Interview request
| Dokumendiregister | Rahandusministeerium |
| Viit | 11-3.1/3252-1 |
| Registreeritud | 11.07.2024 |
| Sünkroonitud | 12.07.2024 |
| Liik | Sissetulev kiri |
| Funktsioon | 11 RAHVUSVAHELINE SUHTLEMINE JA KOOSTÖÖ (ELO) |
| Sari | 11-3.1 EL institutsioonide otsustusprotsessidega seotud dokumendid (eelnõud, töögruppide materjalid, õigustiku ülevõtmise tähtajad) (Arhiiviväärtuslik) |
| Toimik | 11-3.1/2024 |
| Juurdepääsupiirang | Avalik |
| Adressaat | Austrian Institute for Regional Studies |
| Saabumis/saatmisviis | Austrian Institute for Regional Studies |
| Vastutaja | Piret Loorand (Rahandusministeerium, Kantsleri vastutusvaldkond, Eelarvepoliitika valdkond, Riigieelarve osakond, Välisvahendite talitus) |
| Originaal | Ava uues aknas |
| Taotle dokumendi eemaldamist või parandamist |
Failid
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY
Evaluation and European Semester
Brussels, regio.b.2(2023)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Subject: Work Package 12: Crisis response - ex post study of Cohesion policy
programmes 2014-2020
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission launched
an ex post study of cohesion policy crisis response in the period 2014-2020.
The evaluation, which started in November 2023 is to take 13 months and complements the work
packages of the ex post evaluation of the period 2014-2020. It will take stock of the different
types of crisis response instruments co-financed by the ERDF/CF in the 2014-2020 period, assess
their rationale and investigate the factors that has contributed to their success or failure.
The contract has been awarded to a consortium consisting of Spatial Foresight, t33 srl, ÖIR
GmbH, and Wiiw. These companies have extensive experience in working with evaluation and
are securely bound by confidentiality agreements.
The consultants will be collecting data at different levels in a structured format, relying on
publicly available databases or portals, to the extent possible. In some cases, the collaboration the
Managing Authority or other implementing body holding the data will be necessary. Interviews
with experts and stakeholders to produce case studies are foreseen, too.
More details on the scope of the study can be found in its Specification available at:
eTendering - Crisis response study
Access to relevant actors, data, information and experience is vital for the success of this study.
I would therefore very much appreciate if you could facilitate the work of consultants, in
particular when they contact you with regard to the collection of information or for an interview
request. The consultants have access to the data held at EU level and they will target their
requests for information and interviews in a way to minimise the burden on you. The production
of a high quality report, which can be of use both for the Commission and the Member States,
could critically depend on your kind contribution.
If you have any further questions, please contact: Viktoria BOLLA or Lucian LUCA,
Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy, Evaluation and European Semester Unit, BRU-
CSM1 08/DCS, Brussels (email: [email protected], [email protected] ).
Yours sincerely,
(e-Signed)
Ana PIRES
Head of Unit
Dear Mr Loorand,
I am contacting you about the study of crisis response instruments for the European Commission
(DG REGIO), for which you already participated to a survey and a hybrid seminar end of March this year (see the attached letter of introduction).
We (the Austrian Institute for Regional Studies (ÖIR GmbH) and consortium) would like to thank you for your valuable input, which already helped our work and participated to our decision to take the example of
Estonia’s approach in our case study about the response to the health crisis (CRII/CRII+, REACT-EU).
Indeed, to illustrate the different approaches taken by Member States to support their healthsystems with EU funds during this crisis, we decided to have a more thorough description of six Member States: Estonia, France, Ireland, Czechia, Spain, and Italy.
In this case study, we would like to highlight the strategy, opportunities and obstacles Estonia had to face while implementing these instruments.
Though some of these aspects have already been answered by you via the survey, I was wondering if we could
exchange for about 45 min, preferably during the month of July.
Would you be available for such an exchange, this month?
