FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT December 2019 © 2018 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 CONTENTS Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclu- INTRODUCTION 1 sions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, URBAN AREAS AS ENGINES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND NEED FOR INTER- and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concern- JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION 7 ing the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions EXPRESSED DEMAND FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL CO-OPERATION IN ROMANIA 11 The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 19 Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION MODELS 23 Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. FISCAL INSTRUMENTS 33 More resource allocation – above 6% of ERDF 38 More resource concentration 38 More resources for FUAs 40 More thematic diversity 42 TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 43 CONCLUSION 65 ANNEX 1. Potential areas/sectors for inter-jurisdictional cooperation in Romania 68 ANNEX 2: Areas/sectors with multi-jurisdictional impact identified by a selection of sub-national authorities in Romania 72 ANNEX 3: Identification of Interventions Fields relevant for Romanian Cities, from the draft Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 76 DISCLAIMER This report is a product of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ the World Bank. The findings, interpretation, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank, the European Commission, or the Government of Romania. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This report has been delivered in June 2019, under the Administrative Agreement No. 2019CE160AT020 (under TF073325) on the Romania Multi-municipality Financing Program, signed between the European Commission and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It is the Final Report in the above-mentioned agreement. LIST OF FIGURES ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS FIGURE 1. NUTS 2 regions classified by Cohesion Policy category (left) and AA Administrative Agreement Lagging Region category (right) 4 AFM Environment Fund Administration FIGURE 2. Urban areas and votes received under “Your City’s Priorities Campaign” 14 ANFP National Public Functionaries Agency ANI National Land Improvement Agency FIGURE 3. Bucharest-Ilfov Metropolitan Area Projects 15 ANL National Housing Agency FIGURE 4. Local administration answers to the question: Would you be OK with having EU funds ANOFM National Employment Agency allocated for inter-jurisdictional projects? 17 CLLD Community-Led Local Development FIGURE 5. Organizational models for inter-jurisdictional cooperation in EU countries 25 CNI National Investment Company EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development FIGURE 6. Allocations (€ mil. and % of ERDF) and implementation mechanisms for SUD 2014- 2020 35 ESF European Social Fund ESFI European Fund for Strategic Investments FIGURE 7. Average SUD allocation per urban area in EU countries for 2014-2020 39 ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds FIGURE 8. How the 39 county residences prefer to access regional development funds for 2021- ERDF European Regional Development Fund 2027 45 ESPON European Spatial Observation Network EU European Union FS Feasibility Study FUA Functional Urban Area GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System LIST OF TABLES GoR Government of Romania IB Intermediate Body IDA Intercommunity Development Association ITI Integrated Territorial Investment TABLE 1. Areas/sectors with inter-jurisdictional impact in Romani 16 IUDP Integrated Urban Development Plans TABLE 2. Investment needs by sector in Romania (in million Euro) 37 IUDS Integrated Urban Development Strategy JRC Joint Research Center TABLE 3. Proposed SUD allocations for 2021-2029 41 LAG Local Action Group TABLE 4. Minimum ERDF allocations by Policy Objective, for Romania, for the 2021-2027 MA Managing Authority Programming Period 46 MC Ministry of Culture TABLE 5. Portfolio of mature projects for the current 39 SUD urban areas, by region 46 MEN Ministry of Education TABLE 6. Portfolio of mature projects for the current 39 SUD urban areas, by policy objective 47 MS Ministry of Health MPWDA Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (former MRDPA) TABLE 7. Minimum ESF+ allocations for Romania, for the 2021-2027 Programming Period 47 MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (current MPWDA) TABLE 8. Split of Cohesion Fund allocations for Romania, for 2021-2027 48 MT Ministry of Tourism TABLE 9. Proposed allocation of ROP funds by region 50 MWSJ Ministry of Work and Social Justice NGO Non-governmental organization TABLE 10. Proposed urban development allocations (in Euro) by region 51 PPP Public-Private Partnership TABLE 11. Regional share of people living in urban settlements, by categories 51 PNCDI National Research & Development and Innovation Program TABLE 12. Regional allocation (in Euro) for urban settlements and functional urban areas 52 PNDL National Local Development Program PUG General Spatial Plan (Plan Urbanistic General) TABLE 13. Proposal of ROPs allocations for county residences 53 PUZ Zonal Urban Plan (Plan Urbanistic Zonal) TABLE 14. Proposal for ROPs allocations for other municipalities 58 RAS Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement TABLE 15. Porposal for ROPs allocations for towns 64 RDA Regional Development Agency ROP Regional Operational Programme SUD Sustainable Urban Development SUMP Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan TAU Territorial Administrative Unit TF Trust Fund TP Technical Project UA Urban Authority WB World Bank ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been delivered under the provisions of the Administrative Agreement on the Romania Multi-municipality Financing Program and prepared under the guidance and supervision of David N. Sislen (Practice Manager, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience, Europe and Central Asia) and Tatiana Proskuryakova (Country Manager, Romania and Hungary). This report was developed by a team under the coordination of Paul Kriss (Lead Urban Specialist) and made up of Yondela Silimela (Senior Urban Specialist), Marius Cristea (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Marcel Ionescu-Heroiu (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Carli Bunding-Venter (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Adina Vințan (Operations Officer), Oana Franț (Operations Officer), and George Moldoveanu (Information Assistant). The team would like to express its gratitude for the excellent cooperation, guidance, and feedback provided by the representatives of the European Commission, the representatives of the INTRODUCTION Romanian Ministry of European Funds, the representatives of the Romanian Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (former Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration), the Association of Municipalities, the Association of Regional Development Agencies, the Federation of Metropolitan Areas and Urban Agglomerations, and the multitude of local and regional actors who have helped with the development of this report. INTRODUCTION 3 The mandate of the EU Cohesion’s Policy is to narrow development gaps and reduce disparities between member countries and regions whilst supporting the European Union’s growth agenda more generally. Around €454 billion of European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds have been allocated to help EU regions become more competitive in the 2014-2020 Programming Period, with a focus on less developed regions [with a GDP per capita (PPS) of less than 75% of the EU average] and transition regions [with a GDP per capita (PPS) between 75% and 90% of the EU average]. However, not all EU regions have been able to fully take advantage of the benefits, due inter alia to the effects of the 2008 economic crisis and structural problems. Consequently, Ms. Corina Crețu, the Commissioner for Regional Policy, with the Task Force for Better Implementation, initiated the Lagging Regions Initiative to identify growth constraints in less developed regions, and provide targeted assistance and programs to foster growth. Thus, lagging regions development support is offered to a broad range of stakeholders [regional and local administrations, educational institutions, business support institutions, small-and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs), entrepreneurs, investors, non-governmental organizations, international financing institutions]. It is meant to maximize the impact of regional investments. Two types of lagging regions were identified in the EU: • LOW GROWTH REGIONS: cover less developed and transition regions that did not converge to the EU average between the years 2000 and 2013 in member states with a GDP per capita (PPS) below the EU average in 2013. These include almost all the less developed and transition regions of Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. • LOW INCOME REGIONS: cover all the regions with a GDP per capita (PPS) below 50% of the EU average in 2013. This group covers the less developed regions of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Poland and Romania were the first countries to pilot this initiative, with two regions each – Świętokrzyskie and Podkarpackie in Poland, and Northwest and Northeast in Romania. Since these first pilot projects, the work has been extended both thematically and geographically (e.g. Slovakia was included in the initiative), with a focus on determining how regions can become more competitive and inclusive.. 4 FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 5 FIGURE 1. such as health, tourism, energy, education, social services, urban and metropolitan/ NUTS 2 regions classified by Cohesion Policy category (left) and Lagging Region category (right) regional transport, competitiveness and support for SMEs and innovation, etc. EU Cohesion Policy region Lagging region • Output 3. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation models: Analysis of the need for an More developed Low income Transition Low growth overall or sector specific forms of territorial cooperation (such as metropolitan IDAs, Less developed project-oriented partnerships between TAUs, etc.), for instances in which EU funding Non-EU or No data could be organized at the subnational level. These forms of cooperation could come to complement or supplement the current model used for EU funding, which focuses only on the administrative territory of the eligible county seats. • Output 4. Organizational models for inter-jurisdictional agreements: If the opportunity for such an intercommunity or regional model is confirmed for any of the intervention areas/sectors under analysis, the report identified suitable organizational models (for example, establishing a new intercommunity association or making use of an existing one, or ad-hoc initiatives, such as a partnership agreement for a certain investment project) for each of the intervention areas/sectors. • Output 5. Strategic requirements for organizational models: In case EU funding is proposed on a new, alternative organizational model, different from the ones already existing in Romania and based on international best practices, establish the implications for: i. Integrated urban development strategies/plans; 0 250 500 1,000 km 0 250 500 1,000 km ii. Strengthen administrative capacity, at different levels; iii. Integrated financial arrangements; For the 2021-2027 Programming Period, the European Commission proposed that the iv. Decentralization; and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will have a stronger focus on sustainable urban development (SUD) activities, with Member States having to allocate least 6% of ERDF funds v. Identification of risks and associated mitigation measures. for integrated development in urban areas (Sustainable Urban Development), either through a dedicated operational programme, a dedicated priority axis, within an operational programme, This report synthesizes the key takeaways and recommendations from each of these reports, or with the help of tools such as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) or Community-Led Local and comes with a set of additional proposals, using also additional data and information collected Development (CLLD). The European Commission also wants to offer “more incentives for a more in the interim. effective governance based on partnership, multi-level governance and an integrated place-based approach in its programmes”1. Thus, all EU Member Countries, Romania included, have to have a stronger focus on cross-sectoral and inter-jurisdictional approaches, and they have to better respond to the needs of territories that may not be defined by one clear administrative boundary. In pursuance of this and to guide design of the Sustainable Urban Development in the 2021-2027 Programming Period, the World Bank undertook extensive research that covers the following areas: • Output 2. Sectors for inter-jurisdictional cooperation: Identification of intervention areas/sectors, in which there could be intrinsic added value for channeling EU funding through municipalities, FUA /metropolitan and/or regional associative bodies (such as IDAs , RDAs etc.) in place of, or in addition to national authorities responsible for functions 1 European Commission. 2018. Policy Objective 5 – Europe Closer to Citizens and Tools for Integrated Territorial Development [Policy Paper]. URBAN AREAS AS ENGINES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND NEED FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION URBAN AREAS AS ENGINES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND NEED FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION 9 Analytical work undertaken in recent years2, indicates that the performance of regions in the EU is clearly linked to the performance of urban areas within the region. The most dynamic EU regions either have one or more metropolitan areas or urban agglomerations within their boundaries, or they are close to one in another region. Without strong urban areas, one cannot have strong regions. Cities function as pulse beacons, diffusing development to the areas around them. Strong cities are not enough though. To ensure that the benefits of city development also spill over to the urban hinterland, it is critical to devise and encourage inter-jurisdictional cooperation and development. Few urban investments nowadays have impact only on one administrative unit, so provisions should be in place for inter-jurisdictional planning and implementation. For example, the suburban and peri-urban areas of Bucharest and the 40 county capitals generate 90% of firm revenues in the country, have attracted 66% of migrants, and have received 64% of new housing units after 1990. However, little has been done to foster inter-jurisdictional dynamics between core cities and their suburban and peri-urban areas (e.g. metropolitan mobility, cross- jurisdictional investments, sharing of services). For the 2021-2027 Programming Period, the European Commission proposed that the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will have a stronger focus on sustainable urban development (SUD) activities, with Member States having to allocate least 6% of ERDF funds for integrated development in urban areas (Sustainable Urban Development), either through a dedicated operational programme, a dedicated priority axis, within an operational programme, or with the help of tools such as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) or Community-Led Local Development (CLLD). The European Commission also wants to offer “more incentives for a more effective governance based on partnership, multi-level governance and an integrated place-based approach in its programmes”3. Thus, all EU Member Countries, Romania included, need to have a stronger focus on cross-sectoral and inter-jurisdictional approaches, and they have to better respond to the needs of territories that may not be defined by one clear administrative boundary. 2 See for example: Thomas Farole, Soraya Goga, and Marcel Ionescu-Heroiu. 2018. Rethinking Lagging Regions: Using Cohesion Policy to Deliver on the Potential of Europe’s Regions. World Bank Publications. 3 European Commission. 2018. Policy Objective 5 – Europe Closer to Citizens and Tools for Integrated Territorial Development [Policy Paper]. 10 FINAL REPORT Development challenges and opportunities do not confine themselves to neat administrative boundaries, especially as economic, social and ecological interactions become increasingly inter-woven. This, together with a recognition that some of the assets necessary to sustain urban economies, such as public transport, value chains, ecological assets, etc., tend to be networked and function better as such, rather than as disparate components – necessitates a co-operative approach. OECD countries, have, over time responded to this challenge by creating multiple administrative tiers of local level governments seeking to balance proximity to citizens and metropolitan level management. An observation of these countries reveals variation with most having as much as 3 levels of local government4, i.e. Croatia has 21 counties, 128 cities, 428 municipalities (groups of villages); Germany has 329 counties, 115 county-free cities, and 14,915 communities. The key differentiators between these appear to be functionality (urban vs. rural) and population size with wide variations in the number of administrative tiers; for instance, Spain has 2 levels of local government made up of as much as 8,111 municipalities. EXPRESSED DEMAND FOR These multiple administrative tiers have been co-operating across a range of sectoral/ development areas. The 2014 OECD study5 looked at 263 metropolitan areas, and for 178 areas INTER-JURISDICTIONAL that had a metropolitan governance body in place, it identified the key areas/sectors covered by the governance body and found that 81% were working on regional development with the main CO-OPERATION IN ROMANIA activity being promotion of the local economy; 78% were on transport with a primary focus on roads, 67% on spatial planning, 35% of the 178 inter-jurisdictional governance bodies cooperated on solid waste management and 35% and 26% respectively on water and waste water. Social development aspects such as culture and leisure accounted for 29%, while a few cooperated-on education and health – driven primarily by provision of higher order services such as universities and regional hospitals. Interestingly, only 15% cooperated on energy, likely because this is often a privately provided service. Forms of co-operation also vary, allowing flexibility and maturity of cooperation instruments over time. These range from voluntary co-operation to consolidation, such as the neighborhoods of Vinohrady, Zizkov, Karlin, or Letna which used to be stand-alone towns and eventually became part of the City of Prague. 