addressing corruption risk in the eea and … · bg12 domestic and gender-based violence 2,000,000...

ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTSANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES

ISBN: 978-3-943497-81-6

© 2015 Transparency International. All rights reserved.© Cover photo: Istock/narvikk

Transparency International is a global movement with one vision: a world in which government, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption. Through more than 100 chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading the fight against corruption to turn this vision into reality.

www.transparency.org

1 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

BULGARIA ................................................................................................................................................................... 4

BULGARIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 4

BULGARIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 17

CYPRUS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18

CYPRUS - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 18

CYPRIOT NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS .............. 23


CZECH REPUBLIC .................................................................................................................................................... 28

CZECH REPUBLIC - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................... 28

CZECH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ................. 38


ESTONIA .................................................................................................................................................................... 40

ESTONIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 40

ESTONIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ........... 48


GREECE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49

GREECE - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 49

GREEK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ................. 55


LATVIA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 58

LATVIA - COUNTRY REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 58

LATVIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............... 65


LITHUANIA ................................................................................................................................................................. 72

LITHUANIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 72

LITHUANIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ........ 80


MALTA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 83

MALTA - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................... 83

MALTESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............. 88


POLAND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 90

POLAND - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 90

POLISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............... 101


Mitigation measures ......................................................................................................................................... 102

PORTUGAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 108

PORTUGAL - COUNTRY REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 108

PORTUGUESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ...... 115


ROMANIA ................................................................................................................................................................. 118

ROMANIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 118

SLOVAKIA ............................................................................................................................................................... 131

SLOVAKIA - COUNTRY REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 131

SLOVAK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............. 138


SLOVENIA ................................................................................................................................................................ 141

SLOVENIA - COUNTRY REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 141

SLOVENIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ....... 146


SPAIN ....................................................................................................................................................................... 150

SPAIN - COUNTRY REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 150

SPANISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............ 156



PREFACE

This annex complements the publication ‘Addressing Corruption Risk in the EEA and Norway Grants’. It

features the key findings of the risk assessment for 14 beneficiary states1 as well as the mitigation

measures developed in order to address the risks identified. Annex 1 presents the methodology for this

assessment, which was developed and implemented in consultation with relevant parties concerned, i.e.

the donors, the FMO and the beneficiary states.2

It is important to stress that this assessment did not look into any specific incidents of corruption. Instead,

based on a set of criteria, it assessed where corruption may be likely to occur, and how serious its impact

would be should it occur.

For all parties involved, the corruption risk assessment was a pilot exercise that proposed and tested new

ways of looking at corruption risks in the framework of a public grant mechanism, building on the

experience with similar approaches in the private sector. The production of the country reports included

several rounds of consultation with all relevant actors, in particular the National Focal Points (NFPs), the

entities responsible for the implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants in each of the beneficiary

states.

As a pilot exercise, the assessment was subject to particular scrutiny. The NFPs were asked to cross-

check key data and review the findings of the assessment. Their input contributed to improving and

refining both the methodology of this exercise and its results, but also pointed to important shortcomings

and areas for further improvement. A more detailed analysis of the added value and limitations of the

methodology as well as any lessons to be drawn from this experience for future similar exercises can be

found in the main report (pages 7-10).

The NFPs were invited to comment on the key findings for their respective countries and to present their

mitigation measures in official statements. Where provided, these statements are published in full and

unedited in this annex.3

It is also important to note that the timing of the delivery of the country reports varied substantially. The

first three draft reports were submitted in summer 2013 while the last reports were finalised in November

2014. This implies that the key findings may be partly outdated by the time of this publication, for example

because mitigation measures have been introduced in the meantime or because management or

institutional structures have changed. For each country report a date of end of data collection is

mentioned, indicating as of when the information on which the key findings were based was believed to

be correct.

1 Excludes Croatia and Hungary.

2 Transparency International commissioned the Berlin Risk Institute to conduct the corruption risk assessment. All

country reports presented in this annex were produced by the Berlin Risk Institute. 3 Each country report is followed by an official reaction from the relevant NFP, consisting of a response to the findings

and an overview of the risk mitigation measures foreseen or taken to date.

http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/addressing_corruption_risk_in_the_eea_and_norway_grants



http://berlinrisk.com/


BULGARIA

BULGARIA - COUNTRY REPORT

Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All

information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The

recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA

and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time

of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct

or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.

This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the

views of Transparency International.

[End of data collection: 18 August 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Bulgaria distributes a net amount of EUR 117.1 million. Fourteen programmes are

funded in Bulgaria, supporting a range of policy sectors.4 The Monitoring of EU Funds Directorate within

the Council of Ministers serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the

EEA and Norway Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the fourteen programmes, arranged according to the

amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).

Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Bulgaria

Programme

code Programme title

Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

BG08 Cultural Heritage and

Contemporary Arts 14,000,000 Ministry of Culture None

BG10

Green Industry

Innovation

Programme, Bulgaria

13,699,000 Innovation Norway N/A

BG07 Public Health

Initiatives 13,415,000 Ministry of Health None

BG04 Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy 13,260,245

Ministry of Economy,

Energy and Tourism

Norwegian Water

Resources and Energy

Directorate

4 See the official website for Bulgaria http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Bulgaria


BG05

Funds for Non-

governmental

Organisations

11,790,000 Open Society

Institute, Sofia N/A

BG06 Children and Youth at

Risk 8,430,113

Ministry of

Education, Youth

and Science

Council of Europe

BG15

Correctional Services

including Non-

custodial Sanctions

8,400,000 Ministry of Justice Council of Europe

BG02

Integrated Marine and

Inland Water

Management

8,000,000

Ministry of

Environment and

Water

Norwegian Environment

Agency

BG03 Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services 8,000,000

Ministry of

Environment and

Water


Agency

BG13

Schengen

Cooperation and

Combating Cross-

border and Organised

Crime, including

Trafficking and

Itinerant Criminal

Groups

6,000,000

Ministry of Interior,

International Projects

Directorate

National Police

Directorate of Norway,

Council of Europe

BG14

Judicial Capacity-

building and

Cooperation

3,000,000 Ministry of Justice Council of Europe

BG11

Capacity-building and

Institutional

Cooperation

2,016,000

Operational

Programme

Technical Assistance

Directorate, within

the Council of

Ministers

Norwegian Association

of Local and Regional

Authorities, Norwegian

Barents Secretariat

BG12 Domestic and Gender-

based Violence 2,000,000 Ministry of Interior Council of Europe

BG09 Scholarships 1,500,000

Ministry of

Education,

Science and Youth

Norwegian Centre for

International

Cooperation in

Education, Icelandic

Centre for Research,

National Agency for

International Education

Affairs, Liechtenstein


A Donor State institution, Innovation Norway, is responsible for the second-largest programme Green

Industry Innovation (BG10). The FMO is the Programme Operator for another large programme, Funds for

Non-governmental Organisations (BG05), with the Open Society Institute, Sofia, being contracted as the

Fund Operator.

While the Focal Point itself does not serve as a Programme Operator, another Directorate within the

Council of Ministers administration, the Operational Programme Technical Assistance Directorate, is

responsible for managing the programme Capacity-building and Institutional Cooperation (BG11).

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that ten

programmes (BG02, BG03, BG04, BG06, BG09, BG11, BG12, BG13, BG14, BG15) additionally involve

partner organisations from the Donor States or the Council of Europe (generally denoted as Donor

Programme Partners) at the programme level. This involvement not only supports the general goal of

strengthening bilateral and international relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the

respective organisations and Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the

programme.

Furthermore, 11 programmes (BG02, BG03, BG04, BG06, BG07, BG08, BG11, BG12, BG13, BG14,

BG15) feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive

project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme

Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).


Results of the corruption risk filtering process

Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Bulgaria.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Bulgaria - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

BU

LG

AR

IA

COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA

CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION

1. Country corruption risk HIGH

The rating is based on Bulgaria's rank in international indices and more detailed reports, which suggest that

corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country. Political instability stemming from frequent government changes

contributes to persistent issues concerning the sustainability of anti-corruption reforms and the independence of

relevant institutions, including the judiciary.

2. Net amount of grants to

country HIGH

The amount of funding allocated to Bulgaria implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in

this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.

3. Separation of functions &

complaints mechanism MED

The rating is based on some limitations regarding the separation of functions in the grants management structure and

the fact that the Complaint Mechanism as advertised is not fully compliant with the suggested standard.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES

PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA

CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

BG02 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH

The medium grant size in combination with increased sector and procurement risks heighten the risk rating for

criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Project Promoter

institution to the Programme Operator institution, and the implication of the PdP Project Promoter institution in

irregularities concerning public procurement of services heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The

Programme Operator institution’s deficiencies in the management and control of public procurement

procedures in its area of responsibility and involvement in legal controversies regarding construction projects

in protected areas raise the risk rating for criterion 7.


BG03 MED LOW HIGH MED MED

Increased conflict of interest risk due to the identical or subordinated status of the PdP Project Promoter

institutions to the Programme Operator institution, and the implication of both PdP Project Promoter

institutions in irregularities concerning public procurement procedures heighten the risk rating for criterion 6.

The medium grant size increases the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s deficiencies

in the management and control of public procurement procedures in its area of responsibility and involvement

in legal controversies regarding construction projects in protected areas raise the risk rating for criterion 7.

BG04 HIGH LOW MED MED MED

The large grant size in combination with increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The PdP

Project Promoter’s alleged failings to act as an effective and independent regulator of the power sector and

related recent controversies surrounding the adequate sanctioning of irregularities involving various foreign

and domestic electricity companies, increase the rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator institution

being associated with investigations into irregularities concerning the energy sector, including former key

personnel being implicated in corruption issues, concerning relevant allegations surrounding the South

Stream Project, raise the risk rating for criterion 7. The risk rating for criterion 7 and the combined rating for

this programme have been reduced to medium risk exposure only after the recent replacement of Programme

Operator’s key personnel in the current caretaker government of August 2014.

BG05 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size in combination with increased sector risk heighten the rating for criterion 4.


BG06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased sector risk heighten the rating for criterion 4. The

Programme Operator institution’s previous association with corruption issues increases the risk rating for

criterion 7.

BG07 HIGH MED MED LOW MED

The large grant size in combination with increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The lack

of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5. Increased conflict of

interest risks concerning the relationship between both PdP Project Promoter institutions and the Programme

Operator institution raises the risk rating for criterion 6.

BG08 HIGH MED HIGH MED HIGH

The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risks, taking into

account risk mitigation measures provisioned, and the implication of PdP Project Promoter’s key personnel in

corruption affairs in the past, heightens the risk rating for criterion 6. The lack of involvement of a Donor

Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. The association of Programme Operator’s key

personnel with indications of involvement in favouritism in the past, with subsequent media reports failing to

substantiate the indications, raises the risk rating for criterion 7.


BG09 MED LOW N/A MED MED Despite the small grant size, increased sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator

institution’s previous association with corruption issues increases the risk rating for criterion 7.

BG10 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size in combination with increased procurement risk heighten the risk rating for criterion 4.

BG11 MED LOW HIGH MED MED

Increased conflict of interest risk in the relationship between the Project Promoter for PdP2 and the

Programme Operator head institution, and the fact that the Project Promoters for PdP1 and PdP2 are

associated or affected, respectively, by financial corrections or suspension of payments involving EU funds

heighten the rating for criterion 6. Despite the small grant size, increased project size risk raises the rating for

criterion 4. The Programme Operator head institution’s association with major controversies involving

numerous corruption issues and with related political uncertainty in view of snap elections in fall 2014 raise

the risk rating for criterion 7.


BG12 LOW LOW MED MED MED

Uncertainties related to outstanding information about key personnel of the Project Promoter institution and

the National Project Partner institution, which is the same as the Programme Operator institution, raise the

risk rating for criterion 6. Recent implication of the Programme Operation institution in corruption issues and

the lack of information about key personnel increase the risk rating for criterion 7.

BG13 HIGH LOW MED MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk

rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk regarding PdP1, 2 and 6, taking into account risk

mitigations measures provisioned, and the recent implication of the Project Promoter institution for PdP 4 and

5 in corruption issues raise the risk rating for criterion 6. Recent implication of the Programme Operation

institution in corruption issues and the lack of information about key personnel increase the risk rating for

criterion 7.

BG14 MED LOW MED MED MED

Despite the small grant size, increased project size, procurement and sectors risks raise the risk rating for

criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk in relation to three of five PdPs, taking into account DPP

involvement and special measures as mitigating the risks, the indication of an irregularity affecting the

procurement procedure of one PdP, and the association of the Project Promoter of one PdP with

controversies surrounding the political independence of the judiciary increase the risk rating for criterion 6.

The association of the Programme Operator institution with deficiencies in the judicial system and fight

against corruption increase the risk rating for criterion 7.


BG15 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sector risk heighten the

risk rating for criterion 4. The association of the Programme Operator institution with deficiencies in the

judicial system and fight against corruption increase the risk rating for criterion 7.


BULGARIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Bulgarian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Bulgarian National Focal Point only.

Following the issue of the Transparency International Corruption Risk Filtering Report for

Bulgaria, the NFP was invited to present its response to the here presented summary. As a

general comment, we would like to note that the NFP expected a more serious report which

doesn’t rely on media allegations and unproven materials. Media are following their specific policy

and cannot serve as a basis of a serious analytical work.

Country level criteria 1: Country corruption risk “is based on Bulgaria's rank in international indices

and more detailed reports, which suggest that corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country.

Political instability stemming from frequent government changes contributes to persistent issues

concerning the sustainability of anti-corruption reforms and the independence of relevant institutions,

including the judiciary.”

The National Focal Point does not accept the above statement because Bulgaria has undertaken a

number of initiatives in order to minimise the risk of corruption and to secure a high level of visibility and

prevention on all administrative levels, including:

In 2009 the Bulgarian Government has adopted a “National Strategy for Prevention and Combating

Corruption and Organised Crime”. The instrument for implementation of the strategy is the national

project “Center for Prevention and Countering Corruption and Organized Crime” (CPSCOC) - a body

corporate and a secondary receiver of budget credits.

The Center is assigned to support the legislative, judicative and executive power in Bulgaria.

It has developed a specific Intervention Systems that coordinates the suppression of

corruption and organized crime following the project in partnership with its German

counterpart. The Intervention Systems are a complex whole of measure components and

packages which in combination with synchronized single measures achieves commensurable

efficient results, mostly focused on prevention of corruption.

The action of the Center aiming suppression of corruption has also another positive effect.

The application of innovative technologies has modernized obsolete administration structures

transforming them into efficient ones and gives an important contribution this way to the

modernizing trends of Bulgaria.

The Center is not an operatively active structure. No classified data or any person-related

data should be used. No highly sensitive information or even indices concerning corruption,

immediately relevant for investigation procedures are to be worked on. This is the relevant

difference between the Center and all the other institutions dealing with actions against

corruption. Main goal of the Center is to develop overall commensurable and efficient

prevention measures with an ongoing impact.

Another important tool in preventing and countering corruption risks and practices on national level is the

AFCOS (Protection of European Union Financial Interests) Directorate that works within the Ministry

of Interior and executes control, information and coordination activities. The AFCOS Directorate is a

specialized structure engaged for the overall coordination in the fight against infringements affecting the

European Union financial interests via operational cooperation, reporting irregularities and administrative

control activities. The Directorate is responsible at national level for reporting to the European

Commission of irregularities and frauds with EU funds and provides methodological guidance onto the

irregularities administering. AFCOS controls the National Authorities dealing with EU Funds, Programs

and Financial Instruments, for their compliance with the procedures for administering irregularities.


Country level criteria 2: Net amount of grants to country “The amount of funding allocated to Bulgaria

implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in this country, taking into

consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.”

The NFP does not accept the above statement because we do not see a direct link between the high

amount of allocation and the risk of corruption. Nevertheless, from our practice such programmes are

regarded as a priority and are subject of strict monitoring and audit by a number of institutions. Also,

generally we do not consider the relative programme size so big. The size of the programme is not

important but rather the average size of the projects, therefore we do not agree with the conclusion of the

report.

Country level criteria 3: Separation of functions and complaint mechanism, where it is stated that

the medium risk “is based on some limitations regarding the separation of functions in the grants

management structure and the fact that the Complaint Mechanism as advertised is not fully compliant with

the suggested standard.”, we would like to state the following:

The conclusion is not supported by any evidence. On national level the NFP has created a sound

system for detecting any irregularity. Such a system has been described within the Management and

Control Systems at national level. The same has been done by each Programme Operator. There is a

detailed procedure with consecutive steps to be followed once an irregularity is detected. The procedure

serves as guidance on how to register irregularities by the dedicated irregularities officer within the NFP.

The duties of the Irregularities Officer are described in his job description. Regarding the public

accessibility to submitting irregularities, there is such functionality on the webpage of the NFP and POs

can be contacted via their web pages.

A register for all irregularities is kept and updated at the NFP with all relevant information on every signal

that we receive. We are in close contact with the Programme Operators and with the respective

irregularities officers under each programme in order to facilitate the communication and consider each

case with the appropriate attention. The NFP is also performing monitoring of the procedures on

administrative eligibility level and providing advices to the POs for securing the independency of the

external evaluators. At the predefined projects (pdp) level we are aware that these projects are identified

as a priority for Bulgaria and the Donor States. That is why we are communicating on a regular basis with

the PO to identify any issues with the pdp beneficiaries, including possible conflict of interest.

Therefore, we consider the conclusions under Country level criteria 3 not to be supported by any evidence

and our systematic approach towards handling irregularities to correspond to the standards lain down in

art.11.8 of the Regulation.

Programme-level criteria 4: Grant allocation to programme

The NFP disagrees by using the same arguments as Country level criteria 2. The conclusion of the

report has no direct effect on the corruption risk. It rather depends on the size of the projects.

Programme level criteria 6: Pre-defined projects within programmes.

The NFP does not accept the statement. A predefined project is an instrument for direct intervention in

an area of high importance in a priority area for the donors and the beneficiary. It has different intervention

characteristics and logic from the open calls since the outcome is well known in advance and the

selection of the beneficiary is not the result of a subjective decision. The project promoter under a

predefined project has exclusive positions. Its exclusivity has a dominant positions, it is not a in a

competition with others. That is why there should not be subject to corruption practices.

We would also like to note that according to the report all predefined projects with project promoters within

the same administrative structure as the PO result in increased risk of corruption. When making such an

assumption, it should be taken into account that at the programme approval phase all projects with


beneficiaries within the same administrative structure as the PO had to present proves and reasonable

justification showing their administrative independence in order to avoid a case of conflict of interest. Such

justification has been presented and considered sufficient by the FMO. In addition, most of the predefined

projects are subject to external evaluation prior to the signing of the contract and the incurred

expenditures are checked by an external verificator – a legal entity independent and unrelated to the PO.

Programme level criteria 7: Programme Operator

The NFP does not accept the statement as we have noticed that the majority of the Programme

Operators have been given High or Medium risk factor. These conclusions are based mostly on

“implications” and “allegations” which are taken from sources that we do not consider viable and in some

cases the presented information dates back to 2004. The NFP would like also to note that the overall

assessment is made on institutional level rather than with focus on the directorates responsible for the

respective programmes. We do not consider many of the presented cases to be relevant to the

implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants and should not lead to conclusions about the risk of

corruption on programme level. Furthermore, conflict of interest at the stage of implementation of the pdp

is not applicable since the selection of external contractor follows the regulations of the Law on Public

Procurement that regulates an open and sound transparent procedure.

The NFP disagrees with the high risk rating for programme BG02 Integrated Marine an Inland Waters

Management for the following reasons:

The PdP Project Promoter institution has management and administrative independence

from the Programme Operator that has been proven in the course of programme approval

and implementation (incl. corresponding conditions from the PA were lifted upon presenting

of a package of documents in evidence of the above);

To mitigate the public procurement risk ex-ante control of the public procurement process is

envisaged according to the Management and Control System for programmes BG 02 and BG

03 at all stages – preparation and publication of tender documentation, evaluation of

submitted offers, drawing up of evaluation report and signature of contract. This ex-ante

control has the purpose to eliminate the risk of

With regards to Programme BG08 the NFP does not accept the implications regarding the pdp Project

Promoter’s key personnel involvement in corruption affairs in the past (criteria 6). These implications are

based on media publications and are not confirmed by the corresponding authorities. No court decision

has confirmed such conclusions and they should be treated more like allegations. We consider that in a

serious report there should be no place for such unproven acquisitions.

Moreover, an external evaluation of the PdP has been carried out by the PO in compliance with Annex I,

point 2.2.2. The external evaluation has been made in compliance with an evaluation grid approved in

advance with the FMO. The external evaluation is very positive and according to it a dedicated project

team has been formed. The PO does not expect any challenges during PdP implementation in this

regard.