I thank you in advance for your help and remain at your disposal by e-mail or telephone for any further clarification.
PS:You can find attached a list of questions that would guide the discussion. It will be adapted to concentrate on the aspects where we need more in-depths information.
Best regards,
Manon Badouix
|
|
|
|
|
Manon Badouix, MA |
|
|
[email protected] | +43 1 533 87 47-42 |
|
|
ÖIR GmbH A-1010 Wien/Vienna, Franz-Josefs-Kai 27 UID/VAT Nr. ATU66911023 |
|
|
|
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY
Evaluation and European Semester
Brussels, regio.b.2(2023)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Subject: Work Package 12: Crisis response - ex post study of Cohesion policy
programmes 2014-2020
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission launched
an ex post study of cohesion policy crisis response in the period 2014-2020.
The evaluation, which started in November 2023 is to take 13 months and complements the work
packages of the ex post evaluation of the period 2014-2020. It will take stock of the different
types of crisis response instruments co-financed by the ERDF/CF in the 2014-2020 period, assess
their rationale and investigate the factors that has contributed to their success or failure.
The contract has been awarded to a consortium consisting of Spatial Foresight, t33 srl, ÖIR
GmbH, and Wiiw. These companies have extensive experience in working with evaluation and
are securely bound by confidentiality agreements.
The consultants will be collecting data at different levels in a structured format, relying on
publicly available databases or portals, to the extent possible. In some cases, the collaboration the
Managing Authority or other implementing body holding the data will be necessary. Interviews
with experts and stakeholders to produce case studies are foreseen, too.
More details on the scope of the study can be found in its Specification available at:
eTendering - Crisis response study
Access to relevant actors, data, information and experience is vital for the success of this study.
I would therefore very much appreciate if you could facilitate the work of consultants, in
particular when they contact you with regard to the collection of information or for an interview
request. The consultants have access to the data held at EU level and they will target their
requests for information and interviews in a way to minimise the burden on you. The production
of a high quality report, which can be of use both for the Commission and the Member States,
could critically depend on your kind contribution.
If you have any further questions, please contact: Viktoria BOLLA or Lucian LUCA,
Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy, Evaluation and European Semester Unit, BRU-
CSM1 08/DCS, Brussels (email: [email protected], [email protected] ).
Yours sincerely,
(e-Signed)
Ana PIRES
Head of Unit
Interview Stakeholders Health Sector
Introduction
1. Could you briefly present the main challenges faced by the health sector at the outbreak of the pandemic (e.g. access to medicines, communication and knowledge sharing about the pandemic, investments in products and services necessary for fostering crisis response capacities in health services, health infrastructure, purchase of medical services and equipment)? How have these evolved?
Effectiveness and relevance of crisis response instruments
2. Are you familiar with any specific measure implemented by ERDF/CF funding that had a positive contribution in reducing the negative impact of the pandemic? (i.e. Positive contribution to health facilities, knowledge sharing, purchase of medical equipment and products).
3. Do you believe the crisis response instruments – CRII/CRII+ and ReactEU– were/are in line with emerging needs stemming from the pandemic? Did they come fast enough for the different types of regions (more / less / in transition regions)?
4. Are you aware of any evidence on the crisis response instruments unintended (negative or positive) consequences on the health sector? Consider for example:
(i) not sustainable projects (e.g. support for unfeasible health infrastructures or unused medical equipment/products);
(ii) delays/contribution to restructuring of health infrastructures;
(iii) delays/contribution to long-term performance solutions (e.g. investments in R&D&I);
(iv) others
Efficiency of crisis response instruments
5. Have health services faced obstacles/bottlenecks in accessing resources during the crisis? If so, what specific additional obstacles have been reported? (e.g. access to information, procedural requirements, other)
6. In your opinion, is there a potential for simplification in the delivery of the funds? Do you know any governance / delivery model or approach which could be considered as a benchmark?
