EU Instruments for Pre-Accession Assistance

EU Instruments for Pre-Accession AssistanceRegional DevelopmentINTRODUCTION viscidity constitution of the European nub aims to reduce econo(prenominal)ic and friendly differences in the midst of the Member States of the northern by encourage and encouraging regional maturement. The Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act promote decreasing differences in the regional training while regional policy provides investments for necessary restructuring in the less(prenominal) developed regions and hold water for infrastructure growing, increase of employment, and stimulation of industry. To pay projects that contri thoe to the regional growing viscidity and morphological silver ar utilise, which account for a third of the common budget of the European Union (Chalmers Dellmuth, 2014).The key objectives of regional development ar regional combat and employment, and european territorial cooperation (European Commission). The effort ar foc apply on facilitating increas ed growth and convergence of the least developed element states and regions with the goal of increasing the regional competitiveness and thus improving cooperation with other European regions. In order to promote regional development, the European Union has secured additional financial assist for member states through various notes. Cohesion strain is intended for countries which exact to meet the convergence criteria. The European Regional Development gillyf piteouser, as cardinal of the main financial instruments of the EUs cohesion policy, and European Social monetary fund, Europes main tool for promoting employment and social inclusion, are called geomorphological silver and are aimed at strengthening stinting and social cohesion in the European Union and at the reduction of differences in development between the regions.Kyriacou and Rocca-Sagales (2011) found that the Structural entrepots reduced regional disparities in the power point from 1995 to 2006. Beugelsdij k and Eijffinger (2005) and Ederveen (2006) also confirmed positive impact of structural bullion on consumption and growth of gross domestic product per capita, but only in countries with developed institutions. Effect of the use of structural silver to decrease regional differences is potentially reversed if transfers are above a certain limit (about 1.6% of gross domestic product). This has implications on the desirable allocation of resources in future, especially since, in the last program period (2007-20113), transmissions to all new(a) member states except Cyprus and Malta exceeded the given over threshold. Popa (2012) points out that although there are casefuls of wide practice of the use of EU funds, they often represent more a financial burden then they truly serve as a mean of reducing regional disparities, which is their goal.Reforms of funding in the new computer programing period 2014-2020 induce the potential to remediate the efficiency of the use of the fund s, but significant do of their use cannot be expect in the absence of structural reclaims, given the constraints in monitoring the use of funds in diametrical countries and the difficulties in establishing ir stockities and potential illegal use of funds (Chalmers Dellmuth, 2014).Most authors agree that after 20 eld of implementation of the EU Cohesion insurance policy its effectiveness remains questionable (Bachtler et al., 2015). In fact, in theory, the allocation of EU funds needs to be designed so to ensure that the poorer regions receive more funds. In practice, the allocation and the distribution of funds was under(a) the influence of lobbying, the unwillingness of regional authorities to absorb funds, as well as of the lack of resources and incentives for the European Union to question the political motives for the selection of projects at the topical anaesthetic level (Dellmuth Stoffel, 2012).1. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDINGEuropean Regional Policy was adopted by the European Commission in 1965, followed by the creation of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy in 1968. In 1972, Regional Policy was recognized as an essential factor in strengthening the Community (European Commission).Regional policy has tensenessed from its very(prenominal) start on promoting balanced regional development. The resources from the cohesion and structural funds are to be used primarily to minimize the differences in development between regions of the European Union as well as differences in the standard of living of citizens of these regions.Among the main objectives of the regional policy in the programming period from 2000 to 2006 were the development and structural adjustment of those regions whose gross domestic product per capita was lower than 75% of the EU average, the economic and social conversion of areas go about structural difficulties and adjustment and modernization of the subject area policies and educational agreements, as well as trainin g and employment. For the financial financial backing of the regional development policy the European Commission established the European Regional Development stemma (ERDF), whose objective is the elimination of regional disparities and promotion of a stable and sustainable development, the European Social Fund (ESF), aimed at developing human resources and employment, financial instrument for Fisheries guidance (Financial instrument