Restructuring of the PO is at hand following the last parliamentary elections held in the country. The new

statutes of the Ministry of Culture will be approved in the beginning of December 2014. Having in mind

this, the risk rating for criterion 7 is unreasonably high. In addition all expenditures under the programme

will be subject of external verification.

Specifically under BG11 it is stated that there is “Increased conflict of interest risk in the relationship

between the Project Promoter for PdP2”. There is no connection because the PO is Operational

Programme Technical Assistance Directorate at the Council of Ministers and the project promoter is the

Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (currently named Ministry of Regional Development).

Therefore we consider the conclusions incorrect.

Under BG12 and BG13 both with PO the Ministry of Interior the report notes on “lack of information about

the acting Responsible Senior Official” which increases the risk rating. Information on the Senior Official is


available on the webpage of the Council of Ministers so the fact that the CV hasn’t been presented cannot

lead to increased risk of corruption.

The NFP would like to state firmly that none of the programmes has been or currently is accused in

corruption practices nor the implementing administrative departments have any history in such cases.

Mitigation measures

Following our comments on the report, we would like to ask for a revision of the made

conclusions. Nevertheless, the NFP always aims to improve the situation and is undertaking the

following measures:

The NFP is closely monitoring all public procedures under all programmes as we and the Royal Norwegian Embassy are participating as observers in the Selection Committee. In addition, on national level, a round table organized by the Deputy Prime-Minister of EU Funds Management was held on the 2

nd of September with the participation of all Bulgarian

institutions involved in the EU fund absorption. The outcome of the round table included the establishment of three working groups with the goal to analyze the existing legal framework, the practices of implementation of the public procurement act and the EC methodology for financial corrections. The aim is to propose a standard approach and a proposal for a law on EU funds management.

Additionally the NFP has proposed amendments of the Management and Control System on national level where a more detailed procedure for risk management has been proposed. We envisage after receiving a signal to form an internal group at the NFP in order to apply the four-eye principle. The proposed amendment are pending approval by the FMO.

On a horizontal level, the NFP is looking into any signals on possible breach of the principles of implementation laid down in article 1.6 of the Regulation. In this regard we have proposed amendments in the Management and Control System with the inclusion of an internal commission established by the NFP to investigate each case and guarantee maximum transparency.


CYPRUS

CYPRUS - COUNTRY REPORT










Introduction

The grants scheme in Cyprus distributes a net amount of EUR 7.3 million. Four programmes are funded in

Cyprus, supporting a range of policy sectors.5 The Planning Bureau within the Ministry of Finance serves

as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the

country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the four programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Cyprus

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

CY04

Norwegian Financial

Mechanism

Programme

3,445,000 Planning Bureau,

Ministry of Finance None

CY02

EEA Financial

Mechanism

Programme

2,163,500 Planning Bureau,

Ministry of Finance None

CY03

Funds for Non-

Governmental

Organisations

1,320,750

PriceWaterhouse

Coopers Ltd.

None

CY22 Decent Work and

Tripartite Dialogue 40,000 Innovation Norway N/A

5 See the official website for Cyprus http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Cyprus


Only three of the four programmes were assessed. Programme CY22 Decent Work and Tripartite

Dialogue (CY22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would

not have been applicable to the advanced project stage of the respective Programme Area 22.

Serving as both National Focal Point in Cyprus and Programme Operator for the two programmes (CY04

and CY02) consuming the majority of the grant, the Planning Bureau within the Ministry of Finance is a

crucial actor in the implementation of the grants scheme in Cyprus. Programmes CY02 and CY04 also

feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project

selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator

and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).

The programme Funds for Non-Governmental Organisations (CY03), is managed by a consortium

bringing together PriceWaterhouse Coopers Ltd. and First Elements Euroconsulting Ltd., selected via

tender by the Focal Point.



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Cyprus.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Cyprus - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

CY

PR

US


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G


1. Country corruption risk MED

Although Cyprus scores relatively well in international indices, the overall picture is ambivalent. Significant gaps

persist in the legal framework against corruption and its application, and the lack of a national anti-corruption strategy

and dedicated anti-corruption agency raise concerns about political will to address corruption issues.


country LOW

Cyprus receives the second smallest absolute grant of all Beneficiary States. The smaller amount of funding reduces

the overall corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in this country.


complaints mechanism HIGH

Limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure already suggests an increased risk

exposure; above all, the lack of a dedicated “complaint mechanism”, which should be placed prominently on the

grants scheme’s national website, raises a “red flag”.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

CY02 MED MED MED MED MED

This programme is allocated the middle-sized grant in Cyprus, and involves a large Pre-defined Project

which is likely to imply procurement risk, raising the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of

a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. A lack of transparency

regarding information on the status and involvement of two PdP Project Promoters, respectively, raise the

risk exposure for criterion 6. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme Operator and the

indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status6 raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

6 The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of

State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.


CY03 LOW MED N/A MED MED

The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5.

The partly intransparent set-up of the Programme Operator and its National Partner, bringing together two

private companies, and the political connection of key personnel at the National Partner, raise the risk

exposure for criterion 7.

CY04 MED MED MED MED MED

This programme is allocated the largest grant and involves procurement risks, raising the risk exposure for

criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for

criterion 5. The high number of 5 PdP and the exposed political status of one Project Promoter’s key

personnel raise the risk rating for criterion 6. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme

Operator and the indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status raise the risk exposure rating for

criterion 7.


CYPRIOT NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Cypriot National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Cypriot National Focal Point only.

1. Country-level results

1.1 Limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure

In accordance with the requirements of the Article 4.2 of the FM Regulations, the Republic of Cyprus

officially designated in its MoUs (concerning the two FMs) the Directorate General for European

Programmes, Coordination and Development (DGEPCD) of the Republic of Cyprus as the National Focal

Point (NFP).

Furthermore, in accordance with the signed MoUs, the DGEPCD has also been designated to act as the

Program Operator (PO) for the two cross sectoral Programmes (one under each FM).

1.2 Lack of a dedicated Complaint mechanism

The Complaint Mechanism has been set up and is published on the DGEPCD website

(www.dgepcd.gov.cy), under the EEA/Norway Grants section, since March 2014.

Furthermore, it is also published in the new national website for the EEA/Norway Grants,

(http://www.eeagrants.gov.cy).

1.3 Country corruption risk

1.3.1 “significant gaps persist in the legal framework against corruption and its application”

Cyprus has a series of laws aiming at combating corruption. Τhe level of anti-corruption

legislation in Cyprus is satisfactory and, although it is true that more steps are needed in order to

create a coherent and robust legal framework free from inconsistencies, the proposition that

“significant gaps persist” cannot be accepted. It shall be noted that GRECO, which is one of the

most comprehensive groups of experts against corruption, has repeatedly commented in its

reports the adequate level of anti-corruption legislation in Cyprus. The following laws are

relevant:

1. The Penal Code (Cap. 154)

2. The Prevention of Corruption Law of 2012 (Cap.161).

3. The Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe (Ratification) Laws of

2000 and 2012.

4. The Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption

(Ratification) Laws of 2006 and 2012.

5. The Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European

Communities or officials of the Member States of the European Union (Ratifying) Law 2004.

6. The Convention of the United Nations against Corruption (Ratification) Law of 2008.

7. The Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests and its

Protocols (Ratification) Law of 2003.

8. The Political Parties Law of 2012.


1.3.2 “lack of a national anti-corruption strategy and dedicated anti-corruption agency”

The Coordinating Body Against Corruption was established in 2003. It is not just an advisory

body, but it has also a mandate to develop and/or elaborate a consolidated anti-corruption

strategy for a wide range of areas. The Coordinating Body Against Corruption meets bimonthly

with its main tasks the continuous examination of the legislative and other measures related to

the fight against corruption and the submission of proposals for taking more initiatives and

measures of a legislative nature aimed at the fight against corruption. It is within this framework

that the Co-ordinating Body works to develop its anti-corruption strategy in all areas. To this

effect, pertinent international standards are also taken into account. The Body is also tasked with

raising public awareness of the risks of corruption and promoting cooperation between public

authorities and the private sector.

Furthermore, it has to be mentioned that, in a wider sense, the existing anti-corruption legislation

in Cyprus is, to a large extend, the outcome of certain anti-corruption strategy, since several laws

have been adopted the last few years as a result of the need to take more initiatives and

measures of a legislative nature aimed at the fight against corruption.

Police also deals with all corruption-related cases and conducts all necessary investigations.

There exists a special unit in the Police which deals with combating financial crime, including

corruption. Moreover, the Cyprus Police Academy organizes special training seminars regarding

the fight and protection against corruption.

It is also noted that the Office of the Attorney General is the prosecution authority in case a

corruption-related case is brought before a criminal court.

2. Programme-level results

2.1 Selection of the Pre-defined projects under the two Programmes

Given the small size of the Grant allocations to the Republic of Cyprus, it was decided in consultation with

the Donors that instead of selecting the projects through open calls with a heavy administrative burden,

that the best option would be the one of proposing pre-defined projects during the MoU negotiation

process. The predefined projects would in turn form the two cross sectoral Programmes (one under each

FM) to be operated by the DGEPCD.

For the selection of the pre-defined projects, the following factors were taken into account by the NFP:

(a) The minimum targets set in the FM Regulations which required that the priority sectors of

Environmental Protection and Management as well as Civil Society be included in the MoUs.

(b) The proposal of the Donors for programming part of the funds for bi-communal projects.

(c) That projects should serve the development aims of the Cyprus Government, so that existing

needs of the country could be met.

(d) That projects should contribute to the overall objectives of the FMs as well as to the specific

Programme outcomes and objectives.

(e) Other factors such as the wish of the Donors for continuity in the investment already provided

under the previous programming period through building up on the results of projects 2004-2009;

the maturity of the projects; their sustainability etc.

The predefined projects were discussed extensively during the MoU negotiations with the Donors on the

basis of Short Draft Proposals that were prepared by the prospective Applicants.

All proposed projects were approved in principle by the Donors and included in the MoUs as pre-defined

projects.

2.2 Procurement Risk


The Project Promoters are following the national Public Procurement Law and are supported by the

competent Public Procurement Department of the Treasury of the Republic, which also issues compliance

letters when required by the procurement procedure. One Project Promoter however, and according to

paragraph 3 of Article 7.16 of the FM regulation, follows its own internal purchase procedures, which are

similar to public procurement legislation and have been approved by the Programme Operator.

All expenses are subject to 100% verification. The Programme Operator is in frequent communication

with all Project Promoters, through bi-monthly meetings as well as via telephone or email communication,

with the aim of tackling any possible problems ahead of time.

2.3 Lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level

According to the provisions of the Article 3.2 (par.2) of the FM Regulations, the Donor States have

designated through the Norwegian MoU, two Donor Programme Partners (DPPs) for the Programme

Areas “Domestic and Gender Based Violence” and “Civil Society Support”.

No DPPs have been designated in the EEA MoU and due to the specificities of the Cyprus MoUs, where

each Programme Area corresponds to a specific predefined project, no other DPPs will be agreed upon

by the Donor States and the National Focal Point.

Due to the above mentioned specificities of the Cyprus MoUs, the role of the DPPs is restricted to the

specific projects only and not to the preparation and implementation of the Programmes. As a result, the

establishment and operation of a Cooperation Committee between the Programme Operator and the DPP

is not applicable in the case of Cyprus.

2.4 Lack of Transparency regarding information on the status and involvement of two Pre-defined

Projects´ Project Promoters

The two pre-defined projects and their Project Promoters have been agreed with the Donors and they

were included in the signed MoUs. There is no lack of transparency, since all the information regarding

the projects and their PPs was given to and approved by the Donors.

Given the small size of the Grant allocations to the Republic of Cyprus, it was decided in consultation with

the Donors that instead of selecting the projects through open calls with a heavy administrative burden,

that the best option would be the one of proposing pre-defined projects. The predefined projects were

discussed extensively during the MoU negotiations with the Donors on the basis of Short Draft Proposals

that were prepared by the prospective Applicants. All proposed projects were approved in principle by the

Donors and included in the MoUs as pre-defined projects.

2.5 The Focal Point also serves as the Programme Operator

In accordance with the signed MoUs, the Directorate General for European Programmes, Coordination

and Development (DGEPCD) has been designated to act as the National Focal Point (NFP) and as the

Program Operator (PO) for the two cross sectoral Programmes (one under each FM). However, within

the DGEPCD there is segregation of duties regarding the NFP and PO roles. Different officers are

involved in each role and there is no conflict of interest between the two roles.

Furthermore, it is noted that in the EEA/Norway Grants 2004-2009, the DGEPCD was also assigned by

the Donors (and specified in the signed MoUs), its dual role of being the NFP and the PO, where no

problems were encountered.

2.6 NGO fund Programme Operator set-up


In accordance with the Annex B of the MoU concerning the EEA FM 2009 – 2014, the Programme

Operator for the Programme “Funds for Non-Governmental Organisations” was selected through

competitive tendering procedures. The terms of reference for the Programme Operator were developed in

close cooperation with the Donors.

Furthermore, the status of the successful PO (having two private companies working together) was known

to all parties involved (including the Donor States and the FMO) from the beginning of the evaluation of

the tendering procedure.

Mitigation measures

Complaint mechanism – The Focal Point has already published the “Complaint Mechanism”

for the EEA/Norway Grants in its website (www.dgepcd.gov.cy) and on the national website

for the EEA/Norway Grants (www.eeagrants.gov.cy).

Procurement Risk – the public procurement procedures are followed and every individual

case is monitored accordingly

MITIGATION MEASURE 1

Description of measure Establishment of a complaint mechanism

Target programme/project All Programmes under the two MoUs

Corruption risk addressed Lack of a dedicated complaint mechanism

Implementation status

(planned, ongoing, complete

etc.) and timeframe

Completed

Description of activities

involved

Set-up of a complaint mechanism and published in the dedicated

national EEA/Norway Grants website and on the NFP´s website.

Results of mitigation measure

to date (please be as specific

as possible)

The Complaint Mechanism has been set up and is published on the

DGEPCD website (http://www.dgepcd.gov.cy), under the EEA/Norway

Grants section, since March 2014.

Furthermore, it is also published in the new national website for the

EEA/Norway Grants, (http://www.eeagrants.gov.cy).


Description of measure Addressing procurement risk

Target programme/project All Programmes

Corruption risk addressed Procurement risk



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing

Description of activities The Project Promoters are following the national Public Procurement

Law and are supported by the competent Public Procurement


involved Department of the Treasury of the Republic, which also issues

compliance letters when required by the procurement procedure. One

of the Project Promoters, and according to paragraph 3 of Article 7.16

of the FM regulation, follows its own internal purchases procedures,

which are similar to public procurement legislation and have been

approved by the Programme Operator.

In order to mitigate the risks, the Programme Operator is in frequent

communication, both through bi-monthly meetings as well as via

telephone or email communication with all Project Promoters with the

aim of tackling any possible problems regarding the procurement

procedures. Close monitoring for each individual tendering procedure

is followed by the Pos.



as possible)

No major problems concerning procurement procedures have been

encountered.


CZECH REPUBLIC

CZECH REPUBLIC - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 22 July 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Czech Republic distributes a net amount of EUR 121.9 million. Fourteen

programmes are funded in Czech Republic, supporting a range of policy sectors.7 The International

Relations Department of the Ministry of Finance serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the

overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.



Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Czech Republic

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

CZ06 Cultural Heritage and

Contemporary Arts 21,490,000 Ministry of Finance Arts Council Norway

CZ11 Public Health

Initiatives 19,180,000 Ministry of Finance

Norwegian National

Institute of Public Health

CZ02

Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services &

Environmental

Monitoring and

Integrated Planning

Control & Adaptation

to Climate Change

18,420,000 Ministry of Finance Norwegian Environment

Agency

CZ09 The Czech-Norwegian

Research Programme 12,500,000 Ministry of

Education, Youth

Research Council of

Norway

7 See the official website for Czech Republic http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Czech Republic


and Sports

CZ03

Funds for Non-

governmental

Organisations

9,810,000

Civil Society

Development

Foundation

N/A

CZ08

Pilot Studies and

Surveys on CCS

Technology

7,040,000 Ministry of Finance None

CZ14

Schengen

Cooperation and

Combating Cross-


Crime, including

Trafficking and

Itinerant Criminal

Groups


CZ12

Mainstreaming Gender

Equality and

Promoting Work-life

Balance & Domestic

and Gender-based

Violence; "Let's Give

(Wo)men a Chance"

6,200,000 Open Society

Foundation, Prague None

CZ15

Judicial Capacity

Building Cooperation

and Correctional

Services, Including

Non-custodial

Sanctions

4,928,000 Ministry of Finance Council of Europe

CZ04 Children and Youth at

Risk 4,298,000 Ministry of Finance None

CZ07 Bilateral Scholarship

Programme 3,827,000

Centre for

International

Cooperation in

Education

(subordinated to the

Ministry of

Education)


International

Cooperation in



National Agency for



CZ10


Institutional

Cooperation between

Beneficiary State and

Norwegian Public

Institutions, Local and

Regional Authorities

1,760,000 Ministry of Finance Council of Europe


CZ05

National, Regional and

Local Initiatives to

Reduce Inter-Group

Inequalities and to

Promote Social

Inclusion


CZ13

Domestic and Gender-

based Violence and


Equality and

Promoting Work-life

Balance

840,000 Ministry of Finance None

The Focal Point institution, the Ministry of Finance, serves as the Programme Operator for ten

programmes.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that seven

programmes (CZ02, CZ06, CZ07, CZ09, CZ10, CZ11, CZ15) additionally involve partner organisations

from the Donor States and the Council of Europe at the programme level (denoted as Donor Programme

Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral and international

relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective organisations and Programme

Operators in the development and implementation of the programme.

Furthermore, nine programmes (CZ02, CZ04, CZ05, CZ06, CZ10, CZ11, CZ13, CZ14, CZ15) feature so-

called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection

and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the

organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Czech Republic.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Czech Republic - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

CZ

EC

H R

EP

UB

LIC


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G


1. Country corruption risk MED The rating is based on the Czech Republic’s rank in international indices and more detailed reports, which suggest that corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country.

2. Net amount of grants to country

HIGH The amount of funding allocated to the Czech Republic implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.

3. Separation of functions &complaints mechanism

HIGH The rating is based on a limited separation of functions in the grants management structure and the absence of a complaint mechanism on the grants website, as required by the regulation and the suggested standard.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

CZ02 HIGH LOW MED HIGH HIGH

The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure

to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the assessment of the National Programme Partner

institution under criterion 6 heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. The implication of the Project Promoter

institution in various issues involving allegations of corruption and irregularities in public procurement

procedures raises the risk rating for criterion 6.


CZ03 MED MED N/A MED MED

The medium grant size increases the risk rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor

Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5. Indications of unclarified political issues affecting

the Programme Operator’s project selection process increases the risk rating for criterion 7.

CZ04 LOW MED HIGH HIGH HIGH

The recent implication of the PdP Project Promoter institution in corruption related to procurement and to

irregularities affecting EU funds heightens the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator

institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level, and the assessment of the National

Programme Partner institution under criterion 6 heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. The lack of a Donor

Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5.

CZ05 MED MED LOW MED MED

Despite the small grant size, increased project size risk raises the rating for criterion 4. The lack of

involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator

institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level increases the risk rating for criterion

7.


CZ06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED

The Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the

National Programme Partner institution’s previous association with a conflict of interest affair increase the

risk rating for criterion 7.

CZ07 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW

CZ08 HIGH MED N/A HIGH HIGH


rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the

leadership level, the National Programme Partner institution’s implication in various issues involving

allegations of corruption and irregularities in public procurement procedures, and a possible conflict of

interest issue in relation to the National Programme Partner, heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. The lack

of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5.


CZ09 MED LOW N/A MED MED

The medium grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s previous

association with irregularities concerning public procurement procedures and financial corrections affecting

EU funds increases the risk rating for criterion 7.

CZ10 MED LOW MED MED MED

Despite the small grant size, increased project size, procurement and sector risks raise the risk rating for

criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risks, taking into account some risk mitigation measures,

concerning the particular role of the Project Promoter institution and its subordinated status in relation to the

Programme Operator institution raise the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator institution’s

exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level increase the risk rating for criterion 7.

CZ11 HIGH LOW LOW HIGH HIGH

The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure

to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the National Programme Partner institution’s earlier

implication in various issues involving irregularities in public procurement and corruption heighten the risk

rating for criterion 7.


CZ12 MED MED N/A LOW LOW The medium grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme

Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5.

CZ13 LOW MED Not

included

MED MED

Criterion 6 was not included in the rating due to undeclared changes in the management of the Pre-defined

Project. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5. The

Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level increases the

risk rating for criterion 7.

CZ14 HIGH MED MED MED MED


rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for

criterion 5. Indications of increased exposure of the PdP Project Promoter institution to political influence

raises the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest

risks at the leadership level increases the risk rating for criterion 7.


