DISCUSSION ON THE OUTCOMES OF THE ASSESSMENT STUDY OF THE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• To holistically assess implementation

and performance of the UAEU and to explore ways to improve it

• Broad scope covering all aspects of

the UAEU, incl. the Partnerships, governance model, Action Plans, One-Stop-Shop, urban proofing

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

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

• Fostered

stakeholder cooperation, coordination & interaction?

• Facilitated

progress under the 3 pillars?

• Contributed to

strengthening the urban dimension in policy design & implementation?

• Main drivers of

the UAEU’s effectiveness? Efficiency

• Governance,

coordination, management and administrative structures ensure efficient implementation?

• Financial and
• ther resources

invested proportionate to the benefits? Relevance

• UAEU approach
• f multi-level and

multi-stakeholder cooperation relevant for strengthening the urban dimension in EU policy?

• Pillars, themes

and cross-cutting issues conducive to addressing the main needs and priorities of urban areas in the EU? Coherence

• Elements of the

UAEU (incl. Thematic Partnerships) complement and reinforce each

• ther?
• UAEU coherent

with other urban policy initiatives at international, EU and national level? EU added value

• Does the UAEU

generate value that is additional to what would have resulted from interventions at regional or national levels?

• Would the

effects of the UAEU be sustained if EU support was discontinued?

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

7 1 in-depth interview s

• 26 with EU-level

and other stakeholders involved in the UAEU

• 45 with members
• f all 14 TPs (incl.

18 representatives

• f cities)

Docum ent review

• Monitoring

information

• Previous surveys

and assessments

• Literature review
• Other

Online consultation

• Targeted all

stakeholders

• 118 respondents,

across 24 MS

• 31% belonged to

cities, 21% to regions or national governments

7 case studies

1) Governance 2)

• Tech. assistance

3) TP functioning 4) Role of cities, MS and EC in TPs 5) Action Planning 6) I mpl. of APs 7) Wider impacts

Structuring

• Familiarisation
• Finalise

methodology

• Draft research

tools Data collection

• Desk research
• Online

consultation

• Interviews
• Case studies

Analysis

• Qual. & quant.

Data analysis

• Triangulation
• Reporting

TIMELINE

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: However:

• Multilevel governance: UAEU strengthened cities’ voice
• Plenty of examples of actions that are progressing and (potentially will)

have a tangible im pact

• 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

1 9 1 8 30 42 46 49 21 1 7 9 5 5 3 1 2 1 4 9

1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00

EU regulation that is better adapted to cities and urban areas? EU funding that is better adapted to cities and urban areas? better knowledge and data on urban issues? In n your ur view, to to wha hat t extent nt do the the Urban Agenda, and the Thematic Partne tnershi hips, cont ntribut ute to… To a great extent Somewhat Very little Not at all Don’t know

Source: Online consultation % ; All respondents who answered question item (n= 113-115)

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 not especially pronounced

• Limited inter-TP collaboration
• Limited awareness of other elements

UAEU (other than TPs)

• However, not seen as major issue

Cautious optim ism about External coherence

• UAEU increasingly the common

frame for EU urban policy

• But clearly room for improving the

way the UAEU interacts with other relevant initiatives

EU ADDED VALUE (I)

Need to continue Urban Agenda

1 4% 7% 21 % 59% 1 8% 4% 27% 51 % Don’t know No, a continuation of the Thematic Partnership(s) would not provide additional benefits Yes, using broadly the same approach and / or format Yes, but the approach and / or format should be significantly changed All respondents Cities and urban entities

Source: Online consultation 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

• riginally envisaged?

% ; All respondents / cities and urban entities that are familiar with a Partnership (n= 84 / 29)

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

KEY STRENGTHS & ACHIEVEMENTS (I)

1 . Multi-level, m ulti-stakeholder approach is main added value of the UAEU: Fostered significant collaboration between cities, the Commission, Member States, other EU institutions, and other stakeholders 2 . Provided unique opportunity for cities and other stakeholders to enter into dialogue, exchange views and ideas, find common ground, and instigate actions to address identified issues 3 . Them atic Partnership approach enabled to identify specific bottlenecks for cities and to develop concrete action plans to address these. Pillars and themes were considered very relevant 4 . Flexible, ‘experim ental’ nature of TPs was a key enabler: allowed TPs to take a genuinely ‘bottom-up’ approach and define their own remit, focus and working methods

KEY STRENGTHS & ACHIEVEMENTS (II)

5 . Action Plans are beginning to generate tangible im pacts:

• reportedly influenced a few Commission legislative proposals
• Guidelines/ recommendations to improve implementation of existing legislation
• large number of best practices, guides, toolkits and roadmaps

6 . Certain, albeit lim ited influence in strengthening the urban dim ension in policy design and implementation at EU and national level; new national structures inspired by the UAEU 7 . UAEU is increasingly the “com m on fram e” for urban policies at EU level, with other EU programmes, policies and initiatives being aligned to the UAEU’s topics

