions: Northeast, Southeast, West and Southwest. We conducted, during the period October - December 2008, a sociological research having two components: a quantitative component, based on a self-completed questionnaire, sent to all the Mayor’s Offices of the four development regions, with a response rate of 92%, and a qualitative component, which consisted of 16 case studies. We focused our approach on funds which could have been accessed by municipalities in 2004-2008. We have taken into account the variables that currently influence or that might influence the behaviour of local authorities - municipalities in accessing funds, taking the hypothesis made above as starting points. We have also focused our approach on identifying the knowledge level of the municipalities in what regards the vulnerable groups1 existing in the administrative unit, as well as the actions taken for them, in order to improve their living conditions. The research conducted in 2008 kept sight of the identification of the impact of factors that could influence the absorption of EU funds by local authorities: • the budgetary capacity of the locality; • the level of information regarding European funds; • the experience in accessing other European funds; • the political factor;
www.soros.ro
Methodology in 2008
1 The vulnerable groups are defined (Law 116/2008) as groups with limited access to the economic, political, educational and communication resources of the community
5
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Questionnaire-based research in 2008 Research was aimed at representatives of the local government of all the localities (1713) in the territory of the four development regions, Northeast, Southeast, West, and Southwest. The questionnaire was multi-thematic and it examined the issue of competitiveness at the level of the local community. It consisted mainly of factual questions about the activities of the municipality and of the community (local projects completed over a certain period of time, recipients of the guaranteed minimum income, unemployment, unhealthy housing, percentage of rehabilitated roads, length of the sanitation network etc.). In order to be able to answer, the respondents had to have a good knowledge of the topics in question, and to be well documented. The questionnaire was sent for completion (self-completion) to the representatives of all the municipalities (Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Secretary of the City Hall) of the four development regions (Northeast, Southeast, West and Southwest). According to our requirement, conveyed to the person managing the database, the percentage of completed questionnaires was not to be below 90%, and only questionnaires completed in the ratio of 90% were to be accepted as valid.
www.soros.ro
• the access to means of communication; • the partnership established with other institutions, etc..
6
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Response rate in 2008 The response rate was achieved, in that, out of 1713 municipalities, 1579 responded, i.e. a response rate of 92.17%. In 2008, the questionnaire was disseminated by Totem Communication. They have encountered many difficulties as far as data collection was concerned, as the authorities of the Romanian municipalities were not accustomed to provide such information, and, even at the level of the budgets (public information which should be displayed on websites, where applicable, or at least on boards), they have experienced various problems and discussions as to whether this data should be provided. In order to ensure a high rate of questionnaire responses and, hence, a higher degree of data significance, the questionnaire was accompanied by official cover letters issued by certain ministries. Qualitative research - case studies in 2008 The qualitative research was conducted after the dissemination of the questionnaires. We have selected the locations of the case studies from the database obtained from the application of the questionnaires, based on the following criteria: region, residential environment, experience with projects, and the budget category of the municipality. The case studies were based on a study guide, which included an observation guide and interview guides (at least 6 in each administrative-territorial unit) which had to be conducted with: the NGO representative (if any); the principal of the community’s school; the leader of an initiative group (if any) for the implementation of a project, talks with the leader thereof; local informal leaders (e.g. for a Roma community, the
7
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
“bulibaşa”); an employer / owner or manager of a farm, agricultural association or production company; an owner of various plots of land or of various animals, with no formal agricultural business organization and who would like to develop and register his business; and at least two interviews with the Mayor (the Deputy Mayor), and, as reserves, for further information, we could take into account interviews with an adviser to the Mayor or with the Secretary of the Mayor’s office, and where appropriate, with the head of European programmes, with the employee of the municipality in charge of such issues or with the head of the investments department or similar. The case studies had a socio-anthropological approach. Our aim was to take a “picture” of the localities, of the opportunities and problems that the people were facing. The field operators were requested to provide both the perspective of the authorities on many aspects, as well as that of the inhabitants. We have identified many acting and concurrent factors (to varying degrees), which determine small urban municipalities and mayor’s offices of rural areas to access or not external funds (other than those received directly from the Government, Ministries, County Council).
Research in 2009 In order to get the maximum effect from the results of previous research, conducted in 2008 (a reaction of the authorities responsible for administering EU funds), we opted for an analytical approach to the whole country. The analysis of the factors that 8
www.soros.ro
influence the access to post-accession EU funds and the interest of local authorities in disadvantaged groups, particularly the Roma, was not started “blindly�, instead it was based on the experience and the results obtained in 2008.
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Methodology in 2009 In August 2009 - January 2010, the Soros Foundation Romania conducted a sociological research having two components: a quantitative component, based on a self-completed questionnaire, sent to all municipalities across Romania, and a qualitative component, which consisted of 8 case studies. Now we focused our approach on post-accession funds, available to municipalities in the period 2007-2009. While the guidelines for the case studies were not significantly changed, the questionnaire underwent important changes, as we have developed the factors discovered have influenced the access to funds during the previous year. We have also added items on Roma communities, meant to help us obtain the image-perception that the local authorities have of them. (In 2008 there were cases in which mayors refused to declare that there were Roma communities in the area that they administered). Questionnaire-based research in 2009 Research was aimed at representatives of the local government of all of Romania’s territorial administrative units - 3185 municipalities.
9
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Response rate in 2009 3008 of the 3185 municipalities responded, i.e. a response rate of 94%. 10668 representatives of municipalities and 576 field operators, coordinators, auditors, and telephone operators participated in the research. On average, the questionnaire and the project statements required four persons per questionnaire, as well as a county coordinator, an interviewer and a call centre operator. In 2009, the questionnaire was disseminated by a consortium made up of the Romanian Centre for Economic Modelling (RCEM), the National Institute of Statistics
www.soros.ro
The questionnaire was multi-thematic. It was mainly composed of factual questions about the activities of the city hall and of the community. In order to be able to answer, the respondents had to have a good knowledge of the topics in question, and to be well documented. The questionnaire was sent for completion (self-completion) to the representatives of all the municipalities (Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Secretary of the City Hall). The questionnaire was divided into seven sections (demographic indicators and infrastructure; disadvantaged groups and social protection; human and financial resources of the City Hall, partnerships / associations of the City Hall; decentralization; information on European funding, access to European funds) to which a project form was added, that had to be completed by the City Hall for each project financed from post-accession EU funds. According to our requirement, the percentage of completed questionnaires was not to be below 90%, and only questionnaires completed in the ratio of 90% were to be accepted as valid.
10
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
(NIS), and the Quality of Life Research Institute (QLRI). To ensure a high rate of questionnaire responses and, therefore, a higher degree of data significance, the questionnaire was accompanied by official cover letters. Qualitative research - case studies in 2009 The qualitative research was conducted after the dissemination of the questionnaires. The case study locations were selected from the database that resulted from the dissemination of the questionnaire, considering the following criteria: region; municipality that had no submitted projects, on whose territory there was a Roma community and which was surrounded by other municipalities which had no submitted projects; municipality that had submitted projects and on whose territory there was a Roma community. The case studies were based on a study guide, which included an observation guide and interview guides (at least 6 in each administrative-territorial unit) which had to be conducted with: the NGO representative (if any); the principal of the community’s school; the leader of an initiative group (if any) for the implementation of a project, talks with its leader; local informal leaders (e.g. for a Roma community, the “bulibaşa”); an employer / owner or manager of a farm, agricultural association or production company; an owner of various plots of land or various animals, with no formal agricultural business organization and who would like to develop and register his business; and at least two interviews with the Mayor (or Deputy Mayor), and, as reserves, for further information, we could take into account interviews with an adviser to the Mayor or with the Secretary of the Mayor’s office, and where appropriate, with the head of European programs,
11
www.soros.ro
Introduction
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
with the employee of the municipality in charge of such issues or with the head of the investments department or similar. As in 2008, the case studies had a socio-anthropological approach. Our aim was to take a “picture� of the localities, of the opportunities and problems that the people were facing. The field operators were requested to provide both the perspective of the authorities on many aspects, as well as that of the inhabitants.
12
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Regional analysis of the manner in which Romanian local authorities access EU funds Cătălin Dărăşteanu
Introduction This chapter intends to draft a regional analysis of the manner in which European funds are accessed. We have considered, for the purposes of this analysis, the data collected through questionnaires, in 2009. To this end, data was collected from 3,185 locations in all eight economic development regions of Romania. This analysis takes place as a continuation of the research conducted with the same objective in 2008, in four economic development regions: Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, and West, respectively. Note should be made that the current study has taken into account the conclusions of the previous study, extending the scope of implementation at the national level. The analysis was performed on the following components: 1. Review of the European funds that can be accessed by local public authorities 2. Presentation of the budgets of the local authorities aiming at identifying the regional disparities in terms of budgets, respectively: a. the structure of the main categories of revenue and expenditure; 13
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
b. the evolution of budget indicators for 2007-2009; c. the shares of budget indicators; d. the number of inhabitants. 3. The access manner of the EU funds, by region, was considered based on the analysis of the following indicators: a. the share of local authorities which applied; b. the number of projects, in relation with the population, by region; c. the share of total approved projects; d. the share of projects currently undergoing implementation; e. the difficulty in accessing funds etc. 4. Conclusions and observations We have started this process by briefly summarizing the existing funding opportunities, through European funds. We have then performed a budget analysis of the administrative-territorial units in Romania (which completed the questionnaire), over a three-year period (2007-2009). We have also examined the access to European funds by region: whether the investigated municipalities had prepared projects during this period or not, the stage of their project, how difficult was the accessing process, etc. Finally, we have prepared a series of conclusions which emerged from the analysis of case studies, but also from the author’s interviews with various municipalities which accessed funds, as well as with consultants. An aspect worth mentioning is that people did not want to be named. However, given the fact that several sources outline the same types of conclusions, it would be useful to mention them.
14
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Before proceeding to examine the manner in which Romanian municipalities access European funds, the delimitation thereof is very important. Romania’s EU accession has generated a number of separate funds, management authorities and specific legislation. These can be divided into two broad categories: the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the Structural Funds.
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Review of the European funds that can be accessed by local public authorities
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) EAFRD has provided and continues to provide significant funding for basic infrastructure development, such as roads, sewerage networks, water supply and lighting networks, agricultural and forestry roads, etc. Municipalities showed great interest in the Measure 322 “Village renewal”, for which the last tender was launched in autumn 2009. Currently, for this measure, tender proceedings have been held for all the funds for for the period 2007-2013. Competition was fierce, with 4-5 projects for each funding spot. 2010 will mark the launching of other two measures for which projects may be submitted by local public administration (LPA’s): Measure 125 - “Improvement and development of the agricultural and forestry infrastructure”, and Measure 313 - “Encouraging tourism”. In general, rural LPAs showed more interest in EAFRD than in structural funds. An overview of the EAFRD measures for LPA is presented below:
15
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Measure
Eligible activities
Measure 322 „Village renewal”
• creation and modernization of the basic physical infrastructure (roads, water and sewerage, lighting, gas, water treatment plants etc..); • creation and development of the basic services for rural communities (parks, playgrounds, markets, fairs, bicycle lanes, etc.. ); • protection of the cultural heritage of local interest (restoration of historical monuments, caves, installing stands, etc.)
M125 „Improvement and development of the agricultural and forestry infrastructure”
• agricultural service roads; • rehabilitation of the irrigation systems; • forestry service roads;
M313 „Improvement of tourist services”
• local information centers, painting tourist trails etc.; • marketing of tourist services
Maximum support per beneficiary (EUR)
Total Allowance per Measure (EUR)
2,500,000 / LPA 3,000,000 / IDA
1,546,087,425
1,500,000
604,058,520
200,000
544,222,774
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Table 1. EAFDR measures
Source: Applicant guidelines for each measure, published on the official site of APDRP (www.apdrp.ro)
The Structural Funds The Structural Funds are accessed through operational programs, the latter being established depending on each sector. Romania benefits from seven operational pro16
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
grams (excluding fishing and technical assistance). Operational programs include a number of priority axes (PA), which in turn include several key areas of intervention (KAI). The websites of the management authorities concerned, as well as other sources, provide a wealth of information on this issue. We shall make a brief presentation of these funds, specifying those axes and key areas of intervention for which local public authorities may apply. The Regional Operational Program (ROP) The Regional Operational Program (ROP) is a strategic document that implements elements of the National Strategy for Regional Development within the National Development Plan (NDP) and that contributes, along with other operational programs (e. g. the Sectoral Operational Program for Transport Infrastructure, the Sectoral Operational Program for the Increase of Economic Competitiveness) to the attainment of the objective of the National Strategy for Regional Development and of the National Strategic Reference Framework, namely the reduction of disparities in economic and social development between Romania and the development average of the EU Member States (source: ROP Applicant Guide). This is the most important operational program for local authorities, as it includes many axes, key areas of intervention and operations dedicated to various local authorities. The ROP has the following priority axes (PA) and key areas of intervention (KAI) dedicated to LPA: 1. PA 1 - Supporting sustainable development of cities - potential growth poles:
17
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
a. KAI 1.1. – Integrated urban development plans implemented through projects in the following areas: rehabilitation of urban infrastructure, of public transportation, development of the business environment, rehabilitation of the social infrastructure and of social services. 2. PA 2 – Improvement of the regional and local transport infrastructure: a. KAI 2.1. – Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads, urban streets, including ring roads. 3. PA 3 – Improvement of the social infrastructure: a. KAI 3.1. – Rehabilitation/ modernisation/endowment of the health services infrastructure; b. KAI 3.2. - Rehabilitation/ modernisation/development and endowment of the social services infrastructure; c. KAI 3.3. - Improvement of the equipment of the operational units for emergency intervention; d. KAI 3.4. - Rehabilitation/modernisation/development and endowment of the undergraduate, graduate and continuous training infrastructures; 4. PA 4 – Supporting the regional and local business environment: a. KAI 4.1. – Sustainable development of businesses of regional and local significance b. KAI 4.2. - Rehabilitation of polluted and unused industrial sites and preparation for new activities
18
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
5. PA 5 – Sustainable development and promotion of tourism: a. KAI 5.1. - Restoration and sustainable capitalisation of the cultural heritage, as well as the establishment / modernisation of related infrastructure; b. KAI 5.2. - Creation, development, modernisation of infrastructures specific for the sustainable exploitation of natural resources and for the increased quality of tourism services; c. KAI 5.3. - Promoting the tourism potential and creation of the necessary infrastructure in order to increase Romania’s attractiveness as a tourist destination. The Sectoral Operational Program “Increase of Economic Competitiveness” (SOP - IEC) This program aims to increase the economic competitiveness of various sectors. It is intended primarily for the private sector, providing funds for investments in manufacturing, research and development. There are, however, some axes and areas for the LPA: 1. PA 3 - Information and communication technology for the public and private sectors: a. KAI 3.2 - Development and efficiency increase of electronic public services. 2. PA 4 - Increasing the energy efficiency and the security of supply, in the context of climate change: a. KAI 4.2. - Harnessing renewable energy sources for “green” power generation.
19
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The Sectoral Operational Program “Human Resources Development” (SOP - HRD) The program is designed to increase professional skills, being aimed at reducing unemployment and increasing the quality of the Romanian workforce. It has many axes and key areas of intervention. For many of them, the LPAs cannot be the direct beneficiaries, but they may enter into partnerships with the potential beneficiaries, the establishment of partnerships being extremely important among the program’s objectives. Due to the large number of KAI’s, we shall review mainly the axes and some KAI to which public authorities may apply: 1. PA 1 - Education and training in support of the economic growth and of the development of the knowledge-based society 2. PA 2 - Linking lifelong learning and the labour market a. KAI 2.2 - Preventing and correcting early school leaving; b. KAI 2.3 - Access and participation to continuous training. 3. PA 3 – Increasing adaptability of workers and enterprises 4. PA 4 - Modernising the Public Employment Service 5. PA 5 - Promoting active employment measures: a. KAI 5.1 - Developing and implementing active employment measures: b. KAI 5.2 - Promoting long term sustainability of rural areas in terms of human resources development and employment. 6. PA 6 - Promoting social inclusion: a. KAI 6.1 – Development of the social economy; b. KAI 6.2 - Improving access and participation of vulnerable groups in the labour market;
20
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The Sectoral Operational Programme - Environment (SOP ENV) The general objective of the SOP ENV is to reduce the gap between the EU and Romania in terms of environmental infrastructure, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It revolves around the “polluter pays” principle. Both rural and urban authorities may apply. In some cases, however, LPAs must organise themselves as Intercommunity Development Associations (IDA), in order to become eligible. Its axes and areas are: 1. PA 1 - Expanding and upgrading water and wastewater systems: a. KAI 1.1 - Expanding / upgrading water / wastewater systems (LPAs are not eligible, only the Intercommunity Development Associations are eligible). 2. PA 2 - Development of integrated waste management systems and rehabilitation of historically contaminated sites: a. KAI 2.2 - Rehabilitation of historically contaminated areas 3. PA 3 - Reducing pollution and mitigating the effects of climate change by restructuring and rehabilitating the district heating systems in order to achieve energy efficiency targets in the most polluted cities: a. KAI 3.1 - Rehabilitation of district heating systems in hot-spots. 4. PA 4 - Implementation of adequate management systems for nature protection: a. KAI 4.1 - Development of the infrastructure and of the management plans in order to protect biodiversity and Nature 2000.
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
c. KAI 6.3 - Promoting equality in the labour market;
21
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The Operational Programme - Administrative Capacity Development (OP - ACD) The program envisages increasing the skills of the employees in public administration and thus improving the quality of the services it provides. Rural and urban authorities, including IDAs, may apply. As an observation, County Councils are particularly encouraged to apply within Axis 2, KAI 2.1. 1. PA 1 - Structure and process improvements in public policy management cycle: a. KAI 1.1 - Improvement of the decision making process; b. KAI 1.2 - Increase of the public administration’s accountability; c. KAI 1.3 - Improving organizational effectiveness. 2. PA 2 - Improving the quality and efficiency of the public service delivery, with emphasis on decentralization: a. KAI 2.1 - Support for the sectoral decentralization of services; b. KAI 2.2 - Improving quality and efficiency of service delivery. It should be noted that not all axes and areas are open. For instance, some areas were closed for some regions within the ROP. Therefore, applicants must be constantly aware of the funding lines accessible to them and open for application. According to the “Catalogue of Sources of Finance for Public Authorities”, issued by the Centre Regional Development Agency, the situation of the programs, as of March 2010, is as follows:
22
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Operational Programme
Priority Axis / KAI
Time limit
Regional Operational Program (ROP)
PA 1 / KAI 1.1
Open call with continuous submission
PA 3 / KAI 3.1
Open call with continuous submission
PA 3 / KAI 3.2
Open call with continuous submission
PA 4 / KAI 4.1
Open call with continuous submission
PA 4 / KAI 4.2
Open call with continuous submission
PA 5 / KAI 5.3
Open call with continuous submission
Sectoral Operational Program “Increase of Economic Competitiveness” (SOP - IEC)
PA 4 / KAI 4.2
30.10.2010
Sectoral Operational Program - Environment (SOP ENV)
PA 3 / KAI 3.1
Open call with continuous submission
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Table 2. The situation of the funds for the LPA, in March 2010
Source: The “Catalogue of Sources of Finance for Public Authorities”, issued by the Centre Regional Development Agency, March 2010
The Analysis, at a Regional Level, of the Local Authorities’ Budget The budget analysis, at the level of the local authorities, is important because it provides valuable information on the economic and financial capacity to access and implement European projects. As shown in Table 4, there are significant regional disparities 23
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
in Romania, which would mean that less developed regions have, in fact, a greater need for the projects. The actual way of accessing funds is discussed in the next chapter. This chapter is of great importance, as it indicates the budgetary structure and the way in which the money was allocated by the municipalities. For example, a municipality which grants large amounts of money only for current expenses shows no intention to invest. Instead, a municipality with a growing share of investment expenditure shows that it is interested in the development of the local community and, as such, it is a potential applicant for EU funds. As the structure of a single year budget only gives us an “image”, we opted for a dynamics analysis instead, for the three years. The data on which we base our analysis was collected directly from the municipalities, through a questionnaire designed by the authors (for more information about how the data collection was performed, please see the description of the methodology used, in the introduction). We have included, in the questionnaire, a number of economic indicators such as: total income of the LPAs, own revenues of the municipalities (composed mainly of fiscal revenue, respectively taxes collected from individuals and legal entities), income from subsidies, total expenditure, current expenditure, social protection expenditure, capital expenditure (in other words, investment costs) etc2. These indicators were subsequently used for the design of shares and ratios. We should first present the distribution of the local public authorities (LPAs) of the eight economic development regions of Romania.
2 We have chosen the same economic indicators as in the research conducted in 2008.
24
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Development region
No. of localities
%
Northeast
552
17.3%
Southeast
390
12.2%
South Wallachia
567
17.8%
Southwest Oltenia
448
14.1%
West
323
10.1%
Northwest
445
14.0%
Centre
414
13.0%
Bucharest Ilfov
46
1.4%
Total
3,185
100.0%
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Table 3. LPA structure, in each of the development regions
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
The data replace indicates with is indicative of significant economic disparities, thus capturing the regional disparities related to development. The poorest region of the country is the Northeast, with a GDP (gross domestic product) per capita of EUR 3,733 in 2008, compared to over EUR 11, 000, in the Bucharest-Ilfov area, for that same year. Although gaps have been reduced, as shown by the data in the table below, their level is still very high. These differences have important social and economic impacts. For example, Bucharest and the Western regions of the country have become real economic and workforce poles of attraction. Most investments are concentrated in these regions. As for 25
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
the impact, there is an increase in the employment degree and in the income of the population. The quality of social services is increasing. Meanwhile, poor regions are not attractive for the workforce, and their major cities have experienced far less economic development. Their attractiveness for important investors is still reduced, and local population manifests a stronger tendency towards relocation. Table 4. Regional economic disparities Region
2005
2006
2007
2008
Northeast
2,527
2,943
3,333
3,733
Southeast
3,137
3,651
4,124
4,609
South
3,019
3,520
3,985
4,452
Southwest
3,087
3,606
4,074
4,547
West
4,224
4,929
5,563
6,204
Northwest
3,422
3,975
4,495
5,022
Centre
3,935
4,591
5,195
5,799
Bucharest
7,487
8,875
10,153
11,416
Eur / capita
Source: National Prognosis Commission, 2009
The data regarding the GDP per capita is useful because it provides us with a picture of the need for region-specific development and for the reduction of disparities. The next
26
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
section shall make the connection between the manner in which EU funds are accessed and the GDP per capita, at regional level. Upon a careful analysis of the data on revenue, an increase in total revenue per capita is apparent for all 8 regions3 between 2007 and 2009, as shown in the following chart.
Total Revenue per Capita in 2009 compared with 2007 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
133%
NE
131%
SE
123%
S
132%
138%
137%
130% 111%
SW
W
NW
C
B-IF
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
The greatest increase occurred in the West and Northwest regions, due to the fact that, in Romania in general, economic growth followed a West-East trend, i.e. the regions situated closer to the Western Europe markets were marked by a more important growth. 3 It should be noted that the field survey was conducted in August-November 2009. The data for 2009 is based on the original budget forecast, which explains the significant increase in 2009, compared to 2007. In fact, because of the major economic downturn in 2009, the figures are likely to change, as a result of official publications. On the date of the report, there was no official macroeconomic data available, by region.
27
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
An upward trend is also noted in the Northeast region (133%), an encouraging fact, considering that this is the poorest region in the EU. One of the explanations could be that its starting point was a very low economic level. Regarding the share of the own revenue of the LPAs in the total revenue, they have generally been rising, except for the Southeast. This indicator may be regarded as one of financial autonomy, meaning that LPAs independently procure their financial resources, to a far greater extent than before. Therefore, hypothetically, they may have greater power to access and implement European projects. Table 5. The share of own revenue, out of the total revenue Region
2007
2008
2009
% change 2009/2007
NE
32.5%
32.1%
41.0%
126%
SE
43.0%
43.3%
40.1%
93%
South
41.4%
41.5%
48.6%
117%
SW
38.0%
36.2%
42.8%
113%
West
51.1%
51.6%
59.5%
116%
NW
46.1%
45.0%
50.0%
108%
Centre
47.3%
47.9%
54.6%
115%
Bucharest-IF
72.1%
70.7%
71.3%
99%
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
28
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
As an effect of the increase of the share of own revenue in the total revenue, the share of subsidies from the state budget has decreased. The chart below shows that, except for the Southeast region, the share of subsidies in the total revenue have decreased in 2009, compared to 2007, in all other regions.