for Fisheries guidance FIFG), whose goal is a balanced water resources management and development of the competitive infrastructure, and European Agri heathen Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), whose goal is to support the Common agricultural policy and the improvement of agricultural structures and rude development.From 2007 to 2013, the number of funds was reduced to three (ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund), and the emphasis was placed on the less developed regions, to achieve great growth and higher employment rate. The European Regional Develo pment Fund (ERDF) aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the European Union. European Social Fund (ESF) aims to increase employment and increase opportunities for conclusion a job in the European Union.The Cohesion Fund is intended for Member States whose gross national product per capita is less than 90% of the Unions and aims to support economic and social development, and fosters to bring stability to the economic system of the less developed countries. Given that the three main objectives of EU regional policy are convergence, regional competitiveness and employment and European territorial cooperation, Cohesion Fund primarily supports convergence and, although it is the subject to the uniform rules of programming, management and monitoring as well as the structural funds and plays a similar role, the Fund has been primarily used to provide means for adjusting the national economies of the countries which had decided to introduce a common currency, and to hold op en national budgets of the poorer member states. Investments in the areas of transport, environmental protection, achieving energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources are usually financed from the Cohesion Fund.For vitrine, through the four national programs for Croatia, 10.74 jillion Euro from the European structural and investment funds has been allocated in the period from 2014 to 2020. Croatia has a total budget of 12.67 billion Euro for investments into research and change, employment, education and training of employees, as well as for social inclusion projects, project in the public administration and civil society, as well as infrastructure projects and projects related to the protection of the environment Protection (http / /ec.europa.eu, 2016).The management of the Structural finances and Cohesion Fund is based on the principles of programming, concentration, co-financing and partnership. Programming is the process of allocation of structural funds in accorda nce with the defined objectives and criteria over a certain period of time. Concentration involves directing funds to where they are most needed. Co-financing means that part of the investment has to be obtained from domestic sources, while partnership implies close cooperation between Member States and the European Commission.Since the implementation of the Cohesion policy requires developed institutional simulation, each state chooses one of three approaches for the implementation of the Cohesion policy differential approach, which is characterized by the separating the structures for the implementation of cohesion policy from the regular government bodies (for example, The Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom), the unique approach, whereby the funds are directed through the national, or regional ministries and agencies (for example Austria, Spain, parts of Germany and most new Member States) and the combined approach, which represents a combination of the previous cardinal appr oaches (for example Finland, France and Italy). The choice depends on the existing administrative arrangements and levels of funding.2. INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCEInstrument for Pre-Accession Assistance ( IPA) is the program for the countries which are in the process of accession to the Union. Pre-accession funds are intended to facilitate the economic and social transformation, which are included in the conditions for the admission to the Union.From 2000 to 2006, countries in the process of accession to the EU had access to financial instruments called PHARE (Pologne et Hongrie auxiliary Restructuration Economique), ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for pre-Accession), SAPARD (Special pre-accession assistance for Agriculture and Rural Development), and CARDS (Community assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation). From 2007 to 2013 total IPA budget amounted to 11.468 billion Euro (narr.gov.rs). Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance consists of five components (narr.gov.rs)Transition Assistance and Institution Building. The original component of the IPA aims to provide support in the process of accession to the European Union, especially in group meeting the criteria and standards imposed by the accession, policy change of the legislation and, in occurrence, the strengthening of the institutional capacity.Cross-border cooperation. The objective of this component is to promote good neighborly dealings and regional cooperation between traditionally less developed regions in the countries which engage in the joint violate border projectsRegional Development. The third IPA component aims to improve economic and social cohesion through the development of the transport infrastructure, particularly the development of national transport