3. Strategic planning in Romanian Regional Development Agencies
This chapter identifies and assesses the major challenges for Romania’s Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in strategic planning for regional development. The analysis covers three dimensions: i) strategy, planning and performance measurement; ii) finance and implementation of regional development strategies; and iii) communication and stakeholder engagement. It highlights strengths, successes, limitations, and priority areas for future improvement under these three dimensions. The chapter also includes relevant examples from outside Romania and identifies new opportunities that its RDAs could potentially pursue in the coming years.
Romania’s Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) are responsible for territorial development and regional attractiveness across the country’s eight regions. The RDAs develop regional development plans and have recently taken on the role of Managing Authorities for the European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy Regional Programmes in Romania. In many ways, RDAs are well placed to fulfil these roles: they are well-established entities with a deep knowledge of their region’s strengths and challenges, as well as longstanding relationships with local governments, businesses, academia, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Moreover, as former intermediary bodies for EU funds, the RDAs have plenty of experience in utilising European funding to support regional development.
Despite these foundations, the RDAs face some important challenges when undertaking strategic planning for their regions. Foremost among these is that while the RDAs draft the regional development plans, no actor is held accountable for the implementation of the plans. The Regional Development Councils are responsible for approving the regional development plan, for example, but are not accountable for implementation. Stakeholders including local governments, businesses, NGOs, among others, are not obligated to align their activities with the regional plans. Many RDAs report that stakeholders do not always have the motivation, funding, or capacity to actively contribute to regional strategic planning, nor to develop projects to deliver regional goals (OECD, 2022[1]).
The challenge of co-ordinating local stakeholders to contribute to regional development objectives as identified in the regional development plans is exacerbated by capacity gaps within the RDAs themselves. Stakeholder engagement is not always well co-ordinated among the different departments in the RDA and communications can be poorly targeted and overly formal. At the same time, limited staff and expertise for monitoring and evaluation prevents RDAs from verifying how local initiatives contribute to regional objectives. Regional data gaps in nationally collected data further reduce the RDAs’ ability to develop high-quality strategic plans and hamper their monitoring and evaluation efforts. Moreover, RDAs are tied to a national planning methodology which has not been updated since 2012 and tends to result in lengthy, dense and technocratic regional development plans.
This chapter examines the status of strategic planning for regional development across RDAs. It is divided into three parts in line with the OECD analytical framework used to assess strategic planning of each RDA. The first section assesses the strategy, planning and performance measurement processes for the RDAs’ regional development plans. The second section explores the finance and implementation challenges encountered by RDAs. Finally, the chapter reviews how the RDAs undertake communication and stakeholder engagement. It also looks at RDAs as a whole, considering how both the national government and the Romanian Association of Regional Development Agencies (ROREG) could support the RDAs to improve their strategic planning processes.
Robust strategic planning mechanisms and practices are fundamental to the work of RDAs. Strategic planning involves conducting diagnostics that enable the agencies to pinpoint specific development challenges as well as areas of potential growth. This requires skills in areas such as data gathering and analysis. Moreover, strategic planning entails establishing a vision for territorial development, setting development objectives, determining priorities and designing actions to help meet the identified objectives. Subsequently, it requires setting up and carrying out performance measurement activities to track the achievement of territorial development objectives to help policy makers make evidence-informed decisions on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of regional development policy and actions. Finally, it depends on a deep understanding of relevant public (e.g. counties and towns) and non-governmental (e.g. academia, businesses, civil society organisation and citizens) stakeholders and how they can contribute to regional and local development efforts.
Romania’s RDAs have been responsible for territorial development and boosting regional attractiveness for over 20 years. As such, they have been responsible for drafting and implementing different territorial development strategies, plans and programmes, gradually honing their strategic planning skills and expertise. In 2021, the RDAs took on an additional role, that of Managing Authorities for the Regional Programmes under the EU Cohesion Policy 2021-2027. In order to capitalise on the opportunity this new role generates for advancing the objectives of their regional development plans, the RDAs should address the issues they already face when undertaking strategic planning and performance measurement in their regions. This will require RDAs, ROREG and the Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration (MDPWA) to rethink the structure of regional development plans so that they provide a clear and succinctly communicated vision for each region, increase the alignment between regional and local development plans, tackle outstanding regional data gaps and improve the monitoring and evaluation of development initiatives.
The RDAs’ longstanding experience can help them deliver as regional Managing Authorities
Romania’s eight RDAs have been responsible for developing regional development plans, smart specialisation strategies (S3) and a host of other sectoral plans since their creation in 1999. This longstanding experience has equipped the RDAs with a good understanding of their respective region’s development assets, opportunities and constraints, as well as good relationships with many of the key local stakeholders. RDAs have leveraged their experience, knowledge and relationships to create a series of regional development plans, which, since 2007, have time periods aligned to the Multiannual Financial Frameworks of the European Union.
The oversight of each RDA falls under a Regional Development Council, composed of counties and local governments. The councils are responsible for reviewing and approving the RDAs’ regional development planning documents (OECD, 2022[2]; OECD/UCLG, 2021[3]).
For the current planning exercise, regions have set themselves a variety of high-level goals, including reducing intraregional disparities, transitioning to a knowledge-based digital economy, reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and increasing resilience to climate change. Within these aims, RDAs have set more precise objectives, which will help each region achieve its unique ambitions, such as: boosting the retention of older workers in the labour market (e.g. Centre RDA); improving security in public spaces (e.g. Bucharest-Ilfov RDA); and the protection of natural heritage and biodiversity (e.g. North-West RDA).
For the 2021-27 period, Romania will receive a combined total of EUR 31.5 billion in 2021-27 to “promote the economic, social and territorial cohesion of its regions and its green and digital transition” as well as to “support the development of a competitive, innovative and export-oriented Romanian economy” (European Commission, 2022[4]). As Managing Authorities, the RDAs are responsible for designing the Regional Programmes and distributing funding, designing, and disseminating project calls, appraising fund applications, selecting projects for funding, managing administrative verifications, authorising payments, monitoring the implementation of the projects by beneficiaries and the overall implementation of their programmes. RDAs will also provide guidance and support to beneficiaries, such as businesses, local government authorities, civil society organisations and universities, on how to prepare relevant project proposals. The eight Regional Programmes 2021-27 prioritise investments focusing on increasing the level of competitiveness through innovation and digitalisation, energy efficiency measures for public and residential buildings, exchanging green infrastructure, promoting sustainable urban and regional mobility, improving access to education services and investments in sustainable territorial development with a focus on tourism (OECD, n.d.[5]).
Managing the Regional Programmes presents RDAs with a significant opportunity to further position Romania’s eight development regions as the locus of territorial development planning – providing the agencies with a powerful tool to drive the implementation of their regional development plans and strengthen stakeholder buy-in for their regional visions. However, new responsibilities come with new challenges. RDAs will need to expand their know-how and expertise to meet the demands of acting as a regional Managing Authority and all of them could benefit from upgrading their skills across the strategic planning cycle to better shape and drive their region’s development (OECD, 2022[6]). RDAs are motivated to learn and upgrade their capacity, and several have already or intend to expand the number of staff involved in strategic planning. The rest of this section examines the strategic planning challenges faced by RDAs in providing suggestions on how they could be overcome. In many cases, these are not challenges that a single RDA can address alone: guidance and support from MDPWA, Ministry of European Investments and Projects (MEIP) and other relevant national actors will be essential, as well as peer-to-peer collaboration under the auspices of ROREG.
An updated methodology and increased national support could improve strategic plans
The RDAs have invested significant time and effort in developing the current iterations of regional development plans, which are publicly available on each RDA’s website. To develop their plans, the RDAs currently rely on the general planning methodology developed by the MDPWA in 2012. This general methodology for all eight regions provides a minimal set of common elements for the content, the elaboration and approval process. Each plan follows a consistent structure, starting with a socio-economic analysis of the region, followed by strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analyses for selected sectors, the RDA’s development strategy for the region (which includes regional objectives), an implementation plan, a monitoring plan, details on the stakeholder engagement conducted to inform the plan and finally a list of priority projects suggested by regional stakeholders. Most but not all regions also include a section estimating the financial needs to deliver the plan (calculated based on the list of proposed projects) and some regions include sub sections setting out the connections between the region’s plan and the priorities of the European Union and the national government.
The regional development plans are dense and technocratic, with most plans running over 300 pages (and, in the case of South Muntenia, over 600 pages). They do not contain executive summaries and a significant portion of the plan is dedicated to data-heavy socio-economic summaries of the region. Such lengthy documents do not provide RDA staff, local elected leaders or local officials with a clear reference to drive decision making for regional development initiatives. They also make it harder to communicate an RDA’s vision and objectives for its region’s development to local citizens, businesses, academia, civil society and NGOs. Not only does this make it less likely that local stakeholders will develop initiatives to help deliver the regional development plan but it also makes it harder for anyone to hold the RDA and local governments accountable for delivering the plan.
The uniformity in the overall structure of regional development plans is welcome as it makes it easy for stakeholders to find information within them. However, when digging deeper into the plans, it becomes clear that the socio-economic summaries and the SWOT analyses included do not use consistent categories or structures. While this allows plans to focus on the specific issues that affect a given region, this, in places, results in long sections of superfluous detail. For example, some plans include lengthy discussions of the flora and fauna found in the region (e.g. South-Muntenia). It also reduces the comparability across different plans, making it difficult for ROREG to assess the quality of all plans across regions. Each region provides SWOT analyses of several topics, some of which focus on specific sectors (e.g. agriculture, tourism), while others explore cross-cutting issues (e.g. human capital, connectivity) without a clear description of how they all come together to influence the relevant region’s development. Moreover, the SWOT analyses and regional objectives which follow them are not set in the context of the RDA’s stakeholder engagement. While there is a section on stakeholder partnerships and working groups in each plan, it is short, focused on process and at the end of the document. As a result, stakeholder perspectives are not explicitly integrated into or communicated through the plan.
Every plan contains a section on monitoring, proposing indicators to track progress against the plan and setting out reporting processes and timelines. For example, the Centre region’s plan proposes a report be undertaken after three years to review achievements and implementation challenges and propose potential modifications to indicators and targets if current ones are no longer applicable. However, the form this section takes is inconsistent across plans and its usefulness to guide performance measurement activities is not always clear. For example, a few RDAs simply provide a list of metrics to track, others provide data on the base year and base value of these metrics, and some provide specific targets for the metrics. Across plans, many of these sections are about monitoring while leaving out a more comprehensive evaluation of projects, with a focus on output indicators (e.g. number of companies supported or kilometres of road improved) rather than an assessment of outcome indicators or even the impact of the initiatives on the region’s development (Box 3.1). Finally, plans do not detail how the region intends to evaluate the impact of the combined suite of measures contained in the plan on the region overall.
