DISCUSSION ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE ASSESSMENT STUDY OF THE
PROGRAMME I NTRODUCTI ON BY MAREK TEPLANSKÝ, HEAD OF UNIT, DDG.03 INCLUSIVE GROWTH, URBAN AND TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT, DG REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY PRESENTATI ON ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE ASSESSMENT STUDY OF THE UAEU BY MARTIN KUEHNEMUND, HEAD OF EUROPEAN EVALUATION AT IPSOS (HEAD OF STUDY TEAM) FEEDBACK, Q&A AND GUI DI NG QUESTI ONS CONCLUDI NG REMARKS
URBAN AGENDA FOR THE EU OBJECTI VES • IDENTIFY AND TACKLE URBAN CHALLENGES • STRENGTHEN THE URBAN DIMENSION OF POLICIES • INVOLVE CITIES IN THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES GOVERNANCE • WORK IN PARTNERSHIP – MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE • EU, MEMBER STATES, CITIES, CITY ASSOCIATIONS, STAKEHOLDERS OUTPUT • ACTION PLANS • ACTIONS FALL UNDER THREE OBJECTIVES: BETTER REGULATION, BETTER FUNDING, BETTER KNOWLEDGE
PRESENTATION ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE ASSESSMENT STUDY OF THE MARTI N KUEHNEMUND, HEAD OF EUROPEAN EVALUATI ON AT I PSOS, HEAD OF THE STUDY TEAM
AGENDA 1. Study scope and objectives 2. Methodology 3. Findings by assessment criterion 4. Overarching conclusions 5. Considerations for the future
PURPOSE AND SCOPE • To holistically assess implementation • Broad scope covering all aspects of and performance of the UAEU and to the UAEU, incl. the Partnerships, explore ways to improve it governance model, Action Plans, One-Stop-Shop, urban proofing
APPROACH TO THE STUDY • Theory based assessment (drawing on an intervention logic) • 5 assessment criteria, 12 assessment questions • Detailed analytical framework incl. judgment criteria, indicators, and data sources for each question • Mixed methods research approach, drawing on primary and secondary, qualitative and quantitative data • Triangulation and interpretation of data to arrive at evidence-based conclusions
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS Effectiveness Efficiency Relevance Coherence EU added value • Fostered • Governance, • UAEU approach • Elements of the • Does the UAEU stakeholder coordination, of multi-level and UAEU (incl. generate value cooperation, management and multi-stakeholder Thematic that is additional coordination & administrative cooperation Partnerships) to what would interaction? structures ensure relevant for complement and have resulted efficient strengthening reinforce each from • Facilitated implementation? the urban other? interventions at progress under dimension in EU regional or the 3 pillars? • Financial and • UAEU coherent policy? national levels? other resources with other urban • Contributed to invested • Pillars, themes policy initiatives • Would the strengthening proportionate to and cross-cutting at international, effects of the the urban the benefits? issues conducive EU and national UAEU be dimension in to addressing the level? sustained if EU policy design & main needs and support was implementation? priorities of discontinued? • Main drivers of urban areas in the UAEU’s the EU? effectiveness?