CZ15 MED LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH

Previous irregularities related to the origins of PdP 4-7, the implication of the Project Promoter institutions

for PdP1 and PdP2 in unclarified irregularities in relation to a public procurement procedure, and missing

information regarding key personnel of PdP2, heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme

Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the assessment of the

National Programme Partner institution under criterion 6 heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. Despite the

small grant size, increased project size, procurement and sector risks raise the risk rating for criterion 4.


CZECH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Czech National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Czech National Focal Point only.

1) As for the country level results the NFP comments to only the criterion 3 is applicable. With regard to the finding that there is a limited separation of functions in the grants management structure, the NFP would like to point out that the management structure was consulted and approved by the donors (during the negotiations of EEA and Norway Grants 2009-2014 as well as by signing the Memorandum of Understanding) and is fully in compliance with the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA(Norway Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014 (which allows the NFP to act as the Programme Operator). As regards the finding that a complaint mechanism is absent on the grants website, the NFP would like to point out that on the web sites there is a section “Contacts” including the sub-section “Complaints” through which the complaints may be sent to the NFP. Furthermore, there is always the possibility to address complaints to the NFP by standard channels (e.g. mail, data box, e-mail) which are well known to the public. However, in order to react to this finding, the NFP will reconsider the current set up and will make the section “Complaints” more visible within the web sites (this means that “Complaints” will not be under section “Contacts”, but will present a separate section) as well as will develop it more (more information and better mechanism (in compliance with the Regulation and the standard suggested by the FMO) will be established).

2) After going through the report and its annexes, the NFP decided not to comment the general assessment of corruption risks in the Czech Republic; this is not a role of the NFP and it is not in its competency. However, the NFP understands that it was one of the aspects which were used for the risk assessment of the programmes. The NFP is neither going to comment the methodology used. Results of the assessment of particular programmes (especially the criterion 7 – Programme Operator), as it is seen from the annexes, are mostly based on information published in press (not always reliable ones), referring to various allegations about different institutions (Czech Ministries) and different individuals working in these institutions, using the wording “possible conflict of interest” and “possible corrupt practices”. In addition these allegations often occurred in period when these institutions were not involved in the EEA and Norway Grants, but from the report it is not obvious whether the TI took them into account in the assessment. In cases where such information is not available, the result of the assessment is low risk exposure (e.g. CZ07, CZ12). Regarding programme CZ08, we would have welcomed more concrete justifications and recommendations with respect to the finding. This is also the reason why the NFP cannot propose any mitigation measures to the programme-level results.

3) The NFP proposes to reconsider and revaluate the methodology used, especially not to make the results and findings based on the individuals who are not directly involved in the EEA and Norway Grants but working in the institutions involved in these grants.

Mitigation measures

Based on the NFP response and explanation provided in the above section, it is not possible for the NFP

to propose any mitigation measures to the programme-level results as there are no justifications and no

concrete recommendations in respect of those finding.


As for the country-level results, the NFP proposes mitigation measure in respect of developing the

complaint mechanism (see above).


Description of measure Developing of Complaint Mechanism

Target programme/project At the country level (NFP) for all programmes

Corruption risk addressed Absence of the Complaint mechanism



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing

Completion expected within 2015


involved

Improvement of Complaint mechanism on the national EEA and

Norway Grants web sites.



as possible)

The section Complaints was made more visible within the web sites

and more contact details were included in October 2014. In 2015 it is

plan to develop an on-line form to address any complaints (and to

develop it in compliance with the Regulation and the standard

suggested by the FMO).


ESTONIA

ESTONIA - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 3 September 2013]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Estonia distributes a net amount of EUR 44,9 million. Eleven programmes are

funded in Estonia, supporting a range of policy sectors.8 The Structural and Foreign Assistance

Department of the Ministry of Finance serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall

management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the eleven programmes, arranged according to the


TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMMES IN ESTONIA

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

EE08 Public Health

Initiatives 8,912,000

Ministry of Social

Affairs

Norwegian Institute of

Public Health

EE02


Inland Water

Management

6,900,000 Ministry of

Environment


Agency

EE04 Children and youth at

risk 6,505,000

Ministry of Education

and Research



Authorities

EE07 Green Industry

Innovation 6,000,000

Ministry of Economic

Affairs Innovation Norway

8 See the official website for Estonia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Estonia


EE05

Conservation and

Revitalisation of

Cultural and Natural

Heritage

4,510,000 Ministry of Culture Directorate for Cultural

Heritage (RA)

EE06 Research cooperation 3,000,000 Ministry of Education

and Research

Research Council of

Norway

EE03 NGO Programme 2,300,000 Open Estonia

Foundation None

EE09


Equality and

Promoting Work-Life

Balance

2,000,000 Ministry of Social

Affairs

Norwegian Ministry of

Children, Equality and

Social Inclusion

EE11 Domestic and Gender-

based Violence 2,000,000

Ministry of Social

Affairs

Norwegian Directorate

of Health

EE10 Scholarships 1,600,000 Ministry of Education

and Research

Icelandic Centre for

Research; National

Agency for International

Education Affairs,

Liechtenstein;


International

Cooperation in

Education

EE22 Decent Work and


Only ten of the eleven programmes were assessed. Programme EE22 Decent Work and Tripartite

Dialogue (EE22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would


Ten of the programmes are managed by six Programme Operator institutions. The Ministry of Social

Affairs manages the programmes Public Health Initiatives (EE08), Mainstreaming Gender Equality and

Promoting Work-Life Balance (EE09) and Domestic and Gender-based Violence (EE11). Taking into

consideration both the number and size of the programmes under its control, it is clear that the Ministry of

Social Affairs plays a major role in the grants scheme in Estonia. Another important Programme Operator

institution is the Ministry of Education and Research which also manages three programmes, Children

and youth at risk (EE04), Research cooperation (EE06) and Scholarships (EE10). The NGO Fund

programme (EE03) is managed by a so-called Fund Operator, Open Estonia Foundation, which was

contracted directly by the FMO.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that all

programmes except for the NGO Fund programme additionally involved partner organisations from the

Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports

the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests close cooperation between the


respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the implementation of the

programme.

All programmes except EE06, EE07 and EE10 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are

exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of

collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined

Project (the Project Promoter).



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Estonia.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Estonia - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

ES

TO

NIA


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G


1. Country corruption risk LOW

Although corruption issues in the public sector persist, Estonia’s ranking in relevant international corruption indices

such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2012), its overall efficient national institutions

and the government’s recently reissued anti-corruption strategy generally indicate a reduced likelihood of

corruption.

2. Net amount of grants to country LOW

Estonia is one of the five Beneficiary States which receive a comparatively smaller amount of funding in absolute

terms. A smaller amount of funding reduces the overall corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in the

country.



The limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure suggests a Medium Risk

Exposure; the required “complaint mechanism” is advertised on the grants homepage.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


Co

mb

ine

d P

rog

ram

me

Ra

tin

g


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

EE02 MED LOW MED MED MED

Large grant size and unspecific sector and procurement risks, a high number of Pre-defined Projects, the

fact that three of them are promoted by the same organisation, and one Project Promoter’s association with

a corruption case, increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. Recent incidents of corruption at the

Programme Promoter institution and the indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status9 also

increase risk exposure for criterion 7.

9 The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of

State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.


EE03 LOW MED LOW LOW LOW The lack of cooperation with a Donor Partner moderately increases risk exposure for criterion 5.

EE04 MED LOW HIGH MED MED

The large grant size and the Pre-defined Project receiving more than one third of the grant amount increase

the risk exposure for criterion 4. The Programme Operator’s institution’s earlier implication in a corruption

incident raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 7. Corruption issues linked to the PdP Project Promoter

institution, which also functions as the Project Promoter in PdP 3 of EE08, and working connections

between key personnel at the department concerned and other key personnel previously implicated in a

corruption case lead to a heightened exposure to corruption risk for criterion 6.

EE05 MED LOW LOW LOW LOW The medium grant size increases the risk exposure for criterion 4. Apart from the indication of key

personnel’s politically exposed status in criterion 7, no relevant issues were revealed.


EE06 LOW LOW N/A MED LOW The Programme Operator’s institution’s earlier implication in a corruption incident raises the risk exposure


EE07 MED LOW N/A MED MED

Large grant size and procurement increase risk exposure for criterion 4. The association of the Programme

Operator institution with a corruption issue and the indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status

moderately increase risk exposure for criterion 7.

EE08 HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH

This programme is allocated the largest grant in Estonia. One Pre-defined Project receives more than one

third of the grant amount; in addition, procurement and sector risks also lead to a heightened risk exposure

for criterion 4. Apart from the large size of one Pre-defined Project, the high total number of Pre-defined

Projects and the previous association of Project Promoters with corruption incidents lead to a heightened

risk exposure for criterion 6. The direct implication of personnel of the Programme Operator institution and

Pre-defined Project in corruption incidents, combined with the indication of key personnel’s politically

exposed status, amount to a heightened risk exposure for criterion 7.


EE09 MED LOW LOW MED MED

Both for EE09 and EE11, the total grant size is relatively small, but one Pre-defined Project receives more

than one third of the grant amount, increasing risk exposure for criterion 4. Recent incidents of corruption at

the Programme Operator institution which is identical for both EE09 and EE11, the fact that the Programme

Operator’s key personnel are identical for both programmes, and the indication of key personnel’s politically

exposed status increase the risk exposure for criterion 7.

EE10 MED LOW N/A MED MED

While the grant size is relatively small, sector risks increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. The

Programme Operator’s institution’s earlier implication in a corruption incident raises the risk exposure rating

for criterion 7.

EE11 MED LOW LOW MED MED

Both for EE09 and EE11, the total grant size is relatively small, but one Pre-defined Project receives more

than one third of the grant amount, increasing risk exposure for criterion 4. Recent incidents of corruption at

the Programme Operator institution which is identical for both EE09 and EE11, the fact that the Programme

Operator’s key personnel are identical for both programmes, and the indication of key personnel’s politically

exposed status increase the risk exposure for criterion 7.


ESTONIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Estonian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Estonian National Focal Point only.

The National Focal Point acknowledges the corruption risk assessment and takes notice of the results

and recommendations. The NFP does not agree with high risk of the Norway/EEA Grants’ programmes

due to their size in country context. Regarding the high number of pre-defined projects, the NFP is of the

opinion that pre-defining rather helps programmes to have an impact in the field. Regarding the

Programme Operators’ association with previous corruption cases the NFP does not recognise a need for

additional and specific mitigation measures for Norway/EEA Grants. The NFP assumes that management

and control systems set up for all the programmes are adequate to prevent new cases. In addition to the

new anticorruption strategy 2013-2020 already mentioned in the report in 2013 a new version of the Civil

Service Act came into force. The act inter alia regulates public servants’ obligations in connection with

ethic and anti-corruptive behaviour (integrity, independence, dignity etc.), prohibiting the hiring of one’s

close relative under one’s subordination, restrictions on public servants’ activities (prohibiting supervision

over a person connected to oneself, prohibiting earning of profit for services if the same activity is

included in one’s functions etc.) etc. As a result of reorganisation of the control system of Structural Funds

managed by the Ministry of Social Affairs verification of payment claims of the Norway Grants

programmes EE08, EE09 and EE11 was moved to the Ministry of Finance (separately from the NFP) as

of 1st July 2014. Regarding the function of the complaint mechanism on the Grants’ website, it leads a

user to multiple choices. A complaint can be addressed to the European Anti-Fraud Office, the Security

Police or the Ministry of Finance. Complaints will be handled according to the complaint handling set-up in

the relevant institution. Up to the present no complaints regarding the implementation of the Norway/EEA

Grants have been made. In conclusion, the NFP continues its monitoring activities as planned and no

additional corruption mitigation measures will be set up until such need arises during existing monitoring

activities.

Mitigation measures

The NFP continues its monitoring activities as planned and no additional corruption mitigation measures

will be set up until such need arises during existing monitoring activities.


GREECE

GREECE - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 26 June 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Greece distributes a net amount of EUR 58.6 million. Seven programmes are

funded in Greece, supporting a range of policy sectors.10

A unit within the Special Secretariat for the

National Strategic Reference Framework of the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness and Shipping

serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway

Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the seven programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Greece

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

GR06

Capacity Building of

National Asylum and

Migration

Management Systems

12,524,050

Ministry of Public

Order and Citizen

Protection (European

and Development

Programmes

Division)


of Immigration

GR02


Inland Water

Management

9,510,000

Ministry of

Environment, Energy

and Climate Change

(Special Service for

the Co-ordination of

Environmental

Activities)

None

GR03 Renewable Energy 9,510,000

Center for

Renewable Energy

Sources and Saving

None

10

See the official website for Greece http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Greece


GR05

Address Urgent Needs

for the Reception and

Screening of New

Arrivals and for the

Accommodation of

Vulnerable Groups.

Assistance to

voluntary returns.

8,349,367

FMO / International

Organisation for

Migration


of Immigration

GR04

Funds for Non-

Governmental

Organisations

7,340,000 FMO / Bodossaki

Foundation None

GR08 Solidarity and Social

Inclusion in Greece 4,265,217

FMO /

Pricewaterhouse

Coopers Ltd - First

Elements Euro-

consultants Ltd.,

Cyprus

None

GR07 Research 2,996,311

General Secretariat

for Research and

Technology within


and Religious Affairs

None

The Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change is responsible for the programme Integrated

marine and inland water management (GR02). The Ministry also supervises the Center for Renewable

Energy Sources, which is the Programme Operator for the programme Renewable energy (GR03).

The Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) is the Programme Operator for three programmes, using different

Fund Operators for the in-country grant management of each programme.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that the

programmes GR05 and GR06 additionally involve a partner organisation from the Donor State Norway,

the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, at the programme level (Donor Programme Partner). This

involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a

close cooperation between the Donor Programme Partner and the Programme or Fund Operator in the

development and implementation of the programme.

Furthermore, five programmes (GR02, GR03, GR05, GR06, GR08) feature so-called Pre-defined

Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and therefore

present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation

running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Greece.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Greece - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

GR

EE

CE


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



The rating is based on Greece’s rank in international indices and on more detailed reports, which suggest that

corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country. Greece has only recently launched a strategic reform of its

legislative and institutional anti-corruption framework, the extent and impact of which remain to be seen. Therefore, a

considerable level of uncertainty with regard to future integrity of the public sector persists.


country MED

The amount of funding allocated to Greece implies an increased exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in




The rating is based on a limited separation of functions between the Focal Point and the Certifying Authority, ongoing

uncertainty surrounding the Focal Point’s management structure, which also concerns the responsibility for

irregularities reporting, and the absence of the required complaint mechanism.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

GR02 MED MED LOW MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased procurement risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.

The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. The

Programme Operator institution’s recent implication in alleged irregularities in relation to a public tender

process in the energy sector, and a complaint against violation of the right to protection of health under the

European Social Charter, recognised by the Council of Europe, increase the risk rating for criterion 7.


GR03 MED MED MED LOW MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased procurement risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.

The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. Uncertainty

regarding the not yet selected Project Promoter for the Pre-defined Project raises the risk rating for criterion

6.

GR04 MED LOW N/A MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased sector risk raise the rating for criterion 4. Increased

conflict of interest risk attached to Fund Operator’s programme management arrangements with key

personnel also active in private consulting raise the risk rating for criterion 7.

GR05 MED LOW LOW LOW LOW The medium grant size in combination with increased project size risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.


GR06 HIGH LOW MED MED MED

The large grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk

rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the fact that the Project Promoters for Pre-

defined Projects 1 and 2 report to the PO institution, indicated conflict of interests risks concerning key

personnel of PdP2, and uncertainty regarding the not yet selected Project Promoter for Pre-defined Project

3 raise the risk rating for criterion 6, taking into account relevant risk mitigation measures conditioned with

respect to the operation of the PdPs. The Programme Operator institution’s recent implication in allegations

of human rights violations, reported by the Council of Europe Commissioner of Human Rights, concerning

the ill-treatment of irregular migrants and related corrupt practices by staff members of the border police,

increases the risk rating for criterion 7.

GR07 LOW MED N/A MED MED

The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. Reputational

risk attached to the Programme Operator institution’s recently appointed key personnel’s association with a

fraud scandal, which appears to have occurred during a previous assignment, increases the risk rating for

criterion 7.

GR08 MED LOW HIGH MED MED

The fact that the Project Promoter institution for Pre-defined Project 1 was implicated in a corruption affair

before, uncertainty with respect to not yet selected key personnel for PdP1, and increased conflict of

interest risks concerning key personnel of Pre-defined Project 2 heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The

small grant size in combination with increased project size risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4. The

circumstances of the Fund Operator’s selection and the assumption that a Cyprus-based Fund Operator is

equally suited to manage possible risks attached to projects involving local partners in Greece, raise the risk



GREEK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Greek National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Greek National Focal Point only.

The responses of National Focal Point regarding the key findings presented in the corruption risk

assessment country report are the following:

Regarding criterion 1: The head of the National Focal Point is responsible to monitor, record and inform

regarding the progress in the implementation of the national anti-corruption strategy and action plan.

Regarding criterion 3: According to the Regulation (article 4.3) and the Hellenic Management and Control

System (article 7), the functions in the national grant management are separated. More specifically, in the

context of the implementation of the EEA Grants 2009-2014, three National Public Entities - functionally

independent to each other –are established. The Certifying Authority is responsible to certify financial

flows, the Audit Authority is responsible for verifying the effective functioning of the Management and

Control System and the National Focal Point has the overall responsibility for reaching the objectives of

the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and implementing the MoU objectives. Moreover, according to

the Article 2 & Article 39 (OGG 185/A΄/03.09.2014) regarding the new organizational structure of the

Ministry of Development and Competitiveness, the NFP has become a new distinctive unit entitled

“Independent Unit of EEA Planning, Co-ordination and Monitoring – National Focal Point” under the

General Secretariat of Public Investment - NSRF. Finally, a complaint mechanism has been introduced in

the EEA Grants website for Greece (www.eeagrants.gr). The Complaint mechanism is in line with the

recommendations of the FMC and Transparency International.

Regarding the programmes rated at medium or high risk exposure:The calls and the subsequent criteria

launched by the POs are reviewed by the FMO before their publication.

Regarding GR03 and GR06: The selection of the Promoter for the Predefined Project of GR03 was done

through a call that has been launched by the Program Operator, ensuring the appropriate degree of

publicity. The Promoters for the Pre-defined Projects of GR06 have been determined by agreement with

the FMO.

Regarding GR04, GR06 and GR08: In order to decrease the conflict of interest, risks mitigation measures

have been provided in the Program Implementation Agreement. In particular, the three predefined

projects are appraised in accordance with Article 5.5.3 of the Regulation by an independent and external

expert, prior to the signature of the project contracts. The expert is independent of the Ministry of Public

Order and Citizen’s Protection.

In addition, National Focal Point ensures that the Program Operator’s monitoring and control functions

described in Article 4.7.1.e) and f) of the Regulation in respect of the three predefined projects of the

program, is carried out by an entity independent of the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen’s Protection.

The precise division of responsibilities between the Program Operator and this entity is described in detail

in the Program’s management and control system.

Mitigation measures



Description of measure Establishment of a national Management and Control System

Target programme/project All Programs

Corruption risk addressed Separation of functions & complaints mechanism



etc.) and timeframe

Partially completed (legislative actions)

Ongoing (website & complaint mechanism)

Description of activities The establishment of a national Management and Control System by

the beneficiary country provides the legislative framework for ensuring

the separation of the functions involved in the context of EEA 2009-

2014.

More specifically, according to the article 7 of the Management and

Control System, three National Public Entities - functionally

independent to each other –are established. The Certifying Authority

which is responsible to certify financial flows, the Financial Audit

Committee, which is responsible for verifying the effective functioning of

the Management and Control System, while the National Focal Point

has the overall responsibility for reaching the objectives of the EEA

Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and implementing the MoU objectives.

Moreover, according to the Article 2 & Article 39 (OGG

185/A΄/03.09.2014) regarding the new organizational structure of the

Ministry of Development and Competitiveness, the NFP’s structure has

changed. The NFP is a new distinctive unit entitled as “Independent

Unit of EEA Planning, Co-ordination and Monitoring” under the General

Secretariat of Public Investment - NSRF.

The NFS runs the website www.eeagrants.gr (since December 2014),

which supports the function of a Complaint Mechanism in compliance

with the standards suggested by the FMC.

Results of mitigation

measure to date

A clearer structure and a functional complaint mechanism.


Description of measure Procedures for the selection of Project Promoters for Pre-defined

Projects

Target programme/project GR-03 & GR-06


Corruption risk addressed Conflict of interest



etc.) and timeframe

Completed

Description of activities In case of GR-03 the selection of the Project Promoter for the pre-

defined project was launched under an open call, ensuring the

appropriate degree of publicity.