4 Source: World Development Report, 2000 5 OECD. 2014. The OECD Governance Survey: A Quantitative Description of Governance Structures in large Urban Agglomerations. EXPRESSED DEMAND FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL CO-OPERATION IN ROMANIA 13 Romania has a history of inter-jurisdictional co-operation with the first metropolitan inter-communal development associations (IDAs) being established in the early 2000s. Today, there are approximately 41 such IDAs covering a range of project areas and investment sizes. In order to better understand and contribute to the refinement of inter-jurisdictional cooperation models in Romania and ascertain if demand still exists, the World Bank, together with the Romanian National Federation of Metropolitan Areas and Urban Agglomerations (FZMAUR), undertook a unique engagement of sub-national administrations and citizens at the beginning of 2019, to identify a list of priority projects with inter-jurisdictional impact, for the urban areas of Bucharest and the 40 county capitals. As part of “Your City’s Priorities Campaign”, individual letters were sent to (i) the city halls of Bucharest, (ii) the 40 county capitals in Romania, (iii) the 40 county councils, and (iv) the 40 prefectures. The letter asked for a list of up to 10 projects with inter-jurisdictional impact of critical importance for their respective urban area. In addition to the potential of inter- jurisdictional impact, the projects had to respect three criteria: • Be included in an existent strategy or plan – at the local, county, or national level. • Have a minimum value, adjusted to the financial capacity of each core city (i.e. at least 10% of the estimated capital investment budget for 2014-2023). • Do not have secured funding. The response to this was overwhelming, as depicted in figure 2 below. 14 FINAL REPORT EXPRESSED DEMAND FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL CO-OPERATION IN ROMANIA 15 FIGURE 2. FIGURE 3. Urban areas and votes received under “Your City’s Priorities Campaign” Bucharest-Ilfov Metropolitan Area Projects In value, Tulcea had the lowest value of proposed metropolitan interventions, at 50 million Euro for 2 projects. The Bucharest-Ilfov metropolitan area had the highest value of proposed metropolitan interventions, at 27.117 million Euro for the range of projects depicted below. The projects that emanated from this initiative coalesced around 7 main themes as depicted in Table 1 hereunder. 16 FINAL REPORT EXPRESSED DEMAND FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL CO-OPERATION IN ROMANIA 17 TABLE 1. There is evident demand to advance gains made in implementing inter-jurisdictional Areas/sectors with inter-jurisdictional impact in Romania projects. Of interest to note is the dominance of transport projects, indicative of the daily experiences of residents and the need for more networked urban areas. The next significant NUMBER OF PRO- CUMULATED VALUE OF THEMATIC AREA AREA / SECTOR theme related to culture, heritage and tourism infrastructure, signaling user-demand and latent POSED PROJECTS PROJECTS (MIL. EURO) Road 58 € 5,427 tourism potential which respondents sought to optimize across administrative boundaries. Bypass 33 € 2,669 Following this initiative, the World Bank sent requests to all 39 SUD local administrations, Railway 32 € 11,060 to test the appetite for inter-jurisdictional projects. An overwhelming share of respondents Airport 17 € 2,057 are for such projects, and some are even considering using some of their own allocations for Highway 17 € 24,471 such interventions. A number of local government representatives have also sent metropolitan project portfolios – including both inter-jurisdictional projects, and interventions that would be Expressways 15 € 6,128 undertaken in neighboring localities. Intermodal transport link 12 € 259 Public transport 11 € 232 FIGURE 4. Local administration answers to the question: Would you be OK with having EU funds allocated for Port 9 € 1,277 inter-jurisdictional project Mobility Parking 8 € 89 Bridge 8 € 828 Railway Station 7 € 153 7,0% Overpass 7 € 90 Yes, with the condition that a bonus Water transport 5 € 614 allocation should be made for inter- juridictonal projects Non-motorized transport 3 € 61 42,0% 51,0% Yes, and would be willing to allocate Underpass 3 € 112 a percent of own allocation for such Bus Station 1 €6 interventions Metro 1 € 7,526 N0 Business infrastructure 22 € 346 Economic Research infrastructure 1 € 15,000 Sports infrastructure 21 € 389 Culture, leisure, recreation and Tourist infrastructure 15 € 454 tourism Cultural infrastructure 14 € 377 Moreover, the Association of Municipalities has taken a clear stance on this issue. For one of its General Assemblies, it has issued its formal position on the 2021-2027 Educational infrastructure 3 € 105 Programming Period, and it has shared and discussed its position with the Ministry of Health Infrastructure 26 € 3,703 European Funds and the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration Social infrastructure Housing 1 €5 (current MPWDA). Some of the key proposals made by the Association of Municipalities Social Infrastructure 2 € 21 include: District heating 5 € 89 • To have the flexibility to choose inter-jurisdictional approaches, and to be able to do so Solid waste management 2 € 61 on an ad-hoc basis; Physical infrastructure Public lighting 1 €6 • To have Metropolitan Area Inter-communal Development Associations eligible for EU Water and wastewater 1 €5 funding; Gas infrastructure 1 € 10 • To have flexibility in defining the territory it will focus EU interventions on; Public administration 1 €5 • To have larger allocations for the SUD 2021-2027 than for the current programming Governance Administrative infrastructure 1 €5 period; Natural patrimony 12 € 282 • To have decentralization in the management of EU funds, with a preference for 8 Urban regeneration Urban regeneration 11 € 479 regional operational programmes; 18 FINAL REPORT • To have assurance of full financing of the reserve projects not financed in this programming period under Axis 4 of the ROP; • To have EU financial support, as in other EU countries, for the early preparation of technical documentations for planned projects; • To simplify bureaucratical procedures and reduce administrative burden in the management of EU funds; • To take into consideration the areas/sectors identified as being most important for local administrations, namely: urban mobility; educational infrastructure, health infrastructure; urban regeneration; energy efficiency; road infrastructure; water and wastewater infrastructure; cultural patrimony and adjacent infrastructure; • To have a larger pallet of eligible interventions at the local level; and • To be able to use/update existing strategies/plans (in particular, Integrated Urban LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Development Strategies and Mobility Plans), rather than having to draft completely new ones. During a work meeting organized in October 2019 under this project, the Ministry of European Funds, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (current MPWDA), and the European Commission expressed the need to have inter-jurisdictional approaches for the 2021-2027 Programming Period. Some of the key proposals made during the meeting include: • To consider a metropolitan approach for large metropolitan areas, with the flexibility for smaller municipalities to undertake project-based cooperation or metropolitan approaches; • To allocate additional funds for metropolitan interventions, and to make general allocations based on the population of the functional urban area, given that an intervention in a core city usually also benefits people in suburban and peri-urban areas; • To limit the burden on municipalities and allow them to update strategic documents, if they were already prepared for the metropolitan areas; • To identify the key areas/sectors for inter-jurisdictional interventions, such as mobility, education, health, or quality of life infrastructure (e.g. parks, public squares, plazas, pedestrian and bike paths); The meeting concluded that three major options could be considered for the 2021-2027 Programming Period: a. Planning based on the current 39 Article 7 municipalities with the flexibility to involve others; b. Planning on an extended area, introducing elements of governance to protect the minority partners; or c. Bringing in a strong drive for an extended planning area.. During the meeting, most stakeholders expressed a preference for option (a), from the ones listed above. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 21 The Romanian legal framework provides for inter-jurisdictional cooperation. To further strengthen these, there is a need to look at how some legislation provisions are activated, for instance to enable county seats to form metropolitan areas. More importantly, the elaboration of the national urban policy will need to consider how it reinforces inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Another key area of focus relates to territorial planning legislation and associated requirements. Romania already has a legislative base of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, such as laws defining metropolitan areas, metropolitan territory and intercommunity development associations (IDA), i.e. as Law no. 215 / 23.04.2001 on local public administration, Law no. 350 / 06.07.2001 on spatial planning and urbanism and Law no. 351 / 06.07.2001 regarding the approval of the National Territory Plan - Section IV - The Network of Localities. Metropolitan areas and territories were enabled from as far back as 2001, through Laws no. 350 / 06.07.2001 and 351 / 06.07.2001 which created and defined them as: • A Metropolitan area is an area established on a voluntary basis between major urban centers (Capital of Romania and 1st rank municipalities – in total 12 cities: Bucharest, Bacău, Brașov, Brăila, Galați, Cluj-Napoca, Constanța, Craiova, Iași, Oradea, Ploiești, and Timișoara) and urban and rural localities in the immediate area, at distances of up to 30 km, between which relations have developed. • Metropolitan territory is the area around large urban agglomerations, delineated by specialized studies, which creates mutual relations of influence in the field of communication, economic, social, cultural and urban infrastructure. As a rule, the metropolitan territory limit exceeds the administrative limit of the locality and may exceed the boundary of the county to which it belongs. In order to ensure balanced development, county seats (especially around Bucharest) were enabled to also establish metropolitan areas. This was done through the 2011 amendment of laws no. 215 / 23.04.2001 and 351 / 06.07.2001. However, this reference has not been incorporated into all the existing legal provisions regarding metropolitan areas. Multi-jurisdictional structures such as IDAs are regulated by Law no. 51/2006 on community public utilities services, Law no. 273/2006 regarding local public financing, Law no. 3/2003 on the administration of local public and private assets, Law no. 213/1998 on public 22 FINAL REPORT property, Law no. 326/2001 regulating communal management services, Law no. 92/2007 on local public transport services and Law no. 7/1996 regarding the cadaster and land registration or Governance Ordinance no. 39/2018 on PPP. • IDAs are defined as legal cooperation structures of private law, set up under the law by the administrative territorial units for the joint development of projects of zonal or regional interest or the joint provision of public services Multi-jurisdictional financial and planning framework came into effect in 2008 with the designation of the growth poles and the urban development poles as was outlined through the Government Decision no. 998 / 27.08.2008, with priority given to investments from the programs with EU and national funding. This also mandated metropolitan areas to elaborate Integrated Urban Development Plans (PIDU) and growth poles to elaborate Integrated Urban Development Strategies (SIDUs) which would be the basis of ERDF funds would be allocated. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL The evolution of the Romanian legislative framework, from the 2001 identification of metropolitan areas and territories evolving to the fiscal and planning instruments COOPERATION MODELS introduced in 2008, show concerted efforts to strengthen the legislative base for inter- jurisdictional cooperation. However, there remains room for improvement in aspects such as: • Clear national urban policy which provides an evidence base for territorial targeting. • While legislation provides for and defines metropolitan areas, there is room to more specifically support metropolitan level co-operation especially in the case of those cities which are neither growth poles nor development poles. • With regard to funding, the lack of integration and mismatches between national programs and European Union funding, combined with poorly functioning land and infrastructure ownership regime and the presence of supra-regional actors with jurisdiction over the territory (e.g. Romanian Waters, the National Company for the Management of Road Infrastructure etc.) hampers metropolitan projects development. • Legislation governing territorial planning requires better streamlining and clarity on requirements from different levels, especially in relation to plans that traverse administrative boundaries. • Instruments that enable private sector and community driven processes in development need further enhancement. Metropolitan areas in Romania have the potential to play an important role in multi- jurisdictional cooperation and the management of the territories they represent. They have the potential to plan for, and support balanced development of the territories, and to coordinate and monitor development. In this context, it is timely and necessary to further develop a solid framework for multi-jurisdictional cooperation. The framework should clarify and strengthen the position of existing metropolitan areas with growth potential. It would also align their scope and attributions vis-à-vis their members’ and with other intercommunity development initiatives. This will avoid overlapping of mandates and dilution of resources and efforts. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION MODELS 25 There are existing institutional models for inter-jurisdictional co-operation which can be further improved through taking a “whole system” approach, from embedding this in a national urban policy, greater flexibility in types of co-operation instruments that are used and focused attention through to building sub-national capacity. The EU case studies that were explored in Output 4 provide useful insights to be considered in designing the Sustainable Urban Development approach for the 2021-2027 Programming Period. As part of this body of work, the modalities of various EU countries for effective multi- jurisdictional cooperation were explored to draw lessons that Romania can refine and adapt as part of the 2021-2027 Programming Period. This looked at case studies from 9 EU countries (see report on Output 4: Organizational models for inter-jurisdictional cooperation). FIGURE 5. Organizational models for inter-jurisdictional cooperation in EU countries Source: European Parliament. 2019. Integrated Territorial Investments as an effective tool of the Cohesion Policy. [In-depth analysis requested by the CONT Committee.] 