DATA COLLECTION METHODS Docum ent Online 7 1 in-depth 7 case studies review consultation interview s • 26 with EU-level • Monitoring • Targeted all 1) Governance and other information stakeholders 2) Tech. assistance stakeholders 3) TP functioning • Previous surveys • 118 respondents, involved in the 4) Role of cities, and assessments across 24 MS UAEU MS and EC in • Literature review • 31% belonged to TPs • 45 with members cities, 21% to • Other 5) Action Planning of all 14 TPs (incl. regions or national 6) I mpl. of APs 18 representatives governments 7) Wider impacts of cities)
TIMELINE Structuring Data collection Analysis • Familiarisation • Desk research • Qual. & quant. Data analysis • Finalise • Online methodology consultation • Triangulation • Draft research • Interviews • Reporting tools • Case studies Jan – Mar 2019 Apr – Jul 2019 Aug – Nov 2019
FINDINGS BY ASSESSMENT CRITERION • EFFECTIVENESS • EFFICIENCY • RELEVANCE • COHERENCE • EU ADDED VALUE
EFFECTIVENESS OVERALL APPROACH • Overall, the UAEU’s innovative m ulti-level fram ew ork for dialogue on policy issues and initiatives that affect urban areas turned out to be effective: • Fostered collaboration between MS, cities, EC and other stakeholders • Thematic approach conducive to constructive and (mostly) focused collaboration • Brought together the ‘right’ stakeholders in a broadly effective format • However, different priorities / perspectives of participants not alw ays easy to reconcile
EFFECTIVENESS WORKING METHODS • Quite effective overall: Meetings, coordinators, phasing of action planning process, and availability of technical assistance + • I nformal and flexible approach a key enabler • Unclarity on aims and content of APs • Lack of transparency of TP member selection (especially in early waves) • Heavy reliance on ‘hard core’ active, engaged members - • Some stakeholders (MS, some Commission DGs) less involved (perceive less benefits) • Governance mechanism UAEU widely seen as quite ineffective • I nternal communication within / between different elements UAEU left something to be desired
EFFECTIVENESS STRENGTHENING THE URBAN DIMENSION Positive effects: • Multilevel governance : UAEU strengthened cities’ voice • Plenty of examples of actions that are progressing and (potentially will) have a tangible im pact However: • Am bition of actions varies and im plem entation often uncertain • Dominance of ‘ Better Know ledge ’ actions, which are considered easiest to implement, but potentially have less added value
EFFECTIVENESS BETTER FUNDING, KNOWLEDGE, REGULATION In n your ur view, to to wha hat t extent nt do the the Urban Agenda, To a great extent Somewhat and the Thematic Partne tnershi hips, cont ntribut ute to… Very little Not at all Don’t know better knowledge and data on urban issues? 30 49 9 3 9 Source: Online consultation EU funding that is better adapted to cities and urban % ; All respondents who answered 1 8 46 1 7 1 4 5 areas? question item (n= 113-115) EU regulation that is better adapted to cities and urban 1 9 42 21 5 1 2 areas? 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00
EFFICIENCY • Fairly positive feedback on operational efficiency • Collaborative atmosphere in TPs • Stakeholders w illing to invest in UAEU (seen as long term project) • Nonetheless, action planning not efficient per se: • Feeling that AP process dragged on • Limited guidance for TPs • High burden on members and (in particular) coordinators
RELEVANCE • Overall relevance perceived as high: • Perceived need to enhance role of cities and for multi-level cooperation • Global trend towards emphasising urban governance • UAEU provides important new way for cities to influence EU policies • Improved access of cities to EU funding rated as most important • Cities and EC DGs consider UAEU highly relevant, MS provided mixed picture • Themes, pillars and cross-cutting issues considered highly relevant in principle, but little evidence the latter are used in practice • Perceived need for focussing on themes where a coordinated and integrated intervention is needed
COHERENCE I nternal coherence Cautious optim ism about not especially pronounced External coherence • UAEU increasingly the common • Limited inter-TP collaboration frame for EU urban policy • Limited awareness of other elements • But clearly room for improving the UAEU (other than TPs) way the UAEU interacts with other relevant initiatives • However, not seen as major issue
Source: Online consultation EU ADDED VALUE (I) Thinking about the Thematic Partnership(s) you know best, do you think that there is a need to extend its / their duration beyond the 3 years originally envisaged? Need to continue Urban Agenda % ; All respondents / cities and urban entities that are familiar with a Partnership (n= 84 / 29) Yes, but the approach and / or format should be 51 % significantly changed 59% 27% Yes, using broadly the same approach and / or format 21 % No, a continuation of the Thematic Partnership(s) would 4% not provide additional benefits 7% All respondents Cities and urban entities 1 8% Don’t know 1 4%
EU ADDED VALUE (II) • UAEU seen as ‘ unique ’ and as ‘ im portant first step’ in terms of bringing all different levels and stakeholders together • Especially true for the pillars of Better Regulation and Funding • No significant concerns about subsidiarity of UAEU, although remains important for MS • Stakeholders support continuing UAEU , but in adapted form at (see figure) • Stakeholders’ suggestions included: • Better integration in EU policy framework and alignment with other EU programmes • Enhancing the role of UDG/ DGUM and the representation of cities in these bodies • Maintaining the bottom-up nature of the UAEU • I ncreasing funding for the UAEU to realise its potential added value
OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS
Recommend
More recommend