networks and trans-European networks, protection of the environment including policies such as savage management, management of water supply and waste water, as well as the monitoring of air quality, the reformation of polluted areas, achievement of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, and the development of regional competitiveness by fostering entrepreneurship and employment.The development of human resources. This component aims to contribute to economic and social cohesion and to achieving the priorities of the European concern Strategy in the areas of employment, education, training and social inclusion.Rural Development. This component provides support for sustainable agricultural and rural development by improving securities industry efficiency and facilitating the adoption of the EU standards, provides support for the establishment of producer groups and investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products, as well as the implementation of dress hat practices in the field of environmental protection and improvement in agriculture and development of rural infrastructure. all(prenominal) five components of IPA can be used by the coarse with the status of aspect country and which has implemented decentralized system of management of EU funds (Decentralized Implementation System DIS), while the potential candidate countries and those candidate countries which meet not yet accredited DIS have access to funds from the first and snatch components of IPA (narr.gov.rs). Management of EU funds under Decentralized Implementation System is approved after meeting criteria and conditions defined by the European Commission.The first component of the Instrument for Pre-accession assistance is related to the transition assistance and the development of institutions, and it decreases as the countrys economy develops and gets closer to the European standards, practices and the membership of the Union. The second component of the IPA is related to Cross-Border Cooperation. tertiary IPA Component is a predecessor of the Cohesion Fund, while the fourth and fifth IPA components are precursors of the todays st ructural funds. IPA funds are not used exclusively for the implementation of institutional projects, but are also used for the preparation of the country for the accession through the implementation of prescribed objectives, principles.IPA beneficiary countries are divided into two categories (ec.europa.eu)Candidate countries for EU (Turkey, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) are eligible for all five components of IPA strength candidate countries in the Western Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99) are eligible only for the first two components.Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance IPA II 2014-2020 was established by the European Parliament and the Council Regulation no. 231/2014 of 11 March 2014 and applied retroactively from January 1, 2014. IPA II is the successor of the IPA for the period 2014-2020 and has a budget of 11.7 billion. Users of IPA II are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey (http//ec.europa.eu).IPA II Regulation determines that the European Commission and the beneficiary of IPA II are to conclude general agreements on the implementation of the aid, which defines the rules for the implementation of the Unions financial assistance under the IPA II, primarily in relation to the management of IPA II, including the rules of programming, implementation, financial management, monitoring, control and audit, reporting and protection of financial interests. wizard of the major changes in the structure of the IPA II, which, instead of the 5 components comprising the IPA I, is the introduction of the policy areas. Policy areas in spite of appearance the IPA II are (Pejovi et al., 2014)Reforms as part of preparations for EU membership and institutional and capacity buildingSocio-economic and regional developmentEmployment, social policy, education, promotion of gender equality and human resource developmentAgriculture and rural developmentRegional and territorial cooperation.The most important innovation in the IPA II is its strategic focus. Each country should prepare a specific strategic planning document for the period of 7 years, which will enable faster integration, reform and development programs, and ensures a focus on the priorities in terms of regional cooperation.IPA II aims to facilitate the reforms in the context of pre-defined sectors. These sectors include areas closely related to the overstatement strategy, as well as democracy and governance, the rule of law, growth and competitiveness. This approach promotes structural reforms that are evaluate to help the governments to transform the given sectors and to successfully conduct harmonization with EU standards. In this way, the European Commission wishes to ensure the efficiency of the fund, sustainability and their focus on results. IPA II focuses on measuring the effects and monitoring the realiza tion of expected results.IPA II aims at achieve four specific objectives. The overall objective is to support the beneficiary countries in adopting and implementing the political, institutional, legal, administrative, social and economic reforms that are required from them in order to conform with the values of the European Union and to ensure stepwise alignment with the rules, standards, policies