26 FINAL REPORT MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION MODELS 27 Romania has experimented with various institutional responses to implement SUD. Some Advantages and disadvantages of key organizational models of these are: For the 2014-2020 Programming Period, different EU countries used different organizational Dedicated axis for SUD – Romania decided to implement the SUD for the 2014-2020 programming models for the Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) approach and inter-jurisdictional period through a dedicated axis: Priority Axis 4 of the Regional Operational Programme. The interventions, the main ones being: 1) dedicated OPs; 2) dedicated priority axis under an OP; 3) beneficiaries are 39 urban areas – all county capital, with the exception of Tulcea, which has ITIs; 4) CLLDs. The CLLD tool is designed primarily for small scale interventions and is widely used access to dedicated funds through the Danube Delta ITI. A total of around 1.3 billion Euro was in Romania for rural areas and small urban areas. Given that the focus of this work program is pre-allocated to these 39 urban areas. To access these pre-allocated funds under Axis 4 of on the largest secondary urban areas in Romania, only the first three organizational models were the ROP, the local administrations had to prepare Integrated Urban Development Strategies considered in more detail. The experience of other EU countries will be highlighted, particularly in and Mobility Plans, and to identify a list of priority projects to be financed. The seven growth relation to aspects that may be relevant for Romanian cities as well. poles (Brașov, Cluj-Napoca, Constanța, Craiova, Iași, Ploiești, and Timișoara) had to focus on the Dedicated operational program for urban/metropolitan areas strategy and mobility plan within the metropolitan area – in continuation of the ‘growth pole approach’ used for the 2007-2013 programming period. The other local administrations had Only Italy used a dedicated urban operational program for multiple urban areas. Given the the option to prepare the strategy for the territory of an existent metropolitan area, or for a scale of urban development challenges in Romania, this may be a valid approach. Some of the functional urban area (if they did not have an established metropolitan area). advantages of this approach include: Non-SUD ITI – The Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) tool allowed Romania, as any other • Clear focus on urban areas, rather than on urban areas and regions; EU Member State, to bundle funding from several priority axes of one or more Operational • Dedicated pot of money for urban areas; Programs (OPs), to ensure the implementation of an integrated strategy for a specific territory. • Possibility of greater thematic diversity; The key elements of an ITI program are: (a) a designated territory (functional area); (b) a related integrated territorial development strategy; (c) a package of prioritized actions (projects) • Possibility of having a more competitive approach, with groups of urban areas having to to be implemented (an investment plan); and (d) governance arrangements to manage the compete for dedicated funds under priority axes; implementation of the ITI program. • Possibility of having dedicated priority axes for large projects of strategic importance for The Romanian Government decided to use the ITI tool for the Danube Delta Area, and allocated urban/metropolitan areas; and €1.3 billion to the ITI from various operational programmes, and for a varied array of interventions. • Possibility to clearly link national urban priorities to the Operational Program. The Romania-EU Partnership Agreement, in Chapter 3, describes the proposed ITI approach in Romania. In order to access ITI funding, an integrated strategy for sustainable development Some of the disadvantages include: of the Danube Delta and the implementation through integrated territorial investments, was • A new OP may take some time to develop and therefore could delay implementation; prepared. The strategy was elaborated by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration with EU funding (from the OP Technical Assistance 2007-2013) and with help • There is less scope to combine funding with what is offered under other OPs; and from the World Bank. • There will be a reduced funding and scope for the Regional Operational Programme. Geographically, the ITI area includes the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) and the Dedicated priority axis under an operational program surrounding areas: the Tulcea municipality, 4 cities (Babadag, Isaccea, and Sulina), 29 communes This is the organizational model currently used by Romania, and other countries such as Spain in Tulcea County, and 4 communes (Corbu, Istria, Mihai Viteazu and Săcele) within the Constanța and Hungary). Some of the benefits of this model include: County (south-east of Tulcea County and the DDBR). • It is well-known, and an institutional framework is already in place for this type of Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) – Regulation 1303/2013 of the European Parliament approach; and of the European Council, sets out the framework for the implementation of the Community- Led Local Development (CLLD) approach. The CLLD is an integrated tool, which can be used to • It lowers the administrative burden for national authorities; and respond to complex development issues, requiring the cooperation of several stakeholders from • It is the simplest of all the organizational models. the public, non-governmental and private sector. To access CLLD funding, relevant stakeholders have to form local action groups (LAGs), using the same approach used for the LEADER program Some of the shortcoming include: in the 2007-2013 Programming Period. CLLD funding is available for two types of LAGs in • It provides less thematic diversity; Romania: 1) marginalized communities in urban areas with more than 20,000 inhabitants; 2) rural areas and towns with under 20,000 inhabitants. In the first case, funding is available • It provides the same options for all urban areas, despite varying needs; from the ERDF and the ESF through the ROP and the OP Human Capital. In the second case, • It places significant administrative burdens (e.g. IUDS, Mobility Plans, Urban Authorities) funding is available from European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) through for relatively small allocations; the National Rural Development Program. There are also Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs), implementing European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) projects. • It significantly limits the types of interventions that can be undertaken; and 28 FINAL REPORT MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION MODELS 29 • It reduces the visibility of urban development initiatives as they are subsumed in a receiving support through this tool. Poland not only had a higher resource concentration program structure that lacks a clear urban identity. for each metropolitan area / urban agglomeration, but also access to a higher number of interventions, and a greater flexibility in using EU funds. This greater flexibility was also Inter-Territorial Investments (ITIs) made possible by a regional approach, consisting of 16 regional Operational Programmes ITIs have been used extensively by countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, and evidence (OP) under which the ITIs were nested. In comparison, Romania had only one such so far indicates that the tool has been relatively successful. Some of the benefits of ITIs include: program. • Possibility to access funding from all relevant OPs, including ERDF, ESF, CF and potentially • Diversity – Italy has the most diverse SUD approach of any EU country. It has a national EAFRD; OP for metropolitan areas, providing financing to 14 major metropolitan areas in the • It allows for a higher level of thematic diversity, better integration of funding sources and country. In addition, 21 regions implemented the SUD either through ITIs or through a better response to urban needs; dedicated priority axis under their regional OP. Italy and Slovenia are also the only two countries in the EU that are jointly implementing a cross-border ITI. • Potential for higher dedicated financing for urban areas; • Multiple funding sources – The Czech Republic had an OP dedicated to the Prague • Increased devolution of responsibilities, creating local ownership; Metropolitan area, and 7 ITIs dedicated to the country’s largest metropolitan areas and • Decisions are taken much closer to citizens and relative stakeholders; urban agglomerations. The Prague ITI, while located under the OP Prague – Growth Pole also accessed funding from other OPs. • It provides a strong identity for partnerships and strategies; • Targeting and cross-regional implementation – Spain used a similar approach to • It can foster cooperation across administrative boundaries, limiting fragmentation of EU Romania, with the SUD being implemented through a priority axis under the national ROP. funds, avoiding duplication of investments, and stimulating synergies and scale effects; However, the allocation of funds was targeted – with 3 key priorities6, municipalities with • Limits competition over EU funds between municipalities targeted by ITI, encouraging ca 20 000 inhabitants, targeting areas with demonstrable deprivation and development information exchange about investment plans, mutual learning and increasing of integrated plans for areas with demographic and economic handicaps. Spain also coordination of EU projects; managed to easily implement ITIs across regions, which is an important lesson for • Provides stability that facilitates long term planning; Romania. • Promotes metropolitan approach to strategic development; and • Strong monitoring and evaluation – In the 2014-2020 period, France allocated 10% of ERDF/ESF to ISUD initiatives and between the 2007 -2013 and 2014-2020 • Facilitates administrative capacity building at the local level and increasing the quality programming periods, tripled the number of participating urban territories. This points of EU projects and investments. to a maturing policy and fiscal focus on the urban agenda. With this maturity also came a refinement of the monitoring and evaluation measures put in place. For instance, Some of the shortcoming of ITIs include: there is a dedicated coordinating structure for ISUD which issues a list of suggested • Difficulty in deciding areas for which to use the ITI, and high competition between areas indicators covering demographics, housing, employment, etc. Monitoring and evaluation to secure funding; is typically undertaken multi-agency monitoring and control committees and lessons from these interventions are seen as best practice that should be incorporated into all • Can lead to snowballing and politicalization with more authorities attempting to secure other projects. ring-fenced funding packages; • Sectoral integration – Portugal implements the SUD through four regional operational • Requires adequate local capacity and places a higher bureaucratic burden; programmes focused on strengthening metropolitan areas and promoting urban • May require more time in terms of developing the organizational set up when compared regeneration in top-level urban centers. The Integrated Urban Development Strategies with other organizational models; have to draw on three pre-existing plans: Mobility Plans; Urban Regeneration Action • May affect absorption, as there is little competition for funds; and Plans and Integrated Action Plans for Disadvantaged Communities. • Lowers competitive drive and does not adequately rewards high performers. • Decentralization – Germany has a highly decentralized approach, in which the SUD’s implementation is decided by each of the 16 regional governments. This includes the use Looking at the various ways in which EU countries have used the SUD approach to finance of the ITI tool, dedicated priority axes under the regional operational programmes, and inter-jurisdictional agreements can provide useful ideas for how the Romanian SUD approach competitive calls for Integrated Urban Development Strategies implemented through could be improved during the 2021-2027 Programming Period. Some key take-aways from the mixed priority axes. comparison are included below: • Increased resource allocation and flexibility – Poland relied primarily on the ITI tool 6 1)Improving the physical and ambiental environment of urban areas (Sustainable Cities) – corresponding to TO4 and TO6 2) Improving the economic dimension and competitiveness of urban areas (Smart Cities) – corresponding to TO2 and 3) Improv- for implementation of the SUD, with 24 metropolitan areas and urban agglomerations ing the social dimension of urban areas (Inclusive Cities) – corresponding to TO9. 30 FINAL REPORT MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION MODELS 31 • Thematic focus and innovation – Finland’s SUD approach focused on an ITI formed Option 4. Urban Development Operational Programme for the current 39 Article 7 urban by the country’s six largest cities (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Oulu, Tampere, and Turku). areas. As discussed under Option 1 and 2, dedicated priority axes should be made available for The primary aim of the ITI strategy is to strengthen Finland’s competitiveness by using strategic projects with metropolitan impact. A dedicated priority axis under the ROP 2021-2027 the largest cities as the development and testing environments for innovations. The would be available for small urban areas, with an approach similar to the current Axis 13 of approach is thematically focused and concentrates limited resources, given the small the ROP 2014-2020. For targeted issues, urban areas should have the possibility to form Local sums each city can access (an average of €6.6 million per city). Action Groups, with other local administrations, private sector representatives, and/or NGOs. For thematic areas that are not included specifically in the dedicated axes, local administrations • Multi-stakeholder engagement – The UK has taken an inclusive approach to SUD should be allowed to access funding from other OPs. implementation with Local Enterprise Partnerships (partnerships between local administrations, private sector, NGOs, and other local actors) being in charge of Option 5. Regional Operational Programmes, with the SUD approach decided individually developing SUD Strategies. The SUD strategies are delivered through ITIs in the core for each region (as is the case in Italy). Several sub-options can be considered here, as follows: urban areas (i.e. urban areas with more than 600,000 people, which include London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Nottingham Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield), Option 5.1. 8 Regional Operational Programmes with regional MAs. Within this focusing on functional urban areas rather than just the core cities. option, the function and attributions of the Managing Authority are transferred at the regional level to RDAs, taking over some areas from the current nationally managed To anchor the above considerations in program design to further strengthen Romania’s Operational Programmes. urban driven-growth agenda, the design of the 2021-2027 SUD should consider the following options: Option 5.2. Maintaining the current framework with a national ROP for part of the regions and pilot Regional OPs for 3-5 voluntary regions. Within this option, one Option 1. Dedicated axis under the ROP 2021-2027, as is the case now, but with a higher could have a mix of regional programs: one managed nationally (similar to the one from concentration of funds targeted at urban areas and with the possibility of inter-jurisdictional 2014-2020) and 3-5 Regional OPs managed similar to Option 5.1, in which the function agreements or project-based partnerships eligible for EU funding. Local administrations that and duties of the Managing Authority are transferred at regional level. Participating in choose to pursue functional urban area approaches can be incentivized through premium such a pilot program would be voluntary. allocations or funding lines dedicated to strategic projects with metropolitan impact. Urban jurisdictions should also have a wider menu of intervention fields to choose from – in response Option 5.3. Keeping a national ROP, with an axis and allocation dedicated to each to specific challenges or opportunities they want to exploit. region, as well as with a consistent transfer of competences to the regions. The Global grant model of the Large Infrastructure OP could be used as a model. Within Option 2. A Metropolitan Areas’ Operational Programme, dedicated to growth poles and this option, everything is organized under a single regional operational program. development poles from the 2007-2013 Programming Period (following the Italian model), with However, the particularities of each region are transposed at the level of specific axis higher thematic diversity and eligibility open for all territorial administrative units that are part of and differentiated allocation. The managing authority at central level has the exclusive the metropolitan area / functional urban area of these growth poles and development poles. One, coordinating role of the program, all the other attributions will be exercised at the level or several axes under this OP could be dedicated to inter-jurisdictional projects that respond to of RDAs as intermediary bodies. For the SUD approach, local administrations could metropolitan or urban agglomeration dynamics. Projects under these axes could be negotiated and function as secondary intermediary bodies. prioritized ahead of time and not be subject to competitive selection. All other urban areas could have a dedicated axis in the ROP 2021-2027, similar to the current Axis 13 of the ROP 2014-2020. A multi-stakeholder consultations process, undertaken from August to November 2019, and In addition, for targeted issues, urban areas should have the possibility to form Local Action Groups, including the Ministry of European Funds, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public with other local administrations, private sector representatives, and/or NGOs. Also, as is the case Administration, the Association of the Regional Development Agencies, the Association of for the SUD 2014-2020, for thematic areas that are not included specifically in the Metropolitan Municipalities, and the European Commission, endorsed Option 5.1. as the preferred SUD Areas OP, local administrations should be allowed to access funding from other OPs. approach for the 2021-2027 Programming Period. Going forward, to further advance the gains made over the previous programing periods and reflecting on lessons learnt in Romania Option 3. ITIs for the 7 growth poles, with around 50% of total SUD funding. Another and other EU countries, the report recommends a bolder SUD approach for the 2021-2027 50% allocated for the other 32 county capitals under a dedicated priority axis under the Programming Period that foregrounds and expands the urban agenda. In the next programming ROP (similar to the current Axis 4, but with the adjustments discussed under Option 1). All period, development partners must tackle not only capital investment challenges, but also the other urban areas could have a dedicated axis under the ROP 2021-2027, similar to the address structural challenges such peripherality, capacity and low quality of institutions. This approach currently used with Axis 13 of the ROP 2014-2020. For targeted issues, urban areas can be done through better aligned EU, national and regional policies and resources to create the should have the possibility to form Local Action Groups, with other local administrations, private necessary preconditions for economic growth. Some of the identified cultural and institutional sector representatives, and/or NGOs. For thematic areas that are not included specifically in the pre-conditions are: dedicated axes, local administrations should be allowed to access funding from other OPs. 32 FINAL REPORT 1. Taking a long-term view – EU case studies explored show that multi-jurisdiction cooperation approaches have evolved as they matured, and government therefore needs to take a long-term view and build in mechanisms and capability for learning and refinement as the system matures. Key amongst those mechanisms is long-term inter- jurisdictional Integrated Urban Development Plans. 