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)
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.
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
- Local Authorities, supra-municipal Authorities, Covenant Coordinators should develop the justification using specific examples in order to present that to the Managing Authorities.
- Establish a dialogue with the managing authority so recommendations are taken into account
- National Authority/Managing Authorities has to organize this process.
- Include recommendations in the OPs
- 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
- 06.2019 Progress monitoring
- 12.2019 Progress monitoring
- 06.2020 Progress monitoring
Indicator of Completion: Recommendations established
- Draft Action R1: Revision of urban development and planning regulation tools, focusing on national, regional and local climate adaptation actions
- Draft Action R2: Further involvement of national municipality associations and Covenant of Mayors as key facilitators and supporters of local authorities
- Draft Action F1: Guidelines and toolkits for adaptation economic analysis
- Draft Action F2: Recommendations for the Ops of the ERDF in order to improve access for municipalities
- Draft Action F3: A new LIFE for urban adaptation projects
- Draft Action F4: Further support for the drafting of local adaptation plans
- Draft Action K1: Improving data accessibility for EU Municipalities in the framework of COPERNICUS
- Draft Action K2: Enhancing the urban content of Climate-ADAPT
- Draft Action K3: Political training academy on climate adaptation
- Draft Action K4: Enhancing citizen and stakeholder involvement at regional and local levels for climate adaptation agendas
- Draft Action K5: Promote open access on insurance data for climate risk management