News

On November 6, 2013, the European Network of National Civil Societies Associations (ENNA) organised a conference on the implementation of the partnership principle in structural funds.

ENNA developed research on 20 management authorities' web pages concerning the transparency, openness and accessibility of processes implementing the partnership principle: it applies to the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes.

The result of this survey is that the approach to the partnership principle differs from country to country. All countries fulfill the pre-requisite set by the Commission to ensure basic information about the process. However, differences between countries are very high: Austria is the best example, they have a very well organised process on the partnership principle and on how to involve civil society; Slovenia is one of the few countries whose web site did not even provide information about the timeline of the process and civil society organisations (CSO) were given three days to give contributions. The conclusion of this research confirms that authorities perceive partnerships as troublesome, without any kind of added value.

Many participants gave information on how partnerships are implemented in their respective countries. However, the picture which comes out is quite disappointing. In fact, even where the involvement of CSOs was successful (e.g. Scotland), the process of being involved was not easy and CSOs were not on an equal footing with other partners that had the capacity to provide financial capital. The same happened in Slovenia, where the government allocated funds to the chamber of commerce to facilitate businesses’ involvement in partnerships but refused to allocate money to CSO platforms.

Other problems are related to the general lack of transparency of processes: no clear information on web sites or information given too late (e.g. Poland, Romania), no information about timelines or only 2-3 days to provide contributions to government documents (e.g. Poland, Lithuania), no clear information about which Department is in charge of the partnership principle (e.g. Estonia). Generally no feedback is given on contributions to governments' consultations.

Another problematic aspect refers to the nature of CSO involvement: in many cases hearings or meetings organised by governments were more informative and a true structural consultation of CSOs was missing. Many participants had the feeling that governments consider NGOs as partners only at operational level, but they do not consider it relevant to involve them in the broader process of partnerships, namely in the programming phase (e.g. Romania, Poland, Lithuania). Our member, the European Disability Forum (EDF) reported that in most countries NGOs did not have the possibility to influence the process at all. All the priorities were already agreed between the government and the Commission. Structural consultation with NGOs on technical issues such as ex ante conditionalities, accessibility and environment, were completely missing.

The last point which is also quite problematic refers to the inclusiveness of the process. EDF reported that the disability sector is confined to the social inclusion Committee, while they consider it necessary to have a representative in all relevant monitoring committees (innovation, infrastructures, transport). The CSO representative from Scotland said that the Scottish program is falling short in reaching beneficiaries who have difficulties in accessing funds, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities and gender equality.

Finally and on a more positive note, our member EAPN reported that on the social inclusion side, they have seen some progress. Spain is a successful practice, but it is the only example. EAPN will soon publish a report monitoring the process of the implementation of the partnership principle by member states.