Trend of Subsidies in Total Revenue in 2009 compared with 2007 120
102%
100
83%
80 60
64%
55%
64%
76%
74%
C
B-IF
62%
40 20 0
NE
SE
S
SW
W
NW
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
Regarding expenditure, we have analysed three indicators: share of current expenditure, share of expenditure on social protection and share of capital expenditure, respectively, in the total expenditure of the LPAs. This is important because, as stated in the preamble to this section, they indicate the manner in which the money is allocated, by broad categories. Again, if the share of capital expenditure is increasing, it means that the local authority in question is interested in community development and has a 29
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
greater ability to access; if, for example, the share of welfare expenditure is increasing, that particular authority considers that assisting at least a portion of the population is important. At the same time, the share of assisted population may be increasing. The current expenditure share had a different evolution within the regions. Thus, in the northeast and southwest, the share has increased significantly in 2009, compared to 2007. For the same period, the share of these expenditures has dropped significantly in the Bucharest-Ilfov region (69%). Table 6. The share of the current expenditure, out of the total expenditure Region
2007
2008
2009
% change 2009/2007
NE
64.4%
67.9%
75.9%
118%
SE
75.2%
80.6%
73.3%
98%
South
73.2%
74.3%
70.3%
96%
SW
72.5%
77.2%
79.2%
109%
West
76.4%
80.2%
71.7%
94%
NW
74.0%
75.4%
76.7%
104%
Centre
74.2%
77.1%
75.8%
102%
Bucharest-IF
79.7%
81.2%
55.0%
69%
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
Meanwhile, the share of capital expenditure increased in the Bucharest-Ilfov region and in the Western region. This trend is explained by the fact that these are the two most 30
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
developed regions in Romania, the country’s economic “engines”. As such, investment expenditure has experienced a more vigorous development, compared with other regions. With regard to Bucharest, this region has a high investment potential, given by multiple sources, such as larger budgets, for instance, as well as many foreign loans. However, this region applies less for European funds, as shown in the next section. The Western region shows a more significant tendency towards application for EU funds. At the same time, it is true that there have been other types of investment as well, given the high development potential.
Trend of Capital Expenditures in Total in 2009 compared with 2007 117%
120 100
88%
100% 80%
80
109% 97%
95%
NW
C
71%
60 40 20 0
NE
SE
S
SW
W
B-IF
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
As for the expenditure on social protection, the general trend was to reduce them in all regions. 31
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Region
2007
2008
2009
% change 2009/2007
NE
8.3%
6.5%
6.8%
81%
SE
7.5%
7.5%
6.0%
80%
South
8.2%
6.6%
5.4%
66%
SW
8.9%
6.8%
7.0%
78%
West
4.6%
4.2%
4.1%
88%
NW
5.0%
4.0%
4.5%
90%
Centre
4.5%
3.6%
3.3%
72%
Bucharest-IF
5.3%
6.3%
4.3%
81%
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Table 7. The share of social protection expenditure, out of the total expenditure
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
We notice high values, for 2009, in the Southwest (7.0%) and Northeast (6.8%). The values for the Centre (3.3%) and Bucharest-Ilfov (4.3%) are low. This may indicate that poorer regions have a greater number of assisted people and as such the need for social security expenditure is higher than in other regions.
32
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Number of LPAs which prepared or submitted projects The data analysis shows that a large number of LPAs have prepared or submitted European projects, in 2007-2009. 2,590 units are in this situation, representing no less than 80% of the total. Most LPAs (about 90%) are located in the rural environment. The table below indicates the share of localities, for each development regions, which have submitted or are preparing projects.
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
The manner in which EU funds are accessed, at a regional level
Table 8. The share of localities which have submitted or are preparing projects Development region
No. of localities
% of total
Northeast
474
85.9%
Southeast
297
76.2%
South Wallachia
437
77.1%
Southwest Oltenia
385
85.9%
West
274
84.8%
Northwest
350
78.7%
Centre
338
81.6%
Bucharest Ilfov
35
76.1%
2, 590
81.3%
Total Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
33
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The largest numbers of LPAs that had projects in preparation or that submitted projects are located in Northeastern Region (474 LPAs). Upon a first analysis, this is an encouraging aspect, given that we are talking about the poorest region in Romania, where investments are needed the most.
34
500 450
474
www.soros.ro
Stage of Under Preparation and Submitted Projects
454
437
400 No. Projects
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
However, it should be noted that the municipalities were asked, in the questionnaire, about projects under preparation and about projects submitted. As such, our analysis focused on how many LPAs actually submitted projects during this period. Compared to a national average of 81.3% of LPAs with projects under preparation or submitted, out of the total LPAs, the database shows that a number of 2,032 LPAs actually submitted projects, i.e. 78.5% of the total number of localities, which represents a positive result.
421 385 376 350
350 297
300
286
274
250
331
338
326
259
200 150 100 50
35
32
0 NE
SE
S
SW Under Preparation
W
NW
C
B-IF
Submitted
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
35
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The first series indicates the number of localities with projects under preparation and submitted, while the second indicates the number of localities with projects actually submitted. The Northeast region is still above the national average in this regard, with almost 86% of localities actually submitting projects. Most of these LPAs are located in the rural environment and have applied mostly to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, Measure 322 - Village renewal. The same can be said about LPAs from the other regions, EAFRD being the most accessed European fund, so far, by authorities from rural areas.
36
www.soros.ro
The current situation of LPA projects by regions
Under evaluation or withdrawn
Rejected
37.5% 25.0%
B-If
37.5%
39.6% 30.7% 29.8%
C
30.8% 32.0%
NW
37.2%
44.8% 27.4% 27.8%
W
34.8% 29.8%
SW
16.2% 28.7%
S
0
35.4%
55.1%
42.3% 32.9% 24.8%
20
SE
40
41.9%
60
29.3%
80
28.9%
100
NE
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The next step consists of analysing the percentage of LPAs with approved projects, with rejected projects, with projects under assessment and with projects that have been withdrawn. The highest percentage of approved projects belongs to the Northwestern region. In contrast, although it has the largest number of projects submitted, the Northeast has also the highest percentage of rejected projects (approximately 42%). The explanation lie in the lower quality of the projects submitted. The lowest percentage of rejected projects is located in the South Wallachia region (28.7%), but it should be noted that this region has the highest percentage of projects still under assessment (55.1%).
Approved
37
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Respondents of all LPAs, regardless of the region, said that they have faced great difficulty in obtaining EU funds. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = very easy to 10 = very difficult, regions gave a rating of 8.0 - 8.5, which corresponds to a very high degree of difficulty, where accessing funds is concerned.
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
Perception of Difficulty Degree of EU Funds Accession B-IF
8.0
C
8.2
NW
8.2
W
8.2 8.3
SW S
8.5
SE
8.5 8.5
NE 7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
38
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Among the difficulties which were frequently reported, we would like to mention: 1. the change of the requirements of the applicant’s guidelines, namely the eligibility criteria, a process that occurs during the application or even during the actual assessment of projects; 2. the lack of co-financing; 3. the heavy bureaucracy, i.e. a large number of documents requested through the project file; 4. the lack of transparency of the selection-assessment process. Some of these issues will be discussed in more detail in section five, in conjunction with a series of discussions conducted with Mayors, municipality officials and experts. Number of projects prepared or submitted by the LPAs So far we have analysed the number of LPAs that have prepared or submitted projects. The conclusion is that the Northeast region was the most active, both in terms of number of applicant LPAs and in terms of share of total applicant LPAs per region. This result may be explained by the fact that this region is the poorest in the entire EU and as such it needs a higher degree of development to reduce economic disparities, compared to other regions. At the same time, we can also talk about the purpose, at the county level, requiring mayors to draft projects4. The fact that Mayors are required to submit projects results, in part, from the data provided by field surveys. Thus, the database shows that 4 Some discussions with experts and mayors from the area showed that at least two counties in this region are in this situation
39
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
the Northeast has the highest rate of rejected projects (over 40%), indicating a lower quality of the projects prepared, in general, by designers and consultants. In terms of the total number of projects submitted, the Northeast once again occupies the top position, both in terms of numbers (1,271 projects) and as a share, at national level (approx. 19%). The Bucharest region occupies the opposite position, with a total of only 96 projects submitted. However, it is true that Bucharest is the richest region of the country, while benefiting more from other types of funds, such as foreign loans. Table 9. Number of submitted projects Region
Total number of projects
% of total
Northeast
1,271
19.6%
Southeast
784
12.1%
South Wallachia
930
14.4%
Southwest Oltenia
910
14.1%
West
675
10.4%
Northwest
991
15.3%
Centre
815
12.6%
Bucharest Ilfov
96
1.5%
6,472
100.0%
Total Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
40
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The second place, in terms of projects submitted, is occupied by the Northwest. In the regional rankings compiled by the National Prognosis Commission, in terms of GDP per capita, the region is second after Bucharest and the West, with a GBP per capita of EUR 5,000-6,000 per capita. However, relative to population, there is a reversal of positions, if we consider an index consisting of the number of projects submitted per 10,000 inhabitants. Considering this index, we notice that the Northwest has the highest number of projects, in relation to its population (4.15 projects submitted for 10,000 inhabitants), and the Northeast is close to the average of all regions (3.57)5. Except for the Bucharest area, the two other poor regions, namely the Southeast and South Wallachia occupy the last places.
Number of Submitted Projects per 10,000 Inhabitants 4.50 4.00
4.15
3.97 3.59 3.18
3.50
3.65
3.48 2.97
3.00 2.00 1.50 1.00
0.65
0.50 0
NE
SE
S
SW
W
NW
C
B-IF
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
5 The Bucharest region was excluded from the average calculation, as the projects submitted for the Structural Funds and to EAFRD have low values, as it is mainly financed, as mentioned, from other types of funds.
41
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
In terms of capital expenditure, the Northeast region holds the first place, with over eight projects submitted for each RON 10,000 of capital expenditure. It shows that the region has chosen to finance more investments out of European funds, compared to other regions. For example, the Western and Central regions are less active, as far as this indicator is concerned. A similar analysis was performed, taking into account the overall budget of the LPAs, and it produced the same results.
Number of Submitted Projects per 10,000 Lei of Capital Expenditure 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0
8.29
8.16
5.75 5.04 3.92
3.40
3.15
0.07
NE
SE
S
SW
W
NW
C
B-IF
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
This begs the question: out of the total number of projects, how many have already been approved? Or how many have already been implemented? In terms of the share of the number of approved projects, out of the total number of projects submitted, the 42
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Northwest region is once again placed first, with a share of 19.5%. However, it should be noted that many projects are still under assessment and therefore we cannot have a clear picture of the success rate. For example, a large number of projects were submitted within EAFRD, under Measure 322 - Village renewal. Although the call was launched in July 2009 and completed in August 2009, the assessment results were not known at the time of this report6.
Share of Approved Projects in Total 20,0%
17,6%
19,0%
17,6%
17,5%
19,5% 17,1%
14,0%
15,0%
13,5%
10,0% 5,0% 0
NE
SE
S
SW
W
NW
C
B-IF
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
6 February 2010.
43
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Even in relation to population, see the chart below, the Northwest region occupies the first place, with 0.81 projects for each 10,000 inhabitants. Also, except for the Bucharest-Ilfov region, the South region ranks last.
Number of Approved Projects per 10,000 Inhabitants 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0
0.81
0.75 0.63
0.62
0.61
0.56 14.0%
0.09
NE
SE
S
SW
W
NW
C
B-IF
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
44
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
If we take into account, for the purposes of the analysis, the rejected projects, for most regions, the number of rejected projects is higher than that of the approved projects. It is true that, to date, there are many projects under assessment, however, this report indicates that projects were generally ill prepared.
Approved vs Rejected Projects 350
317
300 250
224
216
200
169 138 142
150
173
193
185
139
130
150
118 115
100 50
13
21
0 NE
SE
S
SW Accepted
W
NW
C
B-IF
Rejected
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
In the case of a single region, the number of approved projects was higher than the number of rejected projects, i.e. the Westerns region (118 projects vs. 115 projects). We have also noted a large discrepancy in the case of the Northeast, with over 310 45
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
projects rejected, and only 224 projects approved. Except for the Bucharest region, the Northeast holds last place, as far as the approved projects / submitted projects ratio is concerned. Upon analysing the already implemented projects, we notice that the Northwest ranks first, once again, with 187 projects or 19.5% of the total number of already implemented projects.
Share of Implemented Projects in Total 17.6%
13.5% 17.1%
17.6%
19.5%
14.0% 17.5% NE
SE
South
19.0% SW
West
NW
Center
Bucharest-IF
Source: Data from the 2009 questionnaire
46
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
These conclusions are based on a combination of four sources: database; discussions and interviews with mayors and officials of municipalities of various counties (from the case studies); discussions with experts and consultants on European projects (interviewed by the author and by the persons who have conducted the case studies); and, last but not least, the author’s experience in EU funding7. We can notice the existence of converging opinions, based on which we expressed the conclusions of this section of the report. Almost all opinions converge towards the following point: European funds are relatively difficult to access and to implement, and there are no coherent strategies for funds placement according to the real needs of a community, area or region. Obviously, in these circumstances, there are two major risks: an important part of the funds will not be consumed at the national level and will return to the EU budget, Romania risking to potentially become a medium term net contributor (i.e. it will pay to the EU budget more than it receives); and even if they are consumed, in the absence of clear strategies, the impact of the funds on the development of the country and the reduction of regional disparities will be less significant than desired and than presented in the programmatic documents. Using this general framework, the following observations may be subject to discussion: 7
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Conclusions and observations
Cătălin Dărăşteanu is an advisor of Terra Nostra Consulting, Bucharest.
47
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
1. Establishing national strategies. Unfortunately, Romania has never shown any strength in this area, the country was always unprepared. While knowing that the country it would join the European Union in 2007, there were no coherent strategies in place to allow further development of mechanisms for attracting EU funds. Worth mentioning that, in 2007, there was no public tender for projects funded out of structural funds or EAFRD. Although technically it is true that in the first six months this was not possible because the national plans (strategies) had to be subject to the EC review and approval, in reality, those plans should have been ready, to a large extent, at the end of 2006. The state authorities, subject to strong attacks, through the media, in respect of the incapacity to absorb EU funds, have hastily developed a series of national plans, without a clear knowledge of regional needs. 2. Operation of the Management Authorities (MA). As in the case of the national development plans, the management authorities were created with great delay and are facing serious operation-related issues. The staff is undersized and must deal with large volumes of projects. In addition, the staff has not received consistent and appropriate training. Although funds were allotted, during the pre-accession period, for technical assistance, the sessions were out of focus and their impact did not result in the thorough training of the staff of management authorities. On a simple visit to the offices of these authorities, the image will look like this: a small number of people, surrounded by a large number of projects to be administered. Another problem of the MAs is that almost their entire management was appointed based on political criteria. And if this was the key criterion, it is obvious that the focus on amending the guidelines, of the investment directions, respectively, was de-empha-
48
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
sised. At the same time, these appointments have increased the level of anxiety among the staff, which did not know what to expect. As such, the presence of an undersized staff, which has not received adequate training, in conjunction with the management appointed based on primarily political criteria contributed to a slow absorption of EU funds. 3. Changing the rules during the game. The field survey, both the one conducted in 2008, as well as in 2009, revealed that a number of municipalities have indicated the change of the eligibility criteria as an obstacle to accessing funds. Indeed, most of the Guidelines for Applicants have been changed frequently, creating confusion among applicants. These changes appeared because the MAs were not actually prepared to conduct sessions of projects (in terms of selection and procurement procedures). As such, they had to make adjustments without the required preparation, which unfortunately affected a number of projects during their submission or even their evaluation phases. 4. Changing the selection score for EAFRD. Unfortunately, the scoring of the projects under EAFRD has undergone continuous changes, creating instability in the preparation phase. Projects were drafted to obtain a certain selection score, and then, when the submission session was near, the scores were changed. Although it cannot be argued that this was intentional, these changes have certainly affected many projects and have created confusion. 5. Unpredictability of the project submission session. There has always been a lack of transparency regarding the submission sessions. There have been situations where there was information that a particular session would be held during the month X, when
49
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
in reality it was launched at a later date, sometimes after 3-6 months. This had a negative impact because the required documentation had to be prepared again, other approvals had to be obtained , etc. 6. Putting pressure on mayors to draft projects. There have been many cases in which the county councils have urged the mayors to draft projects. Without excluding a certain category of mayors who were willing to draft projects, many have perceived this pressure as a coercive measure. As such, the projects were prepared, but they had quality problems, which explains, to a certain extent, the fact that the number of rejected projects exceeds the number of approved projects. 7. The risk to draft eligible projects, but which lack funding. A positive fact that should be noted is the very large number of projects submitted. As noted in 2009, over 80% of LPAs have prepared or submitted projects, which is no doubt an encouraging fact. However, a series of mayors have indicated that currently there is a risk related to the drafting of a project, due to the fact that the designers and consultants who have drafted the projects must be paid from the budgets of the LPAs (which are relatively small and affected by the economic and financial crisis), with no financing certainty. Uncertainty increases in conjunction with “changing in rules during the game”, as currently there are enough LPAs which are of drafting and submitting projects. In these circumstances, the lack of clear strategies (at regional, but also at national levels) is becoming increasingly obvious. 8. Transparency in ensuring co-financing. Most of the European projects professionals and of the employees of the LPAs agree with the lack of transparency in the
50
www.soros.ro
Regional analysis…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
provision of funds for project co-financing. According to many of the interviewees, the money is channelled from the county councils based on political criteria. 9. Distinction between the villages and the small towns. Romania has always manifested a tendency towards having more towns, with as much urban population as possible. Often, localities were declared towns without having the adequate basic physical infrastructure or without being industrial or service centres. There are cases in which cities with 20,000 inhabitants have a poor population. In this context, they suffered in terms of accessing European funds for the basic physical infrastructure. Through EAFRD, Measure 322 “Village renewal”, the rural communes had access to projects for roads, sewerage system, water, gas etc., particularly attractive for LPAs because they gave a chance to their development, without excluding the election-related dimension of the enterprise. Unfortunately, small towns had little access to these funds. It is true that they were eligible for the Regional Operational Program, Priority Axis 1 - Supporting sustainable development of cities, but in reality, through its philosophy, this axis mostly addressed the issues of the middle-sized and large urban areas. The database shows that municipalities applied extensively to this axis, while the number of small towns is very reduced, and as a result, they are a Cinderella of sorts of the European funding.
51
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Alexandru Toth
www.soros.ro
Resources of the municipalities and accessing European funds The research conducted in 2008, at local authority level in four development regions reveals the existence of direct relations between the submission of projects to obtain European funding (including pre-accession funds) and factors related primarily to the institutional capacity of municipalities. The most important predictors of project submission were: the budgetary resources of the municipality, the existence of staff specialised in European projects, the experience of the partnership with other institutions and the level of information about EU funding. Based on those results, we shall try to identify, based on the data available in 2009, to what extent the institutional capacity of municipalities (measured primarily by the factors mentioned above) significantly influences the accessing of structural funds by local authorities nationwide. In the following chapter we shall analyse the factors that proved to be relevant to the experience of local authorities in accessing EU funds.
52
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
The budgetary resources of the municipalities were operationalised in this analysis using the ratio between the total local budget revenues of a locality and the population of said locality. Accessing EU funds requires the applicants to ensure co-financing, and in the case of local authorities, it is expected that the available resources from local budgets influence their ability to access funds.
www.soros.ro
Budgetary resources of the municipalities
Table 1. Average number of projects, according to the municipality’s budget revenue Position of the locality, in the distribution based on the total income of the municipality, in relation with the population
Average no. of projects Structural Funds and other funds
Only structural funds
submitted
submitted
approved
rejected
under assessment
under preparation
Quintile 1 (top 20% municipalities with the lowest budget revenue)
1.17
0.92
0.10
0.24
0.91
0.33
Quintile 2
1.39
1.09
0.16
0.26
0.88
0.40
Quintile 3
1.58
1.13
0.13
0.26
0.99
0.33
Quintile 4
1.63
1.20
0.17
0.24
1.00
0.44
Quintile 5 (last 20% municipalities with the highest budget revenue)
3.21
2.10
0.32
0.28
1.89
1.08
Total
1.80
1.29
0.18
0.26
1.14
0.52
53
Resources of the‌
www.soros.ro
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
As shown in Table 1, localities with the highest local budget revenue have significantly better results in terms of accessing European funding for projects. The richest 20% of municipalities have submitted, on average, over 2.5 times more projects than the poorest 20% of municipalities. Also, localities which are at the top of the overall local budget revenue distribution have more approved projects and also have more projects under assessment or under preparation, compared to localities with low budget revenue. The only indicator that did not vary significantly depending on local budget revenue is the one referring to the average number of rejected projects.
54
www.soros.ro
3
34
54 2
4
3
2
2 35
2 32
4 28
44
4
no projects submitted, but having projects under preparation
12 Quintile 5
Total
14
0
Quintile 4
23
25
16
29
47 15 Quintile 3
47
49 16 Quintile 2
50
48
3
75
4
22
100
3
Position of the locality in the distribution based on the municipality's total revenue, in relation to the population
Quintile 1
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 1. Distribution of localities according to the experience related to project submission and the budgetary resources of the municipalities (%, N = 2986)
structural funds and other funds
only other funds, other than structural funds
only structural funds
no experience
55
Resources of the…
www.soros.ro
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Out of the 2986 municipalities analysed, 16% didn’t have, as of the investigation date, any experience in submitting projects to obtain financing from Structural Funds or other EU funds. If, for the “richest” 20% of municipalities, the share of municipalities which did not submit any project, in 2007-2009, was of 12%, for the poorest 20% of municipalities, this share was almost double (23%, see Chart 1). It is also apparent that the municipalities with the highest local budget revenue attempted to access other funds, different from structural funds, to a significantly higher proportion, compared to municipalities with low revenue (54% vs. 22%).
56
www.soros.ro
% of the total value of the approved projects to be financed out of structural funds
61
10 7 3 14
16
17
72
9
SE
S
SW
52
34 16
9 34
9 13 Total Romania
8
9 C
23
11
18
15
13 19
14
10
21 16
14
Quintile 5 (the last 20% municipilaties with the highest budget local revenue)
NW
0
W
18
25
16
50
28
75
67 6
75
43
37
33
100
NE
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 2. Distribution of localities according to the number of projects submitted for structural funds and the budgetary resources of the municipalities (%, N = 2986)
Quintile 4
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 1 (the first 20% municipilaties with the lowest budget revenue)
57
Resources of the…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
If we refer strictly to projects submitted to obtain structural funding, it is noted that, of all the municipalities included in the analysis, nearly one quarter (24%) have not submitted any project in 2007-2009. As seen in Chart 2, the share of municipalities which have not submitted projects for structural funds is significantly lower in the case of municipalities with the highest budget revenue (19%) compared to municipalities with low revenue (32%). While 26% of the “rich “municipalities have submitted at least three projects to obtain financing from structural funds, in the case of lower revenue municipalities, this share is in the 5-8% range. The disparities between “rich” and “poor” municipalities appear, as expected, when we take into account, for the purposes of the analysis, the funds attracted from the structural programmes (see Chart 3). Throughout the country, more than half of the funding attracted by local authorities was obtained by the “richest” 20% of the municipalities, while “poor” municipalities only attracted 9% of the total funding. There are notable intraregional differences, as far as these disparities are concerned, depending on the budgetary resources of the municipality. Thus, ‘rich’ municipalities have obtained 75% of the funding attracted by the local authorities of the Centre region. A significant imbalance is also observed in the Southeast and the South, where 67% and 61%, respectively, of the funding attracted by local authorities has been obtained by the richest 20% of municipalities of these regions. These intraregional disparities are smaller in the Northeast, Northwest and Southwest, but even in their case the poorest 20% of municipalities failed to attract more than 8-9% of the total funding obtained by the local authorities of these regions. The only region where “poor” municipalities managed to attract a substantial share (19%) of structural funding accessed by the local authorities is the West.
58
www.soros.ro
% of the total value of the approved projects to be financed out of structural funds
75
34
52
43
Quintile 5 (the last 20% municipilaties with the highest budget local revenue)
9 13 Total Romania
C
9 9 34
11
18 23 NW
W
8
19
17 SW
15
13 10
16 9
14
14 7 2 16 S
10 7 3 14 SE
0
21
28 16 18
25
6
50
16
67
75
37
61
33
100
NE
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the…
Chart 3. Intraregional disparities in accessing structural funds between categories of localities defined depending on the budgetary resources of the municipalities*
Quintile 4
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 1 (the first 20% municipilaties with the lowest budget revenue)
Example of data reading: 75% of the Structural Funds attracted in the Centre region were obtained by the „richest” 20% of the municipalities of this region. Throughout the country, the poorest 20% of the municipalities have attracted only 9% of the total approved project value from structural funds.