In case of GR-06 the selection of the Project Promoters for the three

pre-defined projects has been determined by agreement with the FMO,

and in line with the national legislation.


measure to date

GR-03 selection of PP (pending)

GR-06 selection of PPs (completed)


Description of measure External evaluation of pre-defined projects

Target programme/project GR-06

Corruption risk addressed Conflict of interest



etc.) and timeframe

Complete

Description of activities The three predefined projects are appraised in accordance with Article

5.5.3 of the Regulation by an independent and external expert, prior to

the signature of the project contracts. The contracted expert is

independent of the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen’s Protection.


measure to date

External appraisals for pre-defined projects


LATVIA

LATVIA - COUNTRY REPORT










Introduction

The grants scheme in Latvia distributes a net amount of EUR 67.5 million. Eight programmes are funded

in Latvia, supporting a range of policy sectors.11

The EU Funds Monitoring Department of the Ministry of

Finance serves as the National Focal Point responsible for the overall management of the EEA and

Norway Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the eight programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Latvia

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

LV08

Reform of the Latvian

Correctional Services

and Police Detention

Centers

13,056,000

Ministry of Justice, in

cooperation with the

Ministry of the

Interior

The Norwegian

Correctional Service,

Council of Europe

LV06 Green Industry


Ministry of

Economics Innovation Norway

LV02 National Climate

Policy 10,365,000

Ministry for

Environmental

Protection and

Regional

Development


Agency; Directorate for

Civil Protection and

Emergency Planning

11

See the official website for Latvia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Latvia


LV03 NGO Fund 10,365,000 Society Integration

Foundation None

LV04

Conservation and

Revitalisation of


Heritage

10,019,500 Ministry of Culture

Directorate for Cultural

Heritage, Arts Council

Norway

LV05 Research and

Scholarships 5,510,250


and Science

The Norwegian Centre

for International

Cooperation in

Education, The

Research Council of

Norway

LV07

Capacity‐Building and

Institutional

Cooperation between

Latvian and

Norwegian Public

Institutions, Local and


4,992,000

Ministry for

Environmental

Protection and

Regional

Development

The Norwegian

Association of Local and


LV22 Decent Work and


The Programme Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue (LV22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk

Filtering procedure, because this approach would not have been applicable to the advanced project stage

of the respective Programme Area 22, which is implemented in 12 out of 15 countries with Innovation

Norway as the general Programme Operator.

Seven of the programmes are managed by six Programme Operator institutions. The largest programme

LV08 (Reform of the Latvian Correctional services and Police Detention Centres) is managed by the

Ministry of Justice together with the Ministry of the Interior.

The Ministry for Environmental Protection and Regional Development manages two programmes,

National Climate Policy (LV02) and Capacity-Building and Institutional Cooperation between Latvian and

Norwegian Public Institutions, Local and Regional Authorities (LV07).

It is noteworthy that the Programme NGO Fund (LV03) is managed by the Society Integration Foundation

which is a foundation under public law.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that all

programmes except for the NGO Fund programme additionally involve partner organisations from the


the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests close cooperation between the

respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the implementation of the

programme.

All programmes except LV05 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the

general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion


between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the

Project Promoter).



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Latvia.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Latvia - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

LA

TV

IA


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



Corruption is still perceived as a major issue in Latvia, according to the country’s rating in relevant international

corruption indices such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2012). The gap between

anti-corruption legislation and practice, and structural challenges in the public sector persists. It remains to be seen

whether the anti-corruption strategy (2009-2013) will be renewed. There is a new risk that the reputation of

effectiveness which the special anti-corruption agency has earned in Latvia may suffer from internal disputes.

2. Net amount of grants to country MED Latvia is one of the countries which receive a medium sized amount of grants in absolute terms. A medium amount

of funding implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in the country.



Limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure generally increases the risk exposure.

At the same time the Focal Point advertised an essential “Complaints Mechanism” on its grants website at an early

stage last year, which only requires some updating to comply with the suggested standard practice.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


Co

mb

ine

d P

rog

ram

me

Ra

tin

g


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

LV02 MED LOW MED LOW MED

The large grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Project Promoter for both Pre-

defined Projects is a department within the Programme Operator institution, and the politically exposed

status of Project Promoter’s key personnel12

raise the risk rating for criterion 6.

12

The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.


LV03 MED MED MED MED MED

The grant size raises the rating for criterion 4. The fact that no Donor Partner is involved in the programme

raises the risk rating for criterion 5. A certain lack of transparency regarding the Pre-defined Project and the

relationship between Project Promoter, National Partners and Programme Operator raise the rating for

criterion 6. The fact that the Programme Operator is a state body associated with irregularities earlier, and

the unclear nature of collaboration with one National Partner, which is a ministry, raises the risk rating for

criterion 7.

LV04 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH

A large grant size with one Pre-defined Project almost receiving half of the funding and implying

procurement risks, increases the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Promoter of the

aforementioned and another Pre-defined Project is a State-owned company which was accused of

insufficient performance earlier, heightens the risk exposure for criterion 6. The Programme Operator’s

recent implication with a corruption case (later cleared), key personnel’s politically exposed status and

missing information about key personnel increased the risk exposure for criterion 7.

LV05 MED LOW N/A HIGH HIGH

The fact that Programme Operator’s key personnel have recently been suspended following implication in

irregularities related to a EU-funded programme heightens the risk exposure for criterion 7. Despite a

medium grant size the programme is associated with sector risks, which raises the rating for criterion 4. In

this case the results and the rating regarding criterion 7 dominates the overall rating of LV05.


LV06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED

The grant size, which is the largest among all programmes in Latvia, as well as sector and procurement

risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Programme Operator’s and its National

Partner’s key personnel have a politically exposed status, and some inconsistency in the information about

key personnel’s engagement in the board of a state corporation raised the risk rating for criterion 7.

LV07 HIGH LOW MED MED MED

The large grant size of one Pre-defined Project and increased sector and procurement risks heighten the

rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Project Promoter for two Pre-defined Projects is the same as the

Programme Operator institution, a separate verification agency engaged for that reason however also being

subordinate to the Programme Operator, and the high number of local level partners involved, raise the

rating for criterion 6. The involvement of the Programme Operator in three of four PdPs (as Project

Promoter in two, as National Partner in one) and the increased local risk exposure raise the rating for

criterion 7.

LV08 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH

The largest grants size among all programmes, a Pre-defined Project to which almost 60% of the funding is

allocated and which involves procurement risk, heightened the risk rating for criteria 4. The nature of the

Project Promoters for two (of three) Pre-defined Projects and recent involvements in public procurement

abuse and a bribery scheme heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The politically exposed status of key

personnel of both the Programme Operator and its National Partner raise the risk rating for criterion 7.


LATVIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Latvian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Latvian National Focal Point only.

1) Response to the country-Ievel results.

The Latvian State has delegated the mandate of anti-corruption politics to the Corruption

Prevention and Combating Bureau (CPCB), thereby ensuring that a single independent

institution is responsible for anti-corruption politics of Latvia. CPCB in close co-operation with

other institutions has elaborated Guidelines for the Corruption Prevention and

Combating2014-2020 (the Guidelines) incorporating strategical directions of activities,

specific activities to be implemented by assigned institutions as well as overall information

about anti- fraud policy, strategic objectives, results to be achieved and tasks to be done for

the protection of interests of the EU funds and other foreign financial assistance instruments

(including EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism (Financial

Mechanisms)). The Guidelines have to be adopted by the Government during 2015. After the

adoption the document is binding for the designated institutions across public sector,

including local governments and occasionally requiring co-operation with non-governmental

institutions. This is the country’s third anti-corruption policy document developedby CPCB in

Latvia since 2004 and all the documents including the latest one include activities on integrity

and corruption prevention, thereby maintaining principles of continuity and ensuring that anti-

corruption politics are being implemented. Additionally we would Iike to note, that Corruption

Perception Index (CPI) in 2013 for the first time placed Latvia among countries where

corruption is not considered a serious problem with 53 points out of 100. Comparing with

2012 CPI results none of the six indicators used for generating CPI had downfall in 2013 with

regards to Latvia.

It has to be noted that the Management and control system (MCS) in the management of the

Financial Mechanisms ensures strong internal control in all levels, separation of duties and

multiple levels of decision making to minimise the risk of any decision not being objective and

transparent, as well as Audit Authority assessed that MCS developed for the implementation

of the Financial Mechanisms functions effectively.

"Complaint Mechanism" on NFP website is updated according to suggested standard

practice by the Donor States.

2) Response to the programme-Ievel results.

NFP can't unambiguously agree to the programme-Ievel results, because assessment of

institutional officials are based on information provided by media which is sometimes not

sufficiently substantiated. CPCB has evaluated specific cases reflected in the media and

assessed within the Final Report and they are found not to be in any case attributable to the

Financial Mechanisms. As well as the persons whose specific actions were evaluated in the

Final Report based on the information available in the media, do not make decisions in

relation to any of the Financial Mechanisms programme/ project implementation issues on

their own, as well as respective Programme MCS developed in the institutions involved in the

programme implementation provide multiple levels of decision-making process to minimise

the risk of any decision not being objective and transparent. It has to be mentioned, that all

persons stated in the Final report have already left the position they were on the time of data

analysis (almost year ago).


Regarding the evaluation of transparency of predefined projects we believe that the pre-

defined projects defined in Memorandum of Understanding (LV04, LV07, LV08) and those

initiated by Programme Operators (LV02, LV03, LV06, LV07) later during the elaboration of

programme shall not have the same level of risk. It shall be taken into account that

predefined projects for Programmes LV04 and LV08 (evaluated with high risk) were

evaluated in all levels, discussed with Donor States and included in Memorandum of

Understanding and also approved by Cabinet of Ministers of Latvia, thus ensuring maximum

transparency of approval process. In addition, we would like to note that in the Programmes

LV04 and LV07 one of the pre-defined project was the initiative of the Donor States.

In general, NFP doesn't agree on the evaluation approach where the conclusions about the

potential risk level in each programme is based on separate historical events - irregularities,

which occurred within the implementation process of the EU Funds co-financed projects, e.g.,

high corruption risk rating for LV05 is based mainly on one case - situation in EU co-financed

project «Evaluation of Higher Education» and disciplinary proceedings against officials, that

resulted in no sanctions against officials as well as system audit in Ministry of Education and

Science did not reveal substantial discrepancies in the system.

Corruption risk is assessed by NFP to be unlikely at the current implementation stage.

AllProgrammes (including LV04, LV05, LV08) are being strongly monitored within NFP and

there havenot been corruption related cases in any of them attributable to the Financial

Mechanisms so far toassess this risk to be higher.

3) Any further comments and observations related to the findings

We consider that the corruption risk assessment and filtering exercise needs to be

continuous in order to be effective and done by the most competent experts in the field.

Nevertheless, nationally NFP intends to improve overaIl risk management process and

results (more information please see below in section 2 (a)).

Mitigation measures

In order to control and minimise to the extent possible the corruption risk issues within the implementation

process of the Financial Mechanisms, NFP will take the following main future actions:

1) Starting from September until December 2014 training was ongoing on Risk management

strategy for the representatives of MoF which are working with foreign assistance programmes.

Currently the training process is completed and in the end of November the contractor

elaborated and submitted a report including general results, conclusions of the training as well as

the proposals for Risk management strategy for the Financial Mechanisms formulated during the

training in which the risk of corruption was also considered. Taking into account

recommendations and conclusions expressed in report, consequently the MoF has elaborated a

new Procedure for the risk management for EU funds, Financial Mechanisms and Swiss

contribution and updated the Risk Register template, which were approved in the risk

management group meeting on 19 December 2014. Newly elaborated Procedure determines

main risk groups, risk appetite and risk tolerance, new scales for likelihood and consequence

(adjusted to the Financial Mechanisms) as well as stipulates responsibility of each department

and officials. Enhanced Risk register is more transparent and comprehensible (one sheet for

each risk), as well as methods how to fill the risk register are clearly described in aforementioned

Procedure. The Risk Management Strategy for the Financial Mechanisms is planned to be

developed within May 2015.

As another result from trainings - we are expecting that employees' competence on risk

management shall increase, thus will also rise the quality of risk assessment process at NFP.

2) NFP will collaborate with CPCB on any particular case related to corruption and conflict of

interest issues in relation to Financial Mechanisms co-financed programs and projects in case of


necessity. CPCB's daily work is connected with the prevention of corruption and the matters of

the conflict of interest, as well as powers to prosecute officials involved in questionable

situations, where fraud or corruption is detected early. This must be noted that the mandate of

NFP is limited and thus we have neither authorization nor instrument for corruption risk

prevention when in the area of the politically exposed high-Ievel officials in other institutions not

subordinated to NFP - the institutions of Programme Operators - ministries and agencies,

especially if it affects the actions of Ministers or Heads of the institutions.


Description of measure

Guidelines for the Corruption Prevention and Combating 2014-2020

Target programme/project

All Programmes in Latvia

Corruption risk addressed

Country corruption risk



etc.) and timeframe

Planned (during 2015)


involved

Improvement of public sector human resources management with the

purpose of promoting ethics values and to decrease occurrence of

corruption and risks of conflict of interest.



as possible)

1) Methodological trainings for procurement experts, as well as for

public officials who are temporary taking part in the work of

procurement commission have been provided to decrease number of

violations of public procurement procedures. Immediate result is

raised awareness on specific issues of procurement.

2) Trainings for procurement specialists have been provided by

developing their capacities to identify alleged iIIegal activities in the

stage of bid preparation by using preventive measures (e.g. cartel

agreement) thus countering further support for unaccountable

entrepreneurship from the state and local government financial

resources in case of entering into agreement. Immediate results is

increased capacity of procurement experts for identification of illegal

activities.



Risk Management Strategy for the Financial Mechanisms




Country corruption risk



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing

Time frame – May 2015


involved

Trainings on risk management in EU Structural Funds and Financial

Mechanisms finished at the end of 2014. Trainings included 3 parts


(theoretical, strategic, practice). Trainings focused on basic principles

of risk management, identification and assessment of risks,

determination of risk appetite and risk tolerance, risk mapping,

controlling, mitigation and monitoring principles, IT tools, etc. In the

result of the training the proposals on Risk Management Strategy

were developed based on deep risk assessment as well as during the

assessment, risks related to the Financial Mechanisms, including

corruption and fraud risks, were analysed and the main national level

risks were defined.

Taking into account recommendations and conclusions expressed in

report, consequently the MoF has elaborated a new Procedure for the

risk management for EU funds, Financial Mechanisms and Swiss

contribution and updated the Risk Register template, which were

approved in the risk management group meeting on 19 December

2014. Newly elaborated Procedure determines main risk groups, risk

appetite and risk tolerance, new scales for likelihood and

consequence (adjusted to the Financial Mechanisms) as well as

stipulates responsibility of each department and officials. Enhanced

Risk register is more transparent and comprehensible (one sheet for

each risk), as well as methods how to fill the risk register are clearly

described in aforementioned Procedure.



as possible)

Trainings for the employees of MoF started on 16 September 2014

and shall be finished in December 2014.


Description of measure Complaint Mechanism on the www.eeagrants.lv and

www.norwaygrants.lv homepages




Separation of functions & complaints mechanism



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

"Complaint Mechanism” on NFP's website is updated according to

suggested standard practice by the Donor States as well as taking into

account a draft guide and a checklist on complaint mechanisms by the

Transparency International (received at the Risk Seminar 2014). The

procedure of complaint mechanism is described in the

www.eeagrants.lv and www.norwaygrants.lvhomepages in section

"Submission of complaints” as well as stipulated within the description of

MCS of Financial Mechanisms 2009-2014 in Latvia. When a complaint

is made, the next steps at NFP (MoF) shall be as follows:

1. Taking into account the subject of complaint, MoF delegates it


to responsible department of MoF which is competent in

particular field and to legal advisers (if necessary) or will

forward a complaint to other responsible institution which is

involved in the Financial Mechanisms’ management or to

CPCB if complaint is about the corruption.

2. Responsible department reviews it and answers on it in

accordance with the rules and deadlines of the Law on

Submissions (it is prohibited to disclose information without the

consent of the submitter of information revealing person's

identity. If the submitter does not want that the facts referred to

in the submission are disclosed, person shall specify it in the

submission. The institution shall revert to the complaint within

10 working days).


measure to date (please be

as specific as possible)

One complaint has been received.


Description of measure Regular monitoring of the programme in order to achieve the planned

outcomes and outputs.

Target programme/project LV04 (responsibility of NFP – to take action in order to monitor

programme closely)


Minimise risk on not achievement of the programme results



etc.) and timeframe

Status - ongoing

Time frame - programme implementation period


involved 1. Participation in the Programme Cooperation Committee meetings

biannually.

2. Close cooperation with Norwegian Embassy, incl. biannual

meetings on bilateral activities and publicity issues.

3. Monthly monitoring of planned and actual expenditures of

programme.

4. Bi-annually reporting to the Latvian Government on the

implementation progress of Foreign Assistance.

6. During Annual Meeting on 04.06.2014. NFP discussed with Donor

States programme progress and main risks/their mitigation plan.

8. Regular communication by phone/e-mail/letters with PO



as possible)

All procedures for launch of OCs were in place. OC for SGS

Conservation of cultural heritage projects was launched on

16.09.2013 and ended on 06.12.2013. OC for SGS Cultural Exchange

projects was launched on 16.09.2013 and ended on 20.12.2013. In


both SGSs projects were approved in June/July 2014 and currently

project agreements are being finalized.


Description of measure Official request sent to Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) for

improvement of staff capacity in order to ensure timely execution of

PO's functions

Target programme/project LV05 (responsibility of NFP – to take action in order to ensure

sufficient staffing of the PO)


Problems of the staff capacity of the PO



etc.) and timeframe

Implementation status – completed Time frame – I-III Q 2014


involved

NFP's letter to MoES sent on 15.01.2014. and repeatedly on involved

11.04.2014. as MoES hasn't replied on the first letter.

After several reminders through phone/e-mails and a meeting held

after Annual Meeting on 12.06.2014 between MoES and NFP, replay

was received from MoES on 26.06.2014.



as possible)

On 09.06.2014. an additional employee in MoES (senior official of

Structural Funds and International Financial Instruments Department)

whose primary duty is directly related with execution of PO's functions

at MoES was hired. Two other employees – director of department

and deputy director – are involved when needed.

The following employees of programme's Implementing Agency at

Management and External Cooperation Department are involved in

execution of PO's functions delegated by MoES:

1. Director of Management and External Cooperation

Department.

2. Head of International Cooperation Programme Unit of

Management and External Cooperation Department.

3. Senior Project Manager of International Cooperation

Programme Unit of Management and External Cooperation

Department.


Description of measure Regular monitoring of the programme in order to achieve the planned

outcomes and outputs.


Target programme/project LV05

(responsibility of NFP- to take action in order to monitor programme

closely

Corruption risk addressed Minimise risk on not achievement of the programme results



etc.) and timeframe

Status – ongoing

Time frame- programme implementation period


involved 1. Participation in the meetings of Programme Cooperation Committee

biannually.

2. Close cooperation with Norwegian Embassy, including biannual

meetings on bilateral activities and publicity issues.

3. Monthly monitoring of planned and actual expenditures of

programme.

4. Biannually reporting to the Latvian Government on the

implementation progress of Foreign Assistance.

6. During Annual Meeting on 04.06.2014. NFP discussed with the

Donor States programme progress and main risks/their mitigation

plan.

7. On 12.06.2014. NFP had a meeting with MoES in order to discuss

action plan on sooner launch of both OCs.

8. Regular communication by phone/e-mail/letters with PO and

Implementing Agency.



as possible)

All procedures for launch of OCs are in place. OC for Research

projects was launched on 08.07.2014 and ended on 30.09.2014.

Additional OC for preparatory visits under programme bilateral fund

was launched on 18.09.2014 and will end on 13.11.2014.

OC for Scholarship projects was launched on 10.11.2014 and will end

on 30.01.2015.

As promised at Annual Meeting additional OC for preparatory visits is

launched along with Scholarships' OC in faII 2014.