WEAKNESSES & ISSUES TO ADDRESS (I)

1 . I m plem entation of actions is often uncertain: There are serious doubts about the extent to which TP members (or other stakeholders) are able to fully implement their action plans 2 . Relatively few actions focus on Better Regulation or Better Funding: Prevalence of Better Knowledge actions raises questions about TPs’ level of ambition and ultimate impacts 3 . Lack of clear and transparent processes, requirem ents and specific

• bjectives: Led among others to uncertainties regarding the aims, content and

implementation of actions

WEAKNESSES & ISSUES TO ADDRESS (II)

4 . Level of engagem ent of stakeholders in and w ith UAEU w as uneven: Progress relied heavily on ‘hard core’ of engaged TP members, especially

• coordinators. MS and some DGs less involved

5 . Lim ited outreach to stakeholders w ho are not directly involved in UAEU: Some TPs reached out to a “second circle” of cities, but overall the profile and visibility of the UAEU remains quite low 6 . Resource constraints w ere a challenge for TPs: Caused by the relatively small amounts available, and, in some cases, a lack of awareness on available funding

WEAKNESSES & ISSUES TO ADDRESS (III)

7 . Governance m echanism for UAEU is not effective: The UDG and DGUM were only able to provide a limited extent of guidance and steer 8 . I nternal com m unication w ithin and betw een different elem ents of the UAEU has been lacking: The flow of information between key actors (the Commission, TP coordinators, Technical Secretariat and governance bodies) was suboptimal 9 . The internal and external coherence of the UAEU is low : Applies to both the alignment with other elements of the UAEU (such as the “one-stop-shop”) and the alignment with other relevant EU initiatives

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

KEY ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

1. I mplementation uncertain 2. Relatively few actions

• n Better Regulation or

Funding 3. Lack of clarity & transparency 4. Uneven engagement of stakeholders 5. Limited outreach to external stakeholders 6. Resource constraints a challenge for TPs 7. Governance mechanism not effective 8. I nternal communication was lacking 9. Low internal and external coherence Enhancing the implementation and impact

• f actions

I mproving the engagement

• f stakeholders in and with

the UAEU Refining UAEU governance mechanisms, internal comms, place in the wider policy framework

OPTIONS TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES (I)

Option A: Continuation and deepening them atic approach Option B: Shift tow ards holistic / integrated approach 1 . Enhancing the im plem entation and im pact of actions

• Prolong current TPs with focus on

implementing APs

• Stimulate amendments to current actions
• Formulate clear and transparent processes,

requirements and specific objectives for TPs

• Promote cross-Partnership collaboration
• Improve information on the status of

actions

• End TPs in their current format
• Set up an alternative transversal / integrated

working method, to allow former ‘core’ TP members to work together

• Systematic identification of lessons learned,

challenges and solutions identified across TPs

• Identification and prioritisation of actions with

potentially high impact and reasonable chance

• f implementation
• Joint proposal for implementation, combining

and building on original actions

OPTIONS TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES (II)

Option A: Continuation and deepening them atic approach Option B: Shift tow ards holistic / integrated approach 2 . I m proving the engagem ent of stakeholders in and w ith the UAEU

• Allow for a greater role of cities in the

composition of TPs

• Ensure all TP members have sufficient

relevant thematic expertise

• Ensure adequate resources for TPs
• Strengthen the relations of the TPs with

relevant institutions

• Reach out to external actors not directly

involved in TPs

• Expand on the format of Coordinators

meetings, e.g. via regular meetings of the core former TP members with high-level Commission and MS representatives

• Active engagement in thematic working

groups

• Ensure adequate resources for engagement in

holistic / integrated approach

OPTIONS TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES (III)

Potential high-level changes and enhancem ents 3 . Refining the UAEU’s governance m echanism s, internal com m unications, and place in the w ider policy / institutional fram ew ork

• Improved guidance from the DGUM/ UDG and Commission for TPs, e.g. by more clearly defining

roles of the DGUM, UDG and UATPG, and/ or by ‘recalibrating’ the way the Commission coordinates and facilitates the UAEU

• Enhance the links between the UAEU and the decision making processes and policy cycles
• Enhancing the representation of cities in relevant decision-making / governance bodies at EU

and national level

• Improve the alignment with Cohesion Policy programmes and other EU initiatives

FEEDBACK AND Q&A

GUIDING QUESTIONS

• 1. HOW COULD THE IMPACT OF ACTIONS BE IMPROVED?
• 2. HOW COULD THE OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT OF

STAKEHOLDERS BEYOND THE PARTNERSHIPS BE IMPROVED?

• 3. SHOULD THE FUTURE URBAN AGENDA FOR THE EU BE

THEMATIC OR HOLISTIC/ INTEGRATED?

Final report available at:

https: / / ec.europa.eu/ regional_policy/ en/ newsroom/ news/ 2 020/ 01/ 15-01-2020-assessment-study-of-the-urban- agenda-for-the-european-union