An indicator is a measure that can capture different types of information and provides insight for evidence-informed decision making. Indicators are generally divided into four categories:
1. Input indicators reveal what resources (e.g. people, money, time) are used in what amounts to produce and deliver goods and services.
2. Output indicators capture the goods and services that activities produce (e.g. number of local civil servants trained, the number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that received financial support and kilometres of roads built).
3. Outcome indicators capture the dimension that is expected to change as a result of an intervention (policy, programme or project). They show the real-world changes that practical outputs will produce (e.g. the percentage of people who have improved their situation in the labour market within a certain number of months after their participation in training).
4. Impact indicators relate to the expected impact of a policy intervention on the economy or society in general. They measure changes in the long term.
In determining what to measure, two factors are particularly important: the objectives of the monitoring system and the objectives of the policy/programme/project.
Source: Based on OECD (2022[7]), Rebuilding Ukraine by Reinforcing Regional and Municipal Governance, https://doi.org/10.1787/63a6b479-en.
Thus, while the current regional development plans are a useful starting point, the RDAs would benefit from support to make them more effective and user-friendly documents. Since 2012, there have been no updates to the general planning methodology developed by MDPWA nor any additional guidance, capacity building or training from the national government to address specific challenges that RDAs face in the planning process. As a result, RDAs lack tools and knowledge regarding how to track and project development trends in their regions, how to link financial resources and budgets to various priorities and initiatives, and how to assess the outcomes of policy interventions with regard to the objectives. A more contextualised, comprehensive methodology for strategic planning that addresses these gaps is a crucial starting point for RDAs to enhance their strategic planning. MDPWA and the MEIP should provide ongoing engagement with RDAs to support its application.
As part of the upgraded methodology, careful thought is also required as to how to ensure that regional development plans are supported and implemented, which depends on the actions of a wide range of stakeholders. The complexity arises with the counties and local governments, which are more prone to prioritise their own development plans. One way to overcome this challenge could be to more actively and concretely include local governments in the strategic planning processes. Regional planning in Ireland – a country similarly without a regional tier of government – provides an instructive example (Box 3.2). Ireland established a regional planning structure that engages both local and national stakeholders through committees and working groups to design Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies, with the jointly agreed plans implemented in partnership with local authorities and state agencies. The Irish example shows how the Romanian RDAs could give regional planning and organisations greater political recognition and significance.
Ireland has traditionally had a highly centralised state. It has 26 county councils, 3 city councils and 2 city-and-county councils, all forming local government in Ireland. There is no regional government in the country but three regional assemblies, consisting of members of the local authorities from the region, play an important role in regional and national strategic planning.
Ireland’s National Development Plan 2021-2030 and its National Planning Framework 2040 together serve as the investment plan for the country. They provide the structure for the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSES), which are prepared by the regional assemblies. These RSES inform decisions related to regional public infrastructure investment aligned with the National Development Plan 2021-2030 and guide county and city planning, economic policy and investment.
The RSES take a cross-sector approach, combining a spatial strategy, an economic strategy, a climate strategy, an investment framework and, in some cases, a metropolitan plan. Each strategy is prepared within a regional co-ordination framework, which gathers input from local authorities and other relevant stakeholders, including the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. For example, in the Eastern and Midland region, the Assembly is arranged into three Strategic Planning Area Committees consisting of elected members, which feed into the RSES process. A Senior Officials Advisory Group made up of representatives from local authorities, government departments and public agencies, provides a strategic advisory role during the process. Technical working groups are usually organised to develop its RSES.
Source: Based on OECD (2020[8]), The Future of Regional Development and Public Investment in Wales, United Kingdom, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6f5201d-en; Bradley, M. (2019[9]), Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) for the Eastern and Midland Region, Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly (Ireland).
Beyond simply engaging local stakeholders in the design of regional plans, regional and national policy makers could identify functional and financial incentives to rally the support of public and non-governmental actors. An example of a financial incentive could include the creation of a central government fund for regional development that provides dedicated funding for projects designed by county and local governments, which need to contribute to the objectives of the regional development plans. This would make it financially beneficial for counties and local governments to align their projects with the regional vision. Such a fund should be complementary to existing funding schemes to avoid duplication and maximise synergies across investments. France provides an interesting example of such a financial incentive through the National Fund for Planning and Territorial Development (Fonds national d’aménagement et de développement du territoire). The initiative receives funding from the French central government, regional authorities and EU Cohesion Policy Funds to support projects contributing to local economic development, urban and rural planning, transportation, cultural heritage preservation, social inclusion and environmental protection (Besse, 2003[10]). An example of a functional incentive could include providing capacity-building support (e.g. preparing didactic material and delivering training) on how to develop local strategic planning documents that align to the RDA’s regional development plan.
RDAs struggle to ensure strategic coherence between regional and local objectives
RDAs have struggled to ensure that county and local governments’ priorities and development plans are consistent with their regional vision (OECD, 2022[6]). While regional plans may emphasise long-term, future-oriented priorities, such as competitiveness, innovation and digitalisation, local plans can struggle to strike the right balance between immediate concerns and longer-term goals. For example, in the North-East, local plans place significant attention on addressing the impact of recent events such as Russian’s large-scale war against Ukraine, the COVID-19 crisis and supply chain distractions, overshadowing long-term structural development needs (e.g. building human capital) (OECD, 2022[11]). Local stakeholders in other regions also struggle to build sophisticated future-oriented aims. For example, in the South East, local authorities, businesses, civil society organisations and local communities tend to follow traditional or existing paths when developing ideas or initiatives supporting regional development, e.g. to attract more tourists to the locality, they may focus on building more hotels (OECD, 2022[12]). As a result, there is a fragmented planning landscape of inconsistent or even contradictory objectives and misaligned initiatives, while the synergies and trade-offs between local and regional activities are not well capitalised.
The underlying causes of this regional-local disconnect vary among the regions, with RDAs struggling to manage various combinations of:
Low-quality local strategic planning: In several cases, local governments do not have the capacity to identify local development priorities or tie these to the wider regional plan. For example, in South-West Oltenia, by October 2023, only half of the region’s local governments had adopted a local development plan (OECD, 2022[13]; 2022[14]). Challenges regarding the local capacity for strategic planning were also notable in the North-East and South-East and West regions. This disconnect is driven by a lack of strategic planning expertise within local authorities, including a general lack of practical guidelines or manuals to help local governments as they design and implement their local development plan. These challenges are compounded by the absence of robust and up-to-date databases to help conduct needs assessments and/or a lack of tools to engage stakeholders in local planning. Many local governments rely heavily on external consultants to support their strategic planning processes, which entails risks of limited stakeholder engagement in the planning process, and/or missing opportunity for local governments to build in-house planning expertise. The absence of clear tools and resources, peer-to-peer knowledge-sharing opportunities and regular capacity-building support also add difficulties in strengthening local planning quality. While RDAs would like to support local authorities to improve their strategic planning, they lack the human resources to do so effectively, particularly given the large number of local authorities within some regions. For example, there are 6 counties and 552 local governments in the North-East alone.
A lack of local incentives and accountability for regional development plans: Across RDAs, local authorities do not have adequate incentives to ensure regional-local strategic linkages as no measures hold them responsible for alignment to or delivery of the regional development plans. Some local authorities do not see the value of ensuring strategic coherence without formal accountability mechanisms.
Asynchronous planning cycles without guidance on how to sequence the development of regional, county and local government plans: Romania does not have a national planning law to define which planning instruments need to be developed, to what timelines and how the different instruments should align. As a result, regional and local strategic planning cycles do not always align, with some localities developing their plans before the regional plan and others afterwards. Furthermore, it is not clear whether regional plans should be built on local ones or whether local plans should be based on regional ones. This makes it hard to align priorities and implementation across the different levels of planning in place across each region. This was a challenge in the North-East, as well as in Bucharest-Ilfov region, where stakeholders report that each of Bucharest’s six sectors has its own strategy and planning timelines, and the sectors generally do not actively co-ordinate with the city of Bucharest.
Difficulties engaging local stakeholders in regional discussions: When some RDAs tried to engage local authorities in the design of the regional development plans, they did not receive high-quality input (OECD, 2022[6]). For example, the RDA in South-West Oltenia noted that local governments simply sent them a large list of desired projects that were not prioritised, which made it very difficult for the agency to ensure their plan meets local needs. Similarly, while private sector representatives are generally invited into regional planning discussions, they often do not see the value or do not prioritise participating in the meetings.
Underpinning these considerations lies a deeper challenge – the differing perspectives between RDAs and local authorities: i) on the balance between short- and long-term development priorities; and ii) between physical infrastructure investments and “softer” investments in competitiveness, research and development and human capital. RDAs are more likely to prioritise long-term challenges and “softer” investments surrounding climate change, competitiveness, and innovation. Meanwhile, local authorities tend to focus on addressing more immediate, infrastructure-based or other “hard” priorities and investments, such as improving roads or building schools, which they see as a tool to bolster public support for their administration. While the RDAs would argue their approach is more strategic, local authorities find that regional development plans are disconnected from local needs. Both types of projects are important for regional development and a balance of investment between short-term priorities and long-term investments is likely to deliver the greatest overall benefit. However, the preference of counties and local authorities for short-term, tangible projects has disrupted this balance and the RDAs lack a clear mechanism to generate support for long-term initiatives.
To address these challenges, there is a need to better co-ordinate the regional and local planning processes. Formal guidance or legislation from the national government clarifying the status of and interconnections between local and regional plans could help foster better linkages between regional and local development priorities. For example, in Mexico, federal and state planning laws specify which planning documents (e.g. federal, state and municipal development plans and policy programmes) each level of government has to develop, when and how they need to be linked (Box 3.3).
Mexico has a well-established tradition of strategic planning at the federal and state levels. Article 26 of the Mexican constitution and the national planning law require the establishment of a national development plan for each six-year presidential term. This plan, which by law should take into account the results of a wide-ranging consultation of citizens, sets out broad priorities for the development of Mexico. As such, it provides a framework of reference for:
Moreover, each of Mexico’s 32 state governments has its own planning law, which specifies the procedure for designing the state development plan, state-level institutional, sectoral and special policy programmes, as well as municipal development plans. It includes information and guidelines on who should lead their design process, how the different federal, state and municipal planning documents should be aligned and within what timeframe they need to be drafted, reviewed and adopted.
Source: Based on Mexican National Congress (2018[15]), Ley de Planeación [Planning Law], https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LPlan.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2023).