LITHUANIA

LITHUANIA - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 7 January 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Lithuania distributes a net amount of EUR 77.7 million. Fourteen programmes are

funded in Lithuania, supporting a range of policy sectors.13

The International Financial Assistance

Coordination Division of the Ministry of Finance serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the




Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Lithuania

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

LT06

Conservation and

revitalisation of cultural

and natural heritage

9,000,000 Ministry of Culture Norwegian Directorate

of Cultural Heritage

LT09 Green industry

Innovation 8,000,000 Ministry of Economy Innovation Norway

LT10

Capacity building and

institutional

cooperation between

Beneficiary State and

Norwegian public

institutions, local and

regional authorities

8,000,000 Ministry of Interior



Authorities;


Agency;

National Police

13

See the official website for Lithuania http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Lithuania


Directorate

LT13

Efficiency, quality and

transparency in

Lithuanian courts

7,700,000

Lithuanian National

Courts

Administration

Norwegian Courts

Administration

LT14

Correctional services

including non-custodial

sanctions

7,700,000 Ministry of Justice Norwegian Correctional

Services

LT03 Biodiversity and eco-

system services 6,520,000

Ministry of

Environment


Agency (former

Directorate for Nature

Management)

LT05 Children and youth at

risk 6,312,000

Ministry of Social

Security and Labour None

LT11 Public health initiatives 6,000,000 Ministry of Health None

LT04 NGO programme in

Lithuania 5,500,000

Human Rights

Monitoring Institute None

LT02

Integrated marine and

inland water

management

5,000,000 Ministry of

Environment


Agency (former

Directorate for Nature

Management)

LT12

Schengen cooperation

and combating cross-

border and organised

crime, including

trafficking and itinerant

criminal groups

3,412,000 Ministry of Interior None

LT08 EEA scholarship

programme 1,420,000


and Science


International

Cooperation in

Education

LT07

Promotion of diversity

in culture and arts

within European

cultural heritage

1,000,000 Ministry of Culture Arts Council Norway

LT22 Decent work and

tripartite dialogue 456,000 Innovation Norway N/A

13 programmes were assessed, excluding programme LT22.


The Ministry of Culture is responsible for the largest programme LT06 and the small-sized programme

LT07. The Ministry of Environment operates another two programmes (LT02 and LT03). The Ministry of

Interior is also in charge of two programmes (LT10 and LT12).

The NGO programme in Lithuania (LT04) is implemented by the Human Rights Monitoring Institute as the

Fund Operator contracted by the FMO as the Programme Operator.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that nine

programmes (LT02, LT03, LT06, LT07, LT08, LT09, LT10, LT13, LT14) additionally involve partner

organisations from the Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This

involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a

close cooperation between the respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the

development and implementation of the programme.

Nine programmes (LT02, LT03, LT04, LT05, LT10, LT11, LT12, LT13, LT14) also feature so-called Pre-

defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and

therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the




Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Lithuania.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Lithuania - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

LIT

HU

AN

IA


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



Lithuania scores moderately in international indices. The current Government’s stated political priority of fighting

corruption has been formalised in a recently renewed Anti-corruption Programme. Anti-corruption agencies appear

to play an effective role in fighting corruption. Overall, the state of the national integrity system suggests a medium

risk exposure rating.

2. Net amount of grants to country MED The amount of funding allocated to Lithuania implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk,

taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.

3. Separation of functions

&complaints mechanism MED

The separation of functions within the Ministry of Finance is somewhat limited. At the same time, the involvement of

the “Central Project Management Agency” (CPMA) in the programme implementation adds an additional control

function to the national grants management system. According to the programme documents, and confirmed by the

Focal Point, the CPMA under the Ministry of Finance is mandated with supervising the execution of all programmes

(except LT04) and mitigating corruption risk emanating from assessed conflict of interest and procurement risks.

While a complaint mechanism exists, it is not yet advertised according to the suggested standard.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

LT02 MED LOW LOW MED MED

The medium grant size and relevant procurement risks increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. The

Programme Operator institution’s earlier implication in a corruption investigation raises the rating for

criterion 7.


LT03 MED LOW LOW MED MED

The medium grant size and relevant procurement risks increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. The

Programme Operator institution’s earlier implication in a corruption investigation raises the rating for

criterion 7.

LT04 MED LOW MED HIGH MED

The overall rating of Medium Risk Exposure for Programme LT04 is based on the ratings of High Risk for

criterion 7, Medium Risk for criteria 4 and 6, and Low Risk for criterion 5. Significant transparency issues

attached to the perceived practice of project selection by the Fund Operator heighten the risk rating for

criterion 7. The medium grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. Uncertainty in relation to the PdP

Project Promoter institutions and relevant key personnel not yet selected at the time of assessment, raise

the risk rating to medium.

LT05 MED MED LOW LOW LOW The medium grant size and increased procurement risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The lack of

involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level increases the risk exposure for criterion 5.

LT06 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4.


LT07 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW

LT08 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW

LT09 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size and increased procurement risks raised the rating for criterion 4.

LT10 HIGH MED LOW LOW MED

The large grant size and increased sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. Reported issues concerning

the relationship between the Donor Programme Partner and the Programme Operator increase the risk

exposure for criterion 5.


LT11 MED MED LOW MED MED

The medium grant size and sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4 .The lack of involvement of a Donor

partner on the programme level increase the risk exposure for criterion 5. Indications of earlier and recent

implications of the Programmes Operator institution in corruption issues raise the risk rating for criterion 7.

LT12 MED MED LOW LOW LOW

While the grant size is relatively small, increased project, procurement and sector risks raise the rating for

criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level increases the risk exposure

for criterion 5.

LT13 HIGH LOW MED MED MED

The large grant size and increased project, procurement and sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The

lack of transparency regarding the separation of powers in the relationship between the Programme

Operator and the Project Promoter for the Pre-defined Projects increases the risk exposure for both criterion

6 and 7.

LT14 HIGH LOW MED LOW MED

The large grant size and increased project and procurement risks raised the rating for criterion 4. While risk

mitigation measures are in place to reduce general conflict of interest risk for criterion 6, the rating is based

on a transparency issue linked to key personnel of one PdP.


LITHUANIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Lithuanian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Lithuanian National Focal Point only.

As regards the country-level observation, we would like to point out that the legal and policy framework at

national level for public financial management is an important instrument for mitigating corruption and

providing transparency and accountability in implementation of the EEA and Norwegian Grants

(hereinafter referred to as the Grants). The created set-up of implementation of the Grants in Lithuania as

such together with the established Management and Control System (MCS) and risks mitigation and

monitoring strategies implemented by the line ministries and other involved public institutions form a basis

for anti-corruption policy in the specific areas covered by the Grants.

Concerning the ratings of the Programmes with higher level of possible exposure to corruption due to the

procurement risk, a possible conflict of interest when the Project Promoter and the Programme Operator

is the same institution or the integrity issues of the Programme Operator, we would like to highlight the

fact that a number of measures has been already introduced while creating the Grants MCS in Lithuania

in order to create the sufficient level of assurance and reduce corruption/mismanagement risk. The unified

implementation procedures and requirements for all the programmes and projects approved by the

National Focal Point, separation of management functions and decisions on the eligibility of expenditure

and irregularities towards Project Promoters between Programme Operators and the Central Project

Management Agency (CPMA), ex-ante and ex-post control of procurements performed by the CPMA

provide for minimization of the risk factors indicated in the Report for the relevant programmes operated

by the Lithuanian Programme Operators. Moreover, automatisation of administrative functions by the

specifically created IT-based management system increases transparency and allows for the controlling

institutions to get sufficient and timely information on all the processes and persons involved in the

programmes implementation and decision-making, also reviewing the supporting documents.

The minimization of risk factors during the implementation of the Grants in Lithuania will remain as a top

priority for the National Focal Point and other competent institutions, and corruption risk assessment

results and observations provided in the Report will be taken into account in their routine risk

management and monitoring activities.


Mitigation measures

Among the ongoing measures, we would like to highlight the ones for mitigation of a possible conflict of

interest, procurement risks and mismanagement in general (presented in detail below).



Mitigation of a possible conflict of interest.


All Programmes, with a particular focus on Programme LT13 and

other programmes containing pre-defined projects.


Conflict of interests and/or collusion



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

Separation of programme management functions and decisions taking

on the eligibility of expenditure and irregularities towards Project

Promoters.

The supervisory role for collecting and appraisal of applications,

monitoring of implementation of the approved projects, verification of

payment claims and expenditure eligibility issues and investigation of

the irregularities is assigned for the CPMA.



as possible)

The involvement of the CPMA in the programmes implementation

works as effective corruption risk mitigation measure in prevention of

conflicts of interest and/or collusion between the Programme Operator

and the Project Promoter in case the Project Promoter is in the same

institution as the Programme Operator or subordinate to the

Programme Operator.



Mitigation of procurement risk


All projects


Restriction in competition in public procurements, violation of public

procurement requirements and procedures.



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

Trainings, methodological advice on requirements and recurrent

errors also standard procurement documents provided to Project

Promoters by the CPMA.

The CPMA performs ex-ante check/verification of procurement


documents and procedures for selected projects and procurements

based on the risk analysis results and ex-post check of all

procurement procedures during verification of eligibility of

expenses/costs.

Double check of the procurement documents as well as monitoring of

the implementation of the procurement contract on IT-based risk

analysis results performed by the Public Procurement Service.



as possible)

No irregularities have been detected up to date as regards the

procurement


Description of measure Complaint mechanism


All Programmes and projects


Suspected corruption and malpractice



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved The complaint mechanism operates on the website specifically

designed for the Grants in Lithuania

(http://www.eeagrants.lt/en/transparency) and it is operational from

February 2014. The introduced functionalities allow submission of

information on suspected mismanagement or corruption to the

designated bodies anonymously.





MALTA

MALTA - COUNTRY REPORT










Introduction

The grants scheme in Malta distributes a net amount of EUR 4.2 million. Four programmes are funded in

Malta, supporting a range of policy sectors.14

The Funds and Programmes Division at the Ministry of

European Affairs serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA

and Norway Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the four programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Malta

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

MT02

EEA Financial

Mechanism

Programme

2,139,000

Ministry of European

Affairs (Funds and

Programmes

Division)

None

MT04

Norwegian Financial

Mechanism

Programme

1,440,000

Ministry of European

Affairs (Funds and

Programmes

Division)

None

MT03 NGO Funds

Programme 505,000

Solidarity Overseas

Service Malta None

MT22 Decent Work and


14

See the official website for Malta http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Malta


Only three of the four programmes were assessed. Programme MT22 Decent Work and Tripartite

Dialogue (MT22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would


Three of the programmes are managed by two Programme Operator institutions. The Funds and

Programmes Division at the Ministry of European Affairs, which is also the Focal Point, manages the

programmes EEA Financial Mechanism Programme (MT02) and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism

Programme (MT04). The NGO Fund programme (MT03) is managed by a so-called Fund Operator,

Solidarity Overseas Service Malta, which was contracted directly by the FMO.

Programmes MT02 and MT04 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the



Project Promoter).



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Malta.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Malta - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

MA

LT

A


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



The rating of Malta in relevant international corruption indices such as Transparency International’s Corruption

Perceptions Index, and media reports about systemic issues affecting the state of integrity in the country raise the

exposure to corruption risk to medium.


country LOW

Malta receives the smallest amount of funding in absolute terms. A smaller amount of funding reduces the overall

corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in the country.


complaints mechanism LOW

The Focal Point also serves as a Programme Operator for two programmes; but otherwise the separation of functions

in the national grants management structure is given, and the Focal Point advertises a “complaint mechanism”

according to suggested standard practice on its website.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL P

RO

GR

AM

ME

S


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

MT02 MED LOW HIGH MED MED

This programme is allocated the largest grant in Malta and involves increased project size and procurement

risks. However, the absolute amount of the grant is in fact so small that a High Risk rating for criterion 4

may be inadequate. This leads to a Medium risk exposure for criterion 4. The Project Promoters for each of

the three Pre-defined Projects are a state-owned company or government agencies. One of the Project

Promoters has been associated with poor performance. Another Project Promoter institution has been

implicated in a public procurement scandal and other corruption incidents in the past. This heightens the

corruption risk exposure for criterion 6. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner at the

Programme level is largely compensated by the involvement of a Donor Partner in Pre-defined Project 2;

this leads to a Low risk exposure for criterion 5. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme

Operator raises the risk exposure for criterion 7.


MT03 LOW MED N/A LOW LOW The Programme does not involve a Donor Programme Partner which raises the risk rating for criterion 5.

Otherwise no indications of corruption risk were revealed.

MT04 MED MED MED MED MED

The large grant size of one Pre-defined Project and increased sector and procurement risk raise the rating of exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner at the Programme level 7 raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. Indication of current delay in planning the aforementioned Pre-defined Project following the change in government raises the risk exposure for criterion 6. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme Operator raises the risk exposure for criterion 7.


MALTESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Maltese National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Maltese National Focal Point only.

The NFP takes this opportunity to reiterate its comments in respect of risk filtering criteria 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7

as these have not been addressed in the Final Corruption Risk Filtering Report. In particular, the report

should acknowledge that Malta’s risk exposure for criterion 2 cannot be on the same level of those

countries receiving €44.9 million (third group of countries as per on page 2 of Annex 1: Operationalisation

of the Risk Filtering Criteria – Explanatory Notes). The NFP cannot see why Malta was grouped with

countries receiving up to €45 million.

Furthermore, no explanation is offered as to why the fact that the NFP also serves as the PO (as

approved by the Donor States and included in the MoU and as permitted by the Regulations) raises the

level of risk exposure for criterion 7 to Medium. The Funds and Programmes Division’s track record as

NFP/PO seems to have been completely overlooked. As the FMO is aware, the Funds and Programmes

Division has been administering the EEA and Norway Grants since 2004 and it has never faced even the

slightest allegation of corruption. Within the Division, separate reporting mechanisms are in place

whereby programme management reports to the Director (Programmes and Projects) and financial control

reports to the Director General. All this is described in detail in the Description of the Management and

Control System submitted to the FMO.

The NFP would also like to contest the assertion on page 4 of the Report that “Programmes MT02 and

MT04 also feature so-called pre-defined projects, which…. present a greater risk of collusion between

personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the pre-defined project (the Project

Promoter)“. What is the basis for such a statement? In the case of Malta the selection of projects was

approved by a body independent of the Programme Operator, eliminating any scope for its collusion with

a Project Promoter to favour the choice of one pre-defined project over another.

In the results of the MT04 Programme-level risk filtering procedure it is stated that “the set up of the pre-

defined project suggest that pre-defined project 2 is more exposed to political risk following the change of

government”. The Maltese authorities would appreciate having the specific reason underpinning to such

an assessment, instead of just a blanket statement.

Finally, the NFP has noticed that the Dow Jones Risk and Compliance Due Diligence Reference on

project MT02/3 concerns an entity unrelated to the Project Promoter. The Project Promoter is Heritage

Malta but the Due Diligence Reference relates to Heritage Insurance Management (Malta) Ltd.

Mitigation measures

In terms of planned and/or implemented risk mitigation measures, including extra monitoring of the pre-

defined projects in MT02 which were rated high risk exposure, the NFP has updated its monitoring plan to

take account of the findings in the Final Corruption Risk Filtering Report. The updated plan has been

submitted to the FMO. It is worth noting that (a) monitoring actions related to project MT02/1 ‘CO2

Energy: Development of algae-derived bio-fuel production plant’ have been deleted following the

cancellation of that project and (b) on-the-spot checks are being carried out following award of contract

and prior to verification of first expenditure. This represents an upgrade of the Programme Operator’s

obligation in the original plan which was to perform one on-site visit per programme per year.



Description of measure Updated Monitoring Plan to include extra monitoring of the pre-

defined projects in MT02 which were rated high risk exposure

Target programme/project MT 02

Corruption risk addressed Risk Filtering Criterion 6



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing until completion of project


involved

On-the-spot checks are being carried out following award of contract

and prior to verification of first expenditure. This represents an

upgrade of the Programme Operator’s obligation in the original plan

which was to perform one on-site visit per programme per year.



as possible)

Although no corruption was alleged or discovered, these extra on-the-

spot checks have enabled the PO/NFP to identify potentially ineligible

expenditure prior to it being incurred by the Project Promoters.


POLAND

POLAND - COUNTRY REPORT




and Norway grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time of

writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct or

indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.



[End of data collection : 11 November 2013]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Poland distributes a net amount of EUR 534.7 million. Seventeen programmes are

funded in Poland, supporting a range of policy sectors.15

The Department of Assistance Programmes

within the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for

the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the 17 programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Poland

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

PL04

Saving energy and

promoting renewable

energy source

145,000,000

Ministry of

Environment (with

the support from the

National Fund for

Environmental

Protection and Water

Management)

None

PL08

Conservation and


and natural heritage

70,000,000

Ministry of Culture

and National

Heritage

None, but close

cooperation with the


for Cultural Heritage

PL12 Polish-Norwegian

research programme 62,830,000

National Centre for

Research and

Development

Research Council of

Norway

15

See the official website for Poland http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Poland


PL07

Development and

better adaptation of

health care to

demographic and

epidemiological trends

58,000,000 Ministry of Health None

PL05 NGO programme in

Poland 37,000,000

Stefan Batory

Foundation None

PL02

The protection of the

biological diversity and

the ecosystems

20,000,000

Ministry of

Environment (with


National Fund for

Environmental


Management)

None

PL18 Green industry

innovation 20,000,000 Innovation Norway N/A

PL13 Reducing social

inequalities in health 18,000,000 Ministry of Health


of Health

PL03

Improving

environmental

monitoring and

inspection

15,000,000

Ministry of

Environment (with


National Fund for

Environmental


Management)


Agency

PL10

EEA scholarship

programme;

Norwegian Polish

scholarship

programme

15,000,000

Foundation for the

Development of the

Education System

(FRSE)


Research (RANNIS),

National Agency for


Affairs (AIBA),


International

Cooperation in

Education (SIU)

PL16

Judicial capacity

building and

cooperation/

improvement of the

efficiency of justice

14,000,000 Ministry of Justice Norwegian Courts

Administration

PL17

Correctional services


sanctions

13,000,000

European Funds

Team, Central Board

of the Prison Service

Norwegian Correctional

Services

PL15 Schengen cooperation

and combating cross-

border crime including

10,000,000 Ministry of Interior None


trafficking and itinerant

criminal groups

PL09


in culture and arts

within European

cultural heritage

10,000,000

Ministry of Culture

and National

Heritage

Arts Council Norway

PL06

Urban development by

strengthening the

competence of self-

government units,

social dialogue and

cooperation with civil

society

representatives

9,544,500

Ministry of

Infrastructure and

Development

(Department of

Assistance

Programmes)

None

PL14 Domestic and gender-

based violence 3,000,000

Ministry of Labour

and Social Policy None

PL22 Decent work and

tripartite dialogue 3,112,000 Innovation Norway N/A

15 programmes were assessed here, excluding programme PL18 and PL22 (PL18 as it was still under

preparation, PL22 because this approach would not have been applicable to the advanced project stage

of the respective Programme Area 22).

The Ministry of Environment is a crucial actor in the grants scheme, being the Programme Operator for

three programmes (PL02, PL03, PL04) and responsible for implementing programmes worth EUR 180

million, or one third of the total grants allocation to Poland.

Another important Programme Operator institution is the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, which

is responsible for managing two programmes (PL08 and PL09). The Ministry of Health is also a

Programme Operator for two programmes (PL07 and PL13).

There is also a large NGO Programme in Poland (PL05) for which the private Stefan Batory Foundation

serves as a Programme Operator.

The programme Urban development by strengthening the competence of self-government units, social

dialogue and cooperation with civil society representatives (PL06) is managed by the Department of

Assistance Programmes within the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, which is the same

institution as the National Focal Point.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that seven

programmes (PL03, PL09, PL10, PL12, PL13, PL16, PL17) additionally involve partner organisations from

the Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only

supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests cooperation between the

respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and

implementation of the programme.

Ten programmes (PL02, PL03, PL04, PL06, PL08, PL13, PL14, PL15, PL16, PL17) also feature so-called

Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and


therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the




Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Poland.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Poland - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

PO

LA

ND


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



Poland scores moderately in international indices. Although, the country’s institutions appear to have an advanced

capability to control corruption, there also seems to be a sense of stagnation and lack of coherence in the

governmental anti-corruption policy, suggesting a medium risk exposure rating.


country HIGH

Poland receives the largest absolute grant amount of all Beneficiary States. The large amount of funding heightens

the risk exposure due to increased opportunities, i.e. likelihood, for corrupt practices, and with respect to the high

impact corrupt practices, should they occur, would have on the Donors’ interests.


complaints mechanism LOW

Although the management organisation within the Ministry of Regional Development (involving Focal Point and

Certifying Authority) is not fully transparent, the separation of functions regarding Audit Authority and irregularities

reporting is given. The complaint mechanism conforms with the recommended standard, which leads to a low risk

exposure rating overall.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

PL02 MED MED LOW MED MED

This programme is allocated a medium-sized grant in Poland, raising the risk exposure for criterion 4 (also in view of the grant size of programme PL03 and PL04, which have the same Programme Operator). The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s current implication in a corruption case increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.


PL03 MED LOW HIGH MED MED

The direct association of PdP Project Promoters’ key personnel with negative news about irregularities, possible conflict of interest, and implication in an ongoing corruption investigation, heighten the risk exposure for criterion 6. The medium grant size in combination with project and procurement risks increase the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s current implication in a corruption case increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.

