Assessment of demand and supply in administrative capacity to manage European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds and explore interest in a new staff exchange instrument called “Common Expert Exchange System” (CEES) : Final report

1. There is broad support among Member State authorities for a peer-to-peer capacity building mechanism, set up and facilitated by the European Commission. 2. There is a clear preference among potential providers and beneficiaries for short-term and un-bureaucratic exchanges of experts, including study visits, as there are limited capacities on both sides to provide or absorb comprehensive long-term assistance. 3. The thematic fields of interest most often mentioned in the survey were: public procurement, state aid, institutional capacity, financial instruments, simplified cost options, smart specialisation and anti-fraud measures. These are also the areas in which a potential gap of supply and demand becomes apparent. 4. Unlike the pre-accession period, where the main challenge consisted of assisting beneficiaries to transpose parts of the acquis into their national systems, the current challenges are rather to implement rules that are new for all the Member States. The degree of experience in implementing these new rules does not, in principle, differ between Member States. 5. In light of the above, a majority of Member States considers that looking at capacity building from a perspective of provider/beneficiary of assistance is often no longer appropriate. Therefore, it was suggested by a number of respondents that there was less need for a classical transfer of skills and knowledge from one side to the other, but rather for mutual consultations, peer–to-peer review and exchanges of good practices. 6. There are differences among institutions of the same Member State in access to expertise (and thus in interest in such a mechanism). Whereas central coordination bodies in general have no difficulties accessing the expertise they need, and whereas more specific bodies (like Certifying and Audit Authorities) cover much of their needs through existing networks, the needs become more pronounced for sectoral or regional Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies which find it more challenging to be involved in networks and cover their needs for assistance. 7. Although key Final Beneficiaries were not among the original target group of this study, there is some evidence that there is particularly strong demand for peer-to-peer assistance among these bodies (i.e. road and railway authorities). 8 8. In particular, Managing Authorities, Intermediate Bodies and key Final Beneficiaries expressed the need for a web-based platform for exchange and discussions between bodies involved in the management of ESI funds. However, this platform should be complementary to a peer-to peer exchange instrument (and not a substitute for it). 9. Many Member States expressed the wish to have a mechanism in place to get quick and operational answers from Commission Services on questions regarding the application of the new rules