2. Multi-jurisdiction cooperation structures that were informed by a clear national urban development/growth policy seem to have been more successful. A national assessment of growth poles and associated Functional Urban Areas that are maintained over time, supported by robust institutional, planning and fiscal resources, provides policy clarity and certainty and thus improves the performance of identified urban areas, strengthens urban-rural linkages and satisfies the need to make integrated investments outside the administrative territory. 3. Flexible and agile institutional responses – There is evidence of various approaches FISCAL INSTRUMENTS to structuring multi-jurisdiction cooperation, from informal (agreements) to formal. The decision on which modality works should be made taking factors like context, capacity, etc. into account. In order to respond to the different levels of capacity and resources, national governments should consider a ‘deal-making’ type of approach to SUD implementation. This would allow for tailored structures, responsibilities and operations while ensuring they meet national and European expectations. 4. Financing – The case studies highlighted the different ways in which these structures and their work were financed. While focus was given to how EU funds were utilized, it is clear that where there was financial certainty (with national funds also being allocated to the same areas and sectors) there was greater success. 5. Clarity of roles and responsibilities – Multi- jurisdiction cooperation requires clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between various parties. 6. Capacity – Multi-jurisdiction cooperation requires capacity that may not be typically resident in local municipalities and building this capacity is an important cog in the development robust urban administrations. This capacity should also focus on building and improving citizen participation and private sector engagement. FISCAL INSTRUMENTS 35 There are financial instruments targeted at urban areas and supportive of inter-jurisdictional co-operational investment, however, there is room to further refine these in dimensions such as territorial targeting, increased flexibility and expansion of the scope of interventions and quantum of money directed towards implementing SUD. The need for an increase in the 2021-2027 ERDF and ESF allocation targeted at SUD is highlighted hereunder. Romania had both one of the largest SUD 2014-2020 allocations, and at 11%, one of the highest ERDF shares for these types of interventions, exceeding the minimum 5% mandate by the ERDF regulation (see figure 6 below). It is worth noting however that the value of SUD projects submitted for funding is 3.27 bln Euro, which equates to 236% of allocated funds. FIGURE 6. Allocations (€ mil. and % of ERDF) and implementation mechanisms for SUD 2014-2020 Source: Matkó, Marton. 2016. Sustainable urban development in Cohesion policy programmes 2014- 2020, a brief overview. Paper presented at Urban Development Network Meeting, 18 February 2016 36 FINAL REPORT FISCAL INSTRUMENTS 37 The quantum of investment notwithstanding, the Romanian SUD approach has a number of TABLE 2. deficiencies in relation to urban investments broadly and more specifically, inter-jurisdictional Investment needs by sector in Romania (in million Euro) investments, such as: State / EU Funds • Interventions and projects emanating from inter-jurisdictional agreements did not have Investment allocations county Financing PRIORITY SECTOR Needs (in mill. / local Loans PPPs specific eligibility provisions, as such funding went primarily to core cities. Euro) for 2014- budget Gap 2023 • The average allocation per urban area was relatively low compared to other countries – allocations i.e. around 30 mil. Euro per urban area, compared to 138 mil. Euro in Czech Republic, or Highways € 13,254 € 1,742 € 824 € 2,935 € 1,897 € 5,856 133 mil. Euro in Poland. Express Roads € 10,367 € 586 € 491 € 772 - € 8,518 • During the 2014-2020 Programming Period and under the SUD financing window, National Roads € 2,292 € 445 € 73 € 268 - € 1,506 Romanian urban areas could only undertake interventions for 4 thematic areas which is significantly less than in some other countries (i.e. Polish urban areas had access to 39 Bypasses € 332 € 181 € 34 € 117 - €0 thematic areas) thus limiting SUD reach and impact. County Roads € 6,413 € 946 € 1,774 - - € 3,693 • The bureaucratic burden for accessing SUD funds may be considered disproportionate Communal Roads € 4,728 € 440 € 3,428 - - € 4,288 in relation to the funds available. Railways € 14,382 € 2,070 € 1,626 - € 810 € 9,876 • There is a lack of resource concentration, with large urban areas receiving similar Bucharest Metro € 9,880 € 683 € 200 - - € 8,997 amounts than small urban areas (for the same thematic areas), although the needs vary significantly. For example, Constanța, with around 550,000 people residing in the Port Infrastructure € 3,381 € 619 € 486 - - € 2,276 functional urban area had access to 47 mil. Euro under the SUD – as compared to the 22 Airport Infrastructure € 1,421 € 552 € 434 - - € 435 mil Euro available for the Sfântu Gheorghe urban area, with only 85,000 people. Multimodal Transport Hubs € 316 € 70 € 55 - - € 191 According to the draft Cohesion Policy for the 2021-2027 Programming Period, member states, Water and Wastewater € 23,804 € 3,014 € 2,880 € 1,200 - € 16,710 have to allocate at least 6% of ERDF funds for Sustainable Urban Development (SUD). In the Solid Waste Management € 352 € 352 ?       case of Romania this means at least 1.039 bln. Euro. The draft Cohesion Policy further gives the Cadaster € 1,300 € 313 € 600     € 387 following guidance in relation to thematic concentration: Brownfields € 8,500 € 338 € 35     € 8,127 Thermal Insulation € 5,300 € 1,187 € 1,006   € 184 € 2,923 POLICY OBJECTIVE % ALLOCATION ± QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT District Heating € 1,000 € 250 - - - € 750 PO 1 – Smarter Europe 35% ERDF ±€6 billion Tourism Infrastructure € 650 € 119 - - - € 531 PO 2 – Greener Europe 30% ERDF ±€5.2 billion Seismic Risk Retrofitting € 180 - - - - € 180 Climate change 30% ERDF ±€5.2 billion Public / Social Housing € 4,500 € 25 - - - € 4,475 Climate change 37% CF ±€1.7 billion Historic Districts € 1,125 - - - - € 1,125 Material support for disadvantaged people 2% ESF + ±€0.17 billion Social Infrastructure in Rural Social inclusion 25% ESF+ ±€2.1 billion Areas (education, health, sport, € 3,705 € 522 € 788 - - € 2,395 cultural) Support for unemployed youth 10% ESF+ €0.8 billion Integrated Investment Plan (including mobility € 5,654 € 500 € 5,154 - ? €0 Similar to other countries Romania has a significant Financing Gap, of around 83 bln. Euro plan) for Bucharest (see table below), when investment needs, as laid down in various strategies and plans, are Integrated Investment compared to available sources of funding. Programs (including Mobility € 5,977 € 2,746 € 2,890 - € 251 €0 Plans) for County Capitals Determining how to prioritize these extensive needs with limited resources is a process Integrated Investment that is involves matching scientific evidence with political choices. A comprehensive national Programs for the other € 3,568 € 2,614 € 954 - - €0 development strategy can provide a framework for evidence-based inputs in policy processes Municipalities (63) and whilst also setting out political priorities that aid prioritization. towns (217) Danube Delta ITI € 1,114 € 1,114       €0 In the absence of such policy guidance, the determination of what percentage should be directed to cities and for what types of investments is assessed based on need, territorial targeting and TOTAL € 133,394 € 19,962 € 22,312 € 5,292 € 3,143 € 83,239 absorption capacity. Source: collected from various existing masterplans, strategies and operational programs 38 FINAL REPORT FISCAL INSTRUMENTS 39 More resource allocation Within the particular context Romanian urban areas, in addition to looking at economic output or productivity, it is also important to understand how successful these areas are in – above 6% of ERDF terms of offering a potential alternative to out-migration. In other words, quality of life together with economic development needs of urban areas needs to form the basis for resource allocation decision if Romanian cities are to become competitive and be considered as an alternative to cities For the 2014-2023 implementation period, the World Bank estimated that Romania’s 40 in Western Europe thus enabling those cities to act as “dams” to outmigration. county capitals could sustainably undertake capital investments of around 6 bln. Euro. The basic premise of this estimate is that every public investment decision should take operation The figure below shows that the average SUD allocation per urban area in Romania is quite low and maintenance (O&M) costs into consideration, and investments should not be undertaken compared to other EU countries. Urban areas like Wroclaw (Poland), Brno (Czech Republic), Gdansk if future O&M costs cannot be covered by domestic budgets. Of these 6 bln. Euro, urban areas or Poznan (Poland), have SUD allocations of upward of 200 mil. Euro – which is considerably more can access around 2.7 bln. Euro (46% of capital investments envelopes) through EU funds in the than the 50 mil. Euro SUD funds that similar Romanian cities, such as Constanța, Brașov, or 2014 – 2023 implementation period – either through the dedicated funds under Priority Axis 4 Cluj-Napoca, have at their disposal7. of the ROP (1.3 bln. in total), or through a competitive process through other priority axes under the existent operational programs. FIGURE 7. Average SUD allocation per urban area in EU countries for 2014-2020 The 46 % of capital investment envelopes from EU funds represents a relatively large proportion of total EU funding for major urban areas. However, when the data is disaggregated it becomes clear that large cities, which are critical for the competitiveness of their respective regions, receive disproportionately less EU funds. For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is important that EU funds are allocated according to actual needs in a way that other EU countries have done (the case studies of Poland, Italy, or Czech Republic provide a good example of how resources could be allocated in a more equitable way). For the 2021-2027 Programming Period, Romania will have a proposed ERDF allocation of around 17.3 bln. Euro. Of these, the new Cohesion Policy indicates that at least 6% should be allocated for the SUD approach. Thus, if Romania were to allocate the minimum 6% of ERDF for SUD, the total sum, would come up to 1.039 bln. Euro. If 11% of ERDF, as is the case for 2014- 2020, will be allocated for SUD, the total sum will come up to 1.905 bln. Euro. However, in order to fully support urban areas’ economic growth potential and to achieve a more equitable overall distribution of funds, an increase in allocation to around 15% of ERDF with, the total sum would come up to 2.598 bln. Euro would be desirable.. Source: Matko, Marton. 2016. Sustainable Urban Development in cohesion policy programmes 2014-2020. [PowerPoint Presentation delivered on February 18, 2016 in Brussels.] More resource concentration The impact of the SUD approach is much diminished if there is no effort to purposefully focus on functional urban areas instead of only core cities. EU funds represent an excellent More resources do not only mean a larger allocation, it should also involve concentrating vehicle for undertaking inter-jurisdictional projects that may be difficult to undertake without those resources in those areas where they have the most impact. Given the large needs and some key incentives in place. For example, despite rapid suburbanization in most dynamic cities the spread of those needs across a large geographical territory, there is an inherent push to in Romania, no major connective infrastructure additions have been made over the pre-1989 spread resources in a balanced way. While this ensures equity across local authorities and as such infrastructure. There is a critical need for metropolitan connective infrastructure and metropolitan avoids conflicts, it does not necessarily respond to actual development dynamics. Development public transport, to address connectivity issues at the metropolitan level. is inherently unbalanced and relies on a defined number of economic engines driving growth which benefits other areas. And, while it is important to ensure that the distance between these For the 2021-2027 Programming Period, targeted incentives should be offered for the local economic engines and the rest of the country does not become a too large, it is equally important administrations that choose to focus on inter-jurisdictional approaches. The 7 growth poles, to ensure that these economic engines work at their full potential. In short, under investment in areas that can provide growth can have negative consequences not just for those areas but also 7 Itshould be noted that the relatively low allocation per urban area in more developed EU countries is due both to the rela- for the rest of the country. tively small EU funds allocated for developed regions (most funding focuses on less-developed regions) and to the substantial additional own-source revenues developed cities have at their disposal. 40 FINAL REPORT FISCAL INSTRUMENTS 41 should be obliged to prepare Integrated Urban Development Strategies at the metropolitan level, TABLE 3. in line with the approach from 2007-2013, and 2014-2020, but with clear incentives for the Proposed SUD allocations for 2021-2029 implementation of interjurisdictional projects and projects in suburban and periurban areas. CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROPOSED SUD FUNDS ALLOCATIONS FUA ENVELOPES FOR 2021-2029 FOR 2021-2029 For the other 32 county capitals the following options can be considered: CORE CITY OUTER FUA 6% OF ERDF 11% OF ERDF 15% OF ERDF • County capitals with territorial cooperation established through an associative structure Alba Iulia € 89,943,358 € 36,158,792 € 13,342,044 € 24,460,413 € 33,355,109 (IDA/Intercommunity Development Association-type) at metropolitan level (ex. Oradea, Alexandria € 52,446,111 € 13,990,221 € 7,029,194 € 12,886,855 € 17,572,984 Baia Mare, Bacau, etc.) can chose to implement an IUDS at the metropolitan level and have the option to implement projects through: 1) the IDA; 2) through individual project- Arad € 263,893,016 € 122,686,174 € 40,901,416 € 74,985,929 € 102,253,539 based partnerships between member localities. Bacău € 213,667,568 € 52,582,472 € 28,170,175 € 51,645,321 € 70,425,438 • County capital cities that do not have a territorial cooperation form institutionally Baia Mare € 138,228,383 € 59,166,594 € 20,885,071 € 38,289,298 € 52,212,678 established, can have the option to elaborate an IUDS for their functional urban area), Bistrița € 93,514,267 € 37,561,775 € 13,868,299 € 25,425,214 € 34,670,747 and can have access to additional resources for interjurisdictional projects (which can be Botoșani € 92,838,228 € 13,263,307 € 11,225,909 € 20,580,834 € 28,064,774 implemented through project based partnerships) and for individual suburban/periurban Brăila € 169,176,837 € 19,477,785 € 19,960,312 € 36,593,905 € 49,900,779 projects, with demonstrable contribution to increasing integrated functionality of the FUA. Brașov € 398,334,589 € 232,660,122 € 66,761,423 € 122,395,943 € 166,903,558 An incentive worth considering is a percentage allocation for investments emanating from Buzău € 156,373,694 € 70,404,268 € 23,993,893 € 43,988,804 € 59,984,732 metropolitan Integrated Urban Development Strategies with pre-allocated resources that Călărași € 67,246,490 € 21,737,199 € 9,414,782 € 17,260,434 € 23,536,955 are not subject to competitive bidding. Cluj-Napoca € 475,891,989 € 144,409,773 € 65,630,072 € 120,321,799 € 164,075,181 Constanța € 394,015,461 € 307,604,667 € 74,233,837 € 136,095,368 € 185,584,592 More resources for FUAs Craiova € 311,010,624 € 88,834,258 € 42,304,972 € 77,559,115 € 105,762,430 Deva € 90,416,832 € 98,213,791 € 19,957,772 € 36,589,249 € 49,894,431 Drobeta-Turnu SUD funds are primarily designed for urban areas, not just for cities, case studies explored € 98,774,636 € 23,704,049 € 12,958,669 € 23,757,559 € 32,396,671 Severin show that most countries used SUD funds for functional urban areas (FUAs), not just for Focșani € 91,088,969 € 57,336,586 € 15,703,937 € 28,790,552 € 39,259,843 single cities. As such, it is important for Romanian authorities to make SUD funds available for FUAs. In practice, this means that suburban and peri-urban localities should become eligible for Galați € 301,514,078 € 60,668,842 € 38,320,206 € 70,253,711 € 95,800,515 SUD funding too. Giurgiu € 59,007,416 € 8,847,665 € 7,179,302 € 13,162,054 € 17,948,256 Iași € 332,826,697 € 64,938,480 € 42,084,932 € 77,155,708 € 105,212,329 In the table below, the capital investment envelopes for the 2021-2029 period for the current Miercurea-Ciuc € 54,997,069 € 37,669,456 € 9,804,439 € 17,974,805 € 24,511,097 39 (Article 7) SUD beneficiaries are estimated8, and for the localities that are part of their functional urban areas. Next, the three SUD scenarios discussed above (with 6%, 11%, and 15% of Oradea € 256,106,200 € 109,913,010 € 38,726,099 € 70,997,847 € 96,815,246 ERDF allocated for SUD) are considered, and SUD funds have been distributed by FUA, according Piatra Neamț € 114,727,703 € 37,676,652 € 16,124,908 € 29,562,331 € 40,312,270 to the size of their capital investment envelopes. Pitești € 199,099,258 € 207,083,933 € 42,975,587 € 78,788,576 € 107,438,967 Ploiești € 308,172,351 € 234,416,867 € 57,407,816 € 105,247,663 € 143,519,541 Râmnicu Vâlcea € 134,585,494 € 102,170,532 € 25,049,607 € 45,924,279 € 62,624,016 Reșița € 81,817,762 € 5,325,761 € 9,220,086 € 16,903,491 € 23,050,215 Satu Mare € 120,885,150 € 57,911,640 € 18,917,319 € 34,681,751 € 47,293,297 Sfântu Gheorghe € 60,555,334 € 20,108,196 € 8,534,480 € 15,646,548 € 21,336,201 Sibiu € 241,837,912 € 132,160,649 € 39,570,342 € 72,545,626 € 98,925,854 Slatina € 108,849,540 € 34,478,264 € 15,164,577 € 27,801,725 € 37,911,444 Slobozia € 55,166,784 € 24,399,179 € 8,418,354 € 15,433,649 € 21,045,885 8 Using budget execution data made available by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (current Suceava € 140,278,476 € 45,137,837 € 19,617,687 € 35,965,760 € 49,044,218 MPWDA). 