and practices for achieving full membership in the EU.The specific objectives of IPA II are (Pejovi et al., 2014)Support for political reform strengthening democracy and the rule of law, including an independent and efficient judiciary promotion and protection of human rights and thorough freedoms, respect for the rights of minorities, including LGBT people, promoting gender equality, prohibition of discrimination and fostering tolerance, and freedom of the media and cultural diversity regional cooperation and good neighborly relations the promotion of reconciliation and confidence build ing measures the fight against corruption and organized detestation strengthening public administration and good governance at all levels capacity building measures to improve law enforcement, border management and implementation of migration policies the development of civil society improving social discourse and strengthening the capacity of the social partners.Support the economic, social and territorial development with focus on smart, sustainable and inclusive growth reaching the EU standards in the economy, including a functioning market economy and financial and economic governance. Economic reforms are necessary in order to face competitive pressure and market forces within the EU, and which at the same time contribute to the achievement of objectives in the field of social rights and environmental protection promotion of employment, mobility of workers and the development of human capital improving social and economic inclusion, in particular of minorities and vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, refugees and displaced persons fostering an inclusive and integrated education system and the protection and restoration of cultural heritage development of physical capital, including infrastructure improvements and connecting with the networks of the EU and the region strengthening research, technological development and innovation capacity.Strengthening the capacity of recipient countries at all levels to fulfill the obligations arising from the membership in the EU by supporting progressive alignment with the EU acquis and their adoption and implementation, including preparation for managing structural and cohesion funds as well as funds intended for agriculture and rural development.Strengthening of regional and territorial cooperation to help beneficiary countries.3. EFFECTS OF FINANCINGDuring the programming period 2007- 2013, over 80% of the budget of the Cohesion Fund was allocated in the 100 poorest regions, with about 170 milli on people or one third of the EU population. The remaining 18.5% of the money is distributed to other regions in the Union (http//www.euractiv.com, 2012). According to the European Commission, in the next programming period 2014-2020 less than 70 regions will automatically qualify for the funds that are used to finance the convergence, as they have GDP per capita below 75% of the EU average. Regions in transition those who have a GDP per capita between 75% and 90% of the EU average will get less funds, but still can count on continued support from the Structural Funds (http//www.euractiv.com, 2012 ). go out 1 Regions by the development level in the programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.Source Chalmers Dellmuth, 2014In the 2014-2020 programming period it is expected that 25% of structural funds will be allocated in less developed regions (red in Figure 1), 40% in regions in transition (yellow in Figure 1), and 52% in the developed regions (blue in Figure 1. ). As for the Co hesion Fund, the funds from it will continue to support the development of member countries with GDP per capita of less than 90% of the EU-27 average, but will primarily be allocated to support investments in projects related to environmental protection and the development of transport. Part of the funds from the Cohesion Fund will focus on the financing of transport networks in Europe.Given that the capacity to absorb depends on the institutional factors, both in the EU and in the Member States (Georgescu, 2010 Voinea, et al, 2010), but also on the ability of regional authorities to co-finance projects and provide administrative support (Zaman and Georgescu, 2009), the possible effects of the use of structural funds are difficult to predict.According to the research, structural funds can boost GDP growth in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe from 0.1. to 0.7% per annum (Zaman Georgescu, 2009). Analyses of the effects of the use of the funds in the programming period 2000- 2006 show that there has been around reduction in the differences between countries in GDP per capita, while in some regions growth was recorded. Zaman and Georgescu (2009) found that the structural funds boost export growth, and that in some cases, like in Romania, they led to economic growth, condescension relatively low absorption capacity.Positive impact was also made in Austria, Belgium and France. However, according to Becker (2012), countries with low levels of education, weak institutions and poor governance did not make equally successful use of the funds. Thus, receiving more support from the Structural Funds does not necessarily mean development. For example, Pisani-Ferry et al (2011) found that inadequate institutional framework in Greece to be a reason for the inability of its government to efficiently use the funds charge