Expanded guidelines on strategic coherence and when to engage local stakeholders throughout the regional development planning process could also be incorporated into ROREG’s updated planning methodology for RDAs. Building on the example from the Czech Republic (Box 3.4), the national government may wish to provide a tool for mapping strategic objectives between different levels of government.
The Strategies Database developed by the Ministry for Regional Development in the Czech Republic collects development strategies at all levels (local, supra-local, regional, national and international). One important feature of the database is mapping the development areas and objectives to which these strategies contribute. The database includes 24 development areas (e.g. industry and construction, energy and heating, culture, employment and market, sustainable development) and each area has sub-areas. For each strategic document, users can see which development areas the document covers.
Source: Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic (2022[16]), Databáze Strategií - Portál Strategických Dokumentu v CR, https://www.databaze-strategie.cz/cz/mistni-dokumenty.
Local authorities should be encouraged to think beyond their locality to embed regional priorities in their planning processes. Building on the example of Colombia (Box 3.5), ROREG and the RDAs could provide county and local governments with a package of easily accessible materials and training on how to undertake effective strategic planning at a local level and how to connect this to regional plans and initiatives. Simultaneously, RDAs should also consider how they can adapt their approach to stakeholder engagement to better support local authorities, for example by reframing communications to emphasise a long-term regional vision. ROREG could support RDA engagement with local authorities by collating case studies of how to engage local stakeholders most effectively in the planning process. These case studies could draw on successful examples within Romania, as well as international initiatives. With regard to the latter, the Dutch government intends to launch a digital ‘monitor’ where municipalities can exchange citizen engagement practices. In addition, the Association of Dutch Municipalities has a database to facilitate the sharing of good practices (Box 3.5).
Colombia’s online Territorial Portal
The National Planning Department created the Territorial Portal of Colombia to help municipalities improve municipal planning, administration and service delivery. The portal functions as a one-stop shop for:
Information on municipal planning and budgeting regulations and procedures.
E-learning packages on topics such as: public investment, spatial planning, financial management, design of local development plans and monitoring and evaluation. These packages include manuals, training videos, recommendations, examples of good practices, etc.
Excel and PowerPoint formats related to the above-mentioned topics that can be adjusted by the local governments.
Contact information of territorial advisors located in different parts of the country.
Information on relevant national government policies implemented at the local level.
The Netherlands’ digital “monitor” and good practices database
In 2023, the Dutch government announced the launch of a digital “monitor” to facilitate sharing good examples of citizen participation across municipalities. Specifically, the monitor will help municipalities identify which practices work, which do not and what challenges municipalities and residents face when such initiatives are implemented.
Alongside this, the Association of Dutch Municipalities already has an online database of hundreds of examples of local initiatives and experiences on a wide variety of topics, including citizen participation and regional planning. These case studies, which are easily searchable by subject on the association’s website, offer succinct summaries of the initiatives undertaken in different municipalities.
Source: Based on Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2021[17]), Portal Territorial de Colombia [Territorial Portal of Colombia], https://portalterritorial.dnp.gov.co/ (accessed on 21 August 2021); Association of Dutch Municipalities (2023[18]), “Good examples of citizen participation sharing”, https://vng.nl/nieuws/kabinet-goede-voorbeelden-burgerparticipatie-delen; Association of Dutch Municipalities (2023[19]), Case Studies of Local Initiatives, https://vng.nl/overzicht-praktijkvoorbeelden?f%5b%5d=practical_examples_subjects%3A380664.
Regional data gaps hamper the quality of regional planning
The lack of reliable and up-to-date data at the regional and particularly the local levels has been repeatedly highlighted by all regions as a key barrier to strategic planning. RDAs rely on data from official sources such as Eurostat and those provided by the Regional Statistics Directorate of the National Institute of Statistics. However, regional-level data are lacking for multiple regional development sectors, such as research, innovation, the environment, circular economy, energy efficiency and cultural heritage. Missing data reduce the statistical power of the analysis and can distort the validity of the needs assessment for regional planning. They also make it difficult for the RDAs to identify baselines and milestones as part of the regional development planning, monitoring and evaluation processes.
The problem regarding regional data manifests in several ways across RDAs:
Low data availability. For some sectors, a wide range of regional and local-level indicators are missing. These data are not collected by the national authorities and county and local governments lack the resources and expertise to generate and collect those data. RDAs also struggle with a lack of information about the implementation of national programmes, with no consolidated and up-to-date information about ongoing projects in each region provided by the national government. While RDAs could collect at least some of this information through other channels (e.g. surveys), this would draw further on RDA resources and potentially extend the planning timeline, particularly given that sending official letters to local authorities requesting data generally involves a long administrative process, which is set out in legislation. Moreover, unless a standardised survey is disseminated in all counties, cities and/or towns, data obtained through surveys do not allow for comparison across government units.
Low data quality. RDAs pointed out that some data can be outdated or based on obsolete statistical methodologies. In some cases, national data collection is conducted with templates or methods that are not applicable to the regional level and thus significantly hampers regional data quality.
Low data accessibility. Data accessibility is limited due to the fragmentation of data sources (i.e. RDAs need to collect data from multiple sources and databases), the low level of digitalisation and limited interoperability among databases. Many databases also lack features or tools for users to compare past and present data, limiting the ability of RDAs to identify trends, notice changes or measure regional development performance over time.
Combined, these issues make data collection cumbersome and highly time-consuming for all RDAs. It is particularly challenging for RDAs, such as the West, if they do not have an official agreement or partnership with relevant statistical institutions that manage the relevant databases. This requires the RDA to co-ordinate individually with each institution to collect data and potentially repeat the process for each planning cycle.
At the same time, the challenge extends beyond data gaps and low levels of analytical capacity among RDAs. Some RDAs considered the main challenge to be the identification of the most relevant indicators to assess development needs. Others highlighted that they did not have the necessary human resource capacity available – both in terms of time and skills – to adequately analyse the available databases. Some RDAs, such as North-West and South-East, have at times engaged external consultants to help address data challenges but this is not a long-term solution.
There are steps which RDAs can take individually to strengthen their ability to analyse relevant regional data, beginning with deepening their understanding of their own data infrastructures and identifying future data needs before investing in new systems or training for RDA staff to boost their data gathering and analysis capacities.
However, a significant element of the data challenge is outside of the direct control of the RDAs, particularly where statistical authorities use methodologies which produce low-quality, or even no, regional data and where databases are poorly digitised without easy comparison and visualisation options. As such, the national government must address many of the challenges here. ROREG should work with national authorities to highlight the data needs of RDAs and push through improvements to regional-level data collection and dissemination. Given that data analysis capacity is a common capacity gap across RDAs, ROREG could explore ways to provide shared data analysis capacity-building initiatives across regions. One way to do this could be for ROREG, together with the national government, to create a portal for regional data that could be shared across RDAs. The portal could provide RDAs with dashboards and other tools to visualise and analyse data, as well as the option to create reports to communicate insights to stakeholders. The Data Analysis Portal of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Mexico (Box 3.6) can serve as an example of how to disseminate relevant data through a publicly accessible portal.
In order to improve evidence-informed decision making by public officials at the national, state and municipal levels, UNPD Mexico created the Data Analysis Portal (Plataforma de Analysis de Datos). It has three main components:
1. A databank that contains regional- and local-level data on over 600 indicators that are gathered by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography. The databank enables users to browse different datasets, generate charts and tables and make comparisons.
5. A databank with relevant analytical reports, development strategies and plans.
6. An application that enables users to download very concise information sheets for municipal government. The sheets present up-to-date information on a wide range of indicators (e.g. health, governance, education, crime) and compare municipalities’ performance with that of the regional and national averages.
Source: Based on UNDP Mexico (2023[20]), Plataform de Análisis de Datos, https://pad.undp.org.mx/.(accessed on 2 November 2023).
Monitoring and evaluation are inhibited by data, culture and capacity gaps
The monitoring and evaluation of regional development plans is one of the weakest elements of the strategic planning cycle across many Romania’s RDAs. RDAs generally organise their monitoring and evaluation activities around the Regional Programmes, since such activities are an obligation for Managing Authorities. Meanwhile, some regions have not yet comprehensively evaluated their 2014-20 regional development plans. For example, the South-Muntenia Regional Development Council has not yet approved an evaluation report for the period. Limited evaluation impedes the ability of many RDAs to learn from past successes and failures and adjust their strategic planning accordingly. Without such insights, organisations risk repeating mistakes and overlooking valuable lessons. Furthermore, a lack of evaluation reduces transparency, as well as the RDA’s accountability to the Regional Development Council and citizens. One reason for weak evaluations is the regional data gaps already noted above. However, the challenge extends well beyond data availability.
The institutional culture around evaluation is a major obstacle to effective evaluation by RDAs. In many cases, stakeholders (including the Regional Development Councils) have yet to consider monitoring and evaluation a valuable tool for policy improvement. Instead, evaluation can be perceived as oriented towards finding failures or as something that will only be used by the national government or the European Commission to hold the RDAs to account. In fact, some RDAs question whether monitoring and evaluation reports are considered useful by beneficiaries. To some extent, this problem may be related to the non-binding nature of the regional development plan. Since there is no requirement for local authorities – who sit on the Regional Development Council – to support the plan’s implementation and there is no other accountability mechanism for its implementation, stakeholders lack incentives to track the progress and assess the plan’s performance and outcomes.
The capacity to carry out monitoring and evaluation exercises, both in terms of the number of available staff and their expertise, presents a further challenge for RDAs. Most have a limited number of employees working on strategic planning, with even fewer devoted to monitoring and evaluation of the plan. While some RDAs have engaged external consulting firms to support the development of the regional development plan, this has been less prevalent for the evaluation phase and some RDAs have encountered difficulties recruiting evaluation specialists. Even where staff are engaged in monitoring and evaluation, they report feeling unable to identify the most relevant indicators for evaluation and that they lack a methodology to establish clear linkages between indicators and regional development objectives. This challenge is evident in the drafting of the current regional development plans, which focus more on output than outcome indicators. As noted above, the potential of ROREG’s drafting of an updated planning methodology, together with the MDPWA, should provide guidance to RDAs on this.
It is not easy to change a policy-making culture overnight and building institutional evaluation capacity will require significant investments. However, capitalising on the obligation to monitor the Regional Programmes, the RDAs could start by assessing how each of their Regional Programmes is contributing to the regional development plans. This will require developing impact indicators on overall regional development that go beyond the EU requirement for the Regional Programmes. By doing so, the RDA will be able to demonstrate not only the performance of the Regional Programmes but also the value-added of having the RDAs managing it. This is a crucial concept for RDAs to prove in their first programming period as Managing Authorities. To facilitate this, RDAs could seek to develop impact indicators for the Regional Programmes vis-à-vis the objectives and vision defined in the regional development plans.