42 FINAL REPORT CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROPOSED SUD FUNDS ALLOCATIONS FUA ENVELOPES FOR 2021-2029 FOR 2021-2029 Târgoviște € 112,071,656 € 63,821,101 € 18,610,062 € 34,118,447 € 46,525,156 Târgu Jiu € 96,124,581 € 42,492,534 € 14,666,170 € 26,887,979 € 36,665,426 Târgu Mureș € 209,001,407 € 79,370,703 € 30,510,767 € 55,936,406 € 76,276,917 Timișoara € 473,288,443 € 240,240,247 € 75,493,804 € 138,405,307 € 188,734,510 Vaslui € 54,536,763 € 15,106,405 € 7,368,488 € 13,508,895 € 18,421,220 Zalău € 64,393,039 € 23,252,395 € 9,273,190 € 17,000,849 € 23,182,975 TOTAL € 6,776,704,167 € 3,046,982,180 € 1,039,380,000 € 1,905,530,000 € 2,598,450,000 TOWARDS A More thematic diversity SUD 2021-2027 The current 39 Article 7 cities in Romania, have access to only four thematic areas, with a large focus on sustainable mobility. By comparison, Poland allowed access to 39 thematic areas. APPROACH Therefore, in order to enable urban areas to develop strategies that are better able to target their development needs, there needs to be wider range of thematic areas from which investment priorities can be drawn. Annex 3 includes all intervention fields eligible for EU financing for the 2021-2027 Programming Period. Investment fields that would make most sense for Romanian cities and that help meet Cohesion Policy requirements have been highlighted9. It is clear that the possibilities for achieving PO1 concentration under the SUD approach is relatively limited. However, the SUD approach can significantly contribute to meeting the PO2 concentration. The SUD approach also lends itself well to meeting the ESF+ social inclusion goals. This underscores the importance of more thematic diversity so that investments address not only local development needs but also contribute to EU Policy Objectives. 9 It also has to be mentioned that sustainable mobility, currently classified under PO3, will be moved to PO2 – which will make it much easier for uran areas to meet the Greener Europe criteria. TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 45 During the preparation of the various outputs planned under this project, a number of consultations were organized on the topics of sustainable urban development and inter- jurisdictional coordination, and the thinking on the issue has evolved. For example, at the time of the writing of this report, the Ministry of European Funds has come forward with a concrete proposal for the organization of operational programmes, using the input received from the Association of Regional Development Agencies, the Association of Municipalities, and from individual local administrations. There is a clear preference across the board, to have a decentralized approach for the 2021-2027 Programming Period, with 8 individual regional operational programmes, and with the regional development agencies transformed into managing authorities. In the month of October, the World Bank has asked the administrations of the 39 county residences, what preference they have for the organization of regional development funds, particularly with respect to how they will access EU funding in the next programming period. A significant majority expressed a preference for “Regional OPs adjusted to regional needs” (see figure below). Of 157 local administration representatives that have answered the survey, around two thirds expressed a clear preference for regional OPs, and another 26% would prefer a more decentralized approach.. FIGURE 8. How the 39 county residences prefer to access regional development funds for 2021-2027 3,20% Regional OPs adjusted to regional needs 5,70% A national ROP with more responsibility allocated to RDAs 24,80% A national Urbn / Metropolitan OP 66,20% Continuing the 2014-2020 model 46 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 47 The Ministry of European Funds is working now with the European Commission, the Ministry TABLE 6. of Public Works, Development, and Public Administration, the Regional Development Portfolio of mature projects for the current 39 SUD urban areas, by policy objective Agencies, and local administrations, to develop the architecture of operational programmes POLICY OBJECTIVE ESTIMATED VALUE OF MATURE PROJECTS for the 2021-2027 Programming Period. The draft Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 more or less imposes a certain structure and organization of funds. Thus, the 17.742 bln. Euro allocated OP 1. A smarter Europe € 14,429,055 through the ERDF, including the 5% transfer from the ESF+, would at a minimum have to be split OP 2. A greener, low-carbon Europe € 1,680,463,703 by policy objectives, as indicated in the table below. It has to be mentioned here, the PO 5, under which the Sustainable Urban Development approach is nested, can combine interventions from OP 3. A more connected Europe € 324,769,503 under PO 1-4. Annex 3, indicates in green highlight, the interventions that would make most OP 4. A more social Europe € 1,059,982,247 sense for the SUD approach. Also, the 6% of the ERDF PO 5 allocation is the minimum proposed OP 5. A Europe closer to citizens € 344,266,898 for SUD – the actual allocation can be greater. Administrative Capacity € 2,400,000 TABLE 4. The Association of Municipalities has asked GRAND TOTAL € 3,426,311,406 Minimum ERDF allocations by Policy that at least 15% of ERDF funds (around 2.5 Objective, for Romania, for the 2021-2027 bln. Euro) be ringfenced for the Sustainable Programming Period With respect to the allocation of funds by urban areas, the general consensus is that Urban Development approach, with beneficiary urban areas having to elaborate integrated urban individual budgets should be ring-fenced at the national level, to avoid a situation where Allocation similar urban areas get different allocations, based on the region they are part of. The POLICY OBJECTIVE % development strategies to access the funding. (bln. Euro) The World Bank has estimated that for the 2021- Association of Regional Development Agencies proposed to allocate funds for urban area based PO 1 – A Smarter Europe 35% 5.992 2029 Implementation Period, the current 39 SUD on population and financial capacity, with individual budgets adjusted to the regional allocations. PO 2 – A Greener, Carbon-free urban areas, could sustainably spend on capital 30% 5.136 Europe investments (i.e. ensure that they would also have The Association of Regional Development Agencies has also proposed that each urban area get funds to cover operations and maintenance costs 70% of allocated funds for the first two years, and if it does not manage to contract these 70% PO 3 – A More Connected Europe 28% 4.966 for the investments undertaken) around 6-7 bln. within two years, it loses the rest of 30% to a common pool, which along with other savings achieved PO 4 – A More Social Europe Euro. Furthermore, the Bank team has asked over the implementation period could be accessed by all urban areas in the respective region. PO 5 – A Europe closer to citizens 6% 1.027 each of the 39 local administrations to send a list with mature projects, which could, theoretically be With respect to the other structural funds, there are a number of in-built restrictions, Technical Assistance <1% 0.621 submitted for EU funding immediately in the 2021- which will guide the programme architecture for the 2021-2027 Programming Period. TOTAL 17,121 2027 Programming Period, or even in the current For example, the ESF+ allocations of 7.996 bln. Euro for Romania, excluding the 5% transfer to programming period. Such a list of mature projects ERDF, has around 44% of allocated funds earmarked for specific objectives. The Cohesion Fund was received from every of the 39 county capitals, has a much smaller allocation than in the current programming period, which will likely require and the total value of mature projects comes additional allocations from the ERDF for large infrastructure projects.. TABLE 5. up to around 3.4 bln. Euro – a mature pipe-line, Portfolio of mature projects for the current 39 significantly higher in value than the proposed 2.5 SUD urban areas, by region TABLE 7. bln. Euro ringfenced financing. The table below shows Minimum ESF+ allocations for Romania, for the 2021-2027 Programming Period Estimated budget of a breakdown of the pipeline of mature projects, by REGION mature projects region. POLICY OBJECTIVE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES % ALLOCATION (BLN. EURO) C € 1,191,336,842 Social inclusion 25% 1.913 These mature projects were also arranged by NE € 323,522,327 policy objective, to see the extent to which Assistance for marginalized 8% 0.612 people NV € 597,078,801 these meet the requirements of the 2021-2027 PO 4 – A More Social Cohesion Policy. While around 50% of the value Europe Initiative dedicated to S € 361,631,686 10% 0.765 of these mature projects goes towards achieving NEETs SE € 278,765,958 OP2 concentration (with at least 30% of ERDF Other ESF+ specific funds having to meet this concentration), there are 56% 4.363 objectives SV € 347,956,828 very few mature projects focusing on OP1 – largely Technical Assistance <1% 0.312 V € 326,018,964 because of how the Axis 4 of the ROP 2014-2020 was designed, but also based on the actual needs TOTAL 7.654 GRAND TOTAL € 3,426,311,406 of Romanian local administrations. 48 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 49 TABLE 8. • “Smart City” interventions, including street lighting (PO 1): 0.642 bln. Euro (ERDF); Split of Cohesion Fund allocations for Romania, for 2021-2027 • County e-governance systems (PO 1): 0.400 bln. Euro (ERDF); POLICY OBJECTIVE ALLOCATION (BLN. EURO) • Energy efficiency interventions (PO 2): 1 bln. Euro (ERDF); PO 2 – A Greener, Carbon-free Europe • Urban mobility (PO 2): 1.636 bln. Euro (ERDF); 3.323 PO 3 – A More Connected Europe • County roads, bypasses, and exits (PO 3): 1 bln. Euro (ERDF); Technical Assistance 0,085 • County hospitals (PO 4): 0.215 bln. Euro (ERDF); Transfer to the Connecting Europe 1,091 • Educational infrastructure (PO 4): 0.500 bln. Euro (ERDF); Facility 2.0 • Social infrastructure (PO 4): 0.100 bln. Euro (ERDF); • Cultural heritage infrastructure (PO 5): 0.250 bln. Euro (ERDF); Taking these strategic requirements into consideration, the Ministry of European Funds has • Tourism infrastructure (PO 5): 0.150 bln. Euro (ERDF); proposed the following programme architecture: • CLLD interventions (PO 5): 0.200 bln. Euro (ERDF); • OP Transport (POT) • Other urban regeneration interventions (PO 5): 0.427 bln. Euro (ERDF); • OP Human Capital (POCU) • Administrative capacity of beneficiaries. • 8 ROPs (POR) • OP Technical Assistance (POAT) The financial allocation for urban development is subordinated to the development vision of the Ministry of Public Works, Development, and Administration Development (MLPDA) • OP for Assistance to Marginalized People (POAPD) regarding urban development, materialized in the draft Law on the approval of the National • OP Health (POS) Spatial Plan, which is under parliamentary procedure. For the purpose of the respective draft law, • OP Smart Specialization and Digitization (POSID) the basic administrative-territorial units with urban status in Romania are classified according to administrative and functional criteria as follows: • OP Integrated Territorial Development (PODTI) • class A: the capital of Romania - Bucharest; • OP Sustainable Development (PODD) • class B: regional pole municipalities • OP Internal Affairs (POAI)_ • class C: county residence municipalities, other than those in classes A, B • National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) • class D: municipalities, other than those in classes A, B, C. • OP Fisheries and Maritime Affairs (POPAM) Furthermore, the MEF proposal is to have the SUD delivered through dedicated axes for • class E: towns large urban areas, within each of the 7 ROPs, excluding the Bucharest-Ilfov ROP (which would have a dedicated approach of its own). The SUD eligible urban areas would have to Moreover, the National Spatial Plan proposal introduces the concept of functional urban area prepare integrated urban development strategies to access pre-allocated funds, or where such and the concept of peri-urban commune, proposes a methodology for defining functional urban already exist, revise for strategic fit. In addition, there is a proposal to have a dedicated funds areas and identifies the peri-urban communes that are part of the functional urban areas of for small urban. class A, B, and C municipalities. The ROPs, under which the dedicated SUD axes would be nested, could have the following As such, the basic principle regarding the allocation of the amounts destined for urban allocations10: development should be that two urban settlements, belonging to the same class and having the same population, should receive approximately the same financial allocation, regardless i. Regional OPs: 10.02 bln. Euro, which could include the following intervention types11: of the NUTS2 region in which they are located, in the context in which all the cities covered by • Innovation and R&D interventions (PO1): 1.35 bln. Euro (ERDF); this study are part of less developed regions. • Support for SMEs (PO 1): 2.25 bln. Euro (ERDF); Also, the allocation for sustainable urban development should be made according to the weight of the urban population of the respective region in the total urban population of 10 These Romania (except Bucharest-Ilfov), given that there are significant differences regarding the are meant for illustrative purposes, as real allocations and intervention types may vary based on the final versions of the Partnership Agreement and the operational programme documents. degree of urbanization between the regions. For example, the South-Muntenia region concentrates 11 These are proposed based on the intervention types already covered in the 2007-2013, and the 2014-2020 programming 16.2% of the population of Romania (with Bucharest-Ilfov excluded), but only 13.7% of the urban periods, as well as the eligible intervention types laid out in the draft Cohesion Policy for 2021-2027. 50 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 51 population. Applying the 16.2% percentage to the allocation for sustainable urban development TABLE 11. would be unfair, meaning basically that the cities in the South-Muntenia region receive 18% more Proposed urban development allocations (in Euro) by region funds per capita than the average of the other cities in the country. Urban population with Regional allocation % regional urban population of total Region domicile in the region for urban develop- In each of the 8 development regions of Romania, a Regional Operational Program will be urban population* on July 1, 2019 ment elaborated, starting from the needs and the regional specificity, based on an allocation North-East 1.818.016 18,35 917.516.405 formula that takes into account the population with the domicile there on July 1, 2019. South-East** 1.444.641 14,58 729.081.491 The use of the population number as the only criterion in the allocation of funds is based on the South 1.360.025 13,73 686.377.484 principle of equity: considering that 7 development regions in Romania (except the Bucharest- South-West 1.073.906 10,84 541.978.933 Ilfov region, which is not the subject of the present study) belong to the category of less developed West*** 1.118.769 11,29 564.620.394 regions, the allocation of funds per capita would should be the same in all these NUTS2 regions. North-West 1.527.239 15,42 770.767.054 It should also be kept in mind that the South-East and West regions are the only ones that will Center 1.564.671 15,79 789.658.238 benefit from substantial funding through the ITI instrument, which will position them favorably TOTAL 9.907.267 100,00 5.000.000.000 in terms of per capita financial allocation, including in terms of sustainable urban development. * without Bucharest Ilfov ** without the cities of Tulcea, Babadag, Isaccea, Măcin, Sulina, which are part of the Danube Delta ITI Using this formula, the allocation by region could look as follows: *** without the cities of Aninoasa, Lupeni, Petrila, Petroșani, Uricani, Vulcan, which are part of the Jiu Valley ITI Data source: National Institute of Statistics TABLE 9. Starting from the draft law on the National Spatial Plan - Section “Network of localities” Proposed allocation of ROP funds by region mentioned above, the allocation for urban development at the level of each region was detailed Population with domicile in % of population with domicile in Total ROP Allocation for 3 categories of cities: Region the region on July 1, 2019 the region on July 1, 2019* (in Euro) • County residences (which includes categories B and C in the future National Spatial Plan) North-East 3.977.469 20,32 2.036.380.936 • Municipalities other than county residences (category D) South-East 2.814.599 14,38 1.441.015.819 • Towns (category E) South 3.175.826 16,23 1.625.956.487 South-West 2.150.685 10,99 1.101.105.737 In order to divide the 5 billion Euros of ROP allocated for Urban Development between these three categories, the principle of equity was used again, as detailed in the table below. West 1.998.017 10,21 1.022.942.914 North-West 2.828.542 14,45 1.448.154.343 TABLE 11. Regional share of people living in urban settlements, by categories Center 2.625.974 13,42 1.344.443.764 % other % town TOTAL 19.571.112 100 10.020.000.000 Population % county residence Population municipalities population of county Population population in total Region of other population in in total *Without the population of the Bucharest-Ilfov