59
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
The human resources available to local authorities are certainly a key determinant of their ability to develop and prepare projects of their capacity to manage them, in the implementation phase. From this perspective it is important to see both the overall training level of the local government staff, and particularly the degree of specialisation in EU Funding. The data reported in 2009 by 93% of the Romanian municipalities showed that about one in four employees of municipalities and services subordinated to or coordinated by them is an university graduate. A noteworthy aspect is that this proportion is only by 1 percentage point higher in urban areas (25.9%), as opposed to rural areas (24.9%). Also, the differences between municipalities, depending on the degree of urbanisation of the localities, in what concerns the share of employees with higher education, do not exceed 2 - 3 percentage points. With regard to the municipality employees’ participation in professional training programs, in 2008-2009, data reveals that only 5.8% had received such training. On average, such an employee has received six days of professional training. During the reference period, almost one quarter (24%) of all municipalities, had no employee having received professional training. In terms of professional training on issues related to EU funds, figures show an even worse situation: more than half the Romanian municipalities (51%) have employees who have not received such training in 2008–2009, and the percentage of employees who participated in such trainings, out of the total number of employees, is of 1.7%, approximately, representing almost a quarter of all those who
www.soros.ro
Staff trained in European funding
60
Resources of the…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
have received professional training sessions, in general. From this point of view, the differences between urban and rural areas are very small, in relative terms. The major differences occur between urban and rural areas at the level of the organisational structure of the municipalities, in terms of the existence of a department specialising in projects with European funding. Thus, while 70% of the municipalities and mayor’s offices of Romania have a department specialised in projects with European funding, only 14% of the mayor’s offices of communes have such a department. Considering the development level of the Romanian institutions and taking into account the existing human resources, we cannot expect every mayor’s office of every village to have such a specialised department, but the existence of staff specialised / trained in developing projects with European funding is a prerequisite for the increase of the absorption rate of EU funds by local governments. As resulting from Chart 4, just over half of the mayor’s offices of communes have at least one employee trained or specialised in developing projects with European funding, while almost all city municipalities have such staff members.
61
www.soros.ro
% of the total value of the approved projects to be financed out of structural funds
75
34
52
43
Quintile 5 (the last 20% municipilaties with the highest budget local revenue)
9 13 Total Romania
C
9 9 34
11
18 23 NW
W
8
19
17 SW
15
13 10
16 9
14
14 7 2 16 S
10 7 3 14 SE
0
21
28 16 18
25
6
50
16
67
75
37
61
33
100
NE
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 4. Existence of staff trained / specialised in European funding, in the municipalities, depending on the urbanisation degree of villages
Quintile 4
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 1 (the first 20% municipilaties with the lowest budget revenue)
62
Resources of the‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Chart 5 emphasises the importance of the existence of staff specialised in accessing funds. While 11% of the municipalities covered by such personnel have not submitted any project in 2007-2009, in the case of municipalities who have no specialised / trained personnel in this field, the share of municipalities which have not submitted projects doubles. It should be noted that the existence of specialised staff also influences the diversity of the funding sources for which municipalities apply: 44% of the municipalities with specialised personnel have submitted projects for both structural funds and other funding sources, compared to 23% of the municipalities which have no employees trained in developing projects.
63
www.soros.ro
4 4
75
44
23
2
100
no project submitted, but having projects under preparation 48
3
50
Structural Funds and other funds only other funds, different from structural funds only structural funds
41
no experience 22
25 0
11
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 5. Distribution of localities according to the experience related to project submission and the existence of staff trained/specialised in EU funding projects (%, N = 2986)
The municipality has employees specialised / trained in European funds
The municipality does NOT have employees specialised / trained in European funds
Also, as noted in chart 6, the number of projects submitted by municipalities for structural funds financing is significantly influenced by the existence of personnel specialised / trained in developing such projects.
64
www.soros.ro
14 50
50
49
75
19
14
5
100
three or more projects two projects one project
25 0
The municipality has employees specialised / trained in European funds
31
no project 18
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 6. Distribution of localities according to the number of submitted projects and to the existence of staff trained/specialised in EU funding projects (%, N = 2986)
The municipality does NOT have employees specialised / trained in European funds
Of the total projects submitted by municipalities for structural funds, almost two thirds (65%) were drafted by the municipalities that have at least one employee trained in developing such projects. Of the entire number of approved projects, 73% were submitted by municipalities with specialised staff, the success rate being of 47%, while municipalities with no specialised staff had a success rate of 32%. Finally, 76% of the total value of the approved projects for structural funding was obtained by municipalities with specialised personnel. 65
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the…
Information is undoubtedly an extremely important resource for potential applicants, regarding the preparation and submission of projects for EU funding. In our analysis, the perspective on information is rather a reductionist one, in the sense that we only have access to information, and not to the quantity and quality of the information available to authorities. We have analysed the access to information from two perspectives. On the one hand, we have analysed the active search for information by local authorities, and on the other we have considered the efforts made by central, regional, county authorities or by other organisations to inform municipalities about EU funding opportunities. The active search for information, through applications addressed to other institutions, is widespread among municipalities, only 14% of them stating that they have not requested, in 2008-2009, information on existing European funding. Most rural mayor’s offices (72%) have requested information primarily from county councils, while municipalities of cities have turned to regional development agencies. It should also be noted that city municipalities have requested, to a greater extent, information directly from ministries or other government agencies, as opposed to mayor’s offices of communes. In what concerns receiving unsolicited information about European funding opportunities, the county councils, the Prefect’s Offices and the regional development agencies are the institutions that are most frequently mentioned, both by municipalities and rural mayor’s offices.
www.soros.ro
Information about European funding opportunities
66
Resources of the…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The Internet is the main source of useful information related to EU funding opportunities, especially for rural mayor’s offices. Approximately two thirds of the commune mayor’s offices have mentioned the websites of the management authorities, as well as the websites of the Government or of the ministries concerned, as the main sources of useful information. For urban municipalities, the most useful sources of information are the meetings held by county councils, as well as consulting companies. Overall we can see that rural mayor’s offices have a lower level of information, compared to municipalities. Is there some relationship between the degree of information and the submission of projects / access to funds? Chart 7 gives a rather clear answer to this question. 30% of the municipalities/mayor’s offices with a very low level of information have no experience in the submission of projects for structural funds or for other funding, while only 6% of those with a high level of information find themselves in such situation. As expected, a high level of information is also associated with a diversification of the funding sources to which municipalities apply, meaning that they have submitted projects within other programmes as well, not just within those financed from structural funds.
67
www.soros.ro
3
38
53 2 43
47
50
46
3
4 14
75
4
30
21
4
100
3
Information level in relation with EU funding opportunities
no projects submitted, but having projects under preparation
6
13 Average information level
0
High information level
16 Reduced information level
30
36
25
Very reduced information level
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 7. Distribution of localities according to the experience related to project submission and to the degree of information related to the EU funding opportunities (%, N = 2986)
only structural funds no experience
Structural Funds and other funds only other funds, other than structural funds
68
Resources of the‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The information degree is also associated with the number of projects submitted for financing from structural funds. 35% of the municipalities with a very low level of information related to project financing opportunities have not submitted any project within the programmes financed out of Structural Funds, compared to only 14% of the municipalities with high levels of information. Also, compared to the municipalities with a very low degree of information, the municipalities with a high level of information submitted, on average, 1.8 times more projects, managing to attract 4.5 times more money out of the total approved funding (see Table 2 and Chart 8). Table 2. Indicators of structural funding projects based on the information degree of the municipality, regarding funding opportunities Very low level of information
Low level of information
Average level of information
High level of information
11.0%
35.3%
36.9%
16.8%
Average no. of projects submitted for Structural Funds
0.95
1.19
1.36
1.72
Share of attracted financing, out of the total approved funding
6.1%
33.1%
33.7%
27.1%
Share out of the total number of localities
69
www.soros.ro
Information level in relation with EU funding opportunities 18
12
7 17
46
23
75
16
7 11
100
three or more projects
51
51
50
45
two projects
25
one project
21 Average information level
14
25 Reduced information level
0
High information level
35
no projects
Very reduced information level
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 8. Distribution of localities according to the number of submitted projects and to the information degree regarding the EU funding opportunities (%, N = 2986)
70
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Often, the development needs of localities involve the implementation of projects in partnership with other institutions, and subsequently the experience of inter-institutional cooperation to achieve a common goal may be a decisive factor for the capacity of the local authorities to draft projects in order to obtain EU financing. Nationwide, 56% of the municipalities have carried out, in 2007-2009, various programmes and initiatives within partnerships or associations with other institutions, the share being much higher for towns and cities (80%). Also, we should mention that about 75% of the municipalities are included in an intercommunity development association. Most projects mentioned by municipalities as being developed in partnership with other institutions focused on objectives like waste management, rehabilitation, modernisation or construction of various buildings, water supply and other integrated projects (Measure 322). In 50% of cases, the partners of municipalities were other municipalities. The County Councils acted as partners in almost 40% of the cases, and in about one quarter of the abovementioned projects, the municipality had NGOs as partners. The contributions of municipalities, as well as those of other partners, in the case of partnership projects, consisted mainly of financial resources. Starting from the examples mentioned by the municipalities, in what concerns the conduct of projects in partnership with other institutions, we have managed to draft an outline of the authorities’ experience with this type of co-operation and we have examined the relationship existing between the partnership experience and the access to EU funds.
www.soros.ro
Experience of the municipalities regarding partnerships with other institutions
71
Resources of the‌
www.soros.ro
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
As illustrated in Chart 9, there is a significant association between the partnership experience and the submission of proposals. Thus, out of the municipalities having very limited experience in projects carried out in co-operation with other institutions, 26% have never submitted any project to obtain EU funding. In the case of municipalities with significant experience in the partnership field, the share of those who have not submitted projects in 2007-2009 is of only 8%.
72
3 40
52 3
3 43
47
48
50
12
8
Average partnership experience
High level of partnership experience
18 Limited partnership experience
26
0
no projects submitted, but having projects under preparation structural funds and other funds only other funds, other than structural funds only structural funds
35
25
www.soros.ro
2
2 29 3
75
3
21
100
3
Partnership experience with other institutions/bodies
Very limited partnership experience
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 9. Distribution of localities according to the experience related to project submission and the experience of the municipality in relation to partnerships with other institutions (%, N = 2986)
no experience
73
Resources of the‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Also, we notice (see chart 10) that the number of projects submitted by municipalities for structural funds financing is directly related to their experience in establishing partnerships with other institutions. One out of three municipalities with very little experience in partnerships has not submitted any project, while in the case of municipalities with experience, the share of municipalities which have not submitted any project is two times lower (16%). Municipalities with medium and high experience levels in conducting partnership projects submitted a 40% larger number of projects per Structural Funds Programme. Highly experienced municipalities managed to attract six times more structural funds than municipalities without partnership experience (see Table 3).
74
19
www.soros.ro
16
three or more projects 48
50
21
15 52
75
46
13 49
13
7
100
6
Partnership experience with other institutions/bodies
two projects one project
25 25
20
16
Limited partnership experience
Average partnership experience
High level of partnership experience
33
no projects
0 Very limited partnership experience
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Chart 10. Distribution of localities according to the number of submitted projects for structural funds and to the experience of the municipality regarding partnerships with other institutions and bodies (%, N = 2986)
75
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Very reduced experience
Reduced experience
Average experience
High level of experience
17.9%
38.2%
28.2%
15.7%
Average no. of projects submitted for Structural Funds
0.98
1.12
1.50
1.63
Share of attracted financing, out of the total approved funding
5.4%
36.3%
26.0%
32.4%
Share out of the total number of localities
www.soros.ro
Table 3. Indicators of structural funding project submission, depending on the municipality’s experience in establishing partnerships with other institutions and bodies
Hierarchical classification of the determining factors for accessing European funds From the above analyses, it clearly appears that the resources of the municipalities, in terms of budget revenues, trained human resources, access to information and experience in partnerships with other institutions and bodies directly influence the submission of projects to obtain EU funding. It is clear however that these factors do not act independently of each other, and from that perspective, the identification of the significance of each one in explaining the accessing process of the EU funds is very important. 76
Resources of the‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Regression analysis proved to be a useful and enlightening tool in this case (see Table 4). All four factors have a significant influence, in statistical terms, on the number of projects submitted, but the municipality’s budget resources appear to be the most important. By controlling other factors, the budget revenue of municipalities represents the most important predictor of the number of projects submitted for EU funding. The awareness regarding information opportunities and the partnership experience prove to be next in the hierarchy of determining factors, with an equal influence on the number of projects submitted. The factor with the least influence on the submission of projects is the administrative capacity of the municipalities, in terms of human resources employed (for the definition of independent variables, see Table A1 in the Technical Appendix).
77
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Predictors
B
ES
Beta
t
Sig.
Budgetary resources of the municipality (budget revenue, in relation to the population)
0.038
0.002
0.422
25.520
0.000
Administrative capacity, from the point of view of the staff employed in the municipality/mayor’s office
0.007
0.002
0.052
3.134
0.002
Information about European funding opportunities
0.082
0.013
0.101
6.064
0.000
Partnership experience
0.015
0.003
0.101
6.082
0.000
Constant
0.119
0.097
1.229
0.219
www.soros.ro
Table 4. Predictors of the number of projects submitted by municipalities in 20072009
Multiple regression model having the number of proposals submitted in 20072009 as dependent variable. All regression coefficients are significantly different from zero for p=0.05. The coefficient of multiple determination R2=24%
78
Resources of the‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Profile of the localities which have not submitted projects, in terms of resources available to LPAs As seen from the previous analyses, the lack of resources, whether financial, human, consisting of information or of the experience in the partnership with other institutions, is significantly associated with the lack of experience in submitting projects for obtaining EU funds. To identify the profile of the “non-applicant� we have first tried to classify the localities in Romania, according to the four categories of resources listed above. We have done this by a K-means cluster analysis, the 29488 localities included in the analysis being classified into 5 categories, presented in Table 5. Two thirds of the Romanian municipalities are grouped into two categories: one is that of the municipalities with minimal resources (32.5% of all municipalities) and the other is that of the municipalities which have the necessary human resources, but which lack the financial resources and the experience of the partnerships with other institutions and bodies (34.1% of all municipalities).
8 Of the 3185 municipalities in Romania, 177 have not completed the questionnaire, and 60 have provided partial information which did not allow us to include them in the analysis.
79
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the…
Resource Categories
Budgetary resources of the municipalities
Administrative capacity, from the point of view of the staff employed in the municipality/mayor’s office
Information about European funding opportunities
Partnership experience
Share out of the total number of localities
Localities with minimal resources available
-
-
-
-
32.5%
Localities with partnership experience, but which lack financial resources
-
0
0
++
16.4%
Localities with slightly above average resources
+
0
0
0
9.5%
Localities which have human resources, but which lack financial resources and partnership experience
-
+
0
-
34.1%
Localities with significant resources available
++
+
+
+
7.4%
Cluster
www.soros.ro
Table 5. Classification of Romanian localities according to the available resources for accessing EU funds
Note: The signs indicate the level of resources available to these groups of localities. ”-” indicates a level below average, ”0” = average, ”+” = slightly above average, ”++” – significantly above average.
80
Localities with minimal resources available
Localities which have submitted projects
47
Localities with partnership experience but wich lack financial resources
25 0
www.soros.ro
Localities which have human resources but which lack financial resources and partnership experience
18
9
50
33
34
75
Localities with significant resources available Localities with slightly above average resources
10
8
100
8 3
Chart 11. Distribution of localities which have submitted and which have not submitted projects, depending on the resource category that they have available
30
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
By analysing the distribution of localities which have not submitted a single project in 2007-2009, we have noticed that almost half of them (47%) fall in the category with minimal resources, and a third has the available human resources, but lacks the required financial resources and the partnership experience with other institutions and bodies.
Localities which have NOT submitted projects
81
Resources of the…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
By analysing the factors which significantly influence the possibility of a municipality to have not submitted any project in 2007-2009, the following conclusions can be drawn (Chart 12): • The main factor is the share of capital expenditure out of the total expenditure from the local budget of the municipality. The standard deviation increase of this indicator generates a 102% increase in the possibility that the municipality has not submitted any project in the period under review, the other factors being kept under control. • The existence of a department specialised in projects with European funding decreases by 56% the possibility of a municipality not having submitted projects. • The fact that the municipality has a local development strategy decreases the possibility of not having submitted any project by 37%. • The fact that the municipality has employees who have participated, during the previous year, in training programmes related to EU funding reduces the possibility of not being involved in at least one project submission by 28%. • The financial resources from local budgets have an almost negligible influence on the chances of not having submitted a project. • In other words, municipalities which have not submitted any project in 2007-2009 have the following characteristics: • Capital expenditures have a substantial share in the total expenditure from local budgets. • They are mainly rural localities • They have no specialised department
82
Resources of the…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
• They have no local development strategy • They have no employees who have participated in training programmes focused on topics related to European funds • They have a relatively low level of information regarding EU funding opportunities. Chart 12. Profile of the localities with no project submission experience in 2007-2009 (logistic regression analysis)9
Importance of the factors 1
102
2 3
-37 -62
4
-2
5
-12
6
-1
7 8
-28 -56
1. Share of the capital expenditure out of the total expenditure from the local budget, în 2008 2. The municipality has a local development strategy 3. Urban locality 4. Partnership experience 5. Information regarding EU funding opportunities 6. The municipality's resources from local budgets 7. The municipality has employees who have participated, during the last year, in training programmes related to EU funding 8. The municipality has a of a department specialised in projects with European funding
Very small localities (with 2000 inhabitants at the most), which represents about 20% of the total number of Romanian localities, are more likely to have failed to submit any 9 Logistic regression model with the lack of project submission experience in 2007-2009 as dependent variable. (Nagelkerke R2 =12%).
83
Resources of the‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
projects in 2007-2009, compared to other localities. Thus, among the least populated 20% of the municipalities, 21.9% have not submitted any project, the share being almost double compared to the share of non-applicants of the most populated 20% of the localities in Romania (11.3%). This is also explained by the lack of resources, especially of the financial resources: 63% of the very small localities are among the “poorest� 20% of Romanian localities, in terms of revenue from local budgets. As expected, very small localities do not possess the human resources required to develop projects. A town with less than 2,000 residents submitted, on average, 1.25 projects to obtain funding from various programmes, while the 20% most densely populated cities have submitted an average of 3.17 projects. The other indicators related to the access to European funds clearly work against very small localities. The success rate of the submitted projects is of only 30%, compared to 48%, as is the case off large cities. In terms of funds absorbed, as a whole, small towns have obtained 11% of the total approved projects, while large cities have obtained 34% of the funds approved.
84
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Resources of the‌
Table A1: Description of the variables used in the analysis Variable
Description
Budgetary resources of the municipalities
Total average revenue from the local budgets, in 2007-2009, in relation to the population of the localities
Administrative capacity, from the point of view of the staff employed in the municipality/mayor’s office
Compound factor score obtained by the analysis of the main components using as observable variables the share of employees with higher education and the availability of personnel trained / specialised in developing projects with European funding.
Information about European funding opportunities
Indicator obtained by counting the institutions mentioned by the municipalities as being information sources, from which they have requested information or from which they have received information without requesting it.
Partnership experience
Compound factor score obtained by the analysis of the main components using as observable variables the number of projects carried out in partnership with other institutions and bodies and the fact that the municipality is a member of an intercommunity development association.
www.soros.ro
Appendix
85
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion…
Manuela Sofia Stănculescu
www.soros.ro
Social inclusion, at the local level, in Romania This study is an analysis of the Romanian local authorities, in terms of social problems and resources used in this regard. More specifically, the study shows that rural and urban local authorities can be classified according to a typology which has the power to distinguish them from the point of view of social problems, but also from that of the municipalities’ response to such issues.
Social problems and local resources – a typology The typology is established separately, for the rural and urban environments, and it is based on three variables: (1) the share of households who were living in makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing on 31st July 2009, according to the estimates provided by municipalities; (2) the share of the population which received social aid, in order to ensure minimum guaranteed income, on the 31st of July 2009, according to the estimates provided by municipalities; and (3) the resources available at the level of the locality – own income per capita according to the 2008 budget implementation as
86
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
10 The indicator is elaborated in two phases. The first phase consists of elaborating an indicator of social problems as of 31st July 2009, as factor score of the variables (1) and (2). The indicator of the available resources of the locality is calculated separately, consisting of the own income per capita (the 2008 budget implementation of the MPF and the INS data regarding total stable population on 1st January 2008). The social problems indicator and the income per capita are grouped as follows: 30% communes/ cities with the lowest values at the level of the residence environment, 40% with average values and 30% with the highest values. In the second phase, the social problems indicator and the own income per capita indicator are overlapped, hence the nine cells which are regrouped into the five types shown in Figure 1. Note: The resources available at locality level are measured by their own income per capita (which includes allowance breakdowns deducted from income tax) as this indicator reflects best the level of development of the local economy. A small locality with a low level of income is a locality with an underdeveloped local economy, with no businesses or companies, other than bars and small shops. A locality with a developed and diversified economy, on the other hand, has a relatively high level of income per capita.
www.soros.ro
communicated by Ministry of Public Finances.10 At the intersection of these variables we can find five categories of localities, with significantly different profiles, as shown in Figure 1.
87
www.soros.ro
Figure 1. LPA typology, based on social problems and locality resources 14,00
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion…
12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
0.06 1.52 202
1.57 9.03 207
Households with poor housing at 31.07.2009 (%)
Medium developed with severe social 3.64 12.11 471
Medium developed with average social 0.68 4.22 512
Population receiving social aid at 31.07.2009 (%)
Developed
ROMANIA
0.09 1.32 608
1.29 6.02 434
Own income per inhabitant 2008 (lei)
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. N=2904.
The first type of localities - the indifferent poor - are the ones with underdeveloped economies, in which local authorities declare that poor housing and the population poverty do not represent social problems at the local level. Unlike the first category, the second type of localities – the poor – includes communes and cities/towns with an underdeveloped economy, in which local authorities declare that both poverty and poor 88
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
housing are social problems affecting an important proportion of the population. The next two types both have averagely developed local economies, but, while in some of them social problems reach truly alarming rates (on average, 3.6% of the households live in makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing and over 12% receive social aid), in the others social problems are slightly below average levels. The last category includes developed communes and cities/towns with a local economy capable of generating revenue and activities, where poor housing and poverty are marginal issues. Most communes and cities/towns (27%) are included in the category of averagely developed communities with average problems. The developed localities and the localities included in the category “poor with social problems�, represent 22-24% each. The averagely developed localities with severe social problems represent 17% of all cities/towns and 20% of all communes and the indifferent poor category includes 5-8% of the total number of localities.
89
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Medium developed with severe social problems
Medium developed with average social problems
Developed
Municipalities that did not respond
Total
Urban
15
74
52
83
74
27
325
Rural
204
577
527
720
578
254
2860
Romania
219
651
579
803
652
281
3185
www.soros.ro
Table 6. Number of communes /towns /cities, according to the five types
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. The municipalities which did not respond represent 8.8% of all localities of the country, out of which 6.3% refused to participate in the research, and 2.5% did not provide all the required information, in order to be able to determine the type of locality.
90
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
www.soros.ro
The typology described above captures the general social situation, at locality level, beyond the considered social problems (poverty and poor housing). Thus, the five types are associated, with statistical significance, with other synthetic indicators which measure the level of poverty or of development of the locality. Figure 2. Typology according to social problems, poverty rate and level of development 60
50
40
30
20
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Urban - Gpoverty
Medium developed with severe social Rural - Gpoverty
Medium developed with average social
Developed
Rural - IDC
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. Note: Gpoverty - Degree of poverty, data for 2004, published by the MARD, www.madr.ro. This data is taken into account upon determining the score for projects submitted for funding as per Measure 322-EAFRD, as the level of poverty is an eligibility criterion for this funding line. IDC-Community Development Indicator developed by Dumitru Sandu, data from 2008, methodology and data available at: http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu .
91
Social Inclusion…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
11 Municipalities were asked to estimate, as of 31 July 2009, the share of the unemployed in the total population of the locality, where “unemployed” means any person of working age, who does not have a job and who is job-seeking. Therefore, the data provided by municipalities differs from the standard indicators - the registered unemployed rate and the ILO unemployed rate.
www.soros.ro
Figure 2 shows that, in localities included in the categories of the indifferent poor and of the poor with social problems, the degree of poverty (the Gpoverty indicator) is higher than the average, while the level of community development (IDC indicator) is much lower than the average. In the other types of localities, the degree of poverty is equal to or lower than the average, and the level of development of the locality is equal to or higher than the average. The five types of localities are also significantly differentiated when other indicators that measure social problems are considered. Thus, in the rural environment, the unemployment rate11 estimated by the representatives of local authorities ranges from significantly lower values of 7-8%, in the communes from indifferent poor type and in the developed ones, to an average value of 10% and to 12%, in medium developed communes with severe social problems. In the urban environment, the unemployment rate does not differ significantly depending on the city/town type. Instead, both in rural and urban areas, severe social problems are associated with the presence of rather large Roma communities. The municipality representatives were asked to give an estimate regarding the number of Roma in the locality. In total, over 693,000 Roma were reported in the 94% of the country’s localities that participated in the research. At country level, the share of Roma population out of the total population, on the 1st January 2009, was of 3.56%, much higher than the one recorded in the census performed in 2002 (2.47%). If the differences in the urban environment are rela-
92
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
tively low (2% in the 2002 census, compared with 2.2% estimated by the municipalities on 1st January 2009), in the case of rural areas there are serious discrepancies (3.1% in 2002, compared to 5.1% in 2009). Therefore, the residential distribution of the Roma population seems to have changed considerably from 2002 to 2009. If in 2002, 57% of the Roma lived in communes and 43% lived in towns and cities, in 2009 local authorities claim that 68% of the Roma population lives in rural areas and only 32% have remained in urban areas. Of course, there is the possibility that the share of Roma population has increased between 2002 and 2009. However, it is a known fact that there is no consensus on the real number of Roma and on the percentage in which they self-identify as such. All studies conducted on the Roma living in Romania show that the number and percentage of self-identified Roma are considerably lower than those of the hetero-identified ones. The rule is observed in this investigation as well. By comparing the census data (in which ethnicity is self-identified) with the estimates of the municipalities representatives (based on hetero-identified ethnicity), it resulted that, out of 100 people hetero-identified as Roma (as at 1st January 2009), 69 people across the country also self-identify as Roma (88 persons in urban areas and 61 persons in rural areas).12 Figure 3 shows the distribution of the Roma population by type of locality and residential environment. Roma are not evenly distributed, either between the residential environments (as shown above) or between the types of localities. Almost 72% of all 12 According to the National Survey on Roma conducted by ICCV in 1998 (Zamfir and Preda, 2002), the hetero-identification - self-identification ratio, in the case of the Roma, is as follows: for every 100 persons hetero-identified by the authorities as Roma, 56 persons in the urban areas and 64 persons in the rural areas self-identify as Roma.
93
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Roma in the country are concentrated in four types of localities (represented, in the image, by the larger circles), namely: the averagely developed communes with severe social problems (about 28% of the Roma population), in communes included in the category of the poor with social problems (about 18% of the Roma), in averagely developed communes with average issues (16% of the Roma) and in developed cities/towns (over 10% of the Roma). Figure 3 also emphasises several issues relevant to policies, measures and programmes of social inclusion that include the Roma among the target groups. Developed cities/towns and communes, as well as cities/towns and communes from the indifferent poor type are placed at the base of the chart. On the one hand, the population of all these four types contains small percentages (1-2%) of Roma, either identified by themselves (2002) or by others (2009). On the other hand, the hetero-identification - self-identification ratio is atypical for these types of localities, as the municipality representatives probably used, to fill in the questionnaire, the census results, out of which they subtracted an estimated number of Roma who moved to the countryside or abroad. Therefore, the percentage of self-identified Roma (which, in the literature, is usually associated with the “traditional Roma�) is very high or even higher than 100%.
94
www.soros.ro
Percentage of hetero-identified Roma in total population (2009)
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
Figure 3. Distribution of the Roma population by types of localities and residential areas 14.0
12.0
10.0
COMMUNE averagely developed with severe social problems (27.7% of Roma)
8.0
COMMUNE poor with social problems (17.8% of Roma)
TOWN averagely developed with severe social problems (5.6% of Roma)
6.0
4.0
2.0
COMMUNE averagely developed with average social problems (15.9% of Roma)
TOWN Indifferent poor (0.3% of Roma)
COMMUNE indifferent poor 0.0 0.0 (1.1% of Roma)
TOWN poor with social problems (7.5% of Roma)
COMMUNE developed (5.6% of Roma)
TOWN averagely developed with average social problems (8% of Roma)
TOWN developed (10.5% of Roma) 2.0
4.0
Percentage of self-identified Roma in total population (Census 2002)
6.0
8.0 URBAN
RURAL
Note: The size of the circle is given by the percentage of the total Roma, as hetero-identified by the local authorities representatives (shown in brackets), who were declared in the localities belonging to the type illustrated by that respective bubble.
95
100,0 90,0
Urban
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
80,0
www.soros.ro
Figure 4A. Average size of Roma communities and Roma households in poor housing
70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Averagely developed with severe social problems
Averagely developed with average social problems
Developed
URBAN
13.3 28.5 130
68.9 50.4 714
86.5 57.1 847
65.1 61.6 745
47.3 37.8 1126
62.8 51.1 809
B10
B6A
A5
96
70,0
Rural
60,0
www.soros.ro
Figure 4B. Average size of Roma communities and Roma households in poor housing
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion…
50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Averagely developed with severe social problems
Averagely developed with average social problems
Developed
RURAL
3.4 3.1 38
23.7 14.1 214
57.9 41.3 364
21.7 20.0 151
4.2 6.4 66
24.1 17.5 180
B10
B6A
A5
Note: B10 – The percentage of localities belonging to that particular type, in which there are groups of more than 10 poor Roma households, living in unhealthy housing. B6A - The percentage of Roma households out of the total households living in makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing in the locality. A5 - The average size of the local Roma population (number of persons). Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. The municipalities which did not respond represent 8.8% of all localities of the country, out of which 6.3% refused to participate in the research, and 2.5% did not provide all the required information, in order to be able to determine the type of locality.
97
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
In addition, Figure 4 shows that developed cities/towns and communes, as well as indifferent poor cities/towns and communes include significantly smaller shares of localities with areas grouping more than 10 Roma households living in poor and unsanitary housing that barely make a living. Also, the share of Roma households out of the total households with makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing is considerably lower, because, in these types of localities, poor housing refers mainly to adobe houses, which are not connected to utilities networks, or blocks of flats inhabited by pensioners, which require general refurbishment. It should be noted that, in the developed communes and in the indifferent poor communes, but also in the indifferent poor cities/towns, the Roma population forms small communities, including 38, 66 and 130 people, respectively (Figure 4). Only in developed cities/towns, which otherwise concentrate over 10% of the Roma in the country, the local Roma population is of 1126 people, on average. The explanation lies in the fact that developed cities/towns include all major cities of the country (of over 200,000 inhabitants) and the districts of the Capital City. Approximately 24% of the Roma live in medium developed cities/towns and communes with average social problems. The Roma population in these localities is, on average, of 150 persons, in the rural areas, and of 750 persons, in the urban areas. In these types of localities the share of Roma out of the total population is average, and the ratio between self-identified and hetero-identified Roma is also average. These two types show no significant differences from the average for the residential environment, or with regard to the percentage of localities with areas grouping more than 10 Roma households living in poor and unsanitary housing that barely make a living. However,
98
Social Inclusion…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
we find it noteworthy that, if in the communes the share of Roma out of the total households living in poor housing is of only 20%, in cities/towns, this share increases to 62%. Moreover, if only one out of five communes has an area with poor Roma living in unsanitary housing, the share increases to 65% in cities/towns. In 21% of the averagely developed communes with average social problems we would most likely encounter the so-called “Gypsy areas”, located on the outskirts of one or more villages. However, in these communes, poor housing also affects the majority population (Romanian or Hungarian), as they live in old houses, made of adobe and with no access to utilities. In 65% of the cities/towns with average social problems we encounter ghetto-type areas, communities formed in the proximity of landfills, brownfield sites or other poor areas (Stănculescu and Berevoescu, ed., 2004), which concentrate extremely poor population, the Roma representing an important part thereof. Poor housing is viewed, by the authorities, as a specific problem of the Roma population. The cities/towns and communes belonging to the poor category with social problems are very similar to averagely developed cities/towns and communes with average social problems. As it can be seen in Figure 3, the circles corresponding to these types are similar in size and are grouped in the centre of the chart. The poor with social problems are different from the other types mainly due to the significantly lower levels of local resources (own income per capita) and of population-related data. Thus, the share of self-identified Roma is close to the average, for both urban and rural areas, but the share of hetero-identified Roma is significantly higher. When social problems are similar in nature and extent, the locally available resources make the difference - the municipalities with low income feel helpless, they feel unable to take the actions they
99
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
deem necessary and they tend to hetero-identify larger shares of the population as Roma (poor population, generally). Finally, averagely developed cities/towns, but especially averagely developed communes with severe social problems are separated. In Figure 3 we can observe that the circles corresponding to these two types are practically separated, being located to the far right. Also, in Figure 4, the bars representing them have significantly higher values than the other bars and than the average. The share of Roma in the total population is very large (over 220% of the average), whether we take self- or hetero-identification as reference13. The maximum figures indicate 12% of the total population, in the case of hetero-identified Roma, on the 1st of January 2009, in averagely developed communes with severe social problems. So these cities/towns and communes have large Roma communities, which include, on average, about 850 Roma - in the urban areas, and 350 Roma in the rural areas. As a closely related aspect, 87% of these cities/towns and 58 of these communes have areas grouping more than 10 Roma households living in poor and unsanitary housing that barely make a living. The poor housing issue predominantly affects the Roma, especially those living in the cities/towns.
13 Therefore, we are not dealing with a tendency of the authorities to hetero-identify large portions of the population as being Roma.
100
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
We shall analyse the two dimensions of the ability of the local authorities to cope with social problems: the financial and the human resources.
www.soros.ro
The ability of the local authorities to cope with social problems
Financial resources The financial resources available to the municipality are already incorporated in the model, as own income per capita, which, in the first place, indicate the level of development of the local economy. However, to understand which are the resources available for social protection actions and measures, we need to add three other indicators to the analysis: (1) the share of own income in total revenues (which include transfers from the state budget to various government social programs), (2) the total expenditure per capita and (3) the share of social expenditure in the total expenditure. The entire data was excerpted from the budget implementation for 2008 (Ministry of Public Finances).
101
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Medium developed with severe social problems
Medium developed with average social problems
Developed
Total
28.4
27.1
42.9
47.2
55.7
42.6
Total expenditure per capita (RON)
1143.2
1306.5
1583.6
1548.6
1713.2
1515.1.
Social expenditure % total expenditure
5.0
7.3
5.4
3.6
3.2
4.8
19.4
17.1
28.9
31.7
35.3
27.7
Total expenditure per capita (RON)
1001.3
1150.1
1492.2
1458.3
1437.0
1356.4
Social expenditure % total expenditure
8.9
12.2
10.9
7.7
6.2
9.1
www.soros.ro
Table 2. Financial resources of municipalities by types of localities, data for 2008
Urban Own income % total revenue
Rural Own income % total revenue
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. The municipalities which did not respond represent 8.8% of all localities of the country, out of which 6.3% refused to participate in the research, and 2.5% did not provide all the required information, in order to be able to determine the type of locality. Note: The differences between the mean values of the table are statistically significant (one-dimensional analysis of variance, p =.000).
102
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The own income share in the total revenue varies significantly in the urban and rural areas, as well as between localities belonging to different types. In rural areas, the own income ranges from 17% to 35% of the total revenues, indicating a high degree of dependency of the municipalities on the state budget transfers. Poor communes with social problems are the most vulnerable, given that their own income represents only 17% of the total revenues. The following are the indifferent poor communes, followed by averagely developed communes with severe social problems, averagely developed communes with average problems and developed communes. The last two types, although vulnerable, are in a better position than the indifferent poor cities/towns or than the poor cities/towns with social problems which, on average, have a level of own income representing only 27-28% of the total revenues. The developed cities/towns have the greatest degree of independence, as they manage to generate, on average, over half (57%) of the total income of the locality. The total expenditure per capita is significantly higher in urban areas, as opposed to rural areas, but in both residential environments they differ significantly between types, in accordance with the following rule: the localities inhabited by the indifferent poor have, on average, the lowest expenditure per capita, the poor localities with social problems have higher expenditure than the indifferent poor, but significantly lower than the averagely developed or developed localities. The efforts of the local authorities to solve local social problems are reflected in the share of the social expenditure in the total expenditure. As shown by the data in Table 2, the share of social expenditure is largely correlated with the magnitude of the social problems (see Section 1.1). Thus, as social problems are not significant, the share of
103
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
social expenditure in the total expenditure decreases. The minimum share corresponds to developed cities/towns and to averagely developed cities/towns with average problems, while the highest share belongs to communes included in the poor category, with assumed social problems. In urban areas, as developed cities/towns have significantly higher total expenditure, the social protection expenditure, throughout a year, is 5–10 times higher than the amounts spent in other types of cities/towns. In rural areas, the differences in total expenditure are relatively low therefore higher shares mean higher amounts (in RON) spent on social protection programmes. Consequently, out of the entire amount spent in Romania by the local authorities on social assistance programmes, over 70% is spent in only four types of localities, namely: developed cities/towns whose social expenditure totals 25% of the social expenditure of municipalities in the country, communes from the type poor with social problems encompassing 17%, followed by medium developed communes with average problems and communes with severe problems, which spend 14% each. Thus, 70% of all social expenditure of local authorities in Romania is made by 74 cities/towns (23% of the total number of cities, including all cities over 200,000 inhabitants) and 1824 communes (64% of the total number of communes in the country). Human resources For the human resources analysis only two indicators are relevant to the issue of the social problems and they are significantly differentiated depending on the types of localities. The first indicator refers to the personnel employed by the municipality, as
104
Social Inclusion…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
14 Projects submitted for financing or in preparation for the following operational programs, priority axes, respectively,are taken into account: ROP / PA3 – Improving social infrastructure, SOP HRD / KAI 5.1 – Developing and implementing active employment measures, KAI 5.2 – Promoting long term sustainability of rural areas in terms of human resources development and employment, KAI 6.1 – Developing social economy and KAI 6.2 – Improving access and participation of vulnerable groups in the labor market.
www.soros.ro
personnel specialised in social assistance, in charge of vulnerable groups and social inclusion projects. In urban areas there are no significant differences between the five types of cities/towns: regardless of the type, over two thirds of the cities/towns have two or more employees with social assistance responsibilities, and and an additional 19% have one employee. In contrast, in the rural area, 26% of the communes have no employee with these responsibilities, 55% have only one and only 19% have two or more. In addition, there are significant differences between the types of communes, namely: among the averagely developed communes with average problems there are significantly more (30%) that have no staff specialised in social assistance, while the communes included in the poor category with problems tend to have two or more employees in this field. The second indicator is the existence, within the municipality, of a department specialised in projects with European funding. These specialised departments are a highly effective tool in attracting grants to the local budget, including for financing social inclusion actions. Between 2007 and 2009, 95% of the municipalities with specialised departments have submitted or have prepared applications for EU funding, and 45% were able to attract funds. Among the municipalities without specialised departments, 84% submitted their funding applications, but only 24% were able to attract funds. Furthermore, municipalities with specialised departments have submitted, on average, per municipality, twice the number of projects for financing and five times the number of social inclusion projects14 compared to other municipalities. Moreover, from over 570
105
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
social projects with EU funding recorded during our research, 57% originated in municipalities that have such a specialised department. While the local authorities of 227 cities and towns (i.e. 70% of all urban localities) have departments specialised in projects with European funding, only 370 communes (13% of all rural areas) have such departments. In rural areas there are no significant differences depending on the type of commune, but in the urban areas 84% of the developed cities/towns have a department specialised in projects with European funding, but only 60% of the indifferent poor cities/towns included in the indifferent/poor category and 65% of the cities/towns of included in the poor category with problems have such a department. Consequently, over 20% of all social projects with European funding (2007-2009) have been developed by the 74 developed cities/towns in the country. For comparison purposes, the averagely developed localities with severe social problems submitted / prepared only 15% of the social projects submitted by the municipalities across the country for European funding. Social protection and social inclusion measures and actions Most Romanian municipalities have a Local Development Strategy (LDS): i.e. 80% cities/towns and 68% communes. The developed cities/towns have a stronger strategic orientation, as 92% have a LDS, as well as municipalities included in the poor category with social problems, out of which 72% have a LDS. By contrast, the cities/towns and communes from the indifferent/poor category have significantly lower shares (60% and 58%, respectively).
106
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
In the cities/towns, regardless of the type, 85% of the LDS include provisions for the integration and help of vulnerable groups and 58% of the LDS promote specific measures for Roma people. In contrast, in the rural areas only medium developed communes with serious social problems include in 80% of the LDS provisions regarding vulnerable groups, and 49% of the LDS contain provisions regarding the Roma communities. Conversely, the developed communes and the indifferent poor communes included Roma-related provisions in only 12-14% of the LDS. Table 3. Strategic measures and services for vulnerable groups and Roma, by types of localities (%) Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Medium developed with severe social problems
Medium developed with average social problems
Developed
Total
The municipality has a LDS
60.0
74.3
84.6
75.9
91.9
80.2
Voluntarily provides services and facilities
20.0
60.8
71.2
72.3
81.1
68.8
Social canteen
26.7
13.5
11.5
42.2
51.4
31.2
Urban
Rural
107
Social Inclusion…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Poor with social problems
Medium developed with severe social problems
Medium developed with average social problems
Developed
Total
The municipality has a LDS
58.3
71.9
66.8
68.6
69.0
68.3
The LDS includes provisions for vulnerable groups
68.1
69.4
79.5.
69.2
62.9
69.8
The LDS includes provisions for the Roma population
11.8
26.0
49.4
29.6
13.8
27.9
Voluntarily provides services and facilities
31.9
42.1
44.4
40.3
38.4
40.4
Since early 2009, the municipality has dropped some measures of social protection
14.6
21.0
18.4
16.1
16.4
17.6
www.soros.ro
Indifferent poor
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. The municipalities which did not respond represent 8.8% of all localities of the country, out of which 6.3% refused to participate in the research, and 2.5% did not provide all the required information, in order to be able to determine the type of locality. Note: The differences between the mean values of the table are statistically significant (one-dimensional analysis of variance, p =.000).
In November 2009, municipalities offered voluntary services, facilities, assistance to disadvantaged groups, other than the aids included in the national programmes, in 69% of the cities/towns and in 40% of the communes. The municipalities of the developed cities/towns are “champions” in providing services and facilities (81%), while indifferent
108
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
poor cities/towns merely implement national programmes funded by the state budget - only 20% of them offer voluntary services and support to disadvantaged groups. In the rural area, the local authorities from the medium developed communes with severe social problems are more active in providing social services (44%), especially compared with communes included in the indifferent poor category. Due to budget constraints caused by the global economic crisis, in November 2009 about 18% of municipalities in the country were forced to drop some of the social protection measures. This occurred in all localities, both urban and rural, being slightly higher in the communes from the category of the poor communes with social problems. Of all the social assistance services, the canteen is an interesting case. First of all, there is a huge disparity between urban and rural - the canteen is specific to the urban environment. Almost one third (31%) of all cities/towns in the country puts a canteen at the disposal of people with low income or without a source of income, while only 1,5% of the local authorities from communes provide such a service. But even in the cities/towns, canteens are significantly more numerous in the developed cities and in the averagely developed ones with average problems. From the disadvantaged groups targeted with priority by municipalities in Romania, the Roma is the most relevant group for the purposes of this analysis, especially considering the results presented in section 1.1. Roma population ranks third among disadvantaged groups disadvantaged to which municipalities offer services, facilities, and additional aids voluntarily. Thus, 32% of the cities/towns and nearly 12% of the communes provide services to the Roma population. Considering their share in the total population, the social services and support to the Roma are provided, to a signifi-
109
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
www.soros.ro
cantly greater extent, in the localities (urban and rural) included in the type medium developed with serious social problems. In developed communes and in indifferent poor communes, where the share of Roma is relatively small, municipalities providing such services represent only 5% and 2%, respectively. Table 4. Percentage of municipalities that provide services, facilities or social support to the Roma population (%) Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Medium developed with severe social problems
Medium developed with average social problems
Developed
Urban
29.7
46.2
39.8
25.7
32.9
Rural
2.0
11.4
25.4
10.0
5.4
Total
11.8
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. The municipalities which did not respond represent 8.8% of all localities of the country, out of which 6.3% refused to participate in the research, and 2.5% did not provide all the required information, in order to be able to determine the type of locality.
In both rural and urban areas, regardless of the locality type, most municipalities provide primarily financial and in-kind aid to the Roma population.
110
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
9
www.soros.ro
Figure 5. Services and facilities provided to the Roma population (%)
8
7
6 RURAL URBAN
5
ROMA 4
NR=1 Rural Urban
3 9. Financial aid 8. In-kind aid (food, clothing, firewood) 7. Counselling services 6. Discounts, gratuities 5. Help in finding work 4. Home care services 3. Welfare services in day care centres 2. Provision of social houses 1. Other types of goods/ services
2
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
111
Social Inclusion‌
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Map of the types of localities, depending on the local problems and resources The types of localities analysed in this study are highly differentiated when considering the size of the total (stable) population (NIS data, on 1st January 2008). As shown in Table 5, the average population size in developed cities/towns is considerably larger compared to other cities, precisely because this type includes all major cities in Romania. Medium-sized and large cities (more than 20,000 inhabitants, less than 200,000 inhabitants) are overrepresented in the category of medium developed cities with average problems, while small towns (under 20,000 people) predominate in the other three categories: poor with social problems, indifferent poor or averagely developed with severe social problems.
112
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion‌
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Medium developed with severe social problems
Medium developed with average social problems
Developed
Total
Small towns (< 20 thousand inhabitants)
6
32
22
25
14
100
Cities with => 20 thousand and < 200 thousand inhabitants
3
9
8
38
42
100
Cities with 200+ thousand inhabitants
0
0
0
0
100
100
Total
www.soros.ro
Table 5. Average size of localities, by type and residential environment
(%)
Average number of persons
(persons)
- per town/city
12,309
12,527
12,307
21,708
89,320
34,104
â&#x20AC;&#x201C; per commune
4,176
3,647
2,951
3,226
3,401
3,377
Source: The access of local authorities to European fundsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. The municipalities which did not respond represent 8.8% of all localities of the country, out of which 6.3% refused to participate in the research, and 2.5% did not provide all the required information, in order to be able to determine the type of locality.
As for the communes, the ones included in the category indifferent poor have a significantly larger average size (over 4000 inhabitants). The medium developed communes with severe social problems have the smallest average size, while the other types have a population between 3,200 and 3,650 inhabitants. 113
Social Inclusionâ&#x20AC;Ś
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The regional distribution of the types is shown in Figure 6 and it is based on the share of total localities in that particular historical region, not on the share of population of a certain type of localities in the total population of a particular region. In the rural areas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the communes from the categories indifferent poor and poor with social problems are clearly overrepresented in Moldova and, to a lesser extent, in Wallachia. The averagely developed communes with severe social problems are significantly more numerous in Oltenia and especially in Transilvania. The averagely developed communes with average problems are also overrepresented in Transilvania, while developed communes are frequent in Transilvania, Wallachia and Banat. In the urban areas - the regional distribution of cities/towns is slightly changed, compared to that of the communes. Cities/towns from the categories indifferent poor and poor with problems are predominantly located in Moldova and Oltenia. The medium developed cities/towns with severe social problems are more frequent in Wallachia, Transilvania and in Crisana Maramures. Transilvania also contains a large proportion of the averagely developed cities/towns with average problems, and developed cities/ towns are clearly overrepresented in Transilvania and in Wallachia. In other words, Moldova (the least developed and poorest region of the country) is includes predominantly localities included in the indifferent poor category or localities with acknowledged social problems. Wallachia and Transilvania are heterogeneous regions, in which localities with severe problems coexist with developed localities. Oltenia is marked by an overrepresentation of the communes with social problems, in the categories of the indifferent poor or with assumed problems. Banat and Dobrogea, smaller regions, include averagely developed or developed localities.
114
80
Urban
60 50 40 30 18
20 10
Developed
Averagely developed with average social problems
Poor with social problems
Urban Mayors (N=119) Deputy mayors, chef clerk, others (N=143) Undeclared position (N=63)
Bucureşti-Ilfov
Banat
CrişanaMaramureş
Transilvania
Dobrogea
Oltenia
Wallachia
0 Moldova
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion…
70
www.soros.ro
Figure 6A. Distribution of localities by type and historical region (% of the region)
Averagely developed with severe social problems
Indifferent poor
Rural Mayors (N=1258) Deputy mayors, chef clerk, others (N=1175) Undeclared position (N=427)
115
Rural
500 400 300 200 100
Developed
Averagely developed with average social problems
Poor with social problems
Bucureşti-Ilfov
Banat
CrişanaMaramureş
Transilvania
Dobrogea
Oltenia
Wallachia
0 Moldova
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusion…
600
www.soros.ro
Figure 6B. Distribution of localities by type and historical region (% of the region)
Averagely developed with severe social problems
Indifferent poor
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds– Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV. The municipalities which did not respond represent 8.8% of all localities of the country, out of which 6.3% refused to participate in the research, and 2.5% did not provide all the required information, in order to be able to determine the type of locality.