To take this approach, RDAs will need to mobilise local authorities and other stakeholders in Regional Development Councils to support more effective monitoring and evaluation. Local authorities, in particular, will need to facilitate data collection. Such a mobilisation will require RDAs to demonstrate how the Regional Programme supports local development objectives and do more to increase the relevance and usefulness of their monitoring and evaluation reports to stakeholders, showing local authorities the transparency and accountability benefits it provides. Moreover, RDAs should significantly expand their own monitoring and evaluation capacities. This could be done by training existing staff, targeting new hires where necessary, and creating new governance structures to oversee and drive forward evaluation plans.
Given that much of this may be new for RDAs, ROREG should consider the support it can offer, particularly providing advice on how to most effectively focus the RDAs’ limited evaluation resources. This could include working with the MDPWA and the National Institute of Statistics to develop cross-RDA guidance and training for the monitoring and evaluation of regional development plans. These should focus on how RDAs can link monitoring and evaluation results with development priorities to clearly demonstrate how a policy or investment contributes or has contributed to regional objectives. Such guidance should be part of the regional development planning methodology as suggested above. ROREG could also consider setting up a cross-RDA working group on monitoring and evaluation, led by an RDA, which could identify shared challenges, disseminate good practices developed by one or more RDAs, and design tools the RDAs can use to strengthen their monitoring and evaluation practices.
Romania’s RDAs function as NGOs. As such, they depend on the actions of a wide range of public (counties and local governments) and non-governmental (e.g. the private sector, higher education institutions and civil society organisations) actors to contribute to the implementation of the regional development plans and Regional Programmes. Such contribution is voluntary in that there is no legal requirement or incentive structure to ensure that county or local governments support the implementation of regional development plans. There is a greater incentive to support the Regional Programmes given their link to EU Cohesion Policy funds, although even this incentive can be limited in its effectiveness. This presents a challenge to regional development planning and implementation that many RDAs view as fundamental.
The Regional Programmes’ implementation is largely made possible through EU Cohesion Policy funds, which generally need to be complemented by local resources (e.g. own-source revenue of county and local governments). As new Managing Authorities since 2021, the RDAs design and publish regular calls for proposals, assess project proposals and disseminate funds to the beneficiaries whose projects are selected. The RDA’s new control over the Regional Programme brings programme decision making closer to the regions, counties and municipalities it seeks to serve. However, becoming a regional Managing Authority is not an easy task and the RDAs face a number of important challenges. These include: i) their capacity to design calls that meet the needs of local beneficiaries and match their administrative capacity; ii) the skills and expertise of beneficiaries to prepare mature project proposals and ensure their implementation; and iii) the RDAs’ skills and expertise to track the implementation of the projects in order to establish to what extent they contribute to the objectives set out in the Regional Programmes.
In the case of the regional development plans, the question of how these are funded and financed is more complicated. This has several reasons. First, the RDAs themselves do not have the financial resources to fund project implementation. Second, there is no central government grant (e.g. a national fund for regional development) to support the implementation of the regional development plans. Third, EU Cohesion Policy funds for the Regional Programmes only cover part of the needs for regional development plans, meaning that alternative funding and financing need to be mobilised to ensure their full implementation. Fourth, there is no legislation mandating county and local governments to support the implementation of the regional development plans. As such, the RDAs need to leverage their influence and foster co-ordination and collaboration among public and non-governmental stakeholders to rally their contribution to the objectives of the regional development plans.
The Regional Programmes provide significant but insufficient funds for regional investment needs
Through national and regional programmes, Romania will benefit from EUR 32 billion of Cohesion Policy funding1 in the 2021-27 programming period (EC, 2023[21]). Cohesion Policy funds represent an important source of funding for regional development in all regions and, as new managing authorities, project calls can be designed to be more closely linked to the region’s development plan. However, even if the Regional Programmes were to be completely aligned with regional development plans, the Regional Programme budget represents just a fraction of the finances required to deliver the initiatives proposed in the RDA’s regional development plan. For example, the Regional Programme represents 23% of the funding required in the Centre and 20% in the West but just 12% in Bucharest-Ilfov. Only in the North-East is the Regional Programme large enough to fund over half (53%) of the projects identified in the regional development plan (OECD, 2022[6]).
As a result, RDAs can design project calls to ensure the Regional Programme supports the delivery of their regional objectives, but they are reliant on other sources of funding and financing to deliver the majority of their proposals in the regional development plans. RDAs and local stakeholders will need to mobilise resources from the national programmes of Cohesion Policy (notably the Programme for Transport and the Programme for Sustainable Development), Horizon 2020, Interreg programmes, the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, and other local, national and international funds. Financing could also be sought from national and international institutions, including the European Investment Bank.
Without sufficient, dedicated funds for the regional development plans, the long-term certainty required to deliver major regional projects is compromised. Crucially, outside of the Regional Programmes, RDAs have limited influence over how funding and financing is allocated in their region. As a result, there is a risk that other actors do not allocate resources to projects which align with the regional development plan and may prioritise other objectives.
In many regions, local governments faced difficulties identifying the most appropriate funding and financing sources for their projects. While regional development plans often identified sources of funding and financing for the plan’s objectives, some did not. Moreover, in all cases, local governments could provide more guidance on how to match the type of interventions with the funding schemes. This could cover the comparative advantages and constraints of different funding schemes and a set of principles or criteria that can help beneficiaries start identifying which source they should apply to for which types of projects. RDAs could draw on the example set by the Centre RDA, which developed a catalogue of funding resources for different projects corresponding to the different priorities of regional development plans. The catalogue contains five sections addressed to private companies, public authorities, NGOs and universities, and the RDA also publishes a monthly newsletter containing up-to-date national and EU-level funding opportunities (OECD, 2022[22]). A similar approach has been taken by South-West Oltenia, where each month, the RDA publishes lists of funding and financing opportunities for different stakeholders (e.g. local authorities, universities and businesses) on its website (OECD, 2022[13]; 2022[14]). This kind of guidance need not be included in each regional development plan but could be a separate document issued centrally for all regions by ROREG and regularly updated. Centralising efforts in this way could help RDAs use their human resources more efficiently and ensure stakeholders had access to the widest array of funding opportunities.
RDAs need to build expertise and capacity for effective call design and execution
The RDAs have extensive experience executing EU funds, but the transition to the role of a Managing Authority for EU funds brings significant new responsibilities for every RDA. The design, appraisal and selection of EU-funded projects involves a series of steps, from informing potential applicants of a project call to the final approval of selected projects, and RDAs will need to build expertise and capacity at every stage. This will include preparing relevant documents for calls, transparent and objective appraisals, defining selection criteria and preparing templates for applications and contracts. RDAs will also have to decide what format project calls will take, with Managing Authorities able to launch calls that are first-come, first-served, on an “open” basis, permitting potential beneficiaries to apply until the funds are exhausted, or via a competitive selection system. These are not mutually exclusive approaches and Managing Authorities may use a combination of call formats. These new responsibilities will be particularly challenging for the RDAs with relatively few staff members. On average, RDAs had 155 members of staff in 2022 but Bucharest-Ilfov had just 98. The Centre and South-West Oltenia RDAs also had fewer members of staff than average, with 138 and 144 respectively (OECD, 2022[2]).
All RDAs will need to design effective calls and applicant guides. This will be a new task for RDAs and, if done poorly, could represent a critical bottleneck in the management of Cohesion Policy funds. RDAs will need to ensure their calls and selection criteria simultaneously align with Regional Programme aims, regional development needs, the market (e.g. the latest development in various industries) and target beneficiary capacities, which may differ among types of beneficiaries. In doing so, RDAs will have to find ways to manage gaps in expertise and capacity within the RDA itself, as well as among beneficiaries.
For example, in South-West Oltenia, the RDA noted that non-governmental actors with relatively few human resources at their disposal can get lost in documentation requirements and procurement regulations. The maturity of projects they prepare is generally lower than those prepared by counties and local governments. This mainly reflects a limited understanding of local businesses, academic institutions and other private actors of the calls for proposals (OECD, 2022[14]). Contrastingly, in the West RDA, some local governments had difficulty developing projects, with particular challenges in developing a diverse, integrated portfolio of projects that go beyond the traditional measures (OECD, 2022[23]). ROREG could support RDAs in navigating these challenges, for example by sharing examples of good applicant guides. Given all RDAs will be experiencing similar challenges simultaneously, ROREG may also want to consider setting up a working group where RDAs can explain their challenges, share any good practices, and discuss where further ROREG support is most needed.
Internally, RDAs have limited expertise in newer EU priorities such as circular economy, net zero transitions and social innovation. This affects their ability to design and launch calls that support objectives in these areas, as per the Regional Programme. RDAs can find it difficult to find the funds to hire consultants to fill this gap and, in some regions such as South-Muntenia, stakeholders report that knowledge and expertise on these topics do not exist, even among potential consultants. RDAs will need increased support from the national government to help expand their skills and expertise in these new priority areas, as well as a strong motivation to learn from the approach taken by national and regional managing authorities beyond Romania. This is an opportunity for the MDPWA to mobilise experts in line ministries to support RDAs. Adapting the approach taken by Lithuania to engage experts in the management of EU funds (Box 3.7), the MDPWA could arrange for experts from the relevant national ministries to provide RDAs with training and consultation on how to design calls for topics where RDAs lack expertise.
In the 2014-20 programming period, Lithuanian Intermediate Bodies, comprised of the relevant national ministries, were in charge of the selection process for the country’s EU Structural Funds Investments Operational Programme. These bodies mobilised experts from specialised agencies and ministries to be involved in the appraisal of applications. When strategic documents which described a policy measure were produced (usually three to four months before the actual launch of a call), the possible need for experts with technical expertise was made explicit. The body in charge of the selection process contacted the relevant agency or ministry which could have experts with the required skills. An agreement or memorandum was then developed and signed, which specified all of the conditions of the exchange (e.g. the tasks of the experts, the number of projects to be assessed, the documents to be used). Usually, the experts evaluated only the technical parts of the applications, leaving the appraisal of administrative and general aspects to the Intermediate Body’s officials in charge of the selection process.
Source: Based on European Commission (2022[24]), Handbook on Selection of Operations, https://doi.org/10.2776/489134.