to it.CONCLUSIONTheoretically, objectives of the regional policy of the European Union necessitate the existence of the financial support for the less developed regions to achieve the desired growth. However, in practice, during the distribution and the use of the funds many problems were encountered. Access to funds for underdeveloped regions did not lead to the desired growth, primarily because of the inability of the governments to use the allocated funds due to impuissance of the institutions and low capacity. In more developed regions, the effects of the funds were much more significant. Changes in the programming period 2014-2020 are expected to solve part of the problems identified in the previous periods. However, declining return on invested funds and high dependence of a large number of the regions from external funding sources continue to venture the achievement of the basic objectives that these funds are meant to support.Although raw data show that the Structural Funds have not always been successful in fighting the problems at all levels and in all countries. However, as many people are still unemployed in the EU, and there are full member countries whose GDP is still well below the EU average, the Structural Funds are necessary. The same goes for the Cohesion Fund, as it ensures faster accession of the candidate countries. These funds were designed to reduce the inequalities in the regional developments, and although they king not have been efficient in all cases, they certainly supported the growth in some regions, provide incentives for other regions to improve their capacity to access the funds and accelerate the growth.REFERENCES Bachtler, J., Begg, I., Charles, D., Polverari, L. (2015) THE LONG TERM ACHIEVEMENTS OF EU COHESION POLICY, 1989-2012. Challanges for he new cohesion policy 2014-2020. Luxembourg Publications Office of the European UnionBecker, S.O.(2012) EU Structural Funds Do They Generate More Growth? dostupno na https//www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/ worldwide%20Economics/1212bp_becker.pdfBeugelsdijk, M., Eijffinger, S. (2005), The Effecti veness of Structural Policy in the European Union an Empirical Analysis for the EU-15 in 1995-2001, journal of Common Market Studies 43 37-51.Chalmers, A.W., Dellmuth, L.M. (2014). Whz Europes new cohesion policy is unlikely to enhance effectiveness of EU structural and investments funds. Dostupno na http//councilforeuropeanstudies.org/critcom/why-europes-new-cohesion-policy-is-unlikely-to-enhance-the-effectiveness-of-eu-structural-and-investment-funds/Dellmuth, L.M., Stoffel, M.F. (2012) Distrinutive Politics and intergovernmental transfers the local allocation of European Union Structural Funds. European Union Politics, 13 (3) 413-433ec.europa.eu, dostupno na http//ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/ipa/ preuzeto 3.3.2016.Ederveen, S., de Groot, H. , Nahuis, R. (2006) Fertile Soil for Structural Funds? A ornament Data Analysis of the Conditional Effectiveness of European Cohesion Policy, Kyklos 59 17-42.European Commission (2012), EU Cohesion Funding Key Statistics, http//e c.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/funding/index_en.cfmEuropean Commission, http//ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/object/index_en.htmGeorgescu, G. (2010). Determinants of increasing EU funds absorption capacity in Romania, Oeconomica Universitatea 1 Decembrie 1918 Alba Iulia (2010) 16.http//ec.europa.eu, 2016, dostupno na http//ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/factsheets/2016/european-structural-and-investment-funds-country-factsheet-croatiahttp//ec.europa.eu, dostupno na http//ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/overview/index_en.htm, preuzeto 3.3.2016.KPMG (2014). PUBLIC SECTOR EU Funds in Central and Eastern Europe Progress business relationship 2007-2013. dostupno na https//www.kpmg.com/SI/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/EU-Funds-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdfKyriacou, P.A., Rocca-Sagales, O. (2011) The Impact of EU Structural Funds on Regional Disparities within Member States. Environmental Planning C Government a nd Policy April 2012 vol. 30 no. 2.267-281.Liargovas, P., Petropoulos, S., Tzifakis, N., Huliaras, A. (2016) BEYOND preoccupancy THE IMPACT OF EU STRUCTURAL FUNDS ON GREECE. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Greecenarr.gov.rs, dostupno na http//narr.gov.rs/index.php/O-regionalnom-razvoju/EU-politika-regionalnog-razvoja/Instrument-za-predpristupnu-pomoc-IPA, preuzeto 3.3.2016.Pejovi, A., Lazovi, M., Miri, O., Kneevi, I. (2014) Vodi kroz IPA, Beograd.Pisani-Ferry, J., Marzinotto, B. , Wolff, G. B. (2011), How European Funds can stand by Greece Grow, Financial Times, 28 July.Popa, A. (2012). The Impact of the Structural Funds in the Transformation Process of the New EU Member States, LEurope en Formation 2012/2 (n 364), p. 161-179.Voinea, L.A., Busuioc, A., Popovici, V. (2010). Reindustrializarea Romaniei politici si strategii.Asociatia pentru Studii si Prognoze Economico-Sociale, 113.Zaman, G. and Cristea, A., (2011) EU Structural Funds dousing in Romania Obstacles and Issues, 2011, Romanian Journal of Economy, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 60-77.Zaman, G., Georgescu,G. (2009) Structural fund adsorption a new scrap for Romania? Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting 1 (2009) 136.