Region residence of towns regional urban municipalities total regional regional urban municipalities* population Data source: National Institute of Statistics urban population population North-East 1.062.784 425.717 329.515 58,46 23,42 18,12 If the interventions that urban areas are not eligible for (e.g. interventions for county councils, South-East* 1.042.494 188.637 183.421 72,16 13,06 12,70 or SMEs) are taken out, the total urban development allocation (excepting the Bucharest-Ilfov Region) comes down to around 4.2 bln Euro – for both large and small urban areas. With national South 735.043 261.040 363.942 54,05 19,19 26,76 co-financing12, the total sum would come up to around 5 bln. Euro. Regardless of the scenario, South-West 701.722 125.151 247.033 65,34 11,65 23,00 the county residence municipalities, the other municipalities, and the towns, corresponding to classes B, C, D, E of the draft law on the National Spatial Plan - Section IV, would benefit from West 656.899 185.388 276.482 58,72 16,57 24,71 direct allocations from all the policy objectives, with the exception of policy objective 3. North-West 975.405 258.687 293.147 63,87 16,94 19,19 Center 785.139 426.468 353.064 50,18 27,26 22,56 The urban development allocations by region would then look as follows, taking the equity principle into consideration (with the same allocation per urban dweller across all regions): TOTAL 5.959.486 1.871.088 2.046.604 60,15 18,89 20,66 * on July 1, 2019 ** without the cities of Tulcea, Babadag, Isaccea, Măcin, Sulina, which are part of the Danube Delta ITI 12 ERDS rules indicate that co-financing rates, from national and local level, should be at least 30% for the 2021-2027 Pro- *** without the cities of Aninoasa, Lupeni, Petrila, Petroșani, Uricani, Vulcan, which are part of the Jiu Valley ITI gramming Period. For the purposes of this exercise, national co-financing is assumed to be 25%. Data source: National Institute of Statistics 52 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 53 Thus, at the level of each region, the funds for Urban Development were allocated by Also, in order to benefit from the predefined allocation, each county residence should categories of urban settlements according to their weight in the total urban population of propose within its integrated urban development strategy, and commit from the local the respective region. Following these calculations, a national average percentage of about 60% budget, at least 25% of the allocation received under the ROP for complementary projects was obtained for county residences (identical to the weight they take in the urban population in the logic of the integrated urban development strategy, as a way of implementing in a of Romania, except for the Bucharest-Ilfov region), respectively 19% for other municipalities complimentary fashion projects with European funding and with local resources. and 21% for cities. In order to encourage the county residence municipalities to submit strategic documents Overall, the per capita allocation respects the principle of equity between the different and projects at the level of a functional urban area, a bonus allocation of 15%, on top of the categories of cities (the allocation per inhabitant at the level of a residence is approximately pre-allocation is proposed, as mentioned above and as highlighted in the tables (70 + 30%), equal to the allocation per inhabitant at the level of a non-resident municipality), with the mention which can only be accessed for projects in partnership with at least one other locality from that for county residence municipalities an additional 15% of the regional urban development the functional urban area, as the FUA was defined in the new version of the National Spatial allocation is proposed for projects implemented in partnership by the respective municipality Plan - Section IV. If, within 3 years, the municipality fails to contract the respective bonus- with other UATs in the functional urban area (i.e. inter-jurisdictional projects). This additional allocation, the funds are moved to a common pool, available to all the county residence allocation for county residences comes to respond to a socio-economic reality: around these type municipalities in the respective region, but exclusively for inter-jurisdictional projects at of municipalities, neighborhoods-dormitories have appeared in recent years, most often with the level of their functional urban areas. formal rural status, but which are functionally dependent on the relationship with the core city, generating substantial inter-jurisdictional traffic and overloading the transport infrastructure, TABLE 13. Proposal of ROPs allocations for county residences the utilities infrastructure, the educational infrastructure, the health infrastructure, etc. Basically, this allocation is a recognition of the fact that the respective areas are also inhabited by de facto Regional Estimated capital Allocation urban population. According to the proposals of the National Spatial Plan, these “rural areas” are % of regional allocation investments budget by county Locality Population county residences’ for county now delimited as peri-urban communes, with a special status. for 2021-2029 (in residence (in population residences (in Euro) Euro) Euro) Bacău 197,386 19 213,667,568 100,936,242 TABLE 12. Regional allocation (in Euro) for urban settlements and functional urban areas Botoșani 120,535 11 92,838,228 61,637,350 Iași 376,180 36 332,826,697 192,365,191 Regional allocations 536,365,882 Regional Regional for inter-jurisdictional Piatra Neamț 113,164 11 114,727,703 57,868,080 Regional allocation Regional allocation allocation projects undertaken at Region for county allocation for Suceava 124,161 12 140,278,476 63,491,558 for urban for other the level of functional NORTH-EAST REGION residences towns development municipalities urban areas of county residences Vaslui 117,465 11 54,536,763 60,067,460 TOTAL 1,048,891 100 948,875,435 536,365,882 536,365,882 North-East 917,516,405 536,365,882 169,499,235 131,196,406 80,454,882 South-East* 729,081,491 526,125,924 62,887,795 61,148,885 78,918,889 Allocation Performance Total allocation South 686,377,484 370,961,538 108,500,419 151,271,297 55,644,231 Total Guaranteed for inter- reserve for for the county allocation allocation (70% of jurisdictional contracting residence and South-West 541,978,933 354,145,094 45,298,430 89,413,645 53,121,764 Locality per county total allocation) projects at the guaranteed the functional residence (in for county the functional allocation within 2 urban area (in West 564,620,394 331,523,820 73,601,288 109,766,713 49,728,573 Euro) residence (in Euro) urban area years (in Euro) Euro) level (in Euro) North-West 770,767,054 492,267,444 95,939,631 108,719,863 73,840,117 Bacău 100,936,242 70,655,369 30,280,873 15,140,436 116,076,678 Center 789,658,238 396,243,989 182,713,193 151,264,457 59,436,598 Botoșani 61,637,350 43,146,145 18,491,205 9,245,602 70,882,952 TOTAL 5,000,000,000 3,007,633,689 738,439,991 802,781,266 451,145,053 Iași 192,365,191 134,655,634 57,709,557 28,854,779 221,219,969 Piatra Neamț 57,868,080 40,507,656 17,360,424 8,680,212 66,548,292 Suceava 63,491,558 44,444,091 19,047,468 9,523,734 73,015,292 Using this approach, the allocation for county residences could be as proposed in the table Vaslui 60,067,460 42,047,222 18,020,238 9,010,119 69,077,579 below. In this proposal, each county residence will have access for 2 years to 70% of the ring- TOTAL 536,365,882 375,456,117 160,909,765 80,454,882 616,820,764 fenced amounts, and, if it fails to contract these 70% within 2 years, it loses the remaining 30% of the allocation (referred to in the table “performance reserve”), which together with other savings is cumulated in a common pool, available to all county residences in the respective region. 54 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 55 Regional Estimated capital Allocation Allocation % of regional allocation Performance Total allocation SOUTH-EAST REGION* investments budget by county Total Guaranteed for inter- Locality Population county residences’ for county reserve for for the county for 2021-2029 (in residence allocation allocation (70% of jurisdictional SOUTH-MUNTENIA REGION population residences contracting residence and Euro) (in Euro) Locality per county total allocation) projects at (in Euro) the guaranteed the functional residence (in for county the functional allocation within 2 urban area (in Brăila 203,876 19 169,176,837 102,526,886 Euro) residence (in Euro) urban area years (in Euro) Euro) level (in Euro) Buzău 132,734 13 156,373,694 66,750,396 Alexandria 25,290,671 17,703,469 7,587,201 3,793,601 29,084,271 Constanța 313,931 30 394,015,461 526,125,924 157,872,275 Călărași 38,116,711 26,681,697 11,435,013 5,717,507 43,834,217 Focșani 92,609 9 91,088,969 46,571,997 Giurgiu 33,739,248 23,617,474 10,121,774 5,060,887 38,800,135 Galați 303,058 29 301,514,078 152,404,369 Pitești 87,339,512 61,137,658 26,201,854 13,100,927 100,440,439 TOTAL 1,046,208 100 1,112,169,039 526,125,924 526,125,924 Ploiești 114,404,694 80,083,286 34,321,408 17,160,704 131,565,398 * without the Tulcea municipality, which will be included in the Danube Delta ITI Slobozia 26,029,008 18,220,305 7,808,702 3,904,351 29,933,359 Allocation Guaranteed Performance Total allocation Târgoviște 46,041,695 32,229,186 13,812,508 6,906,254 52,947,949 Total for inter- allocation (70% of reserve for for the county allocation jurisdictional  SOUTH-EAST REGION* total allocation) contracting residence and TOTAL 370,961,538 259,673,076 111,288,461 55,644,231 426,605,768 Locality per county projects at for county the guaranteed the functional residence the functional residence allocation within 2 urban area (in Euro) urban area (in Euro) years (in Euro) (in Euro) level (in Euro) Brăila 102,526,886 71,768,820 30,758,066 15,379,033 117,905,919 Buzău 66,750,396 46,725,277 20,025,119 10,012,559 76,762,955 Constanța 157,872,275 110,510,593 47,361,683 23,680,841 181,553,116 Regional Estimated capital Allocation Focșani 46,571,997 32,600,398 13,971,599 6,985,800 53,557,796 % of regional allocation investments budget by county Locality Population county residences’ for county for 2021-2029 (in residence (in Galați 152,404,369 106,683,058 45,721,311 22,860,655 175,265,024 population residences (in Euro) Euro) Euro) TOTAL 526,125,924 368,288,146 157,837,777 78,918,889 605,044,812 Craiova 310,924 44 311,010,624 154,077,866 Drobeta- 107,153 15 98,774,636 53,099,489 Turnu Severin SOUTH-WEST OLTENIA REGION  Râmnicu 354,145,094 117,888 16 134,585,494 58,419,200 Vâlcea Slatina 83,093 12 108,849,540 41,176,597 Târgu Jiu 95,595 13 96,124,581 47,371,942 Regional % Estimated capital Allocation TOTAL 714,653 100 749,344,875 354,145,094 354,145,094 allocation SOUTH-MUNTENIA REGION  of regional county investments budget by county Locality Population for county residences’ for 2021-2029 residence residences population (in Euro) (in Euro) (in Euro) Allocation Performance Total allocation Alexandria 50,524 7 52,446,111 25,290,671 Total Guaranteed for inter- reserve for for the county allocation allocation (70% of jurisdictional contracting residence and Călărași 76,147 10 67,246,490 38,116,711 Locality per county total allocation) projects at the guaranteed the functional residence (in for county the functional allocation within 2 urban area (in Giurgiu 67,402 9 59,007,416 33,739,248 Euro) residence (in Euro) urban area years (in Euro) Euro) level (in Euro) Pitești 174,481 24 199,099,258 370,961,538 87,339,512 Craiova 154,077,866 107,854,506 46,223,360 23,111,680 177,189,546 Ploiești 228,550 31 308,172,351 114,404,694 Drobeta- 53,099,489 37,169,642 15,929,847 7,964,923 61,064,413 Slobozia 51,999 7 55,166,784 26,029,008 Turnu Severin Râmnicu Târgoviște 91,979 12 112,071,656 46,041,695 58,419,200 40,893,440 17,525,760 8,762,880 67,182,080 Vâlcea TOTAL 741,082 100 853,210,066 370,961,538 370,961,538 Slatina 41,176,597 28,823,618 12,352,979 6,176,489 47,353,086 Târgu Jiu 47,371,942 33,160,359 14,211,583 7,105,791 54,477,733 TOTAL 354,145,094 247,901,566 106,243,528 53,121,764 407,266,858 56 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 57 Regional Regional Estimated capital Allocation Estimated capital Allocation % of regional allocation % of regional allocation investments budget by county investments budget by county Locality Population county residences’ for county Locality Population county residences’ for county for 2021-2029 (in residence (in for 2021-2029 (in residence (in population residences (in population residences (in Euro) Euro) Euro) Euro) Euro) Euro) Alba Iulia 74,233 9 89,943,358 37,367,537 Arad 177,013 27 263,893,016 88,731,409 Brașov 289,360 37 398,334,589 145,658,542 Deva 69,387 10 90,416,832 34,781,662 331,523,820 Miercurea- 42,120 5 54,997,069 21,202,439 Reșița 85,964 13 81,817,762 43,091,224 Ciuc 396,243,989 WEST REGION  Timișoara 329,003 50 473,288,443 164,919,525 Sfântu 65,080 8 60,555,334 32,760,084 Gheorghe TOTAL 661,367 100 909,416,053 331,523,820 331,523,820 Sibiu 168,697 21 241,837,912 84,918,991 CENTER REGION  Târgu Mureș 147,674 19 209,001,407 74,336,396 Allocation Guaranteed Performance Total allocation Total for inter- TOTAL 787,164 100 1,054,669,669 396,243,989 396,243,989 allocation (70% of reserve for for the county allocation jurisdictional total allocation) contracting residence and Locality per county projects at for county the guaranteed the functional residence the functional residence allocation within 2 urban area Allocation (in Euro) urban area Performance Total allocation (in Euro) years (in Euro) (in Euro) Total Guaranteed for inter- level (in Euro) reserve for for the county allocation allocation (70% of jurisdictional contracting residence and Arad 88,731,409 62,111,986 26,619,423 13,309,711 102,041,121 Locality per county total allocation) projects at the guaranteed the functional residence (in for county the functional Deva 34,781,662 24,347,163 10,434,499 5,217,249 39,998,911 allocation within 2 urban area (in Euro) residence (in Euro) urban area years (in Euro) Euro) level (in Euro) Reșița 43,091,224 30,163,857 12,927,367 6,463,684 49,554,908 Alba Iulia 37,367,537 26,157,276 11,210,261 5,605,131 42,972,668 Timișoara 164,919,525 115,443,667 49,475,857 24,737,929 189,657,453 Brașov 145,658,542 101,960,980 43,697,563 21,848,781 167,507,324 TOTAL 331,523,820 232,066,674 99,457,146 49,728,573 381,252,393 Miercurea- 21,202,439 14,841,707 6,360,732 3,180,366 24,382,805 Ciuc Regional Sfântu Estimated capital Allocation 32,760,084 22,932,059 9,828,025 4,914,013 37,674,097 % of regional allocation investments budget by county Gheorghe Locality Population county residences’ for county for 2021-2029 (in residence (in population residences (in Sibiu 84,918,991 59,443,293 25,475,697 12,737,849 97,656,839 Euro) Euro) Euro) Baia Mare 145,718 15 138,228,383 73,557,181 Târgu Mureș 74,336,396 52,035,477 22,300,919 11,150,459 85,486,855  NORTH-WEST REGION Bistrița 94,024 10 93,514,267 47,462,499 TOTAL 396,243,989 277,370,793 118,873,197 59,436,598 455,680,588 Cluj-Napoca 324,267 33 475,891,989 163,687,166 492,267,444 Oradea 221,398 23 256,106,200 111,759,788 Satu Mare 120,307 12 120,885,150 60,729,929 Regarding the allocations for the other municipalities (category D of the PATN), a methodology Zalău 69,476 7 64,393,039 35,070,881 similar to the one used to establish the allocations of county residence municipalities was TOTAL 975,190 100 1,149,019,028 492,267,444 492,267,444 applied. Thus, the regional allocation for this category was divided by municipalities according to their weight in the total urban population of their respective urban category. The allocations Allocation Total Guaranteed Performance for inter- Total allocation resulted at the municipality level are presented below: reserve for for the county allocation allocation (70% of jurisdictional contracting residence and Locality per county total allocation) projects at the guaranteed the functional residence (in for county the functional allocation within 2 urban area (in Euro) residence (in Euro) urban area years (in Euro) Euro) level (in Euro) Baia Mare 73,557,181 51,490,027 22,067,154 11,033,577 84,590,758 Bistrița 47,462,499 33,223,749 14,238,750 7,119,375 54,581,874 Cluj-Napoca 163,687,166 114,581,016 49,106,150 24,553,075 188,240,241 Oradea 111,759,788 78,231,851 33,527,936 16,763,968 128,523,756 Satu Mare 60,729,929 42,510,950 18,218,979 9,109,489 69,839,418 Zalău 35,070,881 24,549,617 10,521,264 5,260,632 40,331,514 TOTAL 492,267,444 344,587,211 147,680,233 73,840,117 566,107,560 58 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 59 TABLE 14. % of total “other Regional allocation Proposal for ROPs allocations for other municipalities municipalities” for other Allocation by Locality Population population in the municipalities (in municipality (in Euro) % of total “other Regional allocation region Euro) Allocation by municipalities” for other Locality Population municipality Adjud 20,087 11 6,696,603 population in the municipalities (in Euro) region (in Euro) Mangalia 40,596 22 13,533,893 Bârlad 70,176 16 27,940,576 Medgidia 44,722 24 14,909,418 62,887,795 Câmpulung 20,114 5 8,008,390 Râmnicu Moldovenesc 39,481 21 13,162,174 Sărat SOUTH-EAST REGION Dorohoi 30,377 7 12,094,603 Tecuci 43,751 23 14,585,707 Fălticeni 31,082 7 12,375,299 TOTAL 188,637 100 62,887,795 62,887,795 Huși 33,937 8 13,512,017 169,499,235 Moinești 24,067 6 9,582,277   Guaranteed Performance Onești 50,719 12 20,193,771 allocation reserve for Total (70% of total contracting Locality allocation per Pașcani 44,545 10 17,735,593 allocation) per the guaranteed municipality municipality (in allocation within 2 Rădăuți 34,984 8 13,928,881 Euro) years (in Euro) Roman 69,128 16 27,523,315 Adjud 6,696,603 4,687,622 2,008,981 NORTH-EAST REGION Vatra Dornei 16,588 4 6,604,513 Mangalia 13,533,893 9,473,725 4,060,168 TOTAL 425,717 100 169,499,235 83,513,163 Medgidia 14,909,418 10,436,593 4,472,826 Râmnicu 13,162,174 9,213,522 3,948,652 Sărat Guaranteed Performance allocation reserve for Tecuci 14,585,707 10,209,995 4,375,712 Total (70% of total contracting Locality allocation per TOTAL 62,887,795 44,021,457 18,866,339 allocation) per the guaranteed municipality municipality allocation