Upload
ilene-hensley
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SCF PROGRAMMES
IMPLEMENATION IN MEMBER STATES
Viktoras Sirvydis, Lithuania CPMA
Institutional models in the MSCentralized
Denmark, Lithuania,
Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia,Slovakia, Hungary,
Greece, Sweden,Romania, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Malta,Luxembourg
Regionalized
Germany, Italy,Netherlands,
Austria,Belgium
Mixed
Poland, France, Finland,
Czech Republic, Spain,
UK, Ireland, Portugal
Institutional models observationsStudies shows that different management
and control systems in the Member States do not have major differences in administrative costs or workload.
In regionalised or mixed management systems, the regulatory framework and rules are often perceived to be too general and in need of substantial interpretation.
Delegation can also add to complexity as each new level of delegation brings extra supervision and reporting obligations.
Number of MA and IB in MS
22
11
1 1 1 1
7
1
18
7 7
95
18
10
4
1815 15 17
23
5
32
MA IB
* - including 63 IB II
5
Location of IB in MS
Government administration - ministry
Government administration - Agency
Government administration - others
Regional government administration
Local government
NGO's
Poland 16 12 8 59
Slovakia 3 7 8
Cyprus 3 5 2
Malta 2 2
Latvia 10 8
Lithuania 7 5 3
Hungary 8 7
Estonia 6 5 6
Czech Rep. 5 4 1 13
Bulgaria 2 3
Romania 5 3 16 8
Slovenia 14
6
MA AND IB EMPLOYEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF NSRF EMPLOYEES
62%
71%
82%
84%
77%
86%
69%
45%
61%
49%
14%
40%
49%
34%
35%
41%
26%
7%
5%
21%
23%
40%
6%
16%
Poland
Slovakia
Cyprus
Malta
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Romania
IB MA
How to assess your system?4 aims:
absorption: use funds (use 95-100%)correctness: use them without
repayment and recoveries (error rates under 2%)
efficiency: use them without additional costs (MS pay co-fin. + no more than additional10-15%)
effectiveness: use them with an impact (this is where the gap is the largest!)
Were to focus?Consider to focus on effectiveness and impact:In the current programming period we are
under pressure to focus on absorption, correctness and efficiency, not effectiveness and impact –however it’s changing- see draft 2014-20 SCF regulation.
Consider to avoid following consequence:If national MCS fails COM intervenes
(suspension, financial correction);COM checks reimbursements of payments
on account and applies decommitment.
MCS authorities and bodies
Managing
Authority
Certifying
Authority
Member State
AuditAuthori
ty
PayingBody
Intermediate Bodies
or
Accrediting Body
Coordinating Body
Intermediate Bodies
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
MCS set-up & accredit.
Programming
Annual
closure
Progr. closur
eEvaluation ex-ante
Evaluations midterm
Evaluation ex-post
Annual CR
Preparation Implementation, eligibility period
Completion
Closure
MCS improvements
Year
Durability check
Annual CR
Annual CR
Final impl. report
EC
EC
EC
EC
EC
MS
MS
MS
EC
EC MS
MA
PBBen.
CA
MA CA
MA
MA
MS
MS
AA
Progammes/projects forecasting and monitoring
Projects selection
Projects implementation/payments
Projects expenditure verification
Expenditures certification, payment applications to EC
Irregularities/Recoveries management
Information and publicity activities
MA
Annual
closure
Annual
closure
Annual
closure
MA
MA
Ac.ADecl. of assuranc
e
Annual CR
Annual CR
Annual CR
Institutional model optionsCoordinating
Body(Ministry)
Managing Authority(Ministry)
Member State functions
Intermediate Body 1
`(Ministry)
IntermediateBody 2
(Agency)
Selectiontasks
Verification tasks
CertifyingAuthority(Ministry)
1 2 3
Managing Authorityfunctions
Key functionsCoordinating Body – coordination of
programming and establishment of common legal framework, harmonisation of national rules and IT system;
Managing Authority – monitoring of OP implementation and supervision of delegated tasks;
Intermediate Body 1 – programming, selection of operations, grant contracting and monitoring of projects portfolio under it’s priority axis;
Intermediate Body 2 – support IB1 in selection, administrative and on-the-spot verification of eligible expenditure, project implementation control.
RecommendationsReduce uncertainties- make institutional
model and allocation of functions clear, avoid overlapping and various interpretations.
Avoid distribution of tasks among many institutions and departments as it weakens the implementation system.
Delegation of the tasks to one level can help to increase quality of controls and narrow interpretations of the rules, however avoid complex delegations and sub-delegations, which increase need for coordination and control.