7. In your opinion, was the support for the health sector made available fast enough (regulatory changes and reprogramming) to respond to the crisis?
Coherence of crisis response instruments
8. Which other national and/or regional crises response instruments were useful to mitigating the impact of the crises (i.e. besides EU Cohesion Policy)?
9. Do you have any evidence of overlap / replacement or complementarity between the national / regional crisis-response measures and the measures financed by EU Cohesion Policy?
EU Added value of crisis response instruments
10. What was/were the added value(s) of EU Cohesion Policy crisis-response instruments for the health sector compared to other national and regional interventions? Consider for example:
(i) quantitative terms (additional necessary financial resources / possible information on the indicative ratio of EU instruments and national initiatives);
(ii) response time (faster);
(iii) qualitative added value (it could be possible to have more flexibility or more focused interventions with EU funding than national funding);
(iv) the EU funding instruments accelerated / amplified / replaced the decision of national instruments
Lesson learned and additional remarks
11. What are the key lessons learned for future programming? (success factors and pitfalls) Based on your experience, which other types of measures could be helpful as crisis responses? (if any)?
12. Are you aware of other studies on the use of crisis response instruments / use of Cohesion Policy during the crisis?
Interview Stakeholders Health Sector
Introduction
1. Could you briefly present the main challenges faced by the health sector at the outbreak of the pandemic (e.g. access to medicines, communication and knowledge sharing about the pandemic, investments in products and services necessary for fostering crisis response capacities in health services, health infrastructure, purchase of medical services and equipment)? How have these evolved?
Effectiveness and relevance of crisis response instruments
2. Are you familiar with any specific measure implemented by ERDF/CF funding that had a positive contribution in reducing the negative impact of the pandemic? (i.e. Positive contribution to health facilities, knowledge sharing, purchase of medical equipment and products).
3. Do you believe the crisis response instruments – CRII/CRII+ and ReactEU– were/are in line with emerging needs stemming from the pandemic? Did they come fast enough for the different types of regions (more / less / in transition regions)?
4. Are you aware of any evidence on the crisis response instruments unintended (negative or positive) consequences on the health sector? Consider for example:
(i) not sustainable projects (e.g. support for unfeasible health infrastructures or unused medical equipment/products);
(ii) delays/contribution to restructuring of health infrastructures;
(iii) delays/contribution to long-term performance solutions (e.g. investments in R&D&I);
(iv) others
Efficiency of crisis response instruments
5. Have health services faced obstacles/bottlenecks in accessing resources during the crisis? If so, what specific additional obstacles have been reported? (e.g. access to information, procedural requirements, other)
6. In your opinion, is there a potential for simplification in the delivery of the funds? Do you know any governance / delivery model or approach which could be considered as a benchmark?
7. In your opinion, was the support for the health sector made available fast enough (regulatory changes and reprogramming) to respond to the crisis?
Coherence of crisis response instruments
8. Which other national and/or regional crises response instruments were useful to mitigating the impact of the crises (i.e. besides EU Cohesion Policy)?
9. Do you have any evidence of overlap / replacement or complementarity between the national / regional crisis-response measures and the measures financed by EU Cohesion Policy?
EU Added value of crisis response instruments
10. What was/were the added value(s) of EU Cohesion Policy crisis-response instruments for the health sector compared to other national and regional interventions? Consider for example:
(i) quantitative terms (additional necessary financial resources / possible information on the indicative ratio of EU instruments and national initiatives);
(ii) response time (faster);
(iii) qualitative added value (it could be possible to have more flexibility or more focused interventions with EU funding than national funding);
(iv) the EU funding instruments accelerated / amplified / replaced the decision of national instruments
Lesson learned and additional remarks
11. What are the key lessons learned for future programming? (success factors and pitfalls) Based on your experience, which other types of measures could be helpful as crisis responses? (if any)?
12. Are you aware of other studies on the use of crisis response instruments / use of Cohesion Policy during the crisis?