116
Social Inclusionâ&#x20AC;Ś
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
We can determine a profile of our types of localities by political criteria, not just from a territorial standpoint. The analysis based on the political affiliation of the mayor is possible for rural areas only because the number of towns/cities is too small. However, our analysis has certain limits, such as the fact that the political affiliation is the one declared upon election and does not reflect the ongoing political migration process. The data in Table 6 shows that the communes included in the indifferent poor category or those having assumed social problems are managed by mayors with various political affiliations, with the exception of HDUR, and with a statistically significant representation of the SDP and of the NLP in localities from the type poor with assumed problems. The number of HDUR mayors is significantly higher in the averagely developed communes with serious problems, but also in the developed communes. Finally, LDP mayors are present especially in averagely developed communities with average social problems.
117
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Social Inclusionâ&#x20AC;Ś
Indifferent poor
Poor with social problems
Averagely developed with severe social problems
Averagely developed with average social problems
Developed
Total
LDP
24
27
25
31
27
27
NLP
21
27
21
20
20
22
SDP
51
40
35
34
35
37
HDUR
0
0
11
6
8
6
OTHER Total
3
7
8
8
10
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
www.soros.ro
Table 6. Distribution of communes by type and political affiliation of the mayor (%)
Source: The access of local authorities to European fundsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Soros Romania Foundation, (Dec. 2009), data collected by CERME, CNPS and ICCV.
Final remarks The survey put forward a typology of the Romanian localities, showing that, although it started from three simple variables, it serves as a complement to the classifications circulating at the moment, having the power to reflect / differentiate various aspects related to the general social situation, to the ability of the municipality to respond to local challenges and to the social protection/social inclusion actions and measures that the municipality has taken as a reaction. 118
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Monica Marin
www.soros.ro
The local hopes of decentralization Introduction In the history of post-revolutionary decentralization of the public administration in Romania, 199915, the first year when the Law 189/1998 on local public finances was enforced, is considered as the start of the financial decentralization in Romania. 10 years after this measure, after two decentralization framework laws and a number of different powers entrusted to local authorities over time, the exhaustive research conducted by the Soros Foundation Romania on Romanian municipalities has examined the perceptions of the local authorities on the impact of decentralization, in connection to the present, but especially to the future of this process. This study is structured on the basis of the dimensions investigated in the quantitative research conducted in 2009: 1. Self-assessment of the knowledge of the local authorities on decentralization 15 Other authors (see Martinez Vasquez, Jorge, Tax Relations in Romania: Challenges and options for reform, 2005) mention the year 1991 as the beginning of the decentralization process in Romania. 1999 is the first year when the Law 189/1998 on local public finances was enforced, when the local authorities have been granted the authorities of establishing, monitoring, collecting and controlling local taxes, which led to a dramatic increase in own revenue.
119
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
www.soros.ro
2. Consultation with local authorities on the decentralization process 3. Perception of the impact of decentralization on local authorities 4. Expectations related to decentralization 5. The needs of the local authorities for an effective decentralization 6. Various difficulties in carrying out responsibilities in 2009. The analysis identifies the profile of municipalities, based on systematically tested criteria: the degree of development of the commune, the size of the locality, the political affiliation of the mayor in the 2008 local elections16, the number of terms of mayor, the staff training (if the municipality has trained staff in the development of European funding projects), the respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position (mayor or other representatives of the municipality), the residential environment (urban-rural).
16 Data source: www.beclocale2008.ro. The data used for the political affiliation of mayors does not take into account the political migration phenomena which occurred in 2008-2009.
120
www.soros.ro
Chart 1. How much information would you say you possess about the Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy in the field of the decentralization of public services? (N=3185) 60% URBAN 54 53 49
50%
40% 33 30%
27 20
20%
18 13
10%
8
7
8
7 3
Vicemayors secretaries, other
A great many
Quite many
Quite a few Mayors
Mayors' offices that didn't answer
0 0
0% Very few
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Information and consultation on decentralization
Unspecified position
121
60%
RURAL
56
www.soros.ro
Chart 1. How much information would you say you possess about the Government’s strategy in the field of the decentralization of public services? (N=3185)
40
40%
42
40 36
30%
20%
20
20
16
15
10%
8 5 1
Vicemayors secretaries, other
A great many
Quite many
Quite a few Mayors
0 0 Mayors' offices that didn't answer
2 0% Very few
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
50%
Unspecified position
Source: Stănculescu M. (coord.). 2009. The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania.
122
The local hope…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The self-assessment of the knowledge about decentralization differs significantly according to the representative of the local authority undertaking the assessment: mayors, both in urban and in rural areas, state that they know more about decentralization than deputy mayors, secretaries, accountants, or advisors. This difference, preserved in what regards advisory capacities as well, can be explained by the membership of Mayors in associations of the local authorities: Association of Romanian Communes, Association of Romanian Cities, and Association of Romanian Municipalities. These associative structures participate, through delegated representatives, in consultations on legislative initiatives related to decentralization and have a system used to inform members of the association’s position. The associative organizations of the local authorities are mentioned in the decentralization framework law – Law 195/2006, as partners to the Romanian Government in the transfer of competencies, and the presidents of the associations are members of the Inter-ministry Technical Committee for Decentralization17. “Seniority” matters: those who serve their first term as mayors see themselves as significantly less informed on decentralization, compared to those who serve two or more consecutive terms. Urban respondents also know more about decentralization, compared to rural respondents. Representatives of small localities, with a population of under 2,000 inhabitants, as well as the representatives of municipalities without staff trained in the preparation of projects with European funding know less about decentralization compared to the representatives of large cities, with municipalities that have staff trained in European funding. Upon an analysis of the differences of opinion based 17 The structure of the Committee is mentioned in the Methodological Standards for the enforcement of Law 195/2006.
123
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
www.soros.ro
on political affiliation, recorded in the 2008 local elections, the representatives of the institutions led by Democratic Liberal Party (DLP) mayors tend to be better informed about decentralization, compared to those belonging to other parties. Chart 2. Since early 2009, have you ever been consulted about the decentralization process of public services? (N=3185)
NO 64.7% (N=2060)
URBAN 4.5% (144 municipalities) RURAL 22.3% (711 municipalities) Mayors’ offices that didn’t answer 8.5% URBAN 4.7% (150 municipalities) RURAL 66.4% (1910 municipalities)
Source: Stănculescu M. (coord.). 2009. The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania.
The voice of rural mayor’s offices is less heard in the consultation process on decentralization, and, nationwide only about a quarter of all Romanian municipalities declare that they have been consulted, over the last year - again the mayors to a significantly larger extent, compared to other positions, and DLP mayors more than representatives of other political parties. Chart 3 shows that the percentage of DLP mayors consulted in both residential environments is higher than those corresponding to other political 124
The local hope…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
18 Kenneth Davey. 2002. Decentralization in CEE Countries: Obstacles and Opportunities, in “Mastering Decentralization and Public Administration Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe”, Peteri, G. (ed.). LGI Publications, LGI/OSI. Budapest 19 Published in the Official Gazette no. 340 of 21 May 2009. Data collection period, within the Soros Foundation research: August-November 2009.
www.soros.ro
parties. Small localities, with less than 2,000 inhabitants and localities without staff specialised in accessing European funds, where the issue of the administrative capacity for decentralization is more intense than in other cases, are once again at a disadvantage, in the consultation process. The relationship between locality size and administrative capacity for decentralization is analysed in Section 3. The optimum size for the efficient functioning of decentralised services has been established, for Western countries, at an average of 5,000 inhabitants18. Using this grouping of localities, in what concerns the consultation process on decentralization, the mayors of Romanian localities with more than 5,000 inhabitants declare that they have been consulted to a significantly greater extent, compared to the mayors of other localities. The small percentage of mayors, nationwide, who answered that they have been consulted on the decentralization process is all the more surprising, as 2009 marked the adoption of the first sectoral decentralization strategy - GO no. 562/2009 for the approval of the Decentralization Strategy of the Healthcare System19. The research conducted by the Soros Foundation Romania in 2009 did not include distinctions between various sectors undergoing decentralization - health, education, social security, public order, etc. – or differentiation regarding the system of intergovernmental taxation relations, including the local budgets equalization policy or regarding the observance of the decentralization principles stated in the legislation. However,
125
www.soros.ro
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
the open answers of the local authorities gave rise to hopes and fears of the local government, related to decentralization, and they probably served as base for the overall assessment of the positive or negative impact associated with this process. The question targets the overall impact on each locality and municipality.
126
Yes
No 52
PDL (N=116)
Urban
13
51
7
32
58
48
Other (N=29)
48
30
PDL (N=793)
62
18
PNL (N=635)
27
10%
8
67
21
0
11
66
25
Other (N=217)
8
72
PSD (N=1049)
UDMR (N=166)
11
51
43
PSD (N=89)
UDMR (N=19)
Rural
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
37
36
PNL (N=72)
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
NR
www.soros.ro
Chart 3. Since early 2009, have you ever been consulted about the decentralization process of public services?
8
73
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
6
70%
80%
90%
100%
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania 2009. Note: For HURD and for other political formations, in the urban areas, the number of non-responses is of less than 5. The political party of the Mayor, in the 2008 local elections, www.beclocale2008.ro.
127
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
The encoding of the open answers received within the exhaustive research conducted on the Romanian municipalities shows that the general equation, formed of the transferred responsibility versus related resources (material and human) is one of the most important issues of decentralization. ‘Pessimists’ translate it in terms of responsibilities without financing, which, in a ‘neutral’ tone, would equate to an increase in responsibility/responsibilities, whereas ‘optimists’ hope that the transfer of responsibilities is carried with the provision of financial resources (see Figure 1 and 2). The encoding of these answers was conducted by categories, whose meanings overlaps, partly because of the many implications of decentralization on the activity of the municipality: reducing bureaucracy and reduced resolution time imply a higher quality of service, but they were included in the ‘improving the relationship with the citizens’ general category, because most opinions addressed the ‘fast solutions to the citizens’ problems’ (rural mayoralty, Ialomita county) and ‘the prompt and fast resolution of the citizens’ problems and needs’ (Rural mayoralty, Dolj County). Also, the transparency / elimination of the political influence in the allocation of funds, at national / county levels implies an increase in the local financial autonomy.
www.soros.ro
The optimists and pessimists of decentralization
128
www.soros.ro
Chart 4. Please describe briefly your expectations regarding the impact of decentralization, on the city and on the mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office. (N=3185) Multiple answers, own encodings.
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Increasing the local autonomy Efficiency, high quality management Improving the relation with citizens Unfinanced terms Generally positive Increasing responsibilities Development of the locality Transparency, eliminating the political influnce Generally negative Insufficient staff/unprepaired The decrease of financial resources Increasing the pace of decentralization Law Others NS 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania.
129
The local hope…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
In relation to decentralization, the expectations of most representatives are related to the increase in local autonomy (including financial autonomy), to the efficient use of resources/ the performance of the public management and to the improvement of the relations with citizens. The good management category also includes views on a better inter-institutional coordination, as well as on increasing control over decentralized institutions. Coordination at the institution level concerns, from the perspective of the representatives of local authorities, both the locality’s institutions, as well as the local ones and the ones decentralised at county level: “By directly coordinating the school, the police, the medical centre we will have effective and immediate results” (Rural mayoralty, Galaţi County) and „Better operation of services between county and local institutions” (Rural mayoralty, Bihor County). The control of the local institutions aims at increasing the accountability of the mayor’s office/local community in supervising the decentralised units, with implications for inter-institutional coordination - “supervising the work undertaken by public institutions in the area of our commune” (Rural mayoralty, Ialomiţa county), „the community shall be able to control directly the activities of doctors” (Rural mayoralty, Dolj county). Increased responsibility (ies), increasing the pace of decentralization and the legislative changes needed for the next period are considered at a rather neutral tone. The increased responsibilities do not have, for the opinions in this category, a clearly positive or negative character, it is rather an expression of the transfer of competencies, without expressing the expectations regarding the resources related to this transfer: “increased workload and responsibility”(Rural mayoralty, Constanţa county), “transfer of administrative and financial competencies and responsibilities” (Rural mayoralty, Timiş
130
The local hope…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
county), “decentralization must be actual, not declarative, the legislation must contain, to that effect, the clear responsibilities of the mayor” (Urban mayoralty, Hunedoara county). A slightly negative tone is implicit in their views on increasing the pace of decentralization, in that the time required for this process is considered to be too long, but with an impact which is estimated as being rather positive: “we have to do things, so far we’ve only heard words” (Rural mayoralty, Suceava county), “we’re really expecting it to be put into practice” (Rural mayoralty, Neamţ county). The negative expectations of local authorities focus especially on the issue of the vertical equalization of local budgets, i.e. the transfer of financial resources in order to cover the required financing necessities of the decentralized public services. The most pessimistic option is that in which some mayors expect their localities to disappear because of the decentralization: “the commune will be disbanded, if we consider its income” (Rural mayoralty, Caraş Severin county), „the mayor’s office disappears as a public institution, it cannot survive with this level of own income” (Rural mayoralty, Olt county). The profile of the decentralization “optimist” includes mayors to a significantly greater extent, compared to other positions, urban municipalities, mayors serving three consecutive terms and more, with good self-assessment of the knowledge regarding decentralization as well as members of the current ruling party. The representatives of municipalities led by National Liberal Party (NLP) mayors are, to a significantly greater extent, “pessimistic” about the impact of the decentralization, compared to the mayors belonging to other political parties. There is also a significant association between the size / development of the locality and the expected impact on decentralization - pessimists come from small communities, with 2,000 inhabitants at the most, poorly developed, without staff trained in drafting projects for European funding: “being the poor community that we are, decentralization only brings disadvantages” (Rural mayoralty, Vaslui county).
131
69
14
64
Medium-high
Medium
58
Medium-low
59
16
19
11
11
11
23
6
8
12
9
9
NR no impact negative
9
positive
100
12
75
22
50
25
57
Lowest
0
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Highest
www.soros.ro
Chart 5. From what you know so far, how do you think decentralization would impact the activity of the municipality?
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania 2009. N=285020, percentage of commune groups, depending on the general level of development of the commune, an indicator elaborated by Dumitru Sandu, data from 2008, available on www.dsandu.ro.
20 The commune development indicator was calculated for 2850 of the 2860 communes included in the research of the Soros Foundation - see calculation methodology in Sandu D., Voineagu V., Panduru F. (2009), Development of communes in Romania.
132
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
Development region limit County limit Impact No data No impact Positive Negative
www.soros.ro
AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, WHAT IMPACT DO YOU THINK THAT THE DESCENTRALIZATION WILL HAVE UPON THE ACTIVITY OF THE MAYORS’ OFFICE YOU RUN?
Map made by Veronica Constantin. Data source: Soros Foundation Romania 2009. The access of local authorities to European funds.
133
7%
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Effectiveness of local services, elimination of bureaucracy
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Chart 6A. From what you know so far, how do you think decentralization would impact the activity of the municipality?
2% 34% 9%
Decision autonomy, increasing the attributions of APL
3% 26% 39%
Concern regarding the insufficiency/lack of funds/ Decision making power regarding the use of funds
9% 17% 1%
Development of locality
30% 5% 15%
Other impact
9% 10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Negative impact
25%
30%
No impact
35%
40%
45%
Positive impact
134
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
www.soros.ro
Chart 6B. From what you know so far, how do you think decentralization would impact the activity of the municipality?
' "# ( # $ $ $ #& "
$ % ! $ ! $
# $ % ! $
Source: StÄ&#x192;nculescu M. (coord.). 2009. N=3185. The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania.
135
“Local autonomy. Increased revenue sources. Opportunities for fair distribution of amounts allocated to municipalities” (Rural mayoralty, Argeş county).
www.soros.ro
Diagram 1. Hopes and concerns regarding the impact of decentralization, excerpted from the answers of the local authorities, research conducted by Soros Foundation Romania, 2009.
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
„Financially predictable decisions, for multiannual funding, as most infrastructure projects” (Urban municipality, Brăila county). “Beneficial effects – the municipality will be a <<home>> of sorts, so that each of us will deal with local problems to be solved according to what people want” (Rural mayoralty, Iaşi county). “Greater flexibility in personnel policy, reducing power and role of county councils, involvement in local education, greater involvement in local safety” (Urban municipality, Covasna county). “The political factor, by dividing sums of money based on political criteria, will be excluded” (Rural mayoralty, Gorj county). “Our citizens' problems will be in a better, faster way, by eliminating the time spent waiting at various institutions” (Rural mayoralty, Neamţ county). “You have in your hand all the control mechanisms of the commune institutions, you have a budget and you establish a strategy. Everything is done for the citizen.”(Rural mayoralty, Gorj county). “If decentralized public services will be adequately financed, the impact will be positive, otherwise the impact will be reversed” (Rural mayoralty, Bacău county). “I'm eagerly awaiting for that moment when we start to do things” (Urban municipality, Maramureş county). “The fact that we don't have too much information makes us believe that it won't have any impact”(Rural mayoralty, Mehedinţi county). “Decentralization is not beneficial to the localities with a population of under 1500 inhabitants” (Rural mayoralty, Dolj county) “The commune will be disbanded, if we consider its income” (Rural mayoralty, Caraş Severin county). “If decentralization is done without keeping the revenue locall , it will not only be unnecessary, but also detrimental, as it leaves municipalities with a lot of problems on their hands and without the income to solve them”(Urban municipality, Arad county). “Given the present economic situation, it would create a total chaos, both in the locality and in the mayor's office”(Rural mayoralty, Vaslui county). “If we no longer receive money from the budget, the commune will slowly die, it won't be able to exist anymore, as there are no sources of income”(Rural mayoralty, Mureş county).
136
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Autonomy Autonomy of decision Increase of local autonomy Increase of financial autonomy Increase of the financial resources / attracting external funding Transfer of responsibilities, ensuring the financial resources Establishing local priorities Efficiency Efficient use of resources Efficient management Increase of the quality of service Better inter-agency coordination Increased control Relationship with citizens Increasing the inhabitants' quality of life Drawing the decision closer to the citizens Less solution time Reduced bureaucracy Improved communication with citizens Transparency/ elimination of the political influence Development of the locality Generally positive
Urban
Increased responsibility(ies) Increasing the pace of decentralization Legislation Other
www.soros.ro
Diagram 2. Expectations of local authorities with regard to the impact of decentralisation.
Insufficient resources Terms without funding Decreased financial resources Insufficient / poorly prepared staff
No impact
Generally negative
Rural
137
74
PDL (N=116) 60
Urban
17
PSD (N=89)
69
PDL (N=793)
70
17
13
53
23
60
21
0
10%
20%
30%
12
12
59
Other (N=217)
8
13
69
UDMR (N=166)
negative positive
26
Other (N=29)
PSD (N=1049)
NR no impact
11
63
PNL (N=635)
5
11
79
UDMR (N=19)
Rural
The local hope…
PNL (N=72)
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
9
www.soros.ro
Chart 7. From what you know so far, how do you think decentralization would impact the activity of the municipality?
11
23
40%
50%
60%
70%
12
80%
90%
100%
Source: The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania 2009. Note: For HURD and for other political formations, in the urban areas, the number of “negative” and “no impact” answers is of less than 5. The views of the SDP mayors on “no impact”, in urban areas, are expressed in less than 5 cases. The political party of the Mayor, in the 2008 local elections, www.beclocale2008.ro.
138
www.soros.ro
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
In the urban areas, the representatives of the institutions run by mayors belonging to DLP and SDP are relatively optimistic about the impact of decentralization, while in the rural areas, mayors belonging to DLP and the HURD are the most optimistic about the impact of decentralization21.
21 Field data collection period: August-November 2009.
139
60 50
54% 50%
40
34% 27%
30 23% 19%
20
19% 10%
10
7% 7%
Rural (N=2860) 5% 4%
Urban (N=325)
Mayors’ offices that didn’t answer
OTHERS
EQUIPMENT, facilities, materials,
Necessary LEGISLATION ifor decentralization of the public services
HUMAN RESOURCES (including specialization, training and improvement)
0 FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
Chart 8. What would the municipality/mayor’s office need, first and foremost, in order to be effective in fulfilling the incumbent responsibilities resulting from the decentralizationv process? (N=3185)
www.soros.ro
Administrative capacity for decentralization
Source: Stănculescu M. (coord.). 2009. The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania. Note: URBAN includes all cities and towns (319) plus the 6 districts of the capital city, Bucharest. The sum of percentages for each group (urban / rural) is greater than 100%, because the question was open and with multiple recoding.
140
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Financial resources are considered to be the most important for an effective decentralization at the level of local communities, followed by human resources and legislation changes, required for the decentralization of public services. It is worth mentioning that there is an â&#x20AC;&#x153;unanimityâ&#x20AC;? of opinions between the urban and rural areas on the need for financial resources. It may also be the expression of past failures regarding transfers of competencies and powers, which were not accompanied by the corresponding financial resources. From this perspective, the representatives of the local authorities did not express more than a reinforcement of their fear regarding transferred responsibilities without funding. An additional argument for the importance of the financial resources for a high level of the overall administrative capacity, not only for the provision of decentralized services, is represented by the problems faced by local authorities in executing the budget for the year of 2009 - 47% of the municipalities have accumulated debt related to the payment of suppliers, and 18% had other financial difficulties, consisting mainly of the suspension of investments due to lack of funding. The NLP mayors, the most pessimistic regarding the impact of decentralization, also lead the municipalities which have accumulated debt towards suppliers to an extent significantly greater than the local authorities led by mayors belonging to other political parties.
141
83%
9%
The Mayor's Office has had other difficulties, mainly suspending the investments work
18%
75%
74%
45%
50
47%
The Mayor's Office has accrued debts
No Yes
100
16%
75
The Mayor's Office has eliminated some social security measures
83%
25
The Mayor's Office has accrued penalties to paying the salaries for the employees in its subordination
9%
0
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
Delay of the Mayor's Office in paying the salaries
www.soros.ro
Chart 9. From early 2009 until now (October), what were the difficulties faced by the municipality/mayor’s office? (N=3185)
Source: Stănculescu M. (coord.). 2009. The access of local authorities to European funds. Soros Foundation Romania Note: The rest, up to 100%, is represented by 8.4% of the municipalities that have not responded: 28 mayors of towns and cities, 2 districts of the capital city, Bucharest, and 238 communes.
142
The local hope…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The current legislation provides for the decentralization of powers and competencies, at the level of the local authorities, to be made depending on the administrative capacity, based on the following criteria22: the capacity of the local authorities to plan strategically, the capacity of the local authorities regarding financial management, the capacity of the local authorities regarding human resources management, the capacity of local authorities regarding project management, the consistency of the acts adopted and issued by the authorities of the local government in accordance with the regulations in force. The research of the Soros Foundation Romania includes partial information on these criteria, except the one regarding the legality of the acts issued by local authorities. As for strategic planning, 65% of all municipalities have a Local Development Strategy23, and in June 2008-June 2009, 5.8% of all the employees of municipalities in Romania participated in professional training programmes (24% of the municipalities did not have any employee pursuing training) and urban municipalities had an average success rate of 54%, compared to a 39% success rate in the rural environment, for structural funds projects submitted during 2007-200924. Another important indicator for the administrative capacity of an administrativeterritorial unit to efficiently comply with the decentralized responsibilities is the size 22 According to the Methodology Standards for the enforcement of the decentralization framework law 195/2006, approved by Decree no. 139/2008. 23 The methodology standards for the enforcement of the decentralization provide as a specific criterion, the ability of the local authorities to develop and adopt strategies on economic, social and environmental development of the administrative and territorial units. If the answer is “yes”, 20 points will be awarded, if the answer is “no”, no point shall be awarded. 24 The financial resources are included as data of the budget implementation for different categories of income and expenditure, not as programmed income / expenditure.
143
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Rural Under 1000 inhabitants
Urban 77
Under 3000 inhabitants
Between 1000 and 1999 inhabitants
580
Between 3000 and 4999 inhabitants
13
Between 2000 and 4999 inhabitants
1747
Between 5000 and 9999 inhabitants
101
Between 5000 and 9999 inhabitants
429
Between 10000 and 19999 inhabitants
99
Over 10000 inhabitants
23
Between 20000 and 49999 inhabitants
55
No available data
4
Between 50000 and 99999 inhabitants
22
Between 100000 and 199999 inhabitants
13
Between 200000 and 999999 inhabitants
10
Over 1000000 inhabitants
126
Total
320
Total
www.soros.ro
of the locality, mainly connected to obtaining economies of scale. In Romania, the NIS (National Institute for Statistics) data shows an important process of administrative fragmentation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in 2008 there were 77 communes with a population of less than 1,000 inhabitants. The concern about the disappearance of their villages, as a result of the decentralization process, is expressed mainly by the mayors of small localities25.