Beyond the design and execution of calls, many RDAs (including the North-West and South-West Oltenia RDAs) expressed concern about their capacity to address litigation initiated by potential beneficiaries whose project proposals were not approved, as well as their capacity to investigate and litigate any financial irregularities. In the previous programming period, the MDPWA, being the Managing Authority for the Integrated Regional Development Programme, managed these processes. As all RDAs face similar challenges in this respect when transitioning to their new role, RDAs could co-ordinate their capacity-building efforts in these areas with their peers. As part of ROREG, the RDAs could, for example, organise periodic knowledge-sharing events in which RDAs that have particular experience with managing fraud by beneficiaries can share their knowledge and lessons learned with the other RDAs. RDAs could also work together to explore establishing mechanisms to support temporary secondments and job shadowing. For secondments and job shadowing to work, however, financial and functional incentives need to be in place to ensure that RDA staff and the RDAs themselves are interested in and can benefit from participating.
While setting up their own Regional Programme processes, the RDAs will also have to contend with the poor experiences of some stakeholders during the last programming period. For example, in the North-East, stakeholders report feeling that in the past, they were not well-engaged in call preparation, resulting in low response rates to some calls, a disconnect between call intentions and the project proposals submitted by stakeholders, and high rates of proposal rejection. In other regions, administrative issues were a major challenge during the last programming period. For example, this was the case in South Muntenia, where nearly half of the projects for a call that received 34 proposals were rejected for reasons such as missing documentation, the ineligible status of beneficiaries or land ownership problems. Thus, when developing calls, RDAs should consider the experiences and expectations of beneficiaries and how this might affect their response to calls. Building on the examples from the Czech Republic and Estonia (Box 3.8), RDAs should consider deep and direct engagement with beneficiaries to understand how they interpret call objectives, prepare documents and draft proposals, as well as how they develop ideas and partnerships for project bids. The RDAs could then leverage this engagement to design high-quality applicant guides with clear, reader-friendly guidelines alongside examples that can help applicants design good-quality projects. Although this is a new responsibility of the RDAs, stakeholders regularly mentioned that calls and guidelines could be significantly improved. High-quality applicant guides could share some common features regardless of the topic of the call and ROREG could support RDAs by working across regions to develop shared templates, guidelines and good practices.
Participatory approaches for improving the selection process in the Czech Republic
The Czech Operational Programme Environment maintained a communication channel with relevant stakeholders throughout the 2014-20 programming period, making it possible to revise existing practices when needed and ensure constant improvement of the selection process. The Managing Authority established a digital platform where all relevant stakeholders (e.g. representatives of applicants, managing authorities, intermediate bodies, NGOs, companies and universities) could discuss various aspects of the selection process, such as methodological procedures, good practices and experience with the information technology and monitoring systems. This approach helped the Managing Authority gather useful information on how to continuously improve the selection of projects.
Strengthening stakeholder capacity to design interventions in Estonia
To facilitate project and call design for Cohesion Policy funding in the 2021-27 programming period, Estonia’s Managing Authority for the national programme organised a practical training and development programme on how to design suitable projects. The Managing Authority worked with the Ministry of Finance to organise this programme, which was targeted to officials responsible for designing interventions. These officials had the opportunity to participate in the programme as part of teams of six to seven people each (consisting of colleagues, partners and final beneficiaries) and to benefit from the support of thematic experts from the Managing Authority and the Ministry of Finance.
Several activities were carried out as part of the training programme: i) practical training sessions; ii) teamwork activities; iii) homework assignments; and iv) online seminars during which the participants presented the designed interventions and had the chance to discuss them with peers. The practical training sessions focused on different techniques to properly identify the needs of the territory and stakeholders, and how to design effective measures to respond to those needs. The presented techniques included: a theory of co-creation methods; tools for identifying stakeholders and problems; a “map” of the user-journey; ways to measure the effectiveness of the measure; and a flowchart detailing the steps in grant procedures.
Source: Based on European Commission (2022[24]), Handbook on Selection of Operations, https://doi.org/10.2776/489134.
Beneficiaries need training to make the best use of available funding. The beneficiaries of Cohesion Policy funding in Romania – local governments, businesses, and NGOs – face multiple challenges when trying to access development funds (be it from the European Union or from other sources). These include:
A lack of expertise in designing projects targeting new and emerging priorities: Just like the RDAs themselves, beneficiaries often have very limited knowledge of the newer EU priorities such as the circular economy, net zero transition and even digitalisation. Across Romania, beneficiaries tend to focus on hard infrastructure and shy away from exploring the potential of soft infrastructure projects. In some cases, this is because hard infrastructure projects are more tangible and visible and thereby help garner public support but, in others, it is because stakeholders find it easier to design project ideas in more traditional areas. Since these may be new concepts for most stakeholders in the region, including consulting companies and the RDA itself, there is limited expertise for stakeholders designing these kinds of projects.
Difficulties finding and co-ordinating partners: Stakeholders in some regions, including the South-East and Bucharest-Ilfov, report difficulties in finding partners to collaborate on projects. In Bucharest-Ilfov, this included difficulties setting up collaboration across public authorities (e.g. cross-jurisdiction investment projects, especially between Bucharest and Ilfov), as well as across sectors (e.g. public-private, public-academic and private-academic) and stakeholders were often unaware of the activities undertaken in other sectors or fields (OECD, 2022[25]). More broadly, private sector beneficiaries have highlighted a lack of qualified expertise or insufficient financial resources in local governments as barriers to collaboration, with some beneficiaries being deterred from even exploring partnership opportunities because projects involving multiple stakeholders are perceived difficult to co-ordinate and deliver. As a result, there is a reduced number of private-public collaborations and beneficiaries are less likely to put forward larger, regional rather than local projects.
The bureaucratic hurdles of applying for calls: Stakeholders noted that the application process can be highly bureaucratic and complex, with extensive documentation required. This can pose a particular problem for non-governmental actors who have relatively few human resources at their disposal and often have a lower understanding of what the call is asking for. Beneficiaries can get lost in documentation requirements and procurement regulations. Moreover, the South-West Oltenia RDA indicated that it could take many months, or even several years, for approved projects to start implementation (OECD, 2022[13]; 2022[14]). As a consequence, the original project budgets may no longer be realistic, particularly due to current cost increases due to inflation. In addition, some construction permits obtained when the project proposals were developed might no longer be valid, leading to further delays. In fact, in order to avoid project delays, some beneficiaries prefer applying for bank loans to finance a project rather than bid for EU funds (OECD, 2022[13]).
Addressing these challenges is made difficult by the relatively small size and high workloads of some of the beneficiaries. For example, to try to improve the capacity of beneficiaries to access funding and prepare eligible project proposals, especially among small city administrations and SMEs, the South Muntenia RDA offers training sessions. However, based on the RDA’s experience, not all beneficiaries are receptive to these, with some managers reluctant to deprioritise other work to send their limited number of employees to training and other in-person capacity-building activities organised by the RDA. In other cases, beneficiaries are simply unaware of the training opportunities. When beneficiaries sense gaps in their capacity, instead of asking the RDA for help, they tend to turn to consulting companies, with these same companies then posing questions to the RDA since they also lack the necessary expertise. Similar training challenges were found in other regions. For example, the Centre RDA reported that it was difficult to engage smaller municipalities in the sessions they organised and South-West Oltenia noted that few non-governmental actors participated in their roundtable discussions (OECD, 2022[13]; 2022[14]).
Thus, while RDAs need to find ways to support beneficiaries to put forward projects which are tied to regional development priorities, this support should be tailored to the needs and capacities of different stakeholders in the region. Many of the RDAs already reported plans to provide technical assistance to local authorities to help them develop projects aligned with new and emerging priorities. However, RDAs and ROREG may also want to explore alternative means of building capacity among regional stakeholders. In particular, given the time constraints faced by many beneficiaries, they should explore online events and training materials. These could include:
Project and funding showcases: Local authorities could be inspired to develop new types of projects through the dissemination of innovative project ideas, as well as case studies from other regions or countries, to promote the potential benefits of new, soft infrastructure projects. These should clearly present how such projects would address development problems in the region and enhance the quality of life for local citizens. As well as illustrating different types of projects that can be undertaken, such showcases can also be used to promote different types of funding and financing mechanisms. While individual RDAs could develop such showcases, there may be some economies of scale if ROREG were to develop a central repository of case studies which can be shared across all regions. ROREG could draw on the example set by the Association of Dutch Municipalities whose publication Municipalities and EU Co-funding presents examples of projects funded by different EU funding mechanisms (Association of Dutch Municipalities, 2011[26]).
Peer-to-peer support: RDAs can organise peer-to-peer learning events in which beneficiaries who have prepared strong project proposals in the past and successfully implemented them share their experiences with organisations interested in applying for funding opportunities (e.g. as part of the Regional Programmes). As peers often face similar challenges, for example in terms of time and resources, they can offer relevant advice and insights. Moreover, such peer-to-peer events can help build relationships among potential beneficiaries. ROREG could support RDAs in organising these events by sharing good practices and facilitating the attendance of peers from other regions.
Consultations on-call design, applicant guides and simplified application processes: As already noted, as part of effective call design, RDAs should engage deeply and directly with beneficiaries to streamline application processes and design high-quality applicant guides with clear, reader-friendly guidelines. As part of these consultations, RDAs should explore how application and award processes can be simplified and how to speed up the subsequent transfers of funds so that beneficiaries are not pushed to take out bank loans while waiting for their project funds. ROREG could support RDAs by sharing templates and good practices.
Targeted application support: RDAs should keep an open dialogue with beneficiaries to understand different stakeholder needs and explore where tailored support is required for certain projects or certain beneficiaries. This may take different forms in different areas but RDAs could help stakeholders engage expert consultants for particularly complex or innovation-support projects.
Implementation of regional plans requires co-ordination and monitoring at the local and national levels
RDAs are accountable to their respective Regional Development Councils, which review and approve the RDAs’ regional development planning documents. However, when it comes to actually implementing the plans, RDAs lack sufficient authority and resources. Instead, the regional development plans are delivered through the actions, projects and programmes of local stakeholders; yet, there is no legislation mandating that county and local governments projects align with the implementation of the regional development plans. Hence, while RDAs can promote the value of aligning local development plans and priorities to the regional development plans, the RDA has limited or no mechanism to hold any partners accountable for the effective delivery of the regional development plan approved by the council. While county and local authorities are the most active actors in implementing the regional development plans, they have their own strategies and agendas, which are not always coherent with the RDAs’ regional objectives and priorities.