within (in Euro) 2 years (in Euro) Bârlad 27,940,576 19,558,403 8,382,173 Câmpulung 8,008,390 5,605,873 2,402,517 Moldovenesc Dorohoi 12,094,603 8,466,222 3,628,381 % of total “other Regional allocation Fălticeni 12,375,299 8,662,709 3,712,590 municipalities” for other Allocation by Locality Population population in the municipalities (in municipality (in Euro) Huși 13,512,017 9,458,412 4,053,605 region Euro) SOUTH-MUNTENIA REGION Moinești 9,582,277 6,707,594 2,874,683 Câmpina 36,356 14 15,111,252 Onești 20,193,771 14,135,640 6,058,131 Câmpulung 35,273 14 14,661,107 Pașcani 17,735,593 12,414,915 5,320,678 Curtea de 32,414 12 13,472,773 Argeș Rădăuți 13,928,881 9,750,216 4,178,664 Fetești 34,635 13 14,395,924 Roman 27,523,315 19,266,321 8,256,995   Moreni 19,612 8 8,151,663 Vatra Dornei 6,604,513 4,623,159 1,981,354 108,500,419 Oltenița 27,115 10 11,270,261 TOTAL 169,499,235 118,649,465 50,849,771 Roșiorii de 30,800 12 12,801,919 Vede Turnu 28,106 11 11,682,167 Măgurele Urziceni 16,729 6 6,953,354 TOTAL 261,040 100 108,500,419 108,500,419 60 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 61 Guaranteed Performance % of total “other Regional allocation Allocation by allocation reserve for municipalities” for other Total Locality Population municipality (70% of total contracting population in the municipalities Locality allocation per (in Euro) allocation) per the guaranteed region (in Euro) municipality municipality allocation within (in Euro) 2 years (in Euro) Brad 15,361 8 6,098,504  SOUTH-MUNTENIA REGION Câmpina 15,111,252 10,577,876 4,533,376 Caransebeș 29,642 16 11,768,234 Câmpulung 14,661,107 10,262,775 4,398,332 Hunedoara 71,899 39 73,601,288 28,544,776 Curtea de Lugoj 46,589 25 18,496,399 13,472,773 9,430,941 4,041,832 Argeș Orăștie 21,897 12 8,693,375  WEST REGION Fetești 14,395,924 10,077,147 4,318,777 TOTAL 185,388 100 73,601,288 73,601,288 Moreni 8,151,663 5,706,164 2,445,499 Oltenița 11,270,261 7,889,183 3,381,078 Guaranteed Performance allocation reserve for Roșiorii de Total 12,801,919 8,961,343 3,840,576 (70% of total contracting Vede Locality allocation per allocation) per the guaranteed municipality municipality (in allocation within 2 Turnu 11,682,167 8,177,517 3,504,650 Euro) years (in Euro) Măgurele Brad 6,098,504 4,268,953 1,829,551 Urziceni 6,953,354 4,867,348 2,086,006 Caransebeș 11,768,234 8,237,764 3,530,470 TOTAL 108,500,419 75,950,293 32,550,126 Hunedoara 28,544,776 19,981,343 8,563,433 Lugoj 18,496,399 12,947,479 5,548,920 Orăștie 8,693,375 6,085,362 2,608,012 % of total “other Regional allocation Allocation by municipalities” for other Locality Population municipality TOTAL 73,601,288 51,520,902 22,080,386 population in the municipalities (in Euro) region (in Euro) Băilești 19,373 15 7,012,061 Calafat 17,747 14 6,423,530 Caracal 33,782 27 12,227,402 % of total “other Regional allocation 45,298,430 municipalities” for other Allocation by SOUTH-WEST OLTENIA REGION Locality Population Drăgășani 20,221 16 7,318,995 population in the municipalities (in municipality (in Euro) region Euro) Moreni 21,701 17 7,854,681  NORTH-WEST REGION Beiuș 11,053 4 4,099,242 Orșova 12,327 10 4,461,760 Câmpia Turzii 27,403 11 10,162,991 TOTAL 125,151 100 45,298,430 45,298,430 Carei 24,086 9 8,932,811 Dej 38,176 15 14,158,390 Guaranteed Performance allocation reserve for Gherla 22,915 9 8,498,520 Total 95,939,631 (70% of total contracting Locality allocation per Marghita 17,648 7 6,545,140 allocation) per the guaranteed municipality municipality allocation within (in Euro) 2 years (in Euro) Salonta 18,840 7 6,987,219 Băilești 7,012,061 4,908,443 2,103,618 Sighetu 43,174 17 16,012,005 Marmației Calafat 6,423,530 4,496,471 1,927,059 Turda 55,392 21 20,543,313 Caracal 12,227,402 8,559,181 3,668,221 TOTAL 258,687 100 95,939,631 95,939,631 Drăgășani 7,318,995 5,123,297 2,195,699 Moreni 7,854,681 5,498,277 2,356,404 Orșova 4,461,760 3,123,232 1,338,528 TOTAL 45,298,430 31,708,901 13,589,529 62 FINAL REPORT TOWARDS A SUD 2021-2027 APPROACH 63 Guaranteed Performance Guaranteed Performance allocation reserve for allocation reserve for Total Total (70% of total contracting (70% of total contracting Locality allocation per Locality allocation per allocation) per the guaranteed allocation) per the guaranteed municipality municipality municipality allocation within municipality allocation within 2 (in Euro) 2 years (in Euro) (in Euro) years (in Euro) NORTH-WEST REGION Beiuș 4,099,242 2,869,470 1,229,773 Aiud 10,927,626 7,649,338 3,278,288 Câmpia Turzii 10,162,991 7,114,094 3,048,897 Blaj 8,846,724 6,192,707 2,654,017 Carei 8,932,811 6,252,967 2,679,843 Codlea 11,057,441 7,740,209 3,317,232 Dej 14,158,390 9,910,873 4,247,517 Făgăraș 16,495,976 11,547,183 4,948,793   CENTER REGION Gherla 8,498,520 5,948,964 2,549,556 Gheorgheni 8,418,291 5,892,803 2,525,487 Marghita 6,545,140 4,581,598 1,963,542 Mediaș 24,371,442 17,060,009 7,311,432 Salonta 6,987,219 4,891,053 2,096,166 Odorheiu   16,321,176 11,424,823 4,896,353 Secuiesc Sighetu 16,012,005 11,208,404 4,803,602 Marmației Reghin 16,151,087 11,305,761 4,845,326 Turda 20,543,313 14,380,319 6,162,994 Săcele 15,686,237 10,980,366 4,705,871 TOTAL 95,939,631 67,157,742 28,781,889 Sebeș 13,971,218 9,779,852 4,191,365 Sighișoara 14,298,969 10,009,278 4,289,691 Târgu 8,435,428 5,904,800 2,530,628 Secuiesc Târnăveni 11,007,743 7,705,420 3,302,323 % of total “other Regional allocation Allocation by Toplița 6,723,836 4,706,685 2,017,151 municipalities” for other Locality Population municipality population in the municipalities (in Euro) TOTAL 182,713,193 127,899,235 54,813,958 region (in Euro) Aiud 25,506 6 10,927,626 Similarly, for these municipalities, the performance reserve rule of 30% is kept, meaning Blaj 20,649 5 8,846,724 that if within 2 years the municipality fails to contract 70% of the total allocation, the Codlea 25,809 6 11,057,441 remaining 30% of it is transferred to a common fund available to all municipalities in this Făgăraș 38,503 9 16,495,976 category in the respective region. In contrast, these municipalities do not benefit from the bonus allocation dedicated to working with neighboring UATs, as their functional urban areas are CENTER REGION Gheorgheni 19,649 5 8,418,291 generally poorly defined. Mediaș 56,885 13 24,371,442 Odorheiu 38,095 9 16,321,176 In the case of cities (category E from PATN), the distribution of regional allocations Secuiesc   182,713,193 dedicated to this category at the level of urban center took into account their heterogeneity Reghin 37,698 9 16,151,087 (cities have a population ranging between 1,500 inhabitants in Băile Tușnad and over 40,000 Săcele 36,613 9 15,686,237 inhabitants in Năvodari). Therefore, in order to respect the same principle of equity (there are, in fact, more towns with a population larger than some municipalities in category D), it is proposed Sebeș 32,610 8 13,971,218 to break down the regional allocation for towns into 3 sub-categories: Sighișoara 33,375 8 14,298,969 • towns with over 30,000 inhabitants, which could submit projects with a maximum Târgu Secuiesc 19,689 5 8,435,428 value of 20 million Euro; Târnăveni 25,693 6 11,007,743 • towns with a population between 20,000 and 30,000 inhabitants, which could submit projects worth up to 15 million Euros; Toplița 15,694 4 6,723,836 TOTAL 426,468 100 182,713,193 182,713,193 • towns with less than 20,000 inhabitants, which could submit projects of up to 10 million Euros each. Regarding the latter sub-category, the recommendation is to finance projects of towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants as a priority, and towns with less than 10,000 inhabitants will benefit from funds only within the limits of the remaining non-contracted amounts. 64 FINAL REPORT However, for each of these towns, regardless of the subcategory, a pre-allocation has not been established, the proposal being to organize competitive calls for projects for each subcategory, given that the budget will not allow the financing of all the approximately 200 cities in Romania. Given the large number of towns, it is important to have concentration in the number and size of the financed towns, and in the value of financed projects, to ensure an adequate territorial impact. TABLE 15. Porposal for ROPs allocations for towns Estimated number (at an average of 7,5 mil. Euro/strategy) of strategies, for towns with Maximum number of strategies, for towns with at least 30,000 inhabitants, with Maximum number of strategies, for towns with 20,000-30,000 inhabitants, with CONCLUSION less than 20,000 residents, with allocations of up to 10 mil. Euro Maximum budget for towns with less than 20,000 residents Maximum budget for towns with 20,000-30,000 residents Maximum budget for towns with over 30,000 residents allocations of up to 20 mil. Euro will be available allocations of up to 15 mil. Euro will be available REGION Eligible towns with 20,000-30,000 residents Eligible towns with less than 20,000 people Eligible towns with over 30,000 residents Regional allocation for twons Buhuși, NORTH- Comănești, 131.196.406 0 n.a. 0 3 45.000.000 11 26 86.196.406 EAST Târgu Neamț SOUTH- 61.148.885 1 Năvodari 20.000.000 0 n.a. 0 5 19 41.148.885 EAST SOUTH- 151.271.297 1 Mioveni 20.000.000 0 n.a. 0 17 31 131.271.297 MUNTENIA SOUTH- WEST 89.413.645 0 n.a. 0 1 Balș 15.000.000 10 28 74.413.645 OLTENIA WEST 109.766.713 0 n.a. 0 0 n.a. 0 15 27 109.766.713 NORTH- 108.719.863 0 n.a. 0 1 Borșa 15.000.000 12 27 93.719.863 WEST Zărnești, CENTER 151.264.457 0 n.a. 0 2 30.000.000 16 35 121.264.457 Cisnădie TOTAL 802.781.266 2   40.000.000 7   105.000.000 86 193 657.781.266 CONCLUSION 67 In addition to the proposals and recommendations above, in order to further advance the gains made in enabling inter-jurisdictional cooperation in Romania, the following should be borne in mind: Clear eligibility criteria give certainty to qualifying institutions and enable them to build long-term capacity (technical and financial) in anticipation of investment flows. In the absence of a national urban policy, multi-factor criteria (population size, economic profile, geographic location, etc.) can be used to determine qualifying areas and on the basis of need and available resources, determine investment envelope. Integrated and targeted financial instruments would further reinforce the growth of these areas. This integration is two pronged, firstly within EU, appreciating the overlaps between allocations towards various policy objectives and SUD. By their nature, these areas will be recipients of funds from other policy objectives and these need to be well integrated with SUD investments. The second areas of integration relate to EU, national and sub-national budget allocations. There currently appears to be focus only on EU funds with little reference to national and locally raised funds and how these are deployed to advance the same development agenda. A progressive approach to decentralization informed by well-articulated national legislative frameworks and assessment of capacity. This decentralization should seek to strengthen the nexus between attributions, authority, resources and accountability. The importance of well capacitated sub-national institutions cannot be overstated as it is the bedrock of all implementation. Rather than disparate capacity building initiatives, consideration should be given to a single urban support program, which directs appropriate support based on a deep needs assessment. There is a saying that “streets are forever” and investment in infrastructure now, will shape development patterns hundreds of years ahead. Romania’s development and growth path is not yet known, but there is lear evidence that cities will be the main actors. And, the way Romanian cities develop now, will define how Romania will look tomorrow. Consequently, available EU funds, along with other sources of financing, should be used strategically to ensure that Romania urban areas develop and grow in a sustainable, inclusive, and competitive fashion. 68 FINAL REPORT ANNEX 1. POTENTIAL AREAS/SECTORS FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION IN ROMANIA 69 ANNEX 1. Potential areas/sectors for inter-jurisdictional Eligibility for Eligibility cooperation in Romania Area/sector of Potential interventions / measures suitable for multi- EU funding in the 2021-2027 for state budget intervention jurisdictional arrangements programming -funded Eligibility for Eligibility period programs EU funding in for state Area/sector of Potential interventions / measures suitable for multi-   Accessibility CF PNDL the 2021-2027 budget intervention jurisdictional arrangements programming -funded - Roads and bypasses period programs       - Traffic management systems Administrative Territorial, strategic and financial planning ESF PUG MPWDA capacity Climate change - Metropolitan urban plans and risk Risk mitigation CF Apele Romane management  - General urban plans ANIF - SUMPs - Consolidation of seismic-risk buildings;       - IUDSs   - Flood protection measures;     - Public policies and program-based budgeting - Landslide protection measures. - Green cadaster   Emergency response CF No INA   Human resources in local administration ESF - Investments in professional and voluntary emergency ANFP situation services (buildings, equipment, training);       - Competencies building and training (e.g. Public procurement)       - Development of integrated multi-risk intervention centers; - Project implementation units. - Mountain and sea rescue centers.   Management and administrative processes and tools  ESF No Low carbon and Energy generation, transmission and distribution CF MPWDA - One-stop shops for citizens and companies energy efficiency - Modernization of district heating systems, including co-   - Quality management standards, procedures     generation; - Urban/metropolitan authorities - Use of renewable energy for public building; Transport Public transport ERDF No       -  Smart metering and energy consumption monitoring; - Subway extension - Metropolitan railway systems - Extension of energy and gas distribution networks. - Extension and rehabilitation of tram lines   Energy efficiency ERDF MPWDA - Extension / modernization of public transport stations / - Thermal rehabilitation of blocks of flats;       terminals   - Thermal rehabilitation of public buildings;     - Bus Rapid Transit systems - Energy efficient public lighting. - E-ticketing PNDL Education Basic education ERDF - Electric public transport fleet MEN   Multi-modal transport CF No - Nurseries and kindergartens; - Schools; - Intermodal freight transport infrastructure       - High-schools.   - Park & rides / Bike & rides       Technical and vocational education ERDF MEN - Intermodal passenger terminals   - Campuses for vocational training       Non-motorized transport and E-mobility ERDF AFM Special education ERDF MEN - Bicycle lanes and bike sharing systems - Special educational facilities   - Pedestrian and shared-space areas       Higher education ERDF MEN - Charging stations for electric vehicles   - Campuses for higher education     70 FINAL REPORT ANNEX 1. POTENTIAL AREAS/SECTORS FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION IN ROMANIA 71 Eligibility for Eligibility Eligibility for Eligibility EU funding in for state EU funding in for state Area/sector of Potential interventions / measures suitable for multi- Area/sector of Potential interventions / measures suitable for multi- the 2021-2027 budget the 2021-2027 budget intervention jurisdictional arrangements intervention jurisdictional arrangements programming -funded programming -funded period programs period programs Health Medical infrastructure ERDF MS / PNDL   Employment ESF ANOFM - Building regional emergency hospitals; - Youth employment (competence development and evaluation, employment services, internships etc.); - Investments in municipal emergency hospitals and units;       - Investments in ambulatories and local basic medical care   - Access to the labor markets for informal workers and     centers. unemployed (training, employment services, social economy etc.); Environment and Waste management CF AFM - Social economy. biodiversity R&D and   - Promotion of separation at source waste collection     R&D ERDF PNCDI  innovation   Water and waste water CF PNDL / AFM - Support for public R&D infrastructure;       - Extension of water and waste water infrastructure to areas -  Support for R&D partnerships between companies and       public bodies. not covered by Regional Water and Wastewater Masterplans    Knowledge and technology transfer ERDF No   Biodiversity CF No - Public and private innovation and technology transfer       - Implementation of management plans for NATURA 2000 infrastructure and services       areas Digitalization Broadband CF No   Brownfields CF No - Extension of broadband infrastructure       - Public Wi-fi hotspots   - Public and private brownfields for other functions       E-public services ERDF No Social inclusion Social services ESF MMFPS and employment - Implementation of e-governance, e-health, e-learning,       e-culture tools - Social and healthcare daycare centers and services for vulnerable groups; Start Up   IT&C private sector ERDF       Nation - Home care for vulnerable groups; - Protected homes for vulnerable groups.   - Support for the IT&C companies and clusters     Cultural heritage Leisure infrastructure ERDF CNI and tourism ERDF   Marginalized and disadvantaged communities No   - Public leisure facilities       Tourism resources ERDF MT ESF - Integrated measures for addressing marginalized - Valorization of natural tourism resources; neighborhoods; - Development of health tourism; - Basic infrastructure for tourism areas;     - Integrated renewal measures for communist districts / - Tourism marketing and promotion.       collective housing; - Integrated renewal measures for new residential area   Cultural heritage ERDF MC lacking basic infrastructure. - Historic centers; ANL       - Monuments of national importance.   Housing ERDF Prima Casa Start Up Competitiveness SMEs and entrepreneurship ERDF Nation - Affordable housing;       - Social and emergency housing.   - Support infrastructure and services for SMEs      72 FINAL REPORT ANNEX 1. POTENTIAL AREAS/SECTORS FOR INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION IN ROMANIA 73 ANNEX 2. Areas/sectors with multi-jurisdictional impact identified by a selection of sub-national authorities in Romania Energy and Areas / sectors with multi- No. Transport infrastructure communication Economic development Urban regeneration Utility infrastructure jurisdictional impact infrastructure 1. Highways, expressways, roads and bypasses 2. Passages, bridges, drains, grooves, locks, etc. 1. Natural gas 3. Rail network and railway stations distribution network 1. Industrial / business parks 1. Buildings, squares, plazas, parking areas / structures 1. Water and wastewater 4. Airport – passengers and cargo 2. Electricity distribution 2. Logistical parks network 2. Parks, gardens, green 2. District heating 5. Water body and touristic / commercial port 3. Expositional / trade halls areas, brownfields 3. Internet networks / 3. Solid waste management 6. Pontoon (tourism) connections in public 4. Research/innovation center 3. Market / fair grounds 7. Intermodal transport link buildings and spaces 8. Public transport/bus stations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 I North-East Region 1 Iași 2 Bacău 3 Botoșani 4 Piatra Neamț 5 Suceava 6 Vaslui II South-East Region 7 Brăila 8 Buzău 9 Constanța 10 Galați 11 Focșani 12 Tulcea III South–Muntenia Region 13 Pitești 14 Călărași 15 Târgoviște 16 Giurgiu 17 Slobozia 18 Ploiești 19 Alexandria 74 FINAL REPORT ANNEX 2: AREAS/SECTORS WITH MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL IMPACT IDENTIFIED BY A SELECTION OF SUB-NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IN 75 ROMANIA Energy and Areas / sectors with multi- No. Transport infrastructure communication Economic development Urban regeneration Utility infrastructure jurisdictional impact infrastructure IV South-West Oltenia Region 20 Craiova 21 Târgu Jiu 22 Drobeta Turnu Severin 23 Slatina 24 Râmnicu Vâlcea V West Region 25 Arad 26 Reșița 27 Hunedoara/Deva/Simeria 28 Timișoara VI North-West Region 29 Oradea 30 Bistrița 31 Cluj-Napoca 32 Baia Mare 33 Satu-Mare 34 Zalău VII Center Region 35 Alba Iulia 36 Brașov 37 Miercurea Ciuc 38 Sfântu Gheorghe 39 Târgu Mureș 40 Sibiu VII București–Ilfov Region 41 București 42 Ilfov 76 FINAL REPORT ANNEX 2: AREAS/SECTORS WITH MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL IMPACT IDENTIFIED BY A SELECTION OF SUB-NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IN 77 ROMANIA ANNEX 3. Identification of Interventions Fields relevant for Coefficient for Coefficient for Romanian Cities, from the draft Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 INTERVENTION FIELD the calculation of support to the calculation of support to climate change environmental Coefficient for Coefficient for objectives objectives the calculation the calculation INTERVENTION FIELD of support to of support to Innovation cluster support and business networks primarily benefiting climate change environmental 019 0% 0% SMEs objectives objectives Innovation processes in SMEs (process, organisational, marketing, co- 020 0% 0% POLICY OBJECTIVE 1: A smarter Europe by promoting innovative and smart economic transformation creation, user and demand driven innovation) Technology transfer and cooperation between enterprises, research Investment in fixed assets in micro enterprises directly linked to 021 0% 0% 001 0% 0% centres and higher education sector research and innovation activities Investment in fixed assets in small and medium-sized enterprises Research and innovation processes, technology transfer and 002 (including private research centres) directly linked to research and 0% 0% 022 cooperation between enterprises focusing on the low carbon economy, 100 % 40 % innovation activities resilience and adaptation to climate change Investment in fixed assets in public research centres and higher Research and innovation processes, technology transfer and 003 0% 0% 023 40 % 100 % education directly linked to research and innovation activities cooperation between enterprises focusing on circular economy Investment in intangible assets in micro enterprises directly linked to POLICY OBJECTIVE 2: A greener, low carbon Europe by promoting clean and fair energy transition, green and blue 004 0% 0% investment, the circular economy, climate adaptation and risk prevention and management research and innovation activities Investment in intangible assets in small and medium-sized enterprises Energy efficiency and demonstration projects in SMEs and supporting 024 100 % 40 % 005 (including private research centres) directly linked to research and 0% 0% measures innovation activities Energy efficiency renovation of existing housing stock, demonstration 025 100 % 40 % Investment in intangible assets in public research centres and higher projects and supporting measures 006 0% 0% education directly linked to research and innovation activities Energy efficiency renovation of public infrastructure, demonstration 026 100 % 40 % Research and innovation activities in micro enterprises including projects and supporting measures 007 networking (industrial research, experimental development, feasibility 0% 0% studies) Support to enterprises that provide services contributing to the low 027 100 % 40 % carbon economy and to resilience to climate change Research and innovation activities in small and medium-sized 008 0% 0% enterprises, including networking 028 Renewable energy: wind 100 % 40 % Research and innovation activities in public research centres, higher 029 Renewable energy: solar 100 % 40 % 009 education and centres of competence including networking (industrial 0% 0% research, experimental development, feasibility studies) 030 Renewable energy: biomass 100 % 40 % Digitizing SMEs (including e-Commerce, e-Business and networked 031 Renewable energy: marine 100 % 40 % 010 business processes, digital innovation hubs, living labs, web 0% 0% entrepreneurs and ICT start-ups, B2B) 032 Other renewable energy (including geothermal energy) 100 % 40 % 011 Government ICT solutions, e-services, applications 0% 0% Smart Energy Distribution Systems at medium and low voltage levels 033 100 % 40 % (including smart grids and ICT systems) and related storage 012 IT services and applications for digital skills and digital inclusion 0% 0% 034 High efficiency co-generation, district heating and cooling 100 % 40 % e-Health services and applications (including e-Care, Internet of Things 013 0% 0% for physical activity and ambient assisted living) Adaptation to climate change measures and prevention and management of climate related risks: floods (including awareness 035 100 % 100 % 014 Business infrastructure for SMEs (including industrial parks and sites) 0% 0% raising, civil protection and disaster management systems and infrastructures) 015 SME business development and internationalisation 0% 0% Adaptation to climate change measures and prevention and Skills development for smart specialisation, industrial transition and 036 management of climate related risks: fires (including awareness raising, 100 % 100 % 016 0% 0% civil protection and disaster management systems and infrastructures) entrepreneurship Advanced support services for SMEs and groups of SMEs (including Adaptation to climate change measures and prevention and 017 0% 0% management, marketing and design services) management of climate related risks: others, e.g. storms and drought 037 100 % 100 % (including awareness raising, civil protection and disaster management 018 Incubation, support to spin offs and spin outs and start ups 0% 0% systems and infrastructures) 78 FINAL REPORT ANNEX 3: IDENTIFICATION OF INTERVENTIONS FIELDS RELEVANT FOR ROMANIAN CITIES, FROM THE DRAFT COHESION POLICY 79 2021-2027 Coefficient for Coefficient for Coefficient for Coefficient for the calculation the calculation the calculation the calculation INTERVENTION FIELD of support to of support to INTERVENTION FIELD of support to of support to climate change environmental climate change environmental objectives objectives objectives objectives Risk prevention and management of non-climate related natural risks 057 Newly built motorways and roads - TEN-T comprehensive network 0% 0% (i.e. earthquakes) and risks linked to human activities (e.g. technological 038 0% 100 % accidents), including awareness raising, civil protection and disaster 058 Newly built secondary road links to TEN-T road network and nodes 0% 0% management systems and infrastructures 059 Newly built other national, regional and local access roads 0% 0% Provision of water for human consumption (extraction, treatment, 039 storage and distribution infrastructure, efficiency measures, drinking 0% 100 % 060 Reconstructed or improved motorways and roads - TEN-T core network 0% 0% water supply) Reconstructed or improved motorways and roads - TEN-T Water management and water resource conservation (including river 061 0% 0% comprehensive network 040 basin management, specific climate change adaptation measures, reuse, 40 % 100 % leakage reduction) Other reconstructed or improved roads (motorway, national, regional or 062 0% 0% local) 041 Waste water collection and treatment 0% 100 % 063 Digitalisation of transport: road 40 % 0% Household waste management: prevention, minimisation, sorting, 042 0% 100 % recycling measures 064 Newly built railways - TEN-T core network 100 % 40 % Household waste management: mechanical biological treatment, 043 0% 100 % 065 Newly built railways - TEN-T comprehensive network 100 % 40 % thermal treatment 044 Commercial, industrial or hazardous waste management 0% 100 % 066 Other newly built railways 100 % 40 % 045 Promoting the use of recycled materials as raw materials 0% 100 % 067 Reconstructed or improved railways - TEN-T core network 0% 40 % 046 Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land 0% 100 % 068 Reconstructed or improved railways - TEN-T comprehensive network 0% 40 % Support to environmentally-friendly production processes and resource 069 Other reconstructed or improved railways 0% 40 % 047 40 % 40 % efficiency in SMEs 070 Digitalisation of transport: rail 40 % 0% 048 Air quality and noise reduction measures 40 % 100 % 071 European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) 0% 40 % 049 Protection, restoration and sustainable use of Natura 2000 sites 40 % 100 % 072 Mobile rail assets 40 % 40 % 050 Nature and biodiversity protection, green infrastructure 40 % 100 % 073 Clean urban transport infrastructure 100 % 40 % POLICY OBJECTIVE 3: A more connected Europe by enhancing mobility and regional ICT connectivity 074 Clean urban transport rolling stock 100 % 40 % 051 ICT: Very High-Capacity broadband network (backbone/backhaul network) 0% 0% 075 Cycling infrastructure 100 % 100 % ICT: Very High-Capacity broadband network (access/local loop with 076 Digitalisation of urban transport 40 % 0% 052 a performance equivalent to an optical fibre installation up to the 0% 0% distribution point at the serving location for multi-dwelling premises) 077 Alternative fuels infrastructure 100 % 40 % ICT: Very High-Capacity broadband network (access/local loop with 078 Multimodal transport (TEN-T) 40 % 40 % a performance equivalent to an optical fibre installation up to the 053 0% 0% distribution point at the serving location for homes and business premises) 079 Multimodal transport (not urban) 40 % 40 % ICT: Very High-Capacity broadband network (access/local loop with a 080 Seaports (TEN-T) 40 % 0% 054 performance equivalent to an optical fibre installation up to the base 0% 0% station for advanced wireless communication) 081 Other seaports 40 % 0% ICT: Other types of ICT infrastructure (including large-scale computer 082 Inland waterways and ports (TEN-T) 40 % 0% 055 resources/equipment, data centres, sensors and other wireless 0% 0% equipment) 083 Inland waterways and ports (regional and local) 40 % 0% 056 Newly built motorways and roads - TEN-T core network 0% 0% 084 Digitising transport: other transport modes 40 % 0% 80 FINAL REPORT ANNEX 3: IDENTIFICATION OF INTERVENTIONS FIELDS RELEVANT FOR ROMANIAN CITIES, FROM THE DRAFT COHESION POLICY 81 2021-2027 Coefficient for Coefficient for Coefficient for Coefficient for the calculation the calculation the calculation the calculation INTERVENTION FIELD of support to of support to INTERVENTION FIELD of support to of support to climate change environmental climate change environmental objectives objectives objectives objectives Measures for a healthy and well–adapted working environment POLICY OBJECTIVE 4: A more social Europe by implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights 107 0% 0% addressing health risks, including promotion of physical activity 085 Infrastructure for early childhood education and care 0% 0% 108 Support for the development of digital skills 0% 0% 086 Infrastructure for primary and secondary education 0% 0% Support for adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to 109 0% 0% change 087 Infrastructure for tertiary education 0% 0% 110 Measures encouraging active and healthy ageing 0% 0% 088 Infrastructure for vocational education and training and adult learning 0% 0% Support for early childhood education and care (excluding 111 0% 0% infrastructure) Housing infrastructure for migrants, refugees and persons under or 089 0% 0% applying for international protection 112 Support for primary to secondary education (excluding infrastructure) 0% 0% Housing infrastructure (other than for migrants, refugees and persons 090 0% 0% 113 Support for tertiary education (excluding infrastructure) 0% 0% under or applying for international protection) Other social infrastructure contributing to social inclusion in the 114 Support for adult education (excluding infrastructure) 0% 0% 091 0% 0% community Measures to promote equal opportunities and active participation in 115 0% 0% 092 Health infrastructure 0% 0% society 093 Health equipment 0% 0% Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for 116 0% 0% disadvantaged people 094 Health mobile assets 0% 0% Measures to improve access of marginalised groups such as the Roma 117 0% 0% 095 Digitalisation in health care 0% 0% to education, employment and to promote their social inclusion Temporary reception infrastructure for migrants, refugees and persons Support to the civil society working with marginalised communities 096 0% 0% 118 0% 0% under or applying for international protection such as the Roma 097 Measures to improve access to employment 0% 0% Specific actions to increase participation of third-country nationals in 119 0% 0% employment 098 Measures to promote access to employment of long-term unemployed 0% 0% 120 Measures for the social integration of third-country nationals 0% 0% Specific support for youth employment and socio-economic integration 099 0% 0% Measures to enhancing the equal and timely access to quality, of young people 121 0% 0% sustainable and affordable services 100 Support for self-employment and business start-up 0% 0% Measures to enhancing the delivery of family and community-based 122 0% 0% 101 Support for social economy and social enterprises 0% 0% care services Measures to modernise and strengthen labour market institutions and Measures to improve the accessibility, effectiveness and resilience of 123 0% 0% 102 services to assess and anticipate skills needs and to ensure timely and 0% 0% healthcare systems (excluding infrastructure) tailor-made assistance 124 Measures to improve access to long-term care (excluding infrastructure) 0% 0% 103 Support for labour market matching and transitions 0% 0% Measures to modernise social protection systems, including promoting 125 0% 0% 104 Support for labour mobility 0% 0% access to social protection Measures to promote women’s labour market participation and reducing Promoting social integration of people at risk of poverty or social 105 0% 0% 126 0% 0% gender-based segregation in the labour market exclusion, including the most deprived and children Measures promoting work-life balance, including access to childcare and Addressing material deprivation through food and/or material 106 0% 0% 127 0% 0% care for dependent persons assistance to the most deprived, including accompanying measures 82 FINAL REPORT Coefficient for Coefficient for the calculation the calculation INTERVENTION FIELD of support to of support to climate change environmental objectives objectives POLICY OBJECTIVE 5: A Europe closer to citizens by fostering the sustainable and integrated development of urban, rural and coastal areas and local initiatives13 Protection, development and promotion of public tourism assets and 128 0% 0% related tourism services Protection, development and promotion of cultural heritage and cultural 129 0% 0% services Protection, development and promotion of natural heritage and eco- 130 0% 100 % tourism 131 Physical regeneration and security of public spaces 0% 0% OTHER CODES RELATED TO POLICY OBJECTIVES 1-5 Improve the capacity of programme authorities and bodies linked to the 132 0% 0% implementation of the Funds Enhancing cooperation with partners both within and outside the 133 0% 0% Member State Cross-financing under the ERDF (support to ESF-type actions necessary 134 for the implementation of the ERDF part of the operation and directly 0% 0% linked to it) Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders 135 to implement territorial cooperation projects and initiatives in a cross- 0% 0% border, transnational, maritime and inter-regional context Outermost regions: compensation of any additional costs due to 136 0% 0% accessibility deficit and territorial fragmentation Outermost regions: specific action to compensate additional costs due 137 0% 0% to size market factors Outermost regions: support to compensate additional costs due to 138 40 % 40 % climate conditions and relief difficulties 139 Outermost regions: airports 0% 0% TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 140 Information and communication 0% 0% 141 Preparation, implementation, monitoring and control 0% 0% 142 Evaluation and studies, data collection 0% 0% Reinforcement of the capacity of Member State authorities, 143 0% 0% beneficiaries and relevant partners 13 For policy objective 5 all dimension codes under policy objectives 1 to 4 may be chosen in addition to those listed under policy objective 5. December 2019