2860
6
Total stable population on 1 January 2008. Data source: National Institute for Statistics26
25 For theoretical arguments for and against the use of the population size indicator, see Swaniewicz, Pavel. 2002 - Size of Local Government, Local Democracy and Efficiency in Delivery of Local Services, International Context and Theoretical Framework, LGI /OSI Budapest, available at lgi.osi.hu. 26 Includes Bucharest, with its 6 districts.
144
The local hope…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Number of staff members assessed with qualifications such as "well" and "very well" 100
www.soros.ro
Another problem of the used indicators is that there are no references to the local authorities’ capacity to sustain the capital expenditures necessary for medical centres or schools. “Amputating” the investment activity due to the lack of funds, mentioned by the representatives of the local authorities within the investigation of the Soros Foundation Romania, is a real problem which can become chronic, with local “crisis” budgets which must face the constant transfer of new competencies and powers. Also, for the measurement of the capacity of local public authorities regarding human resources management, the use of the indicator related to the professional performance of the personnel belonging to the mayor’s specialised department is not relevant, calculated using the following formula:
× Total number of assessed staff members
During the testing of the indicators used, CUPAR (the Central Unit for Public Administration Reform) found that, for this indicator: “data shows that all UAT return results that are higher than 50% (79% of the UAT achieved a result of 100% ).”27, which goes to show, yet again, the formal character of the assessments made. In the context of solutions meant to increase local capacity for decentralization, we will examine below the current EU funds dedicated to the development of the administrative capacity (Operational Programme - Administrative Capacity Development - OP 27 Source: interpretation of the questionnaire results - administrative capacity, available at http://modernizare. mai.gov.ro/documente/Interpretare%20rezultate.pdf.
145
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
ACD). The priority axes include the improvement of the structure and of the process of the public policy management cycle, as well as the improvement of the quality level and the increase in efficiency of the delivery of public services, with emphasis on decentralization. Professional training of the public administration staff is included in both objectives. So far, the allocation of OP ACD funds to local councils shows that funds clearly favoured the urban environment. The volume of all funding (eligible amount) granted to local councils through OP ACD does not exceed 10%28 of the total value of projects contracted through this Operational Program. The other types of beneficiaries who have signed contracts through the OP ACD include central authorities, associations of local authorities, county councils, NGOs, universities, etc. The main lines of intervention obtained by local councils aimed, on the one hand, at increasing the capacity of the local authorities to plan strategically - drafting the local development strategies and the sustainable development strategies and, on the other hand, the ability of local authorities regarding the human resource management - training courses.
28 County councils or associations of local authorities were not included, all calculations take into account the local councils as contract beneficiaries, in the list updated on 9 March and published on the website of the OP ACD Management Authority.
146
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
www.soros.ro
Chart 10. Financial allocations to local councils - contracts signed until 9 March 2010 within the Operational Programme - Administrative Capacity Development (% of total eligible value of contracts awarded to local councils within OP-ACD). Calculations made using data provided by OP ACD MA, updated list of beneficiaries. Data source: www. fonduriadministratie.ro.
ADI 30% Rural 14% Urban 56%
147
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
www.soros.ro
Chart 11. Financial allocations to local councils - contracts signed until 9 March 2010 within the Operational Programme - Administrative Capacity Development (% of total eligible value of contracts awarded to local councils within OP-ACD). Calculations made using data provided by OP ACD MA, updated list of beneficiaries.
ADI 30% Municipalities 31% Cities 26% Communes 13%
Data source: www.fonduriadministratie.ro.
For the key area of intervention related to the support for the decentralization of the services sector, among the central authorities with responsibilities in the three key areas of intervention (health, education and social work), only the Ministry of Labour, Family
148
The local hope…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
and Social Protection has attracted foreign funds of the OP ACD, within this funding line29. No local council is among the beneficiaries of this key area of intervention30. OP ACD mentions that “the three sectors will be prioritized by launching separate calls for tenders and thus, through the allocation of separate funds for each of them, the territorial dimension will be actively managed through the selection criteria”31. For this area of intervention, the target result indicators are 100 municipalities with newly decentralized and operational structures. For this specific objective, it would be useful to introduce, as a criterion for the selection of beneficiaries, a new criterion for funding prioritization, a mention regarding the assessment of the applicant’s administrative capacity, according to the criteria set by the current regulatory framework on decentralization, supplemented by the requirements of the responsible Ministries. In light of this evaluation, the next step would be to amend the existing programme documents of OP ACD with a prioritization of granted funding, so as to include, as much as possible, among the 100 municipalities, those local authorities who need to substantially improve their administrative capacity. The idea is similar to Measure 3.2.2, Renewal and development of villages, improvement of the basic services for the economy and for the population of the rural communities and highlighting the rural heritage, managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, which introduced the criteria for 29 Another grant recipient for this line is the General Directorate of Social Assistance and Child Protection of Constanta, subordinated to the Constanta County Council. 30 The database of the Soros Foundation Romania has recorded 10 research projects in this key area of intervention, 1 being rejected, 5 under review and 4 under preparation. 31 The Operational Program - Administrative Capacity Development (OP - ACD), available at www.fonduriadministratie.ro.
149
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The local hope…
www.soros.ro
the selection of the commune’s level of development. Otherwise, the administrative capacity for decentralization is closely related to the structural funds accessing capacity, and as such the allocation of funds will be performed for the same local authorities with a high level of administrative capacity.
Conclusions Decentralization holds an important place on the agenda of the public administration reform, as it is considered, a priori, a solution to many system problems. The overall positive perception of the estimated impact of decentralization is shared by Romanian local authorities - the positive impact is expected by 71% urban municipalities and by 62% rural mayor’s offices. However, the level of information and consultation of local authorities regarding the decentralization process has not reached a high level - 65% have never been consulted since early 2009, in connection with the decentralization of public services - 5% of the urban municipalities and 67% of the rural mayor’s offices. The discrepancies specific to residential areas are also preserved as far as information is concerned - the representatives of the urban municipalities claim that they know more about the government’s strategy on decentralization than the employees of the rural mayor’s offices. One of the biggest concerns of the local authorities, as far as the impact of decentralization is concerned, is the lack of funds, compared with the transferred responsibilities. In the category of the hopes related to decentralization, the expectations in150
The local hopeâ&#x20AC;Ś
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
clude the increase in local autonomy (including financial autonomy), the efficient use of resources/ the performance of the public management and the improvement of the relations with citizens. These local expectations may not materialise in the absence of a coherent process, coordinated by the central authorities and, in particular, by the Ministry of Administration and Interior (MAI). As Management Authority for OP CDA, MAI has granted to local councils through OP ACD less than 10% of the total value of projects contracted through this Operational Program in terms of structural funds dedicated to the development of the administrative capacity. The objective assessment of obstacles to the generalisation of the positive impact of decentralization is essential, as a base for the necessary steps to be taken in order to fulfil the local hopes for decentralization. Within this process, local authorities must be consulted and informed, and this represents a part of the mandatory - not only formal - responsibility of the central authorities.
151
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
European Funds…
Daniela Tarnovschi
www.soros.ro
European funds: a solution or a problem? With the EU accession, the main source of funding for development programmes is represented, in the opinion of the government, by European funding. Various bodies of the national government consider them as one of the solutions to overcome the economic and financial crisis. Within the Access of Local Authorities to European Funds programme, the Soros Foundation Romania addresses the issue of the access to European funds of the Romanian local authorities, emphasising the communities with a high risk of marginalisation and exclusion from development programmes supported by European funds. In 2008, we have sent a questionnaire to all municipalities (1713) of four development regions (Northeast, Southeast, West and Southwest), with 1579 respondents1. The questions concerned the interest in accessing European funds, but the national public funds as well. The database thus obtained showed that the situation related to the access of European funds by local authorities is not encouraging. In 2005-2008, out of the total number of municipalities of the four development regions: • 25% have not submitted a single project for government and European funds, pre- and post-accession; or have submitted no project • 26% have submitted only one project within four years;
152
European Funds…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
For those which submitted project (the applicants): • the average (arithmetical mean) of the projects submitted per municipality, in four years, is of 2.5; • the success rate was of 1:2 (one awarded project for two submitted projects). However: • 4 of 10 mayor’s offices of small localities (under 20,000 inhabitants) have no experience in submitting projects for EU funding; • the inexperienced municipalities, where project submission is concerned, have a small population and are less developed in terms of infrastructure. If, in general, large and medium-sized cities are active in accessing EU funding, problems arise in cities/towns with a population of less than 20,000 inhabitants and in communes. The analysis indicates that, in order to be successful, they (municipalities) need: • information adapted to the needs and capacities of the beneficiaries (recipients) results in an increase by 30% of the chances of accessing funding; • a budget which, in relation with the population, is not too small, increases the rate of access to funding by 80%; • employees trained to apply for European projects determine an increase, by 55%, of the chances of accessing funds; • partnerships with the County Council, with other municipalities and NGOs increase the access rate by 60%.
153
European Funds…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Among the examined localities, the most competitive 20% were able to attract approximately 42% of the funds allocated for projects, during the four years. They submit 2.7 times more projects and have 3.5 times more projects approved, compared to noncompetitive localities, which may gradually lead to increased disparities in the development of some over others. The analysis shows that, in 2005-2008, the localities of the counties in which the president of the County Council has the same political affiliation as the governing party submit more projects for national public funds. Based on the experience accumulated from the research conducted in 2008, we have decided, in 2009, to expand our approach and to cover the whole country. We have sent questionnaires to all municipalities of Romania (3185) and we received responses from 300833. Local authorities were asked in particular about accessing EU funds. Compared with the situation of the year 2008, the data of 2009 shows that: • 16% of the municipalities had no experience in submitting projects to obtain financing from Structural Funds or other EU funds. • 24% have not submitted any project for structural funds in 2007-2009. For the applicants: • The average number (arithmetical mean) of projects submitted per municipality in 2007-2009 was of 2.5, representing an improvement compared to the previous period and reflecting a growing interest in external funds;
33 The data collection and management was carried out by a consortium made up of the Romanian Centre for Economic Modeling (RCEM), the National Institute of Statistics (NIS), and the Quality of Life Research Institute (QLRI).
154
European Funds…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
• however, a municipality most frequently submits one project for funding lines out of post-accession EU funds (including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development funds); • the success rate for 2007-2009, considering only projects that have been already assessed, was of 1 awarded project for 2,4 submitted projects, indicating an increase in rejected projects, as opposed to the research conducted in 2008. The municipalities which have not submitted any project in 2007-2009 have the following characteristics: • they are mainly located in rural areas; • they have no department specialised in accessing European funds; • they have no local development strategy; • they have no employees who have participated in training programmes focused on topics related to European funds: • they have a relatively low level of information regarding EU funding opportunities. The resources of the municipalities, in terms of budget revenues, trained human resources, access to information and experience in partnerships with other institutions and bodies directly influence the submission of projects to obtain EU funding. Out of these, the budget revenue of municipalities represents the most important predictor of the number of projects submitted for EU funding. The awareness regarding information opportunities and the partnership experience prove to be next in the hierarchy of determining factors, with an equal influence on the number of projects submitted. The
155
European Funds…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
factor with the least influence on the submission of projects is the administrative capacity of the municipalities, in terms of human resources employed. The database analysis revealed that very small localities (with 2000 inhabitants at the most), which represents about 20% of the total number of Romanian localities, are more likely to have failed to submit any projects in 2007-2009, compared to other localities. These are the localities which are frequently faced with a lack of financial resources (63% of very small localities are among the “poorest” 20% of Romanian localities, from the point of view of the local budget revenue), but also with a lack of human resources, required to develop and implement the projects. In the questionnaire, but also as a result of the interviews conducted for the case studies, the respondents reported that they face a great number of difficulties during the EU funds obtaining process. Among the most common reasons invoked, we would like to mention: • amendments to the content of the applicant’s guide, of the eligibility criteria, amendments which occur during the application process or even during the assessment process, lack of co-financing; • excessive bureaucracy, i.e. a large number of documents requested through the project file; • and the lack of transparency of the assessment and selection processes. If, in terms of absolute figures, the Northeast region, one of the poorest regions of the European Union (not only of Romania), submits the largest number of projects, the ratio of the number of projects submitted with to the number of inhabitants of the region shows that the region that submits the most projects is the Northwest.
156
European Funds…
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The assumption according to which “he who already has will be given more” (concerning municipalities with large budgets, in relation with the population) is confirmed by the research data, in that the first 20% of the localities which benefit from the largest local budget revenue are the ones which have submitted, on average, 2.5 times more projects than the poorest 20%. The same rich municipalities are those with the largest number of approved projects and which attract more than 50% of the value of the community funding, while the poorest 20% only attract 9%. Although the database does not show very clearly the interest of local authorities in vulnerable groups (the Roma in particular), however, the analysis of 24 case studies (of which 16 were published) reveals that local authorities do not have a strategy for the support and integration of the vulnerable groups, as their efforts are punctual at best, associated with certain events (natural disasters, highly publicised cases and holidays).
Conclusions 1. The rich municipalities (municipalities with a considerable local budget) are the ones which access European funds and develop further with their help, thus resulting in an increase of the inter- and intra-regional differences, in contradiction with the principles of the EU cohesion policy, that stipulates the necessity ”to strengthen the economies [of regions] in order to ensure a harmonious development by reducing the differences between the various regions, as well as the backwardness of disadvantaged regions” (preamble to the Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, Member States). 157
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
European Funds…
3. Local authorities have no strategy for supporting and integrating vulnerable groups, their efforts being, at most, punctual, associated with certain events (natural disasters, front page cases and holidays).
www.soros.ro
2. There is no national strategy for supporting and assisting the poor and disadvantaged municipalities, with problems in accessing funds.
4. The state institutions which coordinate European funds must carry out the territorial monitoring of the distribution of these funds, in order to prevent and halt the increase of the inter- and intra-regional development differences. 5. European funds are difficult to access and will be extremely difficult to implement, and in case problems arise, the money must be returned. It is likely that in a very near future Romania remain just a net contributor to the EU budget. The local authorities, whose budgets are currently very affected by the economic and financial crisis, will probably experience problems in implementing the projects that have already been awarded (lack of co-financing). If for many (particularly for the Government, according to the statements of the Prime Minister), European funds are a solution for the crisis, reality may be different. European funds can turn into a burden if they cannot be absorbed, or may be a “bone of contention”, making possible the emergence of insecurity and of social tensions, due to the differences between the “rich” and the “poor”. 158
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Suggestions and recommendations for: The bodies coordinating the European funds 1. to observe the financerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s time limits (assessment time limits, reported expenditure settlement, time limits etc.); 2. to improve communication between the institutions administering EU funds; 3. to improve the transparency of the assessment criteria; 4. to increase the number of officials working in the institutions which coordinate community funds; 5. to simplify the procedures for accessing EU funds; 6. to apply, for projects undergoing implementation, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;payment after receptionâ&#x20AC;? principle, in order to avoid financial bottlenecks and issues posed by the economic and financial crisis; 7. to reduce, in the projects under implementation, the recovery rate of the prefinancing granted for the first year of implementation, so that the second prefinancing be granted within the second month of the second implementation year, at the latest; 8. to ensure easier access to detailed, complete and standardised information; 9. to ensure consistent and specific information to prospective beneficiaries, according to their specific characteristics, potential and needs;
159
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
10. to standardise and establish clear requirements and criteria for funding applications; 11. to standardise the procedures in all bodies administering European funds; 12. to ensure the territorial monitoring of the distribution of EU funds; 13. to ensure the monitoring and assessment of the quality of the implementation process of projects financed from European funds; 14. to ensure the monitoring and assessment of the quality of the results of projects financed from European funds; 15. to promote principles of good practice in the use of European funds; 16. to ensure political neutrality in the funds accessing process; 17. to resume the training programmes of local authorities for the access to EU funds; 18. to stimulate the access to EU funds in the underdeveloped communities and in communities which lack resources; 19. to draft a strategy (strategies) at the national level in order to ensure the balanced access of the various communities to the European funds, in order to avoid unbalanced development. Municipalities 1. to attempt to ensure qualified personnel, specialised in accessing and deploying/ implementing European funds; 3. to find opportunities to financially motivate the public officials involved in accessing EU funds;
160
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
County - County Council 1. to draft a county-wide strategy to access EU funds by prioritising and finding the necessary resources to reduce developmental disparities; 2. to provide additional support for poor and underdeveloped localities.
www.soros.ro
4. to encourage partnerships and the collaboration between the private and the public sectors, regarding the access to European funds.
161
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
â&#x20AC;&#x17E;Fair Access to the Development Opportunities Offered by European Fundsâ&#x20AC;? 2008
www.soros.ro
Appendices
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE LOCAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your interest and your support. By this study we whish to identify the main issues with which you, as representatives of the local communities, are facing in accessing structural and cohesion funds (the European development funds). We hereby invite you to fill in and to support in this way our initiative, whose purpose is to identify the solutions to facilitate the access to European development funds for as many local authorities as possible. In order to be considered valid, this questionnaire must be completely filled in. In case certain information is not available, please state this directly in the questionnaire.
162
www.soros.ro
A. TERRITORIAL LOCATION ANSWER TO A1, A2 AND A3 IF THE LOCALITY HAS LESS THAN 20,000 INHABITANTS. IF YOUR LOCALITY HAS MORE THAN 20,000 INHABITANTS, PLEASE SKIP TO MODULE B
A1. Your locality is crossed byâ&#x20AC;Ś 1. an European road
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
1a. 1a. If NO, how far is the closest European road?
1. Yes
2. No
...............km
2. national road
1. Yes
2. No
3. county road
1. Yes
2. No
A2. How far is your locality from... 1. the county capital, taking the best road?
...............km
2. the closest town of at least 30,000 inhabitants, taking the best road?
...............km
A3. In your locality... 1. is there a railway station? 1a. If No, how far from the center of the locality is the closest railway station?
1. Yes
2. No
...............km
163
B1. In your locality. the total population is of... GENDER
1. Female
...............people
GROUPS OF AGE
2. Between 0 and 14 years old
...............people
3. Over 64 years old
...............people
4. Romanian
...............people
5. Hungarian
...............people
6. Rroma
...............people
7. Ukrainian
...............people
8. German
...............people
9. Turkish
...............people
10. Tartar
...............people
11. Russian (Lipovan)
...............people
12. other nationalities. Which? ............….
...............people
13. Unemployed
...............people
NATIONALITY
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
........inhabitants
OCUPARE
14. People that work abroad (approximately) B2. The total number of households is of...
www.soros.ro
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING FILL IN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR LOCALITY WITH DATA VALID ON 1.01.2008
..........people or...…% ...........households
164
...........households
B4. How many households own less than 2 ha of agricultural land? (ONLY FOR RURAL LOCALITIES)
...........households
www.soros.ro
B3. The total number of households in makeshift, unsanitary dwellings is of...
C. INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE LOCALITY
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
C1. The road network of the locality 1. The total length of the road network is of approximately...
...............km
2. The total length of the asphalt roads is of approximately...
...............km
3. The total length public lighting is of approximately...
...............km
C2. Does the locality have... 1. a sanitation service ?
1. Yes
2. No
2. a designated waste disposal location?
1. Yes
2. No
3. a water supply public network?
1. Yes
2. No
4. a public sewerage network?
1. Yes
2. No
5. a gas supply network?
1. Yes
2. No
6. cable Internet access?
1. Yes
2. No
165
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
PLEASE WRITE DOWN THE ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE LOCALITY ONLY WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCURATE RECORDS REGARDING THE NUMBER AS AN ABSOLUTE VALUE Total estimated number or
Estimated percentage
1. Connected to the water supply public network
...............dwellings
...........%
2. Which have their own water supply system
...............dwellings
...........%
3. Which do NOT have access to drinking water in the courtyard or at the gate
...............dwellings
...........%
4. Which are connected to the sewerage network
...............dwellings
...........%
5. Which are connected to the electricity grid
...............dwellings
...........%
6. Which are connected to the gas supply network
...............dwellings
...........%
7. Which were newly built in the last 4 years
...............dwellings
...........%
8. With access to the sanitation service
...............dwellings
...........%
www.soros.ro
C3. The total number of households of the locality (including suburbs, villages, etc.):
D. Disadvantaged population / social protection D1. Total number of families... 1. who receive income support under the Act on Guaranteed Minimum Income
...............families
2. who received welfare allowances for heating between 2007- 2008
...............families
166
1. Yes
2. No
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
D3. If YES, mention up to three disadvantaged groups on which the CH is focusing, as well as the services or facilities granted. Disadvantaged group
Offered Services/ Facilities/ Support
1. ....................................
........................................................................ ........................................................................
2. ....................................
........................................................................ ........................................................................
3. ....................................
........................................................................ ........................................................................
D4. The locality has areas with more than 20 poor households, that have poor and improper dwellings, and which bearly make a living?
1. Yes
2. No GO TO MODULE E
1. In the center of the locality
1. Yes
2. No
2. At the outskirts of the town /village which is the center of the commune
1. Yes
2. No
3. In a component village
1. Yes
2. No
4. At/near the waste dump
1. Yes
2. No
www.soros.ro
D2. Is CH currently offering services, facilities, support to disadvantaged groups (others than the support provided by the national programs, like the guaranteed minimum income or allowance for heating)?
If YES, where are these areas located?
167
1. Yes
2. No
D5. State the name of the area/ the names of all unsanitary existing areas: ......................................................................................................â&#x20AC;Ś..
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
D6. Which of the following population categories live in these disadvantaged areas? 1. Families with many children
1. Yes
2. No
2. Single parent families
1. Yes
2. No
3. Elders
1. Yes
2. No
4. Rroma population
1. Yes
2. No
5. Unemployed
1. Yes
2. No
6. Other category ................................................
1. Yes
2. No
www.soros.ro
5. Somewhere else, specify where: ........................................................
E. City Hall E1. Which is the total current number of City Hall employees?
..............employees
1. Of the total number how many employees have pursued some form of higher ..............employees education? 2. Of the total number how many employees are public servants?
..............employees
3. Of the total number how many employees are employed on a contract basis?
..............employees
E2. Which is the current number of vacancies in the City Hall?
..............employees
E3. How many employees have left the City Hall since the beginning ..............employees of the year? 168
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
E5. To what extent is the CH confronted with the following issues?
to a great extent
to a significant extent
to a small extent
to a very small extent/to no extent
1. Few employees compared to the work load
1
2
3
4
2. Poor professional qualification of the employees
1
2
3
4
3. Small salaries for the employees
1
2
3
4
4. Lack of motivation/involvement of the employees
1
2
3
4
5. Other issues. Which? ....................................…..
1
2
3
4
E6. How many computers are there in your institution?
................................computers
E7. How many computers have access to Internet?
................................computers
E8. What is the website of the City Hall?
www.soros.ro
E4. How many people have been employed in the City Hall since the ..............employees beginning of the year?
1. www. ..........................................…. 2. The City Hall does not have a website
E9. What is the email address of the City Hall?
1. ........................… @........................…. 2. The City Hall does not have a e-mail address
E10. Does the City Hall have records (registries, popu- 1. Yes lation records etc.) or databases on computers, in 2. No electronic format? 169
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
1. a specialized department for European projects
1. Yes
2. No
2. staff qualified to design projects financed from European funds
1. Yes
2. No
www.soros.ro
E11. Does your institution have...?
E12. Which are the main three problems that your locality is facing and that the City Hall is handling 1. .................................................................................................................................................. 2. .................................................................................................................................................. 3. .................................................................................................................................................. E13. During the last 12 months have you been informed by the state public institutions (representing central and/or county public authorities) about the financing opportunities made available by the European Union?
1. Yes
2. No
1. The County Council
1. Yes
2. No
2. The Prefectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office
1. Yes
2. No
3. The Regional Development Agencies
1. Yes
2. No
4. The Competent Ministries. Which one? ........................................................
1. Yes
2. No
5. Governmental Agencies. Which one? ........................................................
1. Yes
2. No
6. Nongovernmental Organizations. Which one? ...................................................
1. Yes
2. No
7. Central Mass media
1. Yes
2. No
If YES, which institution has informed you?
170
1. Yes
2. No
9. Other institutions. Which ones? ........................................................
1. Yes
2. No
E14. During the last 12 months have you researched the financing opportunities 1. Yes made available by the European Union?
2. No
www.soros.ro
8. Local Mass media
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
If YES, which were the sources? 1. Brochures/leaflets
1. Yes
2. No
2. From the Internet (various websites)
1. Yes
2. No
3. The Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website
1. Yes
2. No
4. The websites of various Ministries
1. Yes
2. No
5. Workshops, conferences organized by the local or central authorities
1. Yes
2. No
6. Workshops, conferences organized by private institutions/ organizations
1. Yes
2. No
7. Information received directly from specialized companies/people
1. Yes
2. No
8. From other Mayors
1. Yes
2. No
9. From public servants in the county administration
1. Yes
2. No
10. Other source. Which?........................................................
1. Yes
2. No
E15. Has the institution that you represent ever submitted during the last 4 years (2005 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2008) applications for nonreimbursable European funds or for other funding sources?