Management of the Regional Programmes provides a tool for RDAs to encourage local projects to align with the regional development plan. However, to maximise the impact of this tool, RDAs will need to invest first in influencing the design of local stakeholder’s project proposals and then in monitoring and evaluating their implementation. To influence the design of project proposals, RDAs could strengthen their communication and engagement strategies. However, engagement alone will not be sufficient, RDAs will need to complement this with robust performance measurement of projects to hold local stakeholders accountable for the proper delivery of development initiatives and verify how local projects contribute to the implementation of the overall regional development plan. The RDA’s monitoring and evaluation efforts are currently inhibited by a lack of relevant data, a culture that can perceive evaluation as a search for failures, and gaps in the skills and expertise of RDA staff. Expanding the RDAs capacity to undertake robust monitoring projects supported by EU Cohesion Policy funds is essential. RDAs can take steps to do this themselves, by training existing staff and hiring new staff where necessary, and also by requiring projects that are awarded funding to provide regular monitoring indicators. However, given monitoring and evaluation weaknesses identified across RDAs, ROREG should consider the support it can offer (OECD, 2022[6]). This could include working with the MDPWA to develop cross-RDA guidance and training on monitoring Cohesion Policy-funded projects. Alternatively, ROREG could support peer-to-peer learning between RDAs by setting up a cross-RDA working group on monitoring to identify shared challenges, disseminate good practices developed by one or more RDAs and design tools the RDAs can use to strengthen their project monitoring.
Implementing regional plans will require more than just bilateral co-ordination between RDAs and local stakeholders. RDAs will also need to bring together multiple stakeholders to deliver cross-cutting projects that span local jurisdictions. However, as already noted, it is not yet common for local actors to develop partnerships and joint projects, and stakeholders are not always aware of the activities undertaken in other sectors or development fields. RDAs can take steps to address this, most concretely, by encouraging collaboration and creating incentives for joint bids in their design of the Regional Programmes. This could include adopting project selection criteria that give extra credit to projects which are co-run by more than one organisation. RDAs should also consider how they can play the role of facilitator and information sharer among stakeholders, hence encouraging valuable collaborations and supporting a pipeline of collaborative projects. Drawing on the experience of the Small Towns in Germany initiative (Box 3.9), this could be through direct introductions, networking and information-sharing events or even a matchmaking platform which introduces potential project partners. Such a platform could start at the regional level or, with the support of ROREG, could be scaled up to all regions using shared digital infrastructure. To make the most of such collaboration initiatives, special attention should be paid to ensure the inclusion of smaller municipalities that may not have had the capacity or connections to reach out to external partners so far.
The Small Towns in Germany initiative is a package of programmes and activities for small town development, aiming to strengthen their functionality in local development. It targets over 2 100 towns across Germany, mostly in peripheral areas. In 2019, as part of this initiative, the Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development and Building launched a pilot called Small Town Academy, which offers a purpose-built platform for networking, exchange of experiences and advanced training on urban development.
The pilot phase between 2019 and 2022 was used to define suitable content and formats, which led to the final launch of the platform in 2023. The planned activities include advice from experts who come to the municipality and forge creative strategies (mobile coaching teams) or tandems among mayors who exchange views on a common topic in urban development over the long term. Both activities will generate model projects that test different urban planning and project management methods, leading to a collection of learning and exchange modules.
Source: Based on BBSR (2021[27]), German Small Town Academy – Pilot Phase: Empowerment of Small Towns through Collaboration, Consulting and Networking, https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/publications/SpecialPublication/2021/german-small-town-academy-pilot-phase-dl.pdf;jsessionid=B01287EC43D8CB0CD3C4D9396B7738C1.live11293?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.
As well as local co-ordination, RDAs and ROREG should consider their engagement with national level actors – including the National Coordinating Body of EU funds, as well as line ministries that carry out investments that affect regional development. Proactive co-ordination with national actors could help maximise complementarities and manage trade-offs between the Regional Programmes and national initiatives. In particular, some RDAs raised the concern that there might be competition between national and regional programmes and if beneficiaries opt for the national programme over the Regional Programme, it will limit the RDAs influence over regional development activities. An area where this could happen is with the National Recovery and Resilience Plan: given that this funding has to be spent in a shorter period than the Cohesion Policy funding, there is chance that stakeholders will get their funds from the national pot before they access regional funds, thereby limiting the RDAs ability to influence project designs.
For their part, RDAs should keep abreast of national policy developments to ensure that their calls are both attractive to regional beneficiaries and complementary to national programmes. ROREG could lead the co-ordination of this through an open dialogue with national ministries and regular updates to RDAs. National actors should also be proactive in understanding and tracking regional plans. Ministries should review the regional development plans and consult with RDAs as part of the decision-making process for approving major investments in a given region. RDAs and ROREG could support this by providing national ministries with progress updates on the delivery of regional plans, highlighting particular challenges where national support could be needed. They could even go further by lobbying, through ROREG, for a change in legislation to make it mandatory for counties and local governments to support the implementation of the regional development plan.
Effective communication and stakeholder engagement are critical for strengthening the RDAs’ strategic planning and the implementation of their regional development plans. Since there is no formal requirement for local stakeholders to align their activities with regional plans, RDAs need to advocate for their regional vision and coach stakeholders on how to develop projects that will best implement it. To do this, RDAs need to engage stakeholders at every stage of the planning cycle. Building on 20 years of operations, RDAs are well placed to undertake such engagement and most RDAs report good relationships with local actors, particularly local public authorities (OECD, 2022[1]).
However, RDAs face a number of barriers to effective stakeholder engagement and will need to invest in improving their communication techniques. Public as well as private sector stakeholders are not yet fully motivated to support the design and implementation of regional development plans. Some do not think that regional planning is relevant to their organisation, while others struggle to engage meaningfully with the RDA’s fragmented stakeholder engagement processes or their dense, technocratic regional development plans. Furthermore, RDAs conduct much of their engagement bilaterally, thereby forgoing the opportunity to foster relationships between stakeholders.
Looking ahead, each RDA could strengthen their communications by articulating a succinct vision for its region as well as a distinct institutional brand for the RDA itself. RDAs could leverage this to develop targeted engagement strategies for different groups of stakeholders, tailoring their messaging to meet different needs. Such strategies should make the most of digital and online communication opportunities while working directly with stakeholders to address the capacity gaps currently preventing their engagement in regional planning.
Stakeholders are not fully motivated to support regional plans
Many RDAs cite stakeholder motivation as a key hurdle in the regional planning cycle. RDAs find it difficult to engage stakeholders (particularly from the private sector) in key fora, such as the Regional Planning Committee, or in public consultations. Even where stakeholders do participate in discussions, they often prefer to focus on how to obtain and spend EU funds in their sectors rather than how to strategically invest for the development of the region as a whole. This creates a vicious cycle where, because RDAs do not receive the feedback and inputs they need from local actors, local actors pay even less attention to regional planning processes which are not well tailored to their interests.
There are a number of reasons for low levels of stakeholder participation, including:
The perception that regional planning is not relevant to the operations of local organisations: Many local stakeholders did not have a strong awareness of the regional development plan, in part due to limited publicity about the document but also because local governments are not formally required to support its implementation. Even where stakeholders were aware of it, they frequently do not have a strong sense of ownership for it. This was particularly true for private sector stakeholders, who may not see the link between the various regional strategies and their daily business. However, it also applied to some public sector organisations, such as small towns and municipalities, who preferred to focus on local development planning. As a result, many organisations deprioritise engagement with the regional planning process.
The informal leadership role of the RDAs in regional development: Some RDA stakeholders (e.g. in the South-East RDA) felt that the RDA lacked convening power because the RDA was not seen to play an instrumental role in local and regional development (OECD, 2022[6]). This reduces the RDA’s ability to generate a critical mass among regional stakeholders to support the RDA’s activities and establish the RDA’s development planning leadership in the region.
The fragmentation of engagement with different groups of stakeholders: Some RDAs, such as the North-West, noted that their own engagement with stakeholders in the region was poorly co-ordinated between different departments within the RDA, resulting in a duplication of stakeholder engagement efforts. For example, some stakeholders expressed frustration over the fact that they have been asked to provide the same set of information (e.g. on development needs and priorities) to different RDA teams (OECD, 2022[28]). Where RDAs lack convening power among county and local authorities, they can find themselves engaging bilaterally with local actors. This hinders the ability of the RDAs to encourage collaboration between stakeholders, demotes the RDA to being an intermediary among local actors and can be extremely time-consuming. While RDAs would like to build joint projects across sectors and organisations, some RDAs identified a lack of trust and mutual understanding among the public sector, private sector, academia, and municipalities as an obstacle to regional projects.
The limited co-ordination across RDA departments: Fragmented stakeholder engagement is compounded by imperfect co-ordination between different teams within the RDAs and high turnover of RDA staff, as new employees might not be abreast of the information already provided by stakeholders (OECD, 2022[1]; 2022[28]). Certain RDAs, including the West, also reported difficulty in designing meetings and moderating dialogues among groups of stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and interests, particularly as stakeholders tended to focus on how to obtain and spend EU funds in their sectors rather than how to strategically invest these funds for the development of the region (OECD, 2022[23]).
The limited support available for new members of regional partnerships: In some cases, stakeholders lack the capacity or experience to offer substantive feedback in engagement processes. For example, in the Centre region, new members of the Regional Planning Committee either find it difficult to provide feedback or feel their inputs are not of high enough quality since they do not understand the context or substance (OECD, 2022[22]).
Each of these factors reduces an RDA’s ability to generate support among regional stakeholders. The role of Managing Authorities for the 2021-27 Regional Programme offers RDAs an opportunity to reposition themselves as strategic bodies steering regional development. However, embedding this in the minds of regional stakeholders will require a concerted communication and stakeholder engagement strategy. The communication strategy of the regional water authority in the Netherlands provides an example (Box 3.10).
The Regional Water Authority Drents Overijsselse Delta (Waterschap Drents Overijsselse Delta) has developed a comprehensive communication strategy for its 2030 vision to be an environmentally oriented organisation that integrates social development into its task and ambitions. The organisation identified their key target audiences – local residents, farmers, businesses and government – and designed a communication strategy to strengthen the profile of the water board among them. The strategy sought to make the organisation more visible to stakeholders and the promotion of new partnerships and opportunities for collaboration.
To achieve this, the Regional Water Authority recognised they would need to shift their communications from simply transmitting to also listening. Specific activities undertaken by the authority include:
Setting a clear vision for the organisation’s purpose with specific communication objectives.
Stakeholder mapping to clarify the communication objectives for each group of stakeholders and select the best way to engage them.
Providing media training to selected staff and coaching for board members and department heads on communicative leadership.
Empowering individuals and teams to develop their own communications while supporting them through the provision of communication templates.
Developing a new website, a social media content calendar, online podcasts and webinars.
