Better Funding - Draft Action F2: Recommendations for the OPs of the ERDF in order to improve its accessibility for municipalities

  • Ivana (Communic... profile
    Ivana (Communic...
    14 June 2018 - updated 9 months ago
    Total votes: 0
Start date: 
Target date: 

Bottleneck summary

The contribution of Existing EU Policies/Legislations/Instruments

Actions Needed

More information

Join the Public Feedback on Draft Action F2


Copyrights : 


Bottleneck summary

Accessibility of the ERDF by cities and towns, especially medium towns, due to the degree of complexity to fulfil all requirements. That complexity can be increased depending on how these funds are managed by the Member States. For instance, in some Member States the entity asking for the fund must provide upfront investment, so this is a big barrier for many Local Authorities. In some other countries operational programs take long to be developed and so the calls are very delayed.

National structures are typically sectorial, which leads to less integrated approach, and climate adaptation, on the opposite, needs and integrated approach.

The complexity to manage an ERDF projects is high; therefore, many Local Authorities feel discouraged and do not ask for one. Co-financing rate can be also a constraint.

NOTE: Bottlenecks addressed: 6,12,18,19,20,30 (See the Annex F on the Draft Action Plan)

^ Back to top


The Contribution of Existing EU Policies/Legislations/Instruments

Each Member State develops its own Operational Programs (OP) and establishes specific ERDF calls linked to these OP, according to ERDF regulations (EU 1301/2013 and EU 1303/2013) and priorities. Right now, adaptation measures can be executed thanks to ERDF, but there is the need of a high degree to technical expertise to prepare the project adapted to the call, so hiring consultancies is needed, and in some areas co-financing is high (i.e. 50%) and difficult to achieve by Local Authorities. 

^ Back to top


Actions Needed

National authorities managing ERDF funds could include recommendations into their OP:

  • Allocating part of the funds to climate adaptation projects of Local Authorities and considering to co-finance at least part of them
  • Allowing supra-municipal entities (such as provinces, councils, etc…) to act on behave of the municipalities, no matter their size, so these Authorities can help them technically and maybe co-financing in part
  • Establishing more flexible indicators (also focusing on ecosystem services), more suited to the project.
  • Lowering co-financing rate for adaptation projects and considering the size of the Local Authority


  1. Local Authorities, supra-municipal Authorities, Covenant Coordinators should develop the justification using specific examples in order to present that to the Managing Authorities.
  2. Establish a dialogue with the managing authority so recommendations are taken into account
  3. National Authority/Managing Authorities has to organize this process.
  4. Include recommendations in the OPs
  5. Analyse results

Funding Sources and Needs: Human resources from LA, etc. to deal with the justification and attend the meetings with the managing authorities. Human resources within existing national authorities linked to ERDF management. 

Implementation Risks: Delayed Operational Programmes due to the changing of the regulations.

Responsible Institution: National Authorities

Contributing Institutions: CoMO, CEMR, EUROCITIES

Intermediary Deadlines

  • 06.2019 Progress monitoring
  • 12.2019 Progress monitoring
  • 06.2020 Progress monitoring

Indicator of Completion: Recommendations established

^ Back to top

Join the Public Feedback on Draft Action F2


See also:



  • Draft Action R1Revision of urban development and planning regulation tools, focusing on national, regional and local climate adaptation actions  
  • Draft Action R2Further involvement of national municipality associations and Covenant of Mayors as key facilitators and supporters of local authorities


  • Draft Action F1Guidelines and toolkits for adaptation economic analysis
  • Draft Action F2Recommendations for the Ops of the ERDF in order to improve access for municipalities
  • Draft Action F3A new LIFE for urban adaptation projects
  • Draft Action F4Further support for the drafting of local adaptation plans


  • Draft Action K1Improving data accessibility for EU Municipalities in the framework of COPERNICUS
  • Draft Action K2Enhancing the urban content of Climate-ADAPT
  • Draft Action K3Political training academy on climate adaptation
  • Draft Action K4Enhancing citizen and stakeholder involvement at regional and local levels for climate adaptation agendas
  • Draft Action K5Promote open access on insurance data for climate risk management

^ Back to top