PL04 HIGH MED LOW MED MED The huge grant size (largest grant) heightens the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level increases the risk for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s current implication in a corruption case increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.

PL05 MED MED N/A LOW LOW The medium grant size raises the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level increases the risk for criterion 5.


PL06 LOW MED LOW MED MED

The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5.

The Programme Operator institution’s recent association with a corruption affair concerning EU funds

increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.

PL07 HIGH MED N/A MED MED

The large grant size and increased sector risk heighten the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of

involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. The

Programme Operator institution’s past association with corruption increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.

PL08 HIGH MED LOW LOW MED

The large grant size (second largest) and perceived procurement risk heighten the risk exposure for

criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for

criterion 5.


PL09 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW

PL10 MED LOW N/A LOW LOW The medium grant raises the risk exposure for criterion 4.

PL12 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant raises the risk exposure for criterion 4.


PL13 MED LOW LOW MED MED The medium grant size and increased sector risk raise the risk exposure for criterion 4. The Programme

Operator institution’s past association with corruption increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.

PL14 LOW MED MED LOW MED The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. The implication of the Project Promoter for one PdP in corruption issues and the politically exposed status of PdP key personnel

16 raise the risk exposure for criterion 6.

PL15 MED MED LOW MED MED

Increased procurement risks raise the exposure rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor

Partner at the programme level increases the rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s

past association with corruption increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.

16



PL16 HIGH MED MED MED MED

Increased project and procurement risks heighten the risk exposure for criterion 4. Reported limitations to

the Donor Programme Partner’s involvement in the development and implementation of the programme

increase the risk exposure for criterion 5. The fact that the programme consists of PdPs which all have

Project Promoters who are subordinate to the Programme Operator, increases the corruption risk exposure

for criterion 6 to medium, taking into account that the FMO has introduced a number of risk mitigation

measures. The Programme Operator institution’s association with two corruption investigations increases

the risk exposure for criterion 7.

PL17 MED MED MED LOW MED

Medium grant size and increased procurement risk raise the risk exposure for criterion 4. Reported

limitations to the Donor Programme Partner’s involvement in the development and implementation of the

programme increase the risk exposure for criterion 5. The fact that all but one PdP Project Promoters are

subordinate (one being superior) to the Programme Operator increase the corruption risk exposure for

criterion 6.


POLISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Polish National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Polish National Focal Point only.

Regarding to the results on the country level we are glad that ‘complaints mechanisms’ designed for the

Financial Mechanisms were judged as compliant with the standards and the managing structure

transparent within the criterion no. 3. At the same time referring to the corruption indicators presented

within risk criterion no. 1 it is worth mentioning that according to the newest surveys Corruption

Perceptions Index (2013) Poland’s score of 60 corresponds with a rank as 38 out of 177 countries. This

implies that the corruption risk within our country is having decreasing tendency, which is worth

considering in the report. In the same time that Index (2013) shows that Poland stands higher in the

ranking list than in 2012. In the group of 16 beneficiary countries that receive the Financial Mechanisms

Assistance, Poland has the fourth position, behind Estonia (score of 68), Cyprus (score of 63) and

Portugal (score of 62).

Not questioning the methodology at that stage, we take note that the level of the risk criterion no. 2 is

fixed since Poland is the biggest beneficiary. However, it is worth having in mind that Poland has huge

experience in implementation the similar programmes/projects with a much higher allocation, such as the

European Union structural funds and is positively assessed in their absorption.

Additionally, referring to the comments in the document Results of the Country-level Risk Filtering

Procedure I would like to explain that FP does not function as the Programme Operator for PL06. Full

transparency of the separation between the Programme Operator and National Focal Point was provided

in the programing documents. This institutional solution was approved by the Donors at the Programme

proposal’s stage and in Memorandum of Understanding. Taking into account above National Focal Point

should not be connected in any way with activities of the Programme Operator. Both units operate under

one ministry, however they are organizationally separated in line with the transparency principles.

With reference to the recommendation on DPP’s involvement in the implementations of the Programme

PL16 PO informed that this recommendation was discussed on Cooperation Committee meeting and

such decisions were made:

CC meetings will be held 3 times a year, additional – if necessary – teleconferences will be

held, decisions of the CC could also be taken via emails,

The PO will provide the Partner with all Interim Financial Reports showing progress in

Programme implementation, unless the Partner has access to IFRs through DORIS system

Both parties will provide each other with translated strategic documents,

PO will provide the Partner with a translated list of initiatives developed and implemented by

the Ministry of Justice; if the Partner will be interested in any of initiatives PO will provide the

DPP with additional information.

PO of PL17 with reference to the recommendation on DPP’s involvement in the implementations of the

programme PO has informed that DPP has a constant and current opportunity to influence on the

implementation of the Programme. For that are made the cyclical meetings of the Monitoring Committee

for the Programme PL17 (minimum 3 times a year) and current contacts between representatives of the

PO and DPP. As anticorruption countermeasure institution of the PL17 PO in February 2011 established

a proxy of Director General of the Prison Service for prevention of corruption in the Prison Service. He

leads i.a. current activities to eliminate the occurrence of this type of the threat and educational and

prevention action among the prison staff.

Referring to the risks on the programme level, the assumption that the lack of involvement of Donor

Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure suggests that the corruption appears only at the


Beneficiary State and the Programme Operator level. As it was pointed out during giving opinion on

Corruption Risk Assessment Tool, we think that risk management concerns all actors of the system,

including also level of Donors’ partners, who are involved in the programme/project managing process

and their role is not defined as a control one. From our point of view, the corruption risk might also occur

on the partners side, regardless theirs origin.

Pre-defined projects: I would like to draw your attention to the hypothesis that lack of the involvement of a

Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure. However not only the programme but also

the pre-defined projects are being implemented in partnership. Therefore, following assumption that the

presence of Donor Programme Partner is a factor decreasing corruption risk, presence of project partners

in projects should be considered in the same way.

Moreover, it should be emphasized that implementation of pre-defined projects has been agreed between

the Donor States and the Republic of Poland at the stage of framing the implementation of the Financial

Mechanism 2009-2014. Pre-defined projects are listed in Annex B to the Memorandum of Understanding.

Thus, the implementation of the above-mentioned projects was approved by the Donor States and it is not

possible to include other pre-defined projects without their consent. The possibility of realizing pre-defined

projects also results from the relevant provisions of Regulation on the implementation Financial

Mechanisms. In addition, it should be emphasized that, apart from selection mode, implementation of pre-

defined projects does not differ from implementation of projects selected in open calls.

In case of the Programme PL06 predefined project functions alongside a competitive call for proposals

procedure. Predefined project is implemented by institution independent from the Programme Operator

(namely the Association of Polish Cities) and its idea is positively perceived by both applicants and

beneficiaries (predefined project serves as a support within a whole project’s life cycle). Moreover, the

Programme Operator had carried out formal and content-related appraisal before the predefined project

was launched. Bearing in mind the above facts suggested risk of collusion between personnel at the

Programme Operator and the organization running the predefined project is excluded.

It is therefore difficult to understand the conclusion included in the report that the ordinary implementation

of pre-defined projects is a factor that could increase the risk of corruption.

The press releases (attached to the report) were taken during the survey as one of the very important

information to judge exposure to the corruption risk. It should be noted that information in the news is not

always coherent with the actual status of the case or might be based on not confirmed suspicions. This

kind of information requires due diligence and taking into account final results and measures applied by

the institution in the given case, otherwise it should be treated as questionable and/or not reliable source

of information. For example in case of the Ministry of Health article concerns person who has never been

involved in the programme financed within Financial Mechanisms and was subject to investigation as an

employee of other institution than Ministry of Health. The similar situation is in case of programme PL15.

The IT Project Centre mentioned in the respective article is fully independent from the PO and is not

included in the structure of the Ministry serving as operator.

Mitigation measures

With reference to planned or implemented risk mitigation measures please be informed the Operators

prevent corruption and mismanagement by:

establishment of a management and control systems in accordance with the provisions of

Article 4.8 of the Regulation, by preparing relevant documents – the Descriptions of

Management and Control Systems and the Manual of Procedures and Audit Trails;

the internal organization of Programme Operators complying with Article 4.7 of the

Regulation, referring to the requirements of establishing organizational structures of the

Programme Operators that ensure independence and functional separation of the unit

responsible for the implementation of the programme;

providing access to basic information on Programmes, projects, financial data and

information on grant-awarding processes;


transparent and competitive selection of projects to benefit from support in the form of

grants; the appeal procedure consists of two instances – the PO is an appeal body of the

first instance, the National Focal Point is an appeal body of the second instance;

applying transparent and lawful procurement of services related to the implementation of the

Programme - the provisions of the Public Procurement Law Act and Guidelines to orders

under the EEA and Norway Grants, to which Public Procurement Law is not applicable of

the Minister of Regional Development;

carrying out regular inspections (desk and on site controls) of projects under the

Programme;

ensuring the use of external institutions to carry out the evaluation of the Programme.


Description of measure Management of potential reputational damage of the Programme

Operators, responsible for preparing and implementing the

Programmes

Target programme/project PL02, PL03, PL04, PL06, PL07, PL08, PL09, PL13, PL14, PL15, PL16

Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators



etc.) and timeframe

Complete


involved

All employees of all Ministries are obligated to provide a written

statement confirming that they are familiar with the content of the

Ordinance no. 70 of the Prime Minister of October 6, 2011 on

guidelines for complying with the civil service rules and on the ethical

rules of the civil service corps.


measure to date (please be as

specific as possible)

All employees of the Ministries are obliged to follow Rules of ethics of

the civil service issued by the Prime Minister.


Description of measure Management of corruption risk and potential reputational damage of

the Programme Operators, responsible for preparing and implementing

the Programmes

Target programme/project PL02, PL03, PL04, PL06, PL07, PL08, PL09, PL13, PL14, PL15, PL16




etc.) and timeframe

Complete

Description of activities All civil servants employed in the Ministries as well as middle and

senior managers (Director and Deputy Directors of Department, heads


involved of units) are legally binded to provide declaration of their assets.




Monitoring of the personnel’s assets.



the Programme Operator, responsible for preparing and implementing

the Programmes

Target programme/project PL07 and PL13




etc.) and timeframe

Complete


involved

Dissemination of Anti-corruption guidebook for the officers and

Recommendations for anti-corruption proceedings in applying the

public procurement (both publications were drawn-up by the Central

Anti-corruption Bureau) among employees.




Providing indispensable knowledge to public sector personnel.




the Programmes





etc.) and timeframe

Complete


involved

Team for counteracting healthcare fraud and corruption appointed by

the Ordinance of the Mister of Health of October 4, 2006, has been

operating for several years.




The Team performs consultative and advisory functions for the Minister

of Health.





the Programmes





etc.) and timeframe

Complete


involved

The threat of corruption is to be eliminated by the solutions covered by

the generally applicable provisions of the Procedure for receiving

external clients in the Ministry of Health.




The procedure ensures transparency of the rules, on the basis of

which the meetings with the external entities are prepared and

conducted in particular with focus on potential lobbying activities.




the Programme

Target programme/project PL12




etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

Currently working on the Anticorruption Policy, which will set uniform

standards for the PO’s institution staff and cooperating experts. This

measure will provide a coherent set of rules and requirements

concerning execution of tasks on different levels of the organization.

This policy also imposes mandatory reporting on identified corruption

for all staff members.




NA



Description of measure Introducing of the complaints mechanism

Target programme/project All Programme Operators and NFP

Corruption risk addressed Separations of functions and complaints mechanism



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

Good governance practices are also exercised by creating websites of

POs and NFP, on which the email address serving to anyone i.a.

willing to report any mismanagement of public funds or corruption

activities is easily available. An access via the phone is also ensured.




7 complaints concerning the Programme/projects’ realisation have

been received and handled.


Description of measure Increase of the Donor Programme Partner involvement in the

development and implementation of the Programme


Corruption risk addressed Degree of transparency of Programme including involvement of Donor

Programme Partner



etc.) and timeframe

Planned


involved Cooperation Committee meetings will be held 3 times a

year, additional – if necessary – teleconferences will be held, decisions of the CC could also be taken via emails,

The PO will provide the Partner with all Interim Financial Reports showing progress in Programme implementation, unless the Partner has access to IFRs through DORIS system,

Both parties will provide each other with translated strategic documents,

PO will provide the Partner with a translated list of initiatives developed and implemented by the Ministry of Justice; if the Partner will be interested in any of initiatives PO will provide the DPP with additional information.




NA



Description of measure Increase of the Donor Programme Partner involvement in the

development and implementation of the Programme


Corruption risk addressed Degree of transparency of Programme including involvement of Donor

Programme Partner



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

DPP has a constant and current opportunity to influence on the

implementation of the Programme. For that are made the cyclical

meetings of the Monitoring Committee for the Programme PL17

(minimum 3 times a year) and current contacts between

representatives of the PO and DPP.




NA




the Programme





etc.) and timeframe

Complete


involved

PO in February 2011 established a proxy of Director General of the

Prison Service for prevention of corruption in the Prison Service.




He leads i.a. current activities to eliminate the occurrence of this type

of the threat and educational and prevention action among the prison

staff.


PORTUGAL

PORTUGAL - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 4 March 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Portugal distributes a net amount of EUR 53.6 million. Eight programmes are

funded in Portugal, supporting a range of policy sectors.17

The Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning

and Energy serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and

Norway Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the eight programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Portugal

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

PT02 Integrated Marine and

Coastal Management 19,247,250

Directorate-General

of Maritime Policy

(Portuguese Ministry

of Agriculture and

Sea)

None

PT06 Public Health

Initiatives 10,000,000

Central Health

Administration

(Ministry of Health)


Public Health

PT05 NGO Programme in

Portugal 8,697,500

Calouste Gulbenkian

Foundation (Fund

Operator)

None

17

See the official website for Portugal http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Portugal

http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Estonia


PT03 Renewable Energy 4,000,000 Electricity of the

Azores (EDA)

The Icelandic National

Energy Authority (OS)

PT08

Conservation and

Revitalisation of


Heritage

4,000,000

Regional Directorate

of Culture in Central

Portugal

None

PT04 Adaptation to Climate

Change 3,000,000

Portuguese

Environment Agency


for Civil Protection

PT07


Equality and

Promoting Work-Life

Balance

2,500,000

Commission for

Citizenship and

Gender Equality

(CIG)

None

PT09 Cultural Diversity and

Cultural Exchange 1,000,000

Directorate-General

for the Arts Arts Council Norway

The Directorate-General of Maritime Policy under the Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture and Sea is

responsible for the aforementioned largest programme PT02.

The second-largest programme PT06, Public Health Initiatives (EUR 10m), is managed by the Central

Health Administration within the Ministry of Health.

The NGO Programme in Portugal is the third-largest programme (PT05) funded with EUR 8,7 million and

operated by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation under direct contract with FMO.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that four

programmes (PT03, PT04, PT06, PT09) additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States

at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal

of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective Donor

Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the

programme.

All programmes except PT05 (NGO programme) also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are






Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Portugal.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Portugal - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

PO

RT

UG

AL


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G


1. Country corruption risk MED Portugal's rating in international indices does not fully reflect recent opinion polls in the country and detailed analysis of the national integrity system and state of anti-corruption policies. While main reform topics have been put on the political agenda, a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy is still to be concluded.


MED The amount of funding allocated to Portugal implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.

3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism

LOW The national grant management system in Portugal is set to ensure a separation of functions between the Focal Point, the Certifying Authority and the Audit Authority. The Focal Point does not act as a Programme Operator at the same time. The complaint mechanism is publicly advertised and conforms with the recommended standard.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

P

RO

GR

AM

ME

S


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

PT02 HIGH MED LOW LOW MED The large programme grant size and increased project size, procurement and sector risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5


PT03 HIGH LOW MED LOW MED The medium programme grant size and increased project size, procurement and sector risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The increased conflict of interest risk in the relationship between the Programme Operator and the Pre-defined Project Promoter raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 6.

PT04 MED LOW LOW MED MED While the programme grant size is relatively small, increased project size risk raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s implication in allegations of cronyism raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

PT05 MED LOW N/A MED MED The medium programme grant size raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. Fund Operator’s personal links to business and commercial interests raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.


PT06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED The large programme grant size and increased sector risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. Major fraud schemes in the National Health Service that have recently affected the Programme Operator institution raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

PT07 LOW MED LOW LOW LOW The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5.

PT08 HIGH MED MED LOW MED

The medium programme grant size and increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5. Perceived corruption risk exposure of the Pre-defined Project Promoter and lack of information about the involvement of a Donor Partner raise the rating for criterion 6.


PT09 LOW LOW HIGH LOW MED The lack of information about the Pre-defined Project Promoter institution and key personnel heightens the risk exposure rating for criterion 6.


PORTUGUESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Portuguese National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Portuguese National Focal Point only.

1) Country level results serves as framework context in which the programme level risk filtering results

should be read. A MEDIUM Risk for Portugal at Criterion 1 (Country Corruption Risk) and Criterion 2 (Net

amount of grants to country) must be taken into account in the risk management of the EEA GRANTS at

both national and programme level.

The LOW risk at Criterion 3 (Separation of functions & complaints mechanism) does not recommend

specific mitigation measures under the EEA GRANTS management.

2) Results at programme level are prone to be outdated (possible amendments to theMemorandum of

Understanding or modifications to Programme Agreements could change fundamental information

assessed in each of the criterion; modification of key personnel assessed in the risk filtering, etc.). The

Risk Filtering Tool could benefit from updating reviews.

At the Programme level HIGH ratings in individual criteria were given mostly due to the programme grant

size, except for one HIGH rating for PT09 based on the lack of information about the PdP promoter

institution and key personnel. MEDIUM risk result for 7 out of 8 programmes does not seem to justify for

any relevant discrimination between programmes. Further attention should extend to all programmes.

3) Further comments: The results from the Corruption Risk Assessment - Risk Filtering Stage – for

Portugal, in particular the results at programme level, require attention from FMO and national entities

designated for the implementation of the EEA GRANTS (NFP, Audit and Certifying Authority). Joint

identification of potential risk mitigation measures tailored for corruption risk identified is desirable.

Mitigation measures

Recommendations from the Country Risk Filtering Report for Portugal do not seem to call for

extraordinary mitigation measures at this stage.

At Country level: Development of a Strategy for Irregularities, Reimbursements, Report and Complaint

System with further detail on procedures and measures is foreseen in the Description of the Management

and Control Systems at national level and could contribute for improvement of prevention, handling and

response to corruption risk.

At Programme and Project level: Criterion 4 and 5 should be taken into account as background context

in the risk assessments. Criterion 6 and 7 at Programme level individual criterion results may call for

targeted follow up. Close monitoring on Programmes by NFP under Article 4.3 of the Regulation should

take multiple and active approaches. Audit Authority and Certifying Authority should be involved in the

Corruption Risk assessment.


Description of measure Development of a Strategy for Irregularities, Reimbursements, Report

and Complaint System


Target programme/project All Programmes (except for PT05)

Corruption risk addressed Undifferentiated



etc.) and timeframe

Planned on the Description of the Management and Control System at

national level

Timeframe TBD


involved

NFP, in collaboration with all entities involved in the management and

control system of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 at national

level, shall develop a strategy for preventing, investigating, reporting,

recording, resolution and recovering of funds unduly paid.



as possible)

N/A


Description of measure Multiple and active approaches from the NFP for Monitoring

onProgrammes





etc.) and timeframe

Implementation mode from January 2014 to all Programmes (except

for PT05)


involved

Monitoring meetings with key personnel from Programme Operators,

twice a year;

Quarterly reports on progress on Programmes, covering financial

execution, progress on outcomes, calls and pre-defined projects,

Risk assessment and monitoring and Communication;

Presence of NFP in meetings and events as observer

(CooperationMeetings, Selection Committees meetings, etc.)



as possible)

Monitoring meetings with Programme Operators provide

targetedaction plans for short and medium term (second round of

meetingsfor 2014 started in September);

Quarterly reports provide regular information on progress and

canprovide indications for further investigation;

Presence of NFP in Selection Committee meetings as observer

areconsidered particular relevant for assessing any


potentialshortcomings in the selection procedure prone to rise

thecorruption risk (such as lack of measures to address potential

conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, etc.)


Description of measure Audit Authority and Certifying Authority to be involved in theCorruption

Risk assessment.





etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

NFP to share Corruption Risk Assessment’s results and

relevantmaterial from FMO Seminars and Workshops on Corruption

RiskAssessment with Audit and Certifying Authorities.



as possible)


ROMANIA

ROMANIA - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 19 June 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Romania distributes a net amount of EUR 283 million. Twenty-one programmes are

funded in Romania, supporting a range of policy sectors.18

The General Directorate for Non-reimbursable

Mechanisms and Instruments at the Ministry of European Funds serves as the National Focal Point,

responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the twenty-one programmes, arranged according to

the amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).

Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Romania

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

RO09

Funds for Non-

governmental

Organisations

36,300,000

FMO/Civil Society

Development

Foundation

N/A

RO17

Green Industry

Innovation

Programme, Romania

24,000,000 Innovation Norway N/A

RO10

Children and Youth at

Risk and Local and

Regional Initiatives to

Reduce National

Inequalities and to

Promote Social

Inclusion

22,000,000 Romanian Social

Development Fund Council of Europe

18

See the official website for Romania http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Romania


RO19 Public Health

Initiatives 21,104,000 Ministry of Health None

RO14 Research within

priority sectors 20,000,000

Ministry of National

Education

Research Council

Norway

RO02 Biodiversity and Eco-

system Services 15,000,000

Ministry for

Environment and

Climate Change


Agency

RO12

Conservation and

Revitalisation of


Heritage

14,000,000 Ministry of Culture Norwegian Directorate

of Cultural Heritage

RO04

Reduction of

Hazardous

Substances

10,000,000

Ministry for

Environment and

Climate Change


Agency

RO03

Environmental

Monitoring and

Integrated Planning

and Control

8,181,250 Ministry of European

Funds None

RO05 Energy Efficiency 8,000,000 Ministry of Economy None

RO06 Renewable Energy 8,000,000

Romanian

Environment Fund

Administration


Ministry of

Environment)

Norwegian Water


Directorate,

Icelandic National

Energy Authority

RO23

Correctional Services,


sanctions

8,000,000 Ministry of Justice Norwegian Correctional

Services

RO24

Judicial Capacity-

building and

Cooperation

8,000,000 Ministry of Justice

Council of Europe,

Norwegian Courts

Administration

RO13


in culture and arts

within European

cultural heritage

6,818,750 Ministry of Culture Arts Council Norway

RO18


institutional

cooperation between

Romanian and

Norwegian public

institutions, local and

regional authorities

6,000,000 Ministry of European

Funds

Norwegian Radiation

Protection Authority


RO07 Adaptation to Climate

Change 5,000,000

Ministry for

Environment and

Climate Change

None

RO21

Schengen

Cooperation and

Combating Cross-


Crime, including

Trafficking and

Itinerant Criminal

Groups

5,000,000 Romanian Ministry of

Internal Affairs

Norwegian National

Police Directorate

RO11


Equality and

Promoting Work-Life

Balance

4,519,478

Ministry of Labour,

Family and Social

Care

None

RO15 Scholarships 4,000,000

National Agency for

Community

Programmes in the

Field of Education

and Vocational

Training


Ministry of

Education)

Centre for International

Cooperation in



National Agency for



RO20 Domestic and Gender-

based Violence 4,000,000 Ministry of Justice

Council of Europe,

Norwegian National

Police Directorate

RO25 Poverty Alleviation 20,000,000 FMO

20 programmes were assessed, as the more recently agreed Programme RO25 was still inpreparation

and could therefore not be included in this report.

The Focal Point institution, Ministry of European Funds, also acts as the Programme Operator for two

programmes (RO03 and RO18).

The Donor institution Innovation Norway is the Programme Operator for the large Green industry

innovation (RO17). The FMO is the Programme Operator for the large NGO programme (RO09), which is

managed in-country by the Fund Operator Civil Society Development Foundation.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that 13

programmes (RO02, RO04, RO06, RO10, RO12, RO13, RO14, RO15, RO18, RO20, RO21, RO23,

RO24) additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States at the programme level (Donor

Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral

relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective Donor Programme Partners and

Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the programme.

Furthermore, 13 programmes (RO02, RO03, RO04, RO07, RO09, RO10, RO12, RO18, RO19, RO20,

RO21, RO23, RO24) feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach


of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the

Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA anf Norway Grants in Romania.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Romania - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

RO

MA

NIA


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



The rating is based on Romania’s rank in international indices, and more detailed reports, which suggest that

corruption, despite some progress in the prosecution of corruption, is still of a systemic nature in the country. Overall,

the political will to address corruption and promote high standards of integrity is regarded as being inconsistent.


country HIGH

The amount of funding allocated to Romania implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in




While a separation of functions between National Focal Point, Certifying Authority and Audit Authority exists, the

rating is based on the fact that for two programmes the National Focal Point also acts as the Programme Operator

rated as medium risk exposures on the programme level, and due to a lack of compliance with requirements

regarding the advertisement of a Complaint Mechanism according to the suggested standard.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

RO02 MED LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH

Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Promoter institution with regards

to the Programme Operator institution, and the past and current implications of the PdP Promoter institution

in irregularities and publicly reported complaints about irregularities, respectively, heightens the risk

exposure rating for criterion 6. The implication of the Programme Operator institution in a corruption case

and reported allegations of corrupt practices concerning key personnel heighten the risk rating for criterion

7.19

The medium grant size and increased project size risk raise the rating for criterion 4.

19

The Programme Operator’s key personnel have changed since delivery of this report.


RO03 MED LOW LOW MED MED

The small grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks raise the rating for

criterion 4. The Programme Operator (NFP) institution’s association with the occurrence of irregularities in

relation to EU funds increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

RO04 MED LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH

Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Promoter institution with regards

to the Programme Operator institution, and the implication of the PdP Promoter institution in an ongoing

corruption case heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 6. The implication of the Programme Operator

institution in a corruption case, and reported allegations of corrupt practices concerning key personnel

heighten the risk exposure for criterion 7.20

The medium grant size and increased procurement risks raise

the rating for criterion 4.

RO05 MED MED N/A MED MED

The small grant size in combination with increased sector and procurement risk raise the rating for criterion

4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. Previous

implications of the Programme Operator institution in corruption cases increase the rating for criterion 7.

20



RO06 MED LOW N/A MED MED

The small grant size in combination with increased sector risk raise the rating for criterion 4. The

Programme Operator institution’s recent implication in corruption and its close relationship with the

Programme Operator for RO02, RO04, and RO07 raise the risk rating for criterion 7.

RO07 MED LOW MED HIGH HIGH

The implication of the Programme Operator institution in a corruption case and reported allegations of

corrupt practices concerning key personnel heighten the risk exposure for criterion 7.21

The small grant size

in combination with increased project size risks raise the rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest

risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Promoter institution with regards to the Programme Operator

institution, and the fact that key personnel of the PdP institution has not been selected yet raise the risk


RO09 HIGH LOW MED LOW MED

The large grant size heightens the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. Uncertainty resulting from unavailable

information about relevant Project Promoters institutions and key personnel for three PdPs raises the risk


21



RO10 HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW The large grant size and increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4.

RO11 MED MED N/A MED MED

The small grant size in combination with increased sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The lack of

involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator

institution’s recent implication in a corruption case increases the risk rating for criterion 7.

RO12 HIGH LOW LOW HIGH MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased sector and procurement risks heighten the risk rating

for criterion 4. An indication of favouritism involving non-compliance with the regulation of open and fair

project selection for the programme heightens the risk rating for criterion 7.


RO13 LOW LOW N/A HIGH MED An indication of a conflict of interest involving non-compliance with the regulation of open and fair project

selection for the programme heightens the risk rating for criterion 7.

RO14 HIGH LOW N/A MED MED

The large grant size in combination with increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The

implication of the Programme Operator institution in an ongoing corruption investigation increases the risk


RO15 MED LOW N/A LOW LOW The small grant size in combination with increased sector risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.


RO17 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size in combination with increased procurement risk heighten the risk rating for criterion 4.

RO18 MED LOW LOW MED MED

The small grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks raise the risk rating

for criterion 4. The Programme Operator (NFP) institution’s association with the occurrence of irregularities

in relation to EU funds increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

RO19 HIGH MED HIGH MED HIGH

A large grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sector risks heighten the risk

rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the four PdP

Promoter institutions with regards to the Programme Operator institution, and the previous implication of the

Project Promoter institution for PdP1 in a corruption case heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The lack of

involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. The previous implication of the

Programme Operator institution in a corruption case increases the risk rating for criterion 7.


RO20 MED LOW HIGH LOW MED

The implications of National Partner institutions with regards to the PdP Project Promoter institutions in

corruption and accusations of irregularities heighten the rating for criterion 6. The small grant size in

combination with increased project size and sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4.

RO21 MED LOW HIGH LOW MED

Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the six Project Promoter institutions with

regards to the Programme Operator institution; the implication of Project Promoter institution for PdP2 in

and association of key personnel with a corruption case; and the implication of a National Partner institution

in PdP 5 in a corruption case heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 6. The small grant size in

combination with increased project size and procurement risks raised the rating for criterion 4.

RO23 MED LOW MED LOW MED

The small grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sector risks raise the

rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the Project Promoter

institution for four PdPs with regards to the Programme Operator institution raise the rating for criterion 6.


RO24 MED LOW MED LOW MED

The small grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sectors risks raise the

rating for criterion 4. The recent accusation of one National Partner institution in PdP1 of irregularities

increases the rating for criterion 6.


SLOVAKIA

SLOVAKIA - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 22 April 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Slovakia distributes a net amount of EUR 74.7 million. Nine programmes are

funded in Slovakia, supporting a range of policy sectors.22

The Government Office of the Slovak

Republic, Department of Management and Implementation of EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms,

serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway

Grants in the country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the nine programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Slovakia

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

SK07 Green Industry


Government Office

of the Slovak

Republic

Innovation Norway

SK08 Cross-border

Cooperation 12,720,000

Government Office

of the Slovak

Republic

Norwegian Barents

Secretariat

SK02

Adaptation to climate

change: flood and

drought prevention

12,463,750

Government Office

of the Slovak

Republic


for Civil Protection and

Emergency Planning;

Norwegian Water


Directorate

22

See the official website for Slovakia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Slovakia


SK05

Conservation and


and natural heritage &

promotion of diversity

in culture and arts

within European

cultural heritage

11,922,500

Government Office

of the Slovak

Republic

None

SK09 Domestic and gender-

based violence 8,440,000

Government Office

of the Slovak

Republic


of Health; Council of

Europe

SK10

NGO Programme

“Active Citizenship and

Inclusion” in Slovakia

3,701,500 Ekopolis Foundation None

SK03

NGO Programme

“Human Rights and

Democracy” in

Slovakia

3,701,500

Open Society

Foundation,

Bratislava

None

SK06 EEA Scholarship

Programme 1,917,500

Slovak Academic

Information Agency


Research (RANNIS);

National Agency for

Education Affairs,

Liechtenstein;


International

Cooperation in

Education

SK04

Local and regional

initiatives to reduce

national inequalities

and to promote social

inclusion

1,000,000

Government Office

of the Slovak

Republic

Council of Europe

For six out of nine programmes the National Focal Point also acts as the Programme Operator.

The FMO is the Programme Operator for two NGO programmes, one Human Rights and Democracy in

Slovakia (SK03) managed by the Fund Operator Open Society Foundation, Bratislava, the other Active

Citizenship and Inclusion in Slovakia (SK10) managed by the Fund Operator Ekopolis Foundation.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that six

programmes (SK02, SK04, SK06, SK07, SK08, SK09) additionally involve partner organisations from the


the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the

respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and

implementation of the programme.

Four programmes (SK04, SK05, SK09, SK10) also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are




Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Slovakia.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Slovakia - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

SL

OV

AK

IA


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



The rating is based on Slovakia's rank in international indices, and heightened by more detailed reports, which

suggest that despite some reforms, corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country. As regards public integrity

issues, structural weaknesses appear to persist in the judiciary and in the prosecution of political corruption. A

comprehensive and effective anti-corruption strategy including legal protection of whistleblowing is not in place.


country MED

The amount of funding allocated to Slovakia implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk,

taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.



The rating is based on the fact that despite a division of tasks at the Government Office for those programmes, where

the Focal Point also acts as Programme Operator, the separation of functions is limited, essentially establishing a

politically centralised grants management structure on the national and programme level. While a Complaints

Mechanism exists it has not been established and advertised according to the suggested standard. Recent EU

reports about possible deficiencies in the auditing function at the Ministry of Finance heighten the rating from medium

to high risk exposure.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

SK02 MED LOW N/A MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased procurement risks increase the risk exposure rating

for criterion 4. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its

politically exposed status23

and association with negative news reports – which were not further

substantiated – increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

23



SK03 LOW LOW N/A MED MED

The rating is based on the ratings of Medium Risk for criterion 7, which is assigned an extra weight, and

Low Risk for criteria 4 and 5. Unclarified conflict of interest risks related to the Fund Operator’s key

personnel raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

SK04 LOW LOW LOW MED LOW

The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its politically

exposed status and association with negative news reports – which were not further substantiated –

increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

SK05 MED MED MED MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks raise the rating for

criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the rating for criterion 5. While

provision were made to separate functions, the Project Promoter for the large PdP 1 is still located within

the same Programme Operator institution, which does not dispel conflict of interest concerns. This raises

the risk exposure rating for criterion 6. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and

Programme Operator, its politically exposed status and association with negative news reports – which

were not further substantiated – increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

SK06 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW


SK07 HIGH LOW N/A MED MED

The large grant size in combination with increased procurement and sector risks heighten the rating for

criterion 4. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its

politically exposed status and association with negative news reports – which were not further substantiated

– increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

SK08 MED LOW N/A MED MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased sector risk raises the rating for criterion 4. The

Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its politically exposed

status and association with negative news reports – which were not further substantiated – increase the risk

exposure rating for criterion 7.

SK09 MED LOW MED MED MED

The medium grant size raises the rating for criterion 4. The politically exposed status of PdP Promoter’s key

personnel and its close connections to the Programme Operator raising conflict of interest concerns

increase the rating for criterion 6. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and

Programme Operator, its politically exposed status and association with negative news reports – which

were not further substantiated – increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.

SK10 LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW


SLOVAK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Slovak National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Slovak National Focal Point only.

Response to the country-level results

1st criterion

Fighting corruption is a long-term process. Over the past years, Slovakia has succeeded in introducing

several anti-corruption tools, such as the compulsory disclosure of all public contracts, disclosure of

judgments, public procurement reform and others. It is very likely that these measures have had positive

effects on the anticorruption policy.

However, Slovakia remains at the bottom of the list of countries according to the Corruption Perception

Index, the CPI. The difference between the perception of corruption and the corruption rate itself makes

the use of this criterion questionable.

It would be beneficial if more relevant statistical data were considered in the first criterion, such as the

recently adopted measures, the number of persons alleged and/or convinced of corruption in the last

reporting period, the enforceability of the anti-corruption legislation, punitive sanctions in the countries

surveyed and others. It is in no way clear whether Slovakia would have ranked better. However, the

criterion would become more objective.

3rd

criterion

The separation of functions between the Focal Point and the Programme Operator had been discussed

many times before this model was accepted. The control tasks of the National Focal Point in the

programming period 2009 – 2014 are very limited. The National Focal Point bears the overall

responsibility for the EEA and Norway Grants; however, most of the control competences lie with the

Audit Authority and the Certifying Authority.

Response to the programme-level results

Public Procurement

Public procurement is a long-lasting problem of Slovakia. The entire process is complicated, creates high

demands on the quality management at different levels and generally does not lead to the desired result –

to increase the competitiveness in public contracts. Apart from the technical failures that are to some

extent caused by the complicated legislation, our experience shows that the average number of bids in

the public procurements is very low. This is for us the key indicator of whether the public procurement

processes are attractive for the potential participants in the public procurement. The other big problem in

Slovakia is the collusion among bidders. Under the mitigation measures, you may find activities which we

had proposed and successfully implemented in this programming period.

Politically exposed status of the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its dual role and

unsubstantiated negative news reports


The Government Office is a public institution and as its name indicates, it will always be associated with

the former or recent Slovak governments. Anything done at the governmental level will always have some

indirect effect on the Government Office, and thus we agree that the status of the Government Office is

politically exposed and such negative reports can occur and will always have some impact also on our

organisation. We are not able to respond with introducing mitigation measures to the occurrence of similar

reports not directly related to the implementation of EEA and Norway Grants. However, we underline that

the news reports have not been further substantiated.

On the other side, under the EEA and Norway Grants, the Government Office, performing the tasks of the

National Focal Point for almost 10 years, have never been linked with negative news reports that would

have questioned the management of the EEA and Norway Grants in Slovakia. The stability of the units

responsible for the management of EEA and Norway Grants proves that the EEA and Norway Grants are

apolitical and well managed in Slovakia.

Mitigation measures

Protection of whistleblowers:

On 16 October 2014, The Slovak Parliament enacted the first act on the protection of whistleblowers in

Slovakia. The Act no 307/2014 Coll was adopted under the name Act on Certain Measures related to the

Reporting of Anti-social Activities and on amendments of certain laws. It is supposed that the Act will

become effective as of 1 January 2015. Transparency International Slovakia had been consulted during

the preparation of the Act.

Complaint mechanism:

The complaint mechanism has been revised to comply with the new recommendations and can be found

at www.eeagrants.sk and www.norwaygrants.sk.


Description of measure Public procurement

Target programme/project All programmes operated by the National Focal Point

Corruption risk addressed 4



etc.) and timeframe

Completed


involved

A separate department was established under the structure of the

Government Office. The main task of this Public Procurement Control

Department is to carry out an ex-ante and ex-post control of the public

procurements.

Cooperation with Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic resulted

in an extensive vocabulary for Project Promoters, with the main aim to

increase competitiveness in public procurement and detect possible

collusion and other unfair business practices in the public

procurement.

An external company has been contracted to, inter alia, check the

effectiveness of purchases, which is another major contribution to the


support of competition in the public procurement.



as possible)

Several cases of collusion have already been detected. The ex-ante

control of public procurement has discovered many technical but also

several serious issues in the preparation of the public procurement.

Two seminars for Project Promoters, focused mainly on public

procurement and collusion already took place, with more seminars

planned for 2015.


Description of measure Politically exposed status of the National Focal Point and Programme

Operator, its dual role and unsubstantiated negative news reports

Target programme/project All programmes operated by the National Focal Point

Corruption risk addressed 7



etc.) and timeframe

Completed


involved

Several tasks have been delegated to the working level, in order to

mitigate the risk of political exposure.



as possible)

The delegation of functions should foster the apolitical principle of the

implementation of EEA and Norway Grants.


SLOVENIA

SLOVENIA - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 14 October 2013]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Slovenia distributes a net amount of EUR 24.9 million. Five programmes are

funded in Slovenia, supporting a range of policy sectors.24

The Financial Mechanisms Division within the

European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office of the Government Office for

Development and European Cohesion Policy serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the


Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the five programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Slovenia

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

SI05

Norwegian Financial

Mechanism

Programme

11,668,000

Government Office

for Development and

European Cohesion

Policy


Public Health

SI02

EEA Financial

Mechanism

Programme

8,812,500

Government Office

for Development and

European Cohesion

Policy

None

SI03

Funds for Non-

Governmental

Organisations

1,875,000

Regional

Environmental

Center for Central

and Eastern Europe,

Country Office

None

24

See the official website for Slovenia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Slovenia

http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Estonia


Slovenia

SI04

EEA and Norwegian

Scholarship

Programme

1,845,000

Centre of Republic of

Slovenia for Mobility

and European

Educational and

Training

Programmes

(CMEPIUS)

The Icelandic Centre for

Research, Norwegian

Centre for International

Cooperation in

Education, National

Agency for International

Education Affairs

SI22 Decent Work and


Only four of the five programmes were assessed. Programme SI22 Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue

was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would not have been

applicable to the advanced project stage of the respective Programme Area 22.

Serving as both National Focal Point and Programme Operator for the EEA Financial Mechanism

Programme (SI02) and the Norway Financial Mechanism Programme (SI05), which receive the largest

parts of the grant in Slovenia, the European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office of the

Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy is a crucial actor in the

implementation of the grants scheme in this country.

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that

programmes SI04 and SI05 additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States at the

programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of

strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests close cooperation between the respective Donor

Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the implementation of the programme.

Programmes SI02 and SI05 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the



Project Promoter).



Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Slovenia.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Slovenia - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

SL

OV

EN

IA


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G


1. Country corruption risk MED Slovenia scores relatively well in international indices, but public surveys and recent high-level corruption scandals suggest that corruption is still of a systemic nature in this country. The special anti-corruption agency is actively involved in uncovering corruption, thus implementing the anti-corruption strategy.


LOW Slovenia receives the third smallest absolute grant of all Beneficiary States. The smaller amount of funding reduces the overall corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in this country.

3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism

MED The limited separation of functions between Focal Point and Programme Operator for two programmes and shortcomings in the “complaint mechanism” to advertised on the national grants website increase the rating to medium risk exposure


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

P

RO

GR

AM

ME

S


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

SI02 MED MED LOW MED MED

This programme is allocated the second-largest grant size in Slovenia, raising the risk exposure for criterion 4 (also in view of the grant size of programme SI05, which has the same Programme Operator). The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s recent association with fraud and corruption issues concerning EU funding, increases the risk exposure for criterion 7 to medium.