Source: Based on WDODelta (2020[29]), Communication Strategy [Communicatiestrategie WDODelta], https://bestuursinformatie.wdodelta.nl/Documenten/Bijlage-2-DEF-communicatiestrategie-luisteren-verbindt-WDODelta.pdf.
All communications need to be sharpened to focus on a shared regional vision
A regional vision should be at the centre of the RDAs’ updated communication and engagement strategies. This vision can be broken down into the development vision for the region, set by the regional development plan, and the leadership for achieving this vision provided by the RDA itself. A concise vision for the development of the region is critical for guiding and co-ordinating activities within the RDA, as well as among regional stakeholders, while establishing the RDA’s status with stakeholders is critical for increasing stakeholder motivation to engage in regional planning processes.
The length and technical detail of many of the regional development plans may be beneficial for detailed discussions with specific stakeholders but, for other actors, it can be a barrier to understanding their RDA’s vision for the region. To this end, many of the RDAs could consider producing a shorter, easier-to-read version of the regional development plans, highlighting the main development objectives and desired results, to better communicate and disseminate the key messages to interested parties, including citizens. Communicating how the regional development plans can make a difference to people’s lives could increase the level of ownership for the plan among local stakeholders. In terms of format, this can be a simple illustrative document, an infographic or a short video and published on the RDA website. The Guide to the Well-being of Future Generations Act in Wales provides an example (Box 3.11).
In 2016, the Welsh Government adopted the Well-being of Future Generations Act. This is a comprehensive legal document that establishes seven goals for Wales as a nation: a prosperous Wales; a resilient Wales; a healthier Wales; a more equal Wales; a Wales of more cohesive communities; a Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language; a globally responsible Wales. To disseminate this act and its key concepts to a wider public and gain attention from citizens, the Welsh Government designed different communication materials for the act, including:
A Guide to the Well-being of Future Generations Act in Wales: Easy read – This eight-page document (Welsh Government, 2022[30]) explains the key content and structure of the act, without using policy-related jargon. It is accompanied by a video to further illustrate the seven well-being goals and how they are related to a citizen’s daily life. A dedicated webpage was also developed to consolidate all information relevant to the content and implementation of the Act (e.g. the monitoring framework and report of the Act, all the communication materials).
An interactive webpage1 to visualise the act – This webpage illustrates the landscape of the region with buildings, hospitals, hydropower plants, forests and green space, skills centres, schools, etc. When the user clicks one of the seven development goals of Wales, the corresponding “sectors” in the landscape will be highlighted. For example, if the user clicks “A more equal Wales”, the skills centre, hospitals and other relevant “sectors” will be highlighted and the user can also read the concrete policy recommendations for the Welsh Government to achieve “A more equal Wales”.
← 1. See https://futuregenerations2020.wales/english?category=global.
Source: Based on Welsh Government (2022[30]), A Guide to the Well-being of Future Generations Act, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-04/easy-read-a-guide-to-the-wellbeing-of-future-generations-act-april-2022.pdf.
Alongside a clear vision for the region, each RDA could benefit from an easy-to-recognise institutional brand. The RDAs’ new role as regional Managing Authorities offers them a new tool with which to demonstrate their regional leadership but it is important that RDAs are perceived as more than just an executor of EU funds. Instead, RDAs need to explain how their wider leadership and activities can promote investment and accelerate regional development. This narrative should be consistent between RDAs. ROREG could help ensure this by establishing a working group, with representation from all RDAs, to develop a single core message on the role and value-added of RDAs. Through this working group, RDAs could define common messaging on their role in all of their public-facing documents and engagement, supplementing it with additional information tailored to the local context and their specific vision for themselves in their region. This working group could also serve as a platform to regularly engage with national actors, including the MDPWA, to discuss key issues around regional development in Romania. The results of these regular discussions should be made available to the public.
Communication plans should leverage RDA understanding of regional stakeholders
Once RDAs have refined their message, they need to consider to whom they are communicating it. All RDAs already have extensive and longstanding relationships with county and local councils, local governments, decentralised bodies of central public institutions, research and education institutes, representatives from local businesses and civil society. However, RDAs could benefit from clarifying the goal of their engagement with different groups and understanding each stakeholder’s interests and communication preferences.
A stakeholder mapping process could help RDAs take a more targeted approach. Different engagement practices exist with differing engagement objectives and intensities, and RDAs should be clear about their goals for different groups. Table 3.1 presents a spectrum of stakeholder engagement that grows in its interactive intensity. It goes from informing stakeholders about policies or projects to consulting, involving, collaborating and empowering stakeholders. The type of interaction selected will depend on the aim of the engagement, the degree to which the RDA wishes to commit to the results of the engagement and the most appropriate type of engagement method (which can also be a function of available resources). As part of this, the RDAs may wish to consult the online Participation Compass – developed by the Dutch Ministry of the Interior, municipal experts and an NGO – which offers an assessment framework for citizen participation and helps municipalities choose the right mix of participation methods (ParticipatieWijzer, 2023[31]). As well as providing a comparison of different methods, it also gives tips on how to be well prepared for citizen participation.
Noting the challenges already discussed regarding motivation, as part of this mapping process, the RDAs should engage with stakeholders to explore what topics they are interested in and what messages resonate with them the most. RDAs need to diversify their engagement and have a clear answer if a stakeholder asks, “what is in it for me?”.
Where RDAs have limited capacity or resources for stakeholder engagement, they may wish to start building the regional network by focusing on the stakeholders for whom they have the strongest answer to this question, thereby leveraging the most engaged actors. Similarly, RDAs could identify the people in the region most able to contribute to strategic planning – community leaders, active entrepreneurs and leading scholars in universities – and prioritise forging connections between them.
RDAs could benefit from new approaches and tools for engagement
RDAs already report using a wide range of different tools and channels to engage their stakeholders, including websites, formal consultations, informal information sessions and onsite visits, as well as through the Regional Planning Committees and various working groups. However, for these to be as effective as possible a number of factors will need to be addressed:
Rigid and formalistic engagement: At times, RDA communications can be hard for stakeholders to understand or engage with. For example, staff from the Centre RDA acknowledge that their communications can overuse specialised language, which is often too technical and could lead to misunderstandings among stakeholders. In a similar vein, South-West Oltenia takes a very formal approach to stakeholder engagement, which limits the opportunity for informal brainstorming and discourages fewer senior stakeholders (e.g. technical staff in local governments or NGOs) from actively participating in meetings organised by the RDA.
Undifferentiated messaging: Most RDAs struggle to tailor their communications to different stakeholders or to adapt it to stakeholder feedback. In Bucharest-Ilfov and the Centre, stakeholders are often sent the same information, regardless of their interests or expertise, while in South Muntenia, the RDA was not reviewing how stakeholders were reacting to their online communications. The need to adapt communications so that they better resonate with their intended audience was also noted in the North-East and South-East.
Table 3.1. Spectrum of stakeholder engagement | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inform | Consult | Involve | Collaborate | Empower | |
Interaction |
|
|
|
|
|
Aim | To provide the public with balanced and objective information to support its understanding of a problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions | To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions | To work with the public throughout the process, ensuring that public concerns and aspirations are understood and considered | To partner with the public on each aspect of the decision, including the development of alternatives and a preferred solution | To create governance structures that place decision making and/or work directly in the hands of the public |
Government commitment | We will keep you informed | We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and goals, and provide feedback on how your input influenced the decision | We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and goals are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision | We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible | We will implement what you decide |
Methods | - Fact sheets - Websites - Open houses | - Public comment - Focus groups - Surveys - Public meetings | - Workshops - Deliberative polling | - Citizen advisory committees - Consensus building - Participatory decision making | - Citizen juries - Ballots - Delegated decision |
Description | Participation The first two public participation levels – inform and consult – typically occur when a decision has already been made and the government wants to either communicate the decision to the public or seek opinions on the decision. | Engagement The third and fourth public participation levels – involve and collaborate – have two-way information flows and include sharing information within and across stakeholder communities during the decision-making process. When undertaking an engagement, decision makers commit to using stakeholder feedback to inform the decision and shape the outcome. | Empowerment The fifth level – empower – is also often referred to as co-production where decisions are made jointly between the government and the community. This is typically when decision-making authority has been delegated to a group, including members from both the government and community/industry. | ||
Source: Adapted from IAP2 (2007[32]), IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2016); VAGO (2015[33]), Public Participation in Government Decision-Making: Better Practice Guide, https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20150130-Public-Participation-BPG.pdf. | |||||
Limited co-ordination within the RDA: As already noted, stakeholder engagement can become fragmented within RDAs. For example, in South-West Oltenia, the RDA reported that there is limited co-operation across its departments on stakeholder engagement. This may be a function of the multiple regional development planning processes that the RDA manages, often simultaneously (e.g. design of the regional development plan, the Regional Programme and the regional S3) and for which it needs to engage with a very diverse set of actors. This can result in a duplication of efforts and frustration among stakeholders as they may receive multiple requests for information (e.g. on development needs and priorities) from different RDA teams.
Limited human resources: Several RDAs noted that more staff were needed in order to build and maintain better relationships with regional stakeholders. In Bucharest-Ilfov, the RDA lacks sufficient staff and expertise to hold meetings with stakeholders or to pay visits to cities, towns and communes. However, such activities are crucial to collect information on local development needs, raise awareness of the RDA’s activities and understand how to best meet regional and local development needs and priorities.
Limited citizen engagement: Citizens were not often engaged during the regional planning process, with limited citizen-facing publicity for the final regional development plans. This could limit ownership and buy-in among local stakeholders for delivering the plan.
The RDAs could undertake a deeper assessment of their communication strengths and weaknesses to address these challenges. This will require the RDAs to engage with their current stakeholders to fully understand which topics are of interest, how they prefer to be engaged with (e.g. on line, in person, in groups) and which of the RDA’s communications have or have not resonated with them in the past. Equally important is for the RDAs to explore why some stakeholders have not actively participated in previous attempts to engage them, whether due to lack of time, resources, know-how or the channels do not reach the right interlocutors. RDAs could gather this information through surveys, focus group discussions and direct conversations with key actors.
Leveraging the results of these assessments, RDAs should consider how to streamline their communications so that they focus their efforts on the most impactful engagement activities. Should the assessment find that any stakeholders do not have the capacity to provide pertinent and constructive feedback for regional development policy design and delivery, the RDA should consider how they can help stakeholders feel comfortable engaging and providing input. Recognising that some stakeholders do not currently engage because they feel that they do not know enough or have sufficient know-how to engage, RDAs will need to find ways to put stakeholders at ease. This could simply be ensuring that organisations send the most appropriate representatives to meetings or it could require the design of different communication and engagement activities that better resonate with stakeholders. For example, some stakeholders may not feel comfortable engaging when their inputs are overshadowed by other, louder voices in the room. Hence, RDAs may wish to train their staff in group facilitation and moderation techniques. For other stakeholders, the challenge to participation may be different. For example, businesses often do not have time to participate in long meetings, do not always send the same representative as they have a small team or they are only interested in funding opportunities and practical information rather than regional planning. Thus, the design of meetings should take these factors into consideration to keep stakeholders engaged.