1. Yes
2. No
171
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
E16. How many projects have been submitted by the City Hall for funding from European Funds in the last 4 years (2005 – 2008)?
.......... projects
E17. How many projects from European funds have been approved for financing during the last 4 years (2005 – 2008)?
.......... projects
www.soros.ro
ANSWER QUESTIONS E16-E20 ONLY IF YOU HAVE SUBMITTED FUNDING APPLICATIONS IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS
E18. The applications submitted during the last 4 years have been for...? 1. Non-reimbursable funding from the European Union during the preaccession period (PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD)
1. Yes
2. No
2. Structural and cohesion funds (FSC)
1. Yes
2. No
3. ERDF – Measure 322
1. Yes
2. No
4. Funding sources from other international organizations
1. Yes
2. No
5. Governmental funding
1. Yes
2. No
6. Bank loans
1. Yes
2. No
7. Other institutions: ............................................
1. Yes
2. No
1. Yes
2. No
E19. Did you use specialized consultancy in order to draft the necessary documentation?
172
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
a. Name of program / financer
1
b. Object of project/ What problem does it solve?
c. Year the project was submitted
d. Project value (EURO)
e. Project status
f. Does the project envisage the disadvantaged areas in the locality?
1. approved and finalized 2. approved, started 3. approved, not started 4. under evaluation 5. rejected 6. to be submitted
1. Yes
www.soros.ro
E20. Please specify the details of the main 5 projects that the City Hall submitted during the last 4 years (2004-2008) or which are to be submitted for financing from non-reimbursable European funds or from other funding sources, regardless of their success or failure
2. No
173
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
3
1. approved and finalized 2. approved, started 3. approved, not started 4. under evaluation 5. rejected 6. to be submitted
1. Yes
1. approved and finalized 2. approved, started 3. approved, not started 4. under evaluation 5. rejected 6. to be submitted
1. Yes
2. No
www.soros.ro
2
2. No
174
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
5
1. approved and finalized 2. approved, started 3. approved, not started 4. under evaluation 5. rejected 6. to be submitted
1. Yes
1. approved and finalized 2. approved, started 3. approved, not started 4. under evaluation 5. rejected 6. to be submitted
1. Yes
2. No
www.soros.ro
4
2. No
175
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
ANSWER QUESTION E21 ONLY IF YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED FUNDING APPLICATIONS DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS
E21. Which are the main two reasons for which you have not submitted applications for funding? MARK THE CORRECT ANSWERS THAT SUIT YOUR OPTION. YOU MAY SELECT MULTIPLE ANSWERS! 1. The locality is not eligible 2. The documentation on the access of funds was not clear enough 3. The term until the submission deadline was too short (we found out too late) 4. We had no budget allocation for these projects 5. The local budget could not ensure the co-financing of these projects 6. We could not form a project team that could draft the application file 7. We weren’t able to fill in all information / details (about the proposed project) required by the application forms 8. We felt we were not ready to ensure the management of such projects 9. The application costs are too high, when you don’t know the outcome 10. We knew nothing about any financing program 11. Other reason. Which? .............................................................. E22.Do you intend to access European funds during the next 2 years?
1. Yes
2. No
176
www.soros.ro
ANSWER QUESTIONS E23-E24 ONLY IF YOU INTEND TO ACCESS EUROPEAN FUNDS E23. What problems do you intend to solve with the help of these funds? 1. ..................................................................................... 2. .....................................................................................
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
3. ..................................................................................... E24. Under which financing line do you wish to submit these projects? 1. Operational Programs (Structural and Cohesion Funds)
1. Yes
2. No
2. The National Program for Rural Development - EFDR – Measure 322
1. Yes
2. No
3. Others. Which? ..............................….
1. Yes
2. No
177
1. The Democrat-Social Party (SDP)
1. The Democrat-Social Party (SDP)
2. Great Romania Party (GRP)
2. Great Romania Party (GRP)
3. The Democrat-Liberal Party (DLP)
3. The Democrat-Liberal Party (DLP)
www.soros.ro
E25. To which party does the current Mayor of E26. To which party did the former Mayor of the locality belong? this locality belong?
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
4. The Democrat Hungarian Union in Romania 4. The Democrat Hungarian Union in Romania (DHUR) (DHUR) 5. The National Liberal Party (NLP)
5. The National Liberal Party (NLP)
6. The Conservatory Party (CP)
6. The Conservatory Party (CP)
7. The National Christian Democrat Party (NCDP)
7. The National Christian Democrat Party (NCDP)
8. New Generation – Christian Democrat Ecologist Party (NG-CDEP)
8. New Generation – Christian Democrat Ecologist Party (NG-CDEP)
9. The National Democrat Christian Party (NDCP)
9. The National Democrat Christian Party (NDCP)
10. The Popular Action (PA)
10. The Popular Action (PA)
11. The Civic Hungarian Union (CHU)
11. The Civic Hungarian Union (CHU)
12. The Party of the National Initiative (PNI)
12. The Party of the National Initiative (PNI)
13. The Republican Party (RP)
13. The Republican Party (RP)
14. The Conservatory Movement (CM)
14. The Conservatory Movement (CM)
15. The Popular Social Christian Union (PSCU)
15. The Popular Social Christian Union (PSCU)
16. The New Generation Party (NGP)
16. The New Generation Party (NGP) 178
17. Independent
18. Other. Which?........................…..
18. Other. Which?........................…..
E27. How many consecutive terms in office has the current Mayor had?
.................. terms in office
www.soros.ro
17. Independent
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
F. LOCAL BUDGET
QUESTIONS F1-F4 WILL BE ANSWERED BY THE COMPETENT PERSON IN THE CITY HALL F1. Fill in the following information about the budget execution in 2007, programmed for 2008 and about the forecast for 2009..
2007 (thousand RON)
2008 Programmed (thousand RON)
2009 Forecasted (thousand RON)
1. Total revenues 2. Own revenues 3. Revenues from taxes 4. Tax on income, profit and capital gains from legal persons 5. Tax on income, profit and capital gains from natural persons 6. Tax on wages – total 7. Subsidies – total 179
www.soros.ro
8. Total expenses 9. Current expenses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; total 10. Social protection expenses 11. Capital expenses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; total F2. Which were the main five investments made by the City Hall during the last four years
g. Other sources (EURO)
h. Did the project affect disadvantaged areas in the locality? f. Bank loans (EURO)
e. Subsidies (EURO)
d. European funds (EURO)
c. financing from own sources (EURO)
OF WHICH
b. Total value (EURO)
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
a. Type of investment
1
1. Yes 2. No
2
1. Yes 2. No
180
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
1. Yes 2. No
4
1. Yes 2. No
5
1. Yes 2. No
F3. F3. How many economic operators (companies, family associations, self-employed, agricultural companies) pay taxes to the local budget??
www.soros.ro
3
.................... economic agents
F4. What are the main three fields of economic activity carried out in your locality and which is the estimated share of each of them in the total economic activity? a. Field of economic activity
b. Share in the total economic activity
1
__________ %
2
__________ %
3
__________ %
G. PARTNERSHIPS
G1. During the last four years (2004-2008) have you conducted out various programs and actions in partnership with other institutions or people?
1. Yes
2. No
181
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
1. Citizens
1. Yes
2. No
2. Local companies
1. Yes
2. No
3. Companies outside the locality
1. Yes
2. No
4. Local NGO (association or foundation)
1. Yes
2. No
5. NGO (association or foundation) from outside the locality
1. Yes
2. No
6. Churches in the locality
1. Yes
2. No
7. Schools in the locality
1. Yes
2. No
8. Political parties
1. Yes
2. No
9. Regional Development Agencies
1. Yes
2. No
10. Public figures
1. Yes
2. No
11. County Council
1. Yes
2. No
12. Prefectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office
1. Yes
2. No
13. Others, who? __________________
1. Yes
2. No
www.soros.ro
G2. If YES, who were the social partners of the local authorities in your locality.?
182
County
www.soros.ro
H. CITY HALL CONTACT DATA
Locality ZIP code
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Address
Street: ..................................................................................... No. ......................................
Phone no. Fax no. Email Website Mayor
183
First name and family name
Position
1
www.soros.ro
THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS FILLED IN BY:
2 3
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
DATE: ............….. / ............….. /2008 Please send this questionnaire in the attached envelope by mail at the following address: TOTEM Communication, str. .................................... Bucharest or by fax to ...............or by e-mail at: ........................ or you can hand it over to the interview agent who will come to your office. Please write down separately, in a different document, any other comments or recommendations related to the topic of the questionnaire. THE DEADLINE TO SEND THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS FRIDAY, 10 October 2008. For any details related to this topic or to the filling in of the questionnaire, please contact: ........................ ........................…. Manager of the Research Department, TOTEM Communication Bucureşti, phone no: ........................., fax: ...................., e-mail: ....................................….. Thank you!
184
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The answers to the questions in this questionnaire are strictly confidential and will be used only for statistic purposes. The filled in form will be sent by 11th of September 2009 at: the mail address: Centrul Român de Modelare Economică (CERME) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bucureşti. Fax: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For any additional information you can The name of the person reposnsible with the information contact the CERME team. Contact people: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. in the form: Mr. (Mrs.) ................................................... Phone no ................................................. No. .......... dateŊņŏņŋŊņŏņŋ 2009
City Hall......................................................................... FISCAL code. Ŋņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŋ County ............................................. Ŋņŏņŋ SIRUTA code Settlement .................... Ŋņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŋ SIRUTA code Address: Street................................................ No ......... Sector ..…… E-mail………………………................. Website www........................................... If the City Hall does not have an email address, website respectively, write clearly “NO”
www.soros.ro
The access of the local authorities to the european funds
.......................................................... (Mayor’s signature) L.S.
185
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
SECTION filled in by Name and surname ..........................................â&#x20AC;Ś., Position ..................â&#x20AC;Ś...Phone no .......................... A1
Stable population on 01.01.2009, of which:
................... inhabitants
A2
female population
................... inhabitants
A3
Romanian nationality population
................... inhabitants
A4
Hungarian nationality population
................... inhabitants
A5
Roma population
................... inhabitants
A6
other nationalities, namely .............................. Only in the localities where there is another nationality of interest
................... inhabitants
www.soros.ro
A. DEMOGRAPHIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDICATORS
The official data on nationality are gathered only at the census, therefore we kindly ask you to make a valid estimate for the locality as of 01.01.2009.. A7
The approximate number of households in the locality, of which:
.................... households
A8
Rromani households
.................... households
A9
households that have less than 2 ha of agricultural land Only for rural localities; Information available at the Agricultural Registry.
.................... households
186
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
In your locality: A10
The number of registered personal passenger vehicles Information available at the tax and duties office
A11
Number of newly built houses Information available at the urban planning service
2006
2007
2008
2009
www.soros.ro
The official data on the number of households are gathered only at the census, therefore we kindly ask you to make a valid estimate for your locality. Household means a person that lives alone, as well as a group of people that live at the same address and run the household together.
The year 2009 refers to the period 01.01.2009-31.07.2009. A12
Total length of the city street network as of 31.12.2008
.................. km
A13
Total length of the asphalt street network of the city as of 31.12.2008
.................. km
A14
Total length of the city street network with public lighting as of 31.12.2008
.................. km
Information available at the urban planning service.
187
www.soros.ro
B. DISADVANTAGED GROUPS AND SOCIAL PROTECTION
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Section filled in by Name and surname ..................................................................…, Title ........................................... Phone no ................................................…. Advisor on Rroma issues Name and surname ..................................................................…, Title ........................................... Phone no ................................................…. In the last 4 years, in your locality, what is: B1
The approximate number of new jobs
B2
The number of people relocated to other localities
B3
The number of people who relocated to your locality
2006
2007
2008
2009
The year 2009 refers to the period 01.01.2009-01.07.2009. On 31.07.2009, what was the approximate share of the following groups in the total population of your locality? B4
unemployed, of which:
........................….. %
B4a
the approximate percentage of Roma population
........................….. %
B5
people that work abroad, of which:
........................….. %
B5a
the approximate percentage of Roma population
........................….. %
Unemployed means any person of active age, who has no job and who is job-seeking.
188
The approximate number of households which on 31.07.2009 had makeshift, deserted or unsanitary houses, of which:
B6a
The approximate percentage of Roma households
B6b
Briefly explain which are the main characteristics of these ............................................... houses in your locality ...............................................
................... households ..................â&#x20AC;Ś.%
www.soros.ro
B6
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Beneficiaries of welfare allowance, under the Act of the Guaranteed Minimum Income, as of 31.07.2009 B7
- total number of families
........................ families
B8
- total number of people, of which:
........................ people
B9
- people who benefit from social canteens
........................ people select the appropriate answer
B10
Are there in your locality areas where more than 10 Roma households are grouped together, who live in poor and improper conditions, barely making a living?
1. yes
2. no
If YES, the area/area is/are located B10a
- in the centre of the locality
1. yes
2. no
B10b - on the outskirts
1. yes
2. no
B10c
1. yes
2. no
1. yes
2. no
- at or near the waste disposal location
B10d - somewhere else, specify where ................................................
189
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
B11
Does the City Hall have a Local Development Strategy (LDS)?
1. yes
2. no
B11a
If YES, does the LDS include provisions for the inclusion and support of vulnerable groups?
1. yes
2. no
B11b
If YES, does the LDS include specific provisions for the Roma population?
1. yes
2. no
B12
If NOT, does the City Hall have a plan with measures to support the disadvantaged groups?
1. yes
2. no
B12a
If you answered YES to question B12, is this plan is specifically for the Roma population?
1. yes
2. no
B13
The number of the people employed by the City Hall as specialized staff for social protection that are handling vulnerable groups or social inclusion projects
B14
Is the City Hall currently offering, at its own initiative, services, facilities, support to disadvantaged groups, others than those provided in the national programs like the guaranteed minimum income or welfare allowance for heating?
www.soros.ro
Circle the appropriate answer
.............employees 1. yes
2. no
If YES at B14, Codes of disadvantaged groups viewed as Codes of services / facilities granted to a priority by the City Hall them by the City Hall B14a 190
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
B14c Coduri Select from the groups below up to 3 groups and write down the appropriate codes in the boxes above 1. Rroma 2. retired people 3. people with low/ no income 4. people with disabilities 5. children from families with low income 6. children in institutions 7. families with many children 8. single parent families 9. refugees, people affected by natural disasters 10. unemployed 11. other group, state which ......................................................…..
State for each group the codes of the services /facilities in the list below that they benefit from 1. money allowances 2. discounts, free of charge services 3. support in kind (food, clothing, fire wood etc.) 4. house health care support 5. social work in a day centre 6. counselling services 7. facilitating the job finding process 8. granting social subsidized homes 9. other types of support, specify: ......................................................…..
www.soros.ro
B14b
C. HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF THE CITY HALL
Section filled in by Name and surname .........................................................................., Position ...................................... Phone no. ................................................….
191
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Total number of employees, of which:
........................ employees
C2
public servants employed by the City Hall
........................ employees
C3
contract-based staff employed by the City Hall
........................ employees
C4
City Hall employees with higher education
........................ employees
C5
staff employed by the directorates coordinated by or subordinated to the City ........................ employees Hall
C6
staff with higher education employed by the departments coordinated by or ........................ employees subordinated to the City Hall
www.soros.ro
C1
The total number of employees refers both to the City Hall, as well as to the departments coordinated by or subordinated to the City Hall. C7
The City Hall has a special department for European funding
C8
Staff trained to design projects financed from European funds
............ employees
C9
The number of City Hall employees who have participated to professional training programs, in the period June 2008 – June 2009
............ employees
C10
The total number of training days for all the City Hall employees in the period June 2008 – June 2009
C11
The number of City Hall employees who have participated to training programs related to European funds in the period June 2008 – June 2009
1.yes
2.no
.............. days ............ employees
192
1. general information on the financing programs from European funds directed at the local public administration
1. yes
2. no
2. information specific to a certain financing program directed at the local public administration
1. yes
2. no
3. issues related to the public procurement procedures within the European programs
1. yes
2. no
4. practical issues related to designing projects for European financing
1. yes
2. no
5. issues related to project management
1. yes
2. no
6. other, specify ...............................................................................
1. yes
2. no
C13
Number of operating computers in the City Hall Servers and portable computers included (laptop, notebook etc.)
........ computers
C14
Number of computer in the City Hall with Internet access
........ computers
C15
Does the City Hall keep records (registries, population records etc.) or databases on the computer, in electronic format?
1.yes
C12
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Circle the appropriate answer
www.soros.ro
The topics of the training programs related to the European funds
2.no
193
Chap. I. Income and expenses, Annex no. 12 – The local budget application account – income
Appendices
VT
1. TOTAL REVENUES Of which :
Amounts cashed (column 6) LEI Year 2007
Amounts cashed (column 6) LEI Year 2008
Initial budgetary provisions (column 1) LEI Year 2009
A
Indicator’s code
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Indicator’s name
B
1
2
3
www.soros.ro
INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOCAL BUDGET APPLICATION
00.01.02
OWN INCOME V1
TAX INCOME Of which:
00.03
V2
Tax on income, profit and capital gains from legal persons
00.05
V3
Tax on income, profit and capital gains from legal persons
00.06
V4
Tax on wages
06.02
V5
SUBSIDIES
00.17
194
Appendices
Cod indicator
Performed payments (column 5) LEI Year 2007
Performed payments (column 5) LEI Year 2008
Initial budget loans (column 1) LEI Year 2009
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Indicator’s name
B
1
2
3
A CHT
2. TOTAL EXPENSES Of which:
CH1
CURRENT EXPENSES
01
CH2
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENSES
57
CH3
CAPITAL EXPENSES
70
www.soros.ro
Chap. I. Income and expenses, Annex no. 7 – Public institution application account - Expenses
D. PARTNERSHIPS / ASSOCIATIONS OF THE CITY HALL
Section filled in by Name and surname .........................................................................., Title ...................................... Phone no. ................................................…. D1
During 2007-2009, has the City Hall participated to consultations initiated by the County Council on issues related to projects with European fund-
1.yes
195
|____|
Write zero of the City Hall is not part of any such association During 2007-2009, has the City Hall carried out various programs and actions in partnership/ association with other institutions or people?
D3
1.yes
2.no
www.soros.ro
How many intercommunity development associations is the City Hall part of?
D2
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
If YES at D1, Information regarding the three most important projects / actions carried out in partnership between 2007-2009 Project objective
Partners of the City Hall
City Hallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contribution
Partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; contribution
D4a D4b D4c
196
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Please mention, in legible handwriting, the objectives of each of the 3 most important projects performed in a partnership.
For each project, state the code /codes of the partners from the list below. 1. Companies 2. NGO (associations, foundations) 3. Church 4. School/High School 5. University 6. Research Institute 7. School Inspectorate 8. County Council 9. Other City Halls 10. Other public institution, state which ..............................â&#x20AC;Ś..
For each project, state the code /codes from the list below corresponding to the contribution of the City Hall / partners. 1. contribution in kind (land, premises, infrastructure, utilities) 2. financial contribution 3. expertise 4. labour force 5. support in obtaining authorizations and /or permits
www.soros.ro
Codes
Partnership/association means a cooperation relationship between various institutions or groups of people who reach an agreement to share their responsibilities in order to reach a certain goal.
197
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Section filled in by Name and surname .........................................................................., Position ...................................... Phone no. ................................................â&#x20AC;Ś. This chapter of opinions on decentralization is directed to the Mayor or Deputy Mayor. E1
How much would you say you know about the Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy concerning the decentralization of public services? 1. very few 3. pretty much 2. few enough 4. very much
Specify the appropriate code |____|
E2
Since the beginning of 2009, have you ever been consulted related to the public services decentralization process?
1.yes
E3
From what you know at the moment, what will be the impact of decentralization on the activity of the City Hall you run? 1. positive 2 negative 3. no impact
Specify the appropriate code |____|
E4
Please briefly describe your expectations regarding the impact of decentralization at the level of the locality and City Hall? ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................
www.soros.ro
E. DECENTRALIZATION
2.no
198
What would the City Hall need first in order to be efficient in fulfilling responsibilities it has as a result of the decentralization process? ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Since the beginning of 2009 and up to present time, the City Hall that you run:
E6
E7
Circle the appropriate answer
1. has paid with delay the wages of the employees
1.yes
2.no
2. has accrued debts in paying the wages to the employees subordinated to the City Hall
1.yes
2.no
3. has accrued debts in paying some suppliers
1.yes
2.no
4. has eliminated some social protection measures
1.yes
2.no
5. has had other difficulties, state which ..........................................
1.yes
2.no
How many consecutive terms in office did the current Mayor serve (including the current one)?
www.soros.ro
E5
|____|
199
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Section filled in by Name and surname .........................................................................., Position ...................................... Phone no. ................................................….
During June 2008 – June 2009, from which of the institutions below…
F1. Did the City Hall REQUEST Information on the European financing opportunities?
www.soros.ro
F. INFORMATION ON EUROPEAN FUNDING
F2. Did the City Hall RECEIVE WITHOUT ASKING Information about the European financing opportunities?
a
County Council
1.yes
2.no
1.yes
2.no
b
Prefect’s Office
1.yes
2.no
1.yes
2.no
c
Regional Development Agencies
1.yes
2.no
1.yes
2.no
d
Competent Ministries
1.yes
2.no
1.yes
2.no
e
Governmental Agencies
1.yes
2.no
1.yes
2.no
f
NGOs
1.yes
2.no
1.yes
2.no
g
Other institutions, which? ........................….
1.yes
2.no
1.yes
2.no
200
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Select three information sources where you found the most useful information related to the European financing opportunities 1. the Government’s and Ministries’ websites 2. the websites of the Managing Authorities 3. on other websites 4. workshops/conferences organized by the central or local authorities 5. workshops/conferences organized by private institutions/ organizations 6. meeting organized by the County Council 7. other Mayors 8. consultancy companies 9. various people with experience in projects with European funding 10. mass media 11. other source, state which ...................................................... 99. I don’t know, I haven’t looked
Specify the appropriate code
www.soros.ro
F3
First source |____| Second source |____| Third source |____|
G. ACCESSING EUROPEAN FUNDS
Section filled in by Name and surname .........................................................................., Position ...................................... Phone no. ................................................….
201
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
G1
1. yes
2. no
A. Structural funds
1. yes
2. no
B. PHARE Funds
1. yes
2. no
C. Pre-accession funds: SAPARD, ISPA etc.
1. yes
2. no
D. Financing programs of some embassies or European donors (DFID etc.)
1. yes
2. no
1. yes
2. no
E. Other non-reimbursable European funds, state which ........................................................................â&#x20AC;Ś. If YES to G1, regarding financing from European funds, please state : G2
TOTAL number of projects SUBMITTED between 2007-2009, of which: .......... projects Both approved and rejected projects will be mentioned
G3
Number of projects SUBMITTED between 2007-2009 as part of an inter.......... projects community development association
G4
Number of APPROVED projects for financing from European Funds be.......... projects tween 2007-2009
G5
Number of REJECTED projects for financing from European Funds between .......... projects 2007-2009
G6
Number or projects already IMPLEMENTED between 2007-2009
.......... projects
G7
Number of submitted projects which are now under EVALUATION
.......... projects
www.soros.ro
Select the appropriate answer In 2007-2009, has the City Hall submitted or is preparing financing applications for non-reimbursable European funds?
202
Number of projects which are at the moment in the PREPARATION PHASE
.......... projects
The projects done in partnerships will be included.
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
G9
The total amount of the non-reimbursable fi- Circle the CURRENCY Write the amount nancing from European funds which were ap- 1. EURO 2. LEI proved between 2007-2009 ................................................. The projects done in partnerships will be included
G10
Globally assess the process of obtaining European funds on the scale below 1. very easy process 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. very difficult process 99. can not assess
Specify the appropriate code |____|
G11
Assess the process of obtaining European funds from the cost point of view (human, financial, time etc.) on the scale below 1. very low costs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. very high costs 99. can not assess
Specify the appropriate code |____|
G12
C What do you think should be changed in order to improve the access of the local authorities to the European funds? ..........................................................................................................................................â&#x20AC;Ś
www.soros.ro
G8
If the City Hall has under PREPARATION or has SUBMITTED projects for financing from STRUCTURAL FUNDS (answer 1.yes to question G1. A, page 7), please fill in a Project Form for each of these projects. All projects will be included, irrespective of the fact that they were submitted individually or in partnership or whether they have been approved or rejected. THANK YOU!
203
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Project Sheet
www.soros.ro
THE ACCESS OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO THE EUROPEAN FUNDS The answers to the questions in this questionnaire are strictly confidential and will be used only for statistic purposes. The filled in form will be sent by 11th of September 2009 at: the mail address: Centrul Român de Modelare Economică (CERME) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bucureşti. Fax: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For any additional information you can The name of the person reposnsible with the information contact the CERME team. Contact people: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. . in the form: Mr. (Mrs.) ................................................... Phone no ................................................. No. .......... dateŊņŏņŋŊņŏņŋ 2009
City Hall......................................................................... FISCAL code. Ŋņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŋ County ............................................. Ŋņŏņŋ SIRUTA code Settlement .................... Ŋņŏņŏņŏņŏņŏņŋ SIRUTA code Address: Street................................................ No ......... Sector ..…… E-mail………………………................. Website www........................................... If the City Hall does not have an email address, website respectively, write clearly “NO”
.......................................................... (Mayor’s signature) L.S.
204
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
The year the project was submitted
P2
The City Hall submitted the project… 1. individually 2. in an intercommunity development association 3. in partnership with other associations
P3
The total value of the project, including the co-financing
P4
Project status… 1. approved and finalized 2. approved, in execution 3. rejected 4. submitted, under evaluation 5. other, which? ......................................................…..
P5
the project was APPROVED (answers 1 to 2 at P4) The amount approved for financing
P6
If the project was REJECTED (answer 3 at P4) The reason for which the project was not selected for financing 1. it was eligible, but did not receive financing 2. was not eligible 3. errors in drafting the financing application 4. all permits and authorizations were not obtained in due time 5. other reason, which? ......................................................…..
200 |____| Specify the appropriate code |____|
www.soros.ro
P1
.......................... EURO
Specify the appropriate code |____|
.......................... EURO
Specify the appropriate code |____|
205
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Have you used specialized consultancy services for the preparation and submission of the project?
P8
On the scale below, assess the process required to prepare and submit the project 1. very easy 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. very difficult 99. can not assess
Specify the appropriate code |____|
P9
Please assess, using the scale below, the assessment process of the project from a transparency point of view 1. not very transparent 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. very transparent 99. can not assess
Specify the appropriate code |____|
P10
Please assess, using the scale below, the assessment process of the project from the point of view of the duration 1. very short 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. extremely long 99. can not assess
Specify the appropriate code |____|
1. yes 2. no
www.soros.ro
P7
206
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
MANAGING AUTHORITY
OPERATIONAL PROGRAM
PRIORITY AXIS (AP)/ MAJOR FIELD OF INTERVENTION (DMI))
1 MDRL Ministry Of Regional Development and Housing
1 POR The Regional Operational Program
1 AP1 - Supporting the sustainable development of cities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; potential growth poles 2 AP2 - Improving regional and local transport infrastructure 3 AP3 - Improving social infrastructure 4 AP4 - Supporting the development of the regional and local business environment 5 AP5 - The sustainable development and promotion of tourism
2 MMFPS Ministry of Labour, Family And Social Protection
2 POSDRU The Operational Program for Human Resources Development
6 DMI 5.1 - The development and implementation of active occupation measures 7 DMI 5.2 - Promoting a long term sustainability of the rural areas in terms of the Development of human resources and labour force occupation 8 DMI 6.1 - The development of social economy
www.soros.ro
In the table below, select the appropriate codes for the managing authority, operation program and priority axis / major field of intervention of the project.
207
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
3 PODCA The Operational Program for Administrative Capacity Development
9 DMI 1.1 - Improving the decision making process at political and administrative level, operation: Strategies for local development 10 DMI 2.1 - Optimizing the structures for new decentralized services from the three priority sectors 11 DMI 2.2 - Improving quality and efficiency in rendering services
4 MM Ministry of Environment
4 POSMED The Environmental Sectoral Operational Program
12 AP1 - Extending and modernizing the water and used water systems 13 AP2 - The development of integrated waste management systems and the rehabilitation of the historical contaminated sites 14 AP3 - The reduction of pollution and the mitigation of the effects of climate change by restructuring and rehabilitating the urban heating systems in the localities most affected by pollution
5 MADR Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development
5 FEDR The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
15 Mﾄピura 322 - Renovation, village development, improvement of basic services for the rural economy and population and the valorisation of rural heritage
www.soros.ro
3 MAI Ministry Of Administration And Internal Affairs
208
16 The Romanian-Bulgarian Cross border Cooperation Program 2007-2013 17 The IPA Romanian-Serbian Cross border Cooperation Program 18 The Romania â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ukraine - Moldova Joint Operational Program 2007-20133 19 The Joint Operational Program for Cooperation in the Black Sea Region
www.soros.ro
6 European Territorial Cooperation Programs
THANK YOU!
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
1 MDRL Ministry of Regional Development and Housing
209
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Case study of a territorial administrative unit: city with surrounding villages that are subordinated to the city hall; or commune with villages that are subordinated to the Mayor’s office. The researchers were asked to conduct an interview in the city/commune with: the representative of an NGO (if there is one); head of the school in the community; the leader of a project initiative group (if any); informal local leaders; the head/owner or manager of a farm, agricultural association or production unit; the owner of a plot of land or of many farm animals, but one that does not have a formal agricultural business and would like to develop his business and make it formal. The Mayor’s office was also considered, interviews had to be conducted with: the Mayor (or the Deputy), reserves related to filling in the information – the adviser of the Mayor or the secretary of the Mayor’s office (for the rural area interviews with the Mayor are preferable); the head of the European Programmes Directorate or the employee in charge of such programmes (where applicable); or the head of the directorate of investments.
www.soros.ro
Annex 1 – Interview Guides
Brief description of the locality Description of the locality from the people’s point of view Source of information: locals. The researcher is encouraged to visit the place, to talk to the locals, to record their view of the locality. 210
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
The aim is to have a description of the localityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s infrastructure, according to the neighbourhoods, surrounding villages: road condition (downtown/limits areas); street lighting; to sewage system; sanitation; water; access to means of communication and to the media, etc. Some hypotheses may be deduced regarding the socio-economic condition of the inhabitants, based on the new buildings; house/households; cars; stores â&#x20AC;&#x201C; grocer shops, new clothes, second hand clothes, footwear, construction work, interior design, etc... The inhabitants are asked questions regarding their main source of income, and unemployment. The level of poverty is noted in the downtown area, and in the outskirts, as well as the tilled/not tilled land. The interviewer will also ask questions regrading the price of houses, depending on the area. The main issues of the locality from the viewpoint of the inhabitants. Description of the groups vulnerable: spatial location in space; features; size of the group(s); living conditions; what is being done for them and by whom; local authority interest shown in them; interest shown by others (who?). As a result of the discussions with the representatives of the vulnerable groups (especially the Roma population), the identification of the main issues they have to face is also taken into account. The researcher shall have a glimpse of the political atmosphere at the local level, of the identity of the social stakeholders present in the locality, of the activities in which they are involved which are the active NGOs and associations.
211
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
Description of the locality from the point of view of the Mayor’s Office Source of information: the Mayor, the deputy Mayor, the secretary of the City Hall / mayor’s office, the accountant, if changed recently, the interviews shall be conducted with the remaining employees; the head of European Programmes Directorate or the employee of the City Hall in charge of the European Programmes (where applicable); or the head of the Directorate of Investments. The viewpoint of the local authorities on the inhabitants and the locality: condition of the infrastructure, economy, sources of income, etc. Description of the infrastructure of the locality, by neighbourhoods, surrounding villages, subordinated to the Mayor’s Office: condition of the roads (downtown/limits); lighting; sewage system; sanitation; water; access to means of communication and media, etc. The sources of income of the inhabitants, unemployment. The assessment of the representatives of the local authorities is taken into account with regards to assessing the level of poverty in the downtown area, on the outskirts. The following issues are mentioned in the discussion: the situation of agricultural land (tilled/not tilled); the price of housing, depending on the area; the main issues of the locality according to the local authorities. Regarding the City Hall: technical equipment; human resources (level of education, specialty, degree of involvement/availability of the employees of the City Hall); the budget and its management; correlation between the sources of revenues of the
www.soros.ro
The Mayor’s Office
212
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
City Hall and the economic activities in the locality, perspectives and intentions of the Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office. The existence of a Local Development Strategy (LDS) is brought up in the conversation: the main priorities specified in the strategy; the level of awareness and the degree of use with regards to the strategy; the author/authors, under what circumstances has it been drafted, who was consulted, made the decisions regarding priorities; the presence of the issues concerning the vulnerable groups (with emphasis on the Roma) in the strategy. Interest in the vulnerable groups: who are they, where are they located, what is being done for them, what are their problems, what issues do they bring up, presence on the public agenda of the City Hall, existence of a plan of measures. The relationship of the local authorities with the other social stakeholders: central county authorities; NGOs; companies; county council; existence of certain partnerships with the central and local authorities, with local action groups, companies, NGOs; perspectives of partnerships between the City Hall and the above-mentioned entities. European Funds For the case studies drafted in 2008 questions were asked regarding accessing pre-accession funds. For the case studies from 2009 the emphasis was on the post-accession funds. For those who applied for financing: The researcher had to make the distinction between the European and the government funds. The discussion regarding the development funds took into account: the
213
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
type of funds; the reason; the problems encountered in applying for European funds; where did they seek assistance in applying for such funds. Those who already have projects to be implemented have been asked with regards to the issues they encountered in implementing them, the measures taken within the project for the vulnerable groups. The objective is to outline the profile of the City Hall employee that drafts the projects. As well as to the ways in which the priorities of the locality are set, hence the directions of development, intentions for the future in what concerns applying for European funds, the issues/obstacles that may occur during the application process, the possible solutions that be implemented in order to facilitate access to these funds by the authorities which manage these funds. For those who have not applied for financing: The researcher has to identify the reasons for which no application has been submitted, whether they have sought external assistance, what were the obstacles they have encountered, the issues related to the application, the reasons for which they have not submitted already initiated projects, the possible solutions the authorities that manage such funds implement in order to facilitate access. Critical observations The researcher was encouraged to make his own observations, to give his/her opinion regarding the issues the City Hall encounters in applying for European funds, and regarding the reasons why they apply/donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t apply for such funds.
214
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Guide for the Mayor or Deputy Mayor Reserves for Filling in the Information –the Mayor’s Advisor or the secretary of the City Hall City Hall How many terms in office has the Mayor served. This is a reference point in the discussion. Description of the locality from the viewpoint of the City Hall Which are the localities that you are administering – their localization as compared to the central locality (city or commune centre). Drafting a small chart of the area, spatial localization of the localities and if possible, drafting the infrastructure (especially asphalt roads, sewage system …) – mind map of the entire locality (with each village in the administration). Then the discussion moves to the infrastructure, how functional it is, where, up to where. Description of the infrastructure of the locality, by neighbourhoods, villages in administration: roads, their condition, asphalt roads, roads without asphalt, paved roads, concentrating also on the roads that lead to the administered localities, especially to those that are more isolated, further away from the centre; the position of the administered localities as compared to the main access roads; access to the power supply network; access to the gas supply network; access to sources of water (centralized system, access in own system – dug in the yard, community wells, fountains, other); public
215
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
lighting; sewage system; sanitation; existence of specially designed waste dumps; internet, cable TV. Structure of the population in the administered localities: by age groups (aged 014, over 64); level of education; immigration; employment. Sources of income of the inhabitants: main sources of income of the inhabitants, what the inhabitants live by, where they work (in the locality or they are commuters); level of unemployment; (asking the County Employment Office where applicable); land tilled/not tilled; price of housing depending on the area (how do the inhabitants view these prices); price of housing depending on area (how are these prices considered); new constructions/houses. Living standards of the inhabitants: assessing the living standards; the groups of inhabitants living in poverty (who are the poor), causes of poverty; localization of poverty (downtown, at on the outskirts, in the areas mentioned in the questionnaire). What does the Mayor believe to be as the main issues of the locality, how would he/she see them solved, in what order. The Local Development Strategy (LDS) (how was it drafted, by whom, who was consulted, etc.). Concerning the Mayor’s Office: technical equipment; human resources (number of staff, form of employment – contract employees, civil servants, level of education (higher education, specialty), degree of involvement/availability of the City Hall employees); the budget of the Mayor’s office (main sources of income of the budget and its management, payment of the staff, correlation between the sources of income of the local budget and the economic activities in the locality); the economic activities in the locality, perspectives, intentions of development, obstacles.
216
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Interest in vulnerable groups – in case they declare they do not have such groups, they have to be explained what a vulnerable group is, and insist on the question: who are they (components), where are they concentrated, what is being done for them, what are their issues, what issues they raise, presence on the public agenda, existence of a plan of measures, interest in vulnerable groups expressed in the Local Development Strategy. Relationship of the local authorities with the other social stakeholders: with the central county authorities, (County Council, assistance provided by the County Council to the local budget); with the NGOs; companies, etc.; partnerships, Local Action Groups, others. Whether they have applied for funds: what funds have they applied for (distinction must be made between the European and the government funds) – government, non-government; why, what determined them; the projects they have already applied for; who sets the priorities, whether do they consider the priorities set out in the Local Development Strategy; what have they done and what are they doing for the vulnerable groups, whether they take them into account when they submit their applications; those who already have ongoing projects, but not from European funds – what issues do they encounter, concerning the application for European funds, the issues they are facing (where have they sought assistance in applying for funds, from whom have they received assistance in applying for funds, barriers/obstacles in the access to funds, the nature of such obstacles), the profile of the consultant in the City Hall in case they turned to them for writing projects, the profile of the City Hall employee who deals with
217
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
drafting projects, what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application for funds. If they have not applied for funds: the reason why they have not applied for European funds; their intentions with regards to the application for funds; whether they have sought assistance in the application for funds; where have they turned to for assistance in applying for funds; barriers/obstacles in applying for funds; what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application for funds. Head of European Programmes Directorate or the City Hall Employee in Charge of Such Programmes, the Secretary of the City Hall Description of the infrastructure at the level of locality, by neighbourhoods, administered villages. Checking certain information provided by the Mayor or deputy Mayor. The sources of income of the inhabitants: main sources of income of the inhabitants, what the inhabitants live by, where they work (in the locality or they are commuters); level of unemployment; (asking the County Employment Office where applicable); land tilled/not tilled; price of housing depending on area (how do the inhabitants view these prices); price of housing depending on area (how are these prices considered); new constructions/houses. Living standards of the inhabitants: assessing the living standards; the groups of inhabitants living in poverty (who are the poor), causes of poverty; localization of poverty (downtown, on the outskirts, in the areas noted in the questionnaire).
218
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
What do they believe to be the main issues of the locality, how would he/she see them solved, in what order. Concerning the Mayor’s Office: technical equipment; human resources (number of staff, form of employment – contract employees, civil servants, level of education (higher education, specialty), degree of involvement/availability of the City Hall employees); the budget of the Mayor’s office (main sources of income of the budget and its management, payment of the staff, correlation between the sources of income of the local budget and the economic activities in the locality); the economic activities in the locality, perspectives, intentions of development; Local Development Strategy, its, use; obstacles. Interest in vulnerable groups – in case they state they do not have such groups, they have to be explained what a vulnerable group is, and insist on the question: who are they (components), where are they concentrated, what is being done for them, what are their issues, what issues do they raise, presence on the public agenda, existence of a plan of measures, interest for at-risk groups expressed in the Local Development Strategy. Relationship of the local authorities with the other social stakeholders: with the central county authorities, (County Council, assistance provided by the County Council to the local budget); with the NGOs; companies, etc.; partnerships, Local Action Groups, others. Whether they have applied for funds: what funds have they applied for (distinction must be made between the European and the government funds) – government, non-government; why, what determined them; the projects they have already applied for; who sets the priorities, whether they consider the priorities set out in the Local
219
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Development Strategy; what have they done and what are they doing for the vulnerable groups, whether they take them into account when they submit their applications; those who already have ongoing projects, but not with European funds â&#x20AC;&#x201C; what issues do they encounter, concerning the application for European funds, the issues they are facing (where have they sought assistance in applying for funds, from whom have they received assistance in applying for funds, barriers/obstacles in access to funds, the nature of such obstacles), the profile of the city hall consultant in case the latter helped drafting the projects, the profile of the City Hall employee in charge of drafting projects, what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application for funds. If they have not applied for funds: the reason for which they have not applied for European funds; their intentions with regards to applying for funds; whether they have sought assistance for applying for funds; where have they turned to for assistance in applying for funds; barriers/obstacles in the application for funds; what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application for funds. Representative of an NGO (if any) Headmaster of the community school The leader of a group an initiative for the development of any project Description of the infrastructure of the locality, by neighbourhoods, administered villages: roads, their condition, asphalt roads, roads without asphalt, paved roads, concentrating also on the roads that lead to the administered localities, especially to those
220
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
that are more isolated, further away from the centre; the position of the localities in administration as compared to the main access roads; access to the power supply network; access to the gas supply network; access to sources of water (centralized system, access to own system â&#x20AC;&#x201C; wells in the yard, community wells, fountains, other); public lighting; sewage system; sanitation; existence of specially designed waste dumps; internet, cable TV. Structure of the population in the localities in administration: by age groups (aged 0-14, over 64); level of education; immigration; employment. Sources of income of the inhabitants: main sources of income of the inhabitants, what the inhabitants live by, where they work (in the locality or if they are commuters); level of unemployment; (asking the County Employment Office where applicable); land tilled/not tilled; price of housing depending on area (how do the inhabitants view these prices); price of housing depending on area (how are these prices considered); new constructions/houses. Living standards of the inhabitants: assessing the living standards; the groups of inhabitants living in poverty (who are the poor), causes of poverty; localization of poverty (downtown, on the outskirts, in the areas noted in the questionnaire). What do they believe to be the main issues of the locality, how would he/she see them solved, in what order; the Local Development Strategy, whether they have been consulted when it had been drafted. About the Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office: how active it is; what are the important issues of the locality from the viewpoint of the City Hall employees; involvement/presence of the City Hall
221
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
in the life of the inhabitants, what does it do for the inhabitants; what is the history of the relationship between the NGO/school/leader and City Hall. Interest shown by the Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office in the vulnerable groups, interest shown by other social stakeholders in the vulnerable: who are they (components), where are they concentrated, what is being done for them, what are their issues, what issues do they raise, the presence on the public agenda, existence of a plan of measure, interest in the vulnerable groups expressed in the Local Development Strategy. Who are the active social stakeholders in the locality: what is being done; what can be done; the relationship with the other social stakeholders, even with the local and central authorities; relationship with other NGOs in the locality, outside the locality, but the ones that are active in the area; with companies, etc. Whether they have applied for funds: what funds have they applied for (distinction must be made between the European and the government funds) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; government, non-government; why, what determined them; the projects they have already applied for; who sets out the priorities, whether they consider the priorities set out in the Local Development Strategy; what have they done and what are they doing for the vulnerable groups, whether they take them into account when they submit their applications; those who already have ongoing projects, but not with European funds â&#x20AC;&#x201C; what issues do they encounter, concerning the application for European funds, the issues they are facing (where have they sought assistance in the application for funds, from whom have they received assistance in the application for funds, barriers/obstacles in access to funds, the nature of such obstacles), the profile of the the city hall consultant in case the latter helped drafting the projects, the profile of the City Hall employee who deals with
222
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
drafting projects, what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application for funds. If they have not applied for funds: the reason why they have not applied for European funds; their intentions regarding the application for funds; whether they have sought assistance for applying for funds; where have they turned to for assistance in applying for funds; barriers/obstacles in the application for funds; what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding in the application for funds. Interviews with Informal Local Leaders Description of the infrastructure of the locality, by neighbourhoods, villages in administration: roads, their condition, asphalt roads, roads without asphalt, paved roads, concentrating also on the roads that lead to the localities in the administration, especially to those that are more isolated, further away from the centre; the position of the localities in administration as compared to the main access roads; access to the power supply network; access to the gas supply network; access to sources of water (centralized system, access in own system â&#x20AC;&#x201C; wells in the yard, community wells, fountains, other); public lighting; sewage system; sanitation; existence of specially designed waste dumps; internet, cable TV. Structure of the population in the localities in administration: by age groups (aged 0-14, over 64); level of education; immigration; employment. Sources of income of the inhabitants: main sources of income of the inhabitants, what the inhabitants live by, where they work (in the locality or if they are commuters);
223
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
level of unemployment; (asking the County Employment Office where applicable); land tilled/not tilled; price of housing depending on area (how do the inhabitants view these prices); price of housing depending on area (how are these prices considered); new constructions/houses. Living standards of the inhabitants: assessing the living standards; the groups of inhabitants living in poverty (who are the poor), causes of poverty; localization of poverty (downtown, at on the outskirts, in the areas mentioned in the questionnaire). What do they believe to be the main issues of the locality, how would he/she see them solved, in what order the Local Development Strategy, whether they have been consulted when it had been drafted. About the Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office: how active it is; what are the important issues of the locality from the viewpoint of the City Hall employees; involvement/presence of the City Hall in the life of the inhabitants, what does it do for the inhabitants. Interest of City Hall in vulnerable groups, interest of other social stakeholders in vulnerable groups: who are they (components), where are they concentrated, what is being done for them, what are their issues, what issues they raise, presence on the public agenda, existence of a plan of measure, interest in vulnerable groups expressed in the Local Development Strategy. Who are the active social stakeholders in the locality: what is being done; what can be done; the relationship with the other social stakeholders, even with the local and central authorities; relationship with other NGOs in the locality, outside the locality, but the ones that are active in the area; with companies, etc.
224
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
Level of awareness regarding the European funds, whether they know anything about them, who should submit application for such funds, what would be the main issues that should be solved with the help of these funds. Local initiatives, who they know about people who have applied for European funds (distinction must be made between the European and the government funds) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; government, non-government; why, what determined them; the projects they have already applied for; who sets out the priorities, whether they consider the priorities set out in the Local Development Strategy; what have they done and what are they doing for the vulnerable groups, whether they take them into account when they submit their applications; those who already have ongoing projects, but not with European funds â&#x20AC;&#x201C; what issues do they encounter, concerning the application for European funds, the issues they are facing (where have they sought assistance in the application for funds, from whom they have received assistance when applying for funds, barriers/obstacles in access to funds, the nature of such obstacles), the profile of the city hall consultant in case if the latter helped drafting the projects, the profile of the City Hall employee in charge of drafting projects, what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application for funds. If they have not applied for funds: the reason why they have not applied for European funds; their intentions with regards to the application for funds; whether they have sought assistance for the application for funds; to whom they have turned to for assistance in applying for funds; barriers/obstacles in applying for funds; what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application funds.
225
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
An employer/owner or manager of a farm, of an agricultural association or of a production unit the owner of a plot of land or of many farm animals, but who does not have a formal organization of their business in agriculture, and who wishes to develop their business and make it formal How do they describe the locality in terms of infrastructure, how do they describe their locality in terms of revenue generating activities, what is the evolution of their business, issues, solutions, possibilities of economic development that they see, possibilities that can be exploited, obstacles in the economic development of the locality, solutions. What is the living standard of the population, what do they know about the European funds, interest for these, whether they have applied for such funds, whether they intend to apply; why donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t they apply, why they would not apply, what are the obstacles they foresee in applying for these funds, identifying the poor areas in the locality, their viewpoint about the at-risk groups. Local initiatives, who do they know about that have submitted an application for European funds (distinction must be made between the European and the government funds) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; government, non-government; why, what determined them; the projects already applied for; who sets the priorities, whether they consider the priorities set in the Local Development Strategy; what have they done and what are they doing for the at-risk groups, whether they take them into account when they submit their applications; those who already have ongoing projects, not from European funds â&#x20AC;&#x201C; what issues do they encounter, concerning applying for European funds, the issues they are facing (where have they sought assistance in applying for funds, where have they received as-
226
Appendices
Local Authorities face to face with EU funds
www.soros.ro
sistance from in the application for funds, barriers/obstacles in access to funds, the nature of such obstacles), the profile of the city hall consultant in case if the latter helped drafting the projects, the profile of the City Hall employee in charge of drafting projects, what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible, intentions regarding the application for funds. If they have not applied for funds: the reason why they have not applied for European funds; their intentions with regards to the application for funds; whether they have sought assistance for the application for funds; where have they turned to for assistance in the application for funds; barriers/obstacles in the application for funds; what should the authorities that manage these funds do in order to make them more accessible. Leader of the vulnerable communities (e.g. if there is a Roma community, the leader thereof) How does the area in which they live in looks like. What are the elements of infrastructure they benefit from, the sources of income of the people, issues that they have to face, relationship with the others, whether there is an initiative group or not. Whether they have initiated any action to attract funds to the community, the relationship with the local public authority, the interest shown by the local public authorities in their community/their area, the relationship with the NGOs in the locality, the relationship with NGOs outside the locality, but which are active in the area, the relationship with the companies in the area.
227