Alongside streamlining existing activities, RDAs may want to consider adopting new communication approaches to achieve specific engagement aims. ROREG should consider working across RDAs to collate examples of the most effective engagement activities and support peer-to-peer discussions of specific communication challenges. In particular, ROREG could help RDAs to:
Develop a shared regional vision: As already noted, local stakeholders do not always share the RDA’s strategic vision for the region, resulting in fragmented and sometimes contradictory projects. RDAs need to find ways to unite stakeholders around a common vision for which they feel a sense of ownership. Building on the example of multi-stakeholder engagement in Wales (Box 3.12), RDAs could undertake flagship events or engagement initiatives to communicate and even co-create elements of the regional vision in partnership with citizens.
Showcase the benefits of “soft” projects: Many stakeholders focus on physical project outcomes, such as the construction of public infrastructure, rather than softer investments in areas such as skills. As such, there can be less incentive and support for the leaders of soft projects to champion their results. RDAs could work with the leaders of such projects to identify the communication gaps for these projects (e.g. limited channels and tools, difficulty in reaching a wide range of communities, failure to resonate with citizens and communities) and promote improved communication tools and techniques, such as stakeholder mapping or the use of social media and visualisation tools. By working with several such projects together, RDAs could test the effectiveness of different approaches and promote peer-to-peer learning.
Support the development of partnerships among regional stakeholders: Enhancing partnerships across stakeholders to reinforce the regional development community is a common goal for RDAs but many of them feel constrained by resources or know-how. The goal for RDAs is to foster joint projects as well as long-term partnerships that extend beyond an individual project. ROREG could work with RDAs to identify successful examples of partnerships and invite them to share their experiences at joint events or feature their stories in a cross-RDA archive of examples showcasing effective engagement.
Make greater use of online tools to reach a wider number of stakeholders: Several RDAs stressed the need to further explore the potential of hybrid meetings and other digital communication formats. Individual RDAs will need to consider which of their communication activities could best be digitalised, engaging stakeholders to determine their preference on digital communication channels and hybrid meetings, to understand what types of content stakeholders prefer to receive in person and which types of activities they prefer online or hybrid. ROREG could support the building of digital communication capacity within the RDAs by providing training. Facilitating dialogue and discussion online and in a hybrid setting often requires a different set of skills compared to in-person events, for example how to keep participants engaged and foster participant interaction.
As part of the initiative Envisioning Wales in 2037: Shaping the Future of Regional Development, the Welsh Government conducted a survey of almost 1 500 citizens and a series of multi-actor vision-setting workshops facilitated by the OECD with the Welsh Government, Welsh local authorities and residents of Wales.
The survey was conducted online and collected individual opinions on the development challenges and potential priorities for Wales and within their local authority area, as well as their hopes and aspirations for the future. The vision-setting workshops brought together over 100 people across 4 different sessions to:
Share and articulate their visions about what Wales should look like in 15 years.
Exchange on the common features and links in the regional development aspirations that coalesced in different groups to identify shared objectives.
Discuss elements of a vision of regional development for Wales and its communities.
Source: OECD (2023[34]), “Envisioning Wales in 2037: Findings from multi-stakeholder workshops and a citizen survey”, OECD, Paris.
Romania’s RDAs are well-established entities that understand their regions, know their stakeholders and have ample experience managing EU funds to support regional development. While these are important foundations, the RDAs now need to capitalise on the opportunity of becoming Managing Authorities for their Regional Programmes to take a stronger, more strategic approach to regional planning. In particular, RDAs should move beyond technocratic documents to provide strong regional leadership and embed regional thinking in the strategies and activities of all local actors.
While the management of the Regional Programmes will present RDAs with a useful tool with which to further their regional priorities, it also brings new challenges. RDAs will have to expand their capacity and capabilities to maximise the value of the funds they can allocate, design effective calls and monitor and evaluate the performance of the Regional Programmes. At the same time, this cannot be the sole focus of the RDAs to the exclusion of all else. To implement their regional development plans, the RDAs will need to rally both public and non-government actors behind their visions for the region, nurture new collaborations between local stakeholders and promote applications to a variety of other sources of funding and financing, both national and international.
RDAs need support from both ROREG and the national government to succeed. ROREG should work across RDAs to strengthen capacity in areas of common weakness, particularly stakeholder engagement and monitoring and evaluation while sharing examples of good practices from other regions and other countries. ROREG should work with RDAs and the MDPWA to develop an updated methodology for regional planning while supporting RDAs to explore how they can fill urgent data gaps. This process of discussion and developing methodological tools is also an opportunity for ROREG to strengthen the collaboration among RDAs and with national actors. Alongside this, the national government should proactively co-ordinate its investments with RDAs to promote synergies between regional development plans and funding decisions made by national ministries.
References
[19] Association of Dutch Municipalities (2023), Case Studies of Local Initiatives, Association of Dutch Municipalities, https://vng.nl/overzicht-praktijkvoorbeelden?f%5b%5d=practical_examples_subjects%3A380664 (accessed on 22 August 2023).
[18] Association of Dutch Municipalities (2023), “Good examples of citizen participation sharing”, Association of Dutch Municipalities, https://vng.nl/nieuws/kabinet-goede-voorbeelden-burgerparticipatie-delen (accessed on 22 August 2023).
[26] Association of Dutch Municipalities (2011), Municipalities and EU Co-funding, Association of Dutch Municipalities, https://vng.nl/files/vng/vng/Documenten/Extranet/Europa/20110502_gemeenten_europese_cofinanciering.pdf.
[27] BBSR (2021), German Small Town Academy – Pilot Phase: Empowerment of Small Towns through Collaboration, Consulting and Networking, Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/publications/SpecialPublication/2021/german-small-town-academy-pilot-phase-dl.pdf;jsessionid=B01287EC43D8CB0CD3C4D9396B7738C1.live11293?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.
[10] Besse, R. (2003), À quoi sert le Fonds national d’aménagement et de développement du territoire ?, Sénat, https://www.senat.fr/rap/r03-017/r03-0171.html.
[9] Bradley, M. (2019), Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) for the Eastern and Midland Region, Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly (Ireland).
[17] Departamento Nacional de Planeación (2021), Portal Territorial de Colombia [Territorial Portal of Colombia], Departamento Nacional de Planeación, https://portalterritorial.dnp.gov.co/ (accessed on 21 August 2021).
[21] EC (2023), Cohesion Open Data Platform for the European Structural Investment Funds, European Commission, https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/countries/RO/21-27 (accessed on 23 July 2023).
[4] European Commission (2022), “€31.5 billion for Romania’s economic, social and territorial cohesion, competitiveness and green and digital transition in 2021-2027 | European Social Fund Plus”, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/european-social-fund-plus/en/news/romania-partnership-2021-2027-adopted (accessed on 21 August 2023).
[24] European Commission (2022), Handbook on Selection of Operations, European Commission, https://doi.org/10.2776/489134.
[32] IAP2 (2007), IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2016).
[15] Mexican National Congress (2018), Ley de Planeación [Planning Law], https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LPlan.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2023).
[16] Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic (2022), Databáze Strategií - Portál Strategických Dokumentu v CR, Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic, https://www.databaze-strategie.cz/cz/mistni-dokumenty.
[34] OECD (2023), “Envisioning Wales in 2037: Findings from multi-stakeholder workshops and a citizen survey”, OECD, Paris.
[6] OECD (2022), “Information obtained from subnational stakeholders across Romania during virtual interviews and workshops held in 2022”, OECD, Paris.
[23] OECD (2022), Information obtained from subnational stakeholders and the RDA in the West Region during virtual interviews and a workshop held in 2022, OECD, Paris.
[22] OECD (2022), “Information obtained from subnational stakeholders from the Centre RDA during virtual interviews and a workshop in 2022”, OECD, Paris.
[11] OECD (2022), “Information obtained from subnational stakeholders from the North East Region during virtual interviews and a workshop in 2022”, OECD, Paris.
[12] OECD (2022), “Information obtained from subnational stakeholders from the South East region during virtual interviews and a workshop in 2022”, OECD, Paris.
[25] OECD (2022), “Information obtained from subnational stakeholders in Bucharest Ilfov during virtual interviews and a workshop held in 2022”, OECD, Paris.
[1] OECD (2022), “Interviews with subnational stakeholders”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
[13] OECD (2022), “Interviews with subnational stakeholders from South-West Oltenia”, OECD, Paris.
[28] OECD (2022), “Project workshop in Cluj-Napoca, 18 November 2022”.
[14] OECD (2022), “Project workshop in Craiova, 20 October 2022”.
[7] OECD (2022), Rebuilding Ukraine by Reinforcing Regional and Municipal Governance, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/63a6b479-en.
[2] OECD (2022), “Response from Romania’s eight RDAs to an OECD project questionnaire”, OECD, Paris.
[8] OECD (2020), The Future of Regional Development and Public Investment in Wales, United Kingdom, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6f5201d-en.
[5] OECD (n.d.), “OECD Regional Development Policy Committee accession background questionnaire: Romania”, Unpublished, OECD, Paris.
[3] OECD/UCLG (2021), Romania Country Profile, World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment (SNG-WOFI), https://www.sng-wofi.org/country-profiles/.
[31] ParticipatieWijzer (2023), Wil je inwoners betrekken bij beleid of een project?, https://www.participatiewijzer.nl/.
[20] UNDP Mexico (2023), Plataform de Análisis de Datos, https://pad.undp.org.mx/ (accessed on 2 November 2023).
[33] VAGO (2015), Public Participation in Government Decision-Making: Better Practice Guide, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20150130-Public-Participation-BPG.pdf.
[29] WDODelta (2020), Communication Strategy [Communicatiestrategie WDODelta], Dutch Water Authority Waterschap Drents Overijsselse Delta, https://bestuursinformatie.wdodelta.nl/Documenten/Bijlage-2-DEF-communicatiestrategie-luisteren-verbindt-WDODelta.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2023).
[30] Welsh Government (2022), A Guide to the Well-being of Future Generations Act, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-04/easy-read-a-guide-to-the-wellbeing-of-future-generations-act-april-2022.pdf.
Note
← 1. This includes funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the Just Transition Fund (JTF).