SI03 LOW MED N/A LOW LOW The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5.

SI04 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW The overall rating of Low Risk Exposure for Programme SI04 is based on the rating of Low Risk for criteria 4, 5 and 7, with criterion 6 not being applicable.

SI05 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED

This programme is allocated the largest grant size in Slovenia, which, together with increased sector risk, heightens the risk exposure for criterion 4 (also in view of the grant size of SI02, which has the same Programme Operator). The Programme Operator institution’s recent association with fraud and corruption issues concerning EU funding, increases the risk exposure for criterion 7 to medium.


SLOVENIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Slovenian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Slovenian National Focal Point only.

1. Response to the country-level results

1.1 The provision of response to the country-level corruption risk criterion, which describes the systemic

nature of corruption in Slovenia, is not subject to the authority of the NFP and Programme Operators for

the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. In accordance with the

Slovenian legislation, the provision of such a response is the responsibility of other institutions. The

institutions, which are responsible for the overall management of the EEA Financial Mechanism and the

Norwegian Financial Mechanism programmes, are, indeed, responsible to act in accordance with the

national legislation pertaining to zero tolerance for corruption, identification of the potential areas where

corruption is most likely to occur (provision of information to the potential applicants prior to the

publication of the calls for proposals, approval of projects in the framework of the calls for proposals) and

taking appropriate action with the Slovenian institutions in the event of potential acts of corruption by also

immediately notifying the Donor States of such potential acts.

1.3 Despite the fact that organisation-wise the same institution serves as the National Focal Point and the

Programme Operator for two programmes (SI02 and SI05), adequate separation of functions is provided.

In accordance with the Regulation on the Implementation of the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-

2014 and the Regulation on the Implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 the National

Focal Point is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the programmes is terms of the progress

made toward reaching the expected outcomes and objectives of the programme.

After the Transparency International (TI-S) report was published, the complaints mechanism was

amended in accordance with the proposal (form) which was submitted by the Financial Mechanism Office.

2. Response to the programme-level results

SI02

Risk filtering criterion 4 (MEDIUM RISK)

We believe that the criterion pertaining to the amount of the grant allocation to the Programme cannot in

itself be a sufficient criterion to evaluate the Programme as having medium risk exposure.


We believe that the lack of involvement of the Donor Partner at the programme level (DPP) cannot be in

itself be a sufficient criterion to evaluate the Programme as having medium risk exposure.


The Cohesion Policy Office is part of the organisational structure of the institution (Government Office for

Development and European Cohesion Policy) in the framework of which the Programme Operator for the

Programme SI02 is established. The European Commission interrupted payments to the Cohesion Policy

Office due to suspicion of irregularities. The European Commission has already lifted the said interruption.

We would also like to underline that the Programme Operator is established within the European


Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office which is an organisation unit separated from the

Cohesion Policy Office. Indeed, the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator are established in

the framework of the same Office (European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office) but

adequate separation of functions between the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator is

provided.

The Programme Operator is no longer established in the framework of the Ministry for Economic

Development and Technology – as of 1 March 2014 it is established within the Government Office for

Development and European Cohesion Policy, thus we cannot respond to the issues pertaining to

corruption in the framework of the calls for proposals under the Consumer Protection Act.

SI05

Risk filtering criterion 4 (HIGH RISK)

The amount of the grant allocation to the Programme cannot automatically increase the corruption risk

exposure. The healthcare sector is, indeed, one of the sectors most exposed to corruption in terms of

public procurement procedures however such procedures are not carried out in the framework of

Programme SI05 management.


The Cohesion Policy Office is part of the organisational structure of the institution (Government Office for

Development and European Cohesion Policy) in the framework of which the Programme Operator for the

Programme SI05 is established. The European Commission interrupted payments to the Cohesion Policy

Office due to suspicion of irregularities. The European Commission has already lifted the said interruption.

We would also like to underline that the Programme Operator is established within the European

Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office which is an organisation unit separated from the

Cohesion Policy Office. Indeed, the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator are established in

the framework of the same Office (European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office) but

adequate separation of functions between the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator is

provided.

As regards criterion 7, four offices are established in the framework of the Government Office for

Development and European Cohesion Policy, which was established on 1 March 2014. The four offices

are: Cohesion Policy Office, European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office, General

Affairs and IT Support Office and Control Office. The National Focal Point and the Programme Operator

for the Programme SI02 and the Programme SI05 are established within the European Territorial

Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office. We would like to reinforce the staffing structure for the

management of the EEA and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism but this unfortunately proves unrealistic

in light of the current financial situation of the public sector.

Due to difference of opinion between the Republic of Slovenia and the European Commission with regard

to compliance with the EU acquis and the Slovenian legal framework, and the fact that the European

Commission established suspicion of irregularities made by the Slovenian authorities, the European

Commission interrupted payments of EU funding to the Cohesion Policy Office. The fact that the

interruption to payments has already been lifted and that the Slovenian authorities have already identified

the irregularities is proof that the Slovenian institutions are efficient in their actions and that they perform

their tasks adequately.

Mitigation measures


The National Focal Point amended the complaints mechanism in accordance with the Financial

Mechanism Office recommendations and published it on the dedicated website.

The complaints mechanism will be further developed in accordance with the Transparency International

guidelines with the latter being published on the dedicated website (http://norwaygrants.si/) in first quarter

of 2015.

The measure pertains to the separation of functions between the National Focal Point and the

Programme Operator. Due to the small size of the allocated grant from the Donor States and the current

financial situation in public administration we cannot expect the entities, performing the abovementioned

functions, to reinforce their staffing structure and consequently separate the two functions by organising

them into two separate organisational units.


Description of measure The measure pertains to the separation of functions between the

National Focal Point and the Programme Operator. Due to the small

size of the allocated grant from the Donor States and the current

financial situation in public administration we cannot expect the

entities, performing the abovementioned functions, to reinforce their

staffing structure and consequently separate the two functions by

organising them into two separate organisational units.

Target programme/project SI02, SI05

Corruption risk addressed separation of functions NPF and PO



etc.) and timeframe


involved



as possible)


Description of measure The National Focal Point amended the complaints mechanism in

accordance with the Financial Mechanism Office recommendations

and published it on the dedicated website.

The complaints mechanism will be further developed in accordance

with the Transparency International guidelines with the latter being


published on the dedicated website (http://norwaygrants.si/).

Target programme/project complaints mechanism

Corruption risk addressed shortcomings in the “complaints mechanism”



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing


involved

The National Focal Point amended the complaints mechanism in

accordance with the Financial Mechanism Office recommendations

and published it on the dedicated website.

The complaints mechanism will be further developed in accordance

with the Transparency International guidelines with the latter being

published on the dedicated website (http://norwaygrants.si/).



as possible)

Upgrading of complaint mechanism, first quarter of 2015.


SPAIN

SPAIN - COUNTRY REPORT









[End of data collection: 10 July 2014]

Introduction

The grants scheme in Spain distributes a net amount of EUR 42.5 million. Six programmes are funded in

Spain, supporting a range of policy sectors.25

The Deputy General Directorate for the Cohesion Fund and

European Territorial Cooperation within the Ministry of Finance and Public Administrations serves as the

National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the

country.

Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the six programmes, arranged according to the


Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Spain

Programme


Programme

allocation

(EUR)

Programme

operator

Donor programme

partners

ES02

Environmental and

Climate Change-

Related Research and

Technology

18,215,000

Centre for Technical

Industrial

Development (CDTI),

Ministry of Economic

Affairs and

Competitiveness

Innovation Norway

ES04 Gender Equality and

Work-Life Balance 10,191,250

Ministry of Health,

State Secretariat for

Social Services and

Equality

Equality and Anti-

discrimination Ombud

(LDO)

ES03 NGO Fund 4,585,000

Platform of NGOs for

Social Action

(POAS)

N/A

25

See the official website for Spain http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Spain


ES05

Conservation and

Revitalisation of


Heritage

4,085,000

Ministry of

Education, Culture

and Sport, State

Secretariat for

Culture

None

ES07 EEA Scholarship

Programme 3,918,000

Complutense

University of Madrid

(UCM)


International

Cooperation in



National Agency for



ES06 Cultural Diversity and

Cultural Heritage 500,000

Royal Norwegian

Embassy to Spain None

While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that three

programmes (ES02, ES04, ES07) additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States at the

programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of

strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective Donor

Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the

programme.

Furthermore, three programmes (ES03, ES04, ES05) feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are






Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Spain.

Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Spain - Summary of Results

A. COUNTRY-LEVEL

SP

AIN


CO

UN

TR

Y

RA

TIN

G



The rating is based on Spain’s deteriorated rank in international indices and on more detailed reports, which suggest

that while promoting a comprehensive anti-corruption regime has recently moved to the top of the national political

agenda, increased corruption risks on the regional and local level persist, requiring more targeted strategic measures

in the future.


country LOW

The amount of funding allocated to Spain implies a lower exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk, also with

respect to the potential impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.



The rating is based on a limited separation of functions between the Focal Point (also responsible for reporting

irregularities), the Certifying Authority, and the Audit Authority, all residing within the same ministry, and on the

absence of the required complaint mechanism.


B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL

PR

OG

RA

MM

ES


CO

MB

INE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ME

RA

TIN

G


4.

Gra

nt

allo

ca

tio

n to

Pro

gra

mm

e

5.

Don

or

Pro

gra

mm

e

Pa

rtn

er

invo

lve

me

nt

6.

Pre

-define

d P

roje

cts

with

in p

rog

ram

me

7.

Pro

gra

mm

e O

pe

rato

r

ES02 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size heightens the risk exposure rating for criterion 4.


ES03 MED MED MED LOW MED

The medium grant size increases the rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme

Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. Uncertainty regarding the not yet selected Project Promoter for the

Pre-defined Project increases the risk exposure rating for criterion 6.

ES04 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH

The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risks due to the

subordinated status or close affiliation of three PdP Project Promoter institutions in relation to the

Programme Operator institution (partly mitigated by independent auditing), the implication in the past of the

Project Promoter institutions for PdP1/2 (also involving one National Partner for PdP2) and PdP5 in

irregularities related to contracting and procurement practices, and for PdP4 in corruption issues, heighten

the risk rating for criterion 6.Ongoing investigations on an unresolved affair which might have an impact on

the PO institution raise the risk rating for criterion 7.

ES05 HIGH MED MED LOW MED

The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risk heighten the risk

rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for

criterion 5. The increased exposure of the PdP to irregularities risk given the nature and history of the

concerned project, and the politically exposed status of key personnel26

raise the risk rating for criterion 6.

26



ES06 LOW N/A N/A LOW LOW

ES07 MED LOW N/A MED MED

The medium grant size raises the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s implication in

a number of past and current allegations of fraud and corruption affairs increases the risk rating for criterion

7.


SPANISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS

This response has been provided by the Spanish National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and

unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Spanish National Focal Point only.

Methodology of the risk filtering approach

Dealing with the development of the risk filtering assessment by BRI-TI,

The risk assessment is based on broad general issues and the highest political levels, based on

past events related with former persons that are not already related to PO’s institutions, and

without paying enough attention to the particular measures and procedures in force in the POs

that in most cases means total management independence of these units from the findings.

There was a close communication between the POs, NFP, FMO, TI and BRI, during the

procedure of risk assessment and the NFP was asked for comments to a DRAFT report by TI.

The comments and documentation provided proved that some of the findings and risks identified

by TI were not accurate or had been completely corrected at that date. However there was no

answer to these comments nor does the FINAL report reflect most of these changes. Only the

issues discussed in a meeting devoted to a specific item of the report were considered.

Measures at country-level already in place and reported to FMO before the finalisation of the report

Criterion 3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism:

a. The structure of the different Units involved and the assigned functions were agreed by the

Beneficiary State and the Donor States in the Memorandum of Understanding on 18.11

2011, without any reserve dealing with the separation of functions.

b. There is a specific complaint mechanism implemented by the NFP, available on EEA Grants

Spain webpage (http://www.eeagrants.es/sitios/eeagrants/en-

GB/Paginas/alerta_irregularidades.aspx) since 25.08.2014, including a Good Governance

and Anti-corruption policy guide for the EEA Grants.

Measures at programme-level already in place and reported to FMO before the finalisation of the report

In the last paragraph of point 1. Introduction, it is identified the PdP as a greater risk of collusion

between personnel at the PO and the PP. The appointment of these PdPs were agreed by the

PO and the Donors in the signed Programme Agreements. In ES03 and ES05 the PdP have

been selected under competitive project selection. In ES03, none of the NGOs members of the

PO can participate in those selection processes.

Programme ES03. Criterion 5. Donnor Progamme Partner involvement: The opportunity for

having national partnership from Island, Norway and Liechtenstein was open during the open call

(August 2013). As a result, two projects have local partners from Norway and Island.

Programme ES03. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: A common rule for all

the programme was adopted during the negotiation of the programme in 2012-2013: any NGO´s

integrated in the NGO´s Platform cannot manage any fund.

Furthermore the selection process of the procurement call was implemented on the basis of the document approved by the FMO (August 2014).

Programme ES04. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: Key personnel involved

in PdP1, PdP2 and PdP5 are civil servants with a large experience in managing programmes in

the Public Administration and none of them has been involved in cases of bad practises nor has

been investigated for any corruption issues. Regarding PdP3/4, no key personnel responsible for

the implementation of the project, has ever been investigated for any corruption issues.


Programme ES05. Criterion 4. Grant allocation to Programme: Federico García Lorca

Consortium is a public institution subject to public law. Whenever the contracts require an open

tender process, the announcement will be sent to the Official Journal of the European Union.

Programme ES05. Criterion 5. Donor Progamme Partner involvement: This Programme

consists basically of one PdP. In the PA the Beneficiary State and the Donors agreed a PdP

without the participation of any Project Partner or Donor Programme Partner. In addition a hard

work of search and collaboration with partners has been done with the aim of strengthening the

bilateral relations of the programme.

Programme ES05. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: As of the 24th March

2014, decisions over contracts and expenses are made by collegiate bodies. All contracts will

ensure compliance with the principle of free competition and Controller’s approval is requested

for payment order. Collegiate bodies involved are Executive Commission and Contracting Board

of the Federico Garcia Lorca Consortium.

Programme ES07. Criterion 7. Programme Operator: The decision making and management

structure, including the participation of donor programme partners, external experts and other

institutions, guarantees the absence of any conflict of interest both at the programme and at the

project levels.

Concerning the “corruption affairs” mentioned in the TI first draft report, the three of them were clearly replied: irregularity suspicion report issued by the Court of Accounts was closed without any procedure started against the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and with the annual accounts approved; for the two other questions, it has been the university who has started the inspection procedures and has sent the cases to the Justice Courts because it was the institution which was attacked. None of the data provided by the Programme Operator’s replying to the draft report has meant any amendment on TI’s first opinion.

Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures at country-level:

Criterion 3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism:

There is a specific complaint mechanism of the NFP, available on EEA Grants Spain webpage

(http://www.eeagrants.es/sitios/eeagrants/en-GB/Paginas/alerta_irregularidades.aspx) since

25.08.2014.

Further developments in continuous improvement of NFP’s complaint mechanism will be implemented.

Mitigation measures at programme-level:

Programme ES03. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: As a follow up of

measures already in place, more than 20 entities have been invited to present their projects

among the agreed procedures (October 2014), an external support (technical assistance) made

recommendation about the selection of two project promoters, (October 2014), and the selection

was made by the Board of Directors of the NGO´s Platform (12 November 2014).

A form about the lack of conflict of interest is going to be signed.

Programme ES04:

a. Donor Programme Partner (Equality and Antidiscrimination Ombud in Norway, LDO) is

closely involved in the Programme development.

b. The PO has proceeded to contract an external and independent audit company, which is executing the checks and verifications of the expenses reported by the Programme Operator in every Interim Financial Report (IFR) declared. Thus PO complies with one of the basic principles on the execution of checks; such as the segregation of duties.


c. In order to guarantee the correct execution of actions in the Programme, the PO has designed a Management and Control Systems (MCS) that has been approved by the Audit Authority designated for Spain in the Memorandum of Understanding.

d. A “Complaint Mechanism” has been published on the homepage of the Programme web page http://www.eeagrants.spain.msssi.gob.es. The complaint mechanism is meant to provide a channel for confidential reporting of hypothetical bad practises or fraudsters.

e. Regarding the possible conflict of interests that could appear between the PO and the PP, these have been mitigated by an external audit

f. All the lacking information that the FMO asked for, was sent on 16/09/2014 to the NFP, and from there to the FMO on 18/09/2014.

Programme ES05. Criterion 4. Grant allocation to Programme: An Executive Commission has

been set up (made up by a representative of each Administration participating in the Consortium)

to:

1. The approval of expenses exceeding the limit of €17,999 plus VAT (minor contracts). 2. Contracts not exceeding that above mentioned amount require joint authorization of the Director of the Centre, the Managers and the Controller. In both cases, the legal framework for contracting is the Public Administration Contract Law and all contracts will be accompanied by the tender documents setting out the specifications, criteria and legislation ensuring compliance with the principle of free competition..

Programme ES05. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: As of the 24th March

2014, decisions over contracts and expenses are made by collegiate bodies. All contracts will

ensure compliance with the principle of free competition and Controller’s approval is requested

for payment order.



Description of measure Improvement of the complaint mechanism in place

Target programme/project ES01

Corruption risk addressed Country-level. Criterion 3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism



etc.) and timeframe

Ongoing. 1st Quarter 2015


involved

Improve management and communication procedures



as possible)

Standardization of inputs and outputs.


Description of measure Transparency with PdP


Corruption risk addressed Programme-level. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme



etc.) And timeframe

Ongoing, 1st Quarter 2015


involved

A common rule for the entire programme have been adopted during the

negotiation of the programme in 2012-2013: any NGO´s integrated in

the NGO´s Platform cannot manage any fund.

A selection process has been implemented on the basis of the document approved by the FMO (August 2014). More than 20 entities have been invited to present their projects among the agreed procedures (October 2014), an external support (technical assistance) made recommendation about the selection of two project promoters, (October 2014), and the selection was made by the Board of Directors of the NGO´s Platform (12 November 2014). A form about the lack of conflict of interest will be signed






Description of measure Donor Programme Partner (Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud in Norway, LDO) is closely involved in the Programme development.

Target programme/project Programme ES04

Corruption risk addressed Degree of transparency of Programme including involvement of DPP



etc.) and timeframe

According to article 3.3 of the Regulation, the Cooperation Committee provides advice on the preparation and implementation of the Programme. All bilateral relations and complementary actions are agreed upon by the DDP, PO and the Norwegian Embassy


involved

The tasks of the Cooperation Committee include the following: (a) Advising on selection criteria and the texts for calls of

proposals

(b) Advising on possible project partners in the Donor States

(c) Reviewing progress made towards achieving the outcomes and objectives of the programme

(d) Examining the results of the implementation of the Programme;

(e) Reviewing the annual Programme reports;

(f) Advising the Programme Operator of any revision of the Programme likely to facilitate the achievement of the Programme’s expected outcomes and objectives; and

(g) Advising on the use and the set-up of the fund for bilateral relations at the programme level.

In particular is important to highlight the following aspects:

- Donor Programme Partner (DPP) was deeply involved in the design of the predefined projects and remains so in its monitoring stage.

- DPP is participating since the very beginning in the design of the two open calls and Small Grant Schemes included in the Programme as well as in all the selection committees.

These committees also participate as observers in the Financial Mechanism Office (FMO), the National Focal Point (NFP) and the Norwegian Embassy.




All the projects and activities included in the Programme have the consensus and approval of the DPP. The Cooperation Committee has met regularly (thirteen times27 since September 2012 until September 2014, which means an average of more than once every two months).

27

24/09/12 (Madrid) 12/12/12 (Madrid), 18/02/13 (Madrid), 11/06/13 (Madrid), 26/09/13 (Brussels), 18/09/13 (Madrid), 19/11/13 (Madrid), 12/12/13 (Madrid), 30/01/14 (Madrid), 7/04/14 (Brussels), 22/05/14 (Madrid), 20/06/14 (Oslo), 16/09/14 (Madrid)



Description of measure Regarding the possible conflict of interests that could appear between the PO and the PP, these have been mitigated by an external audit.


Corruption risk addressed Possible conflict of interests that could appear between the PO and some of the PdP



etc.) and timeframe

The external audit has been contracted in 22/11/2013 and will last

until next November 2016.


involved

Activities devoted to check the actions developed under the PdP1 and

PdP2 and their associated costs



as possible)

Every declared cost in all the IFR presented so far has been audited by this external auditor.


Description of measure The PO has proceeded to contract an external and independent audit company, which is executing the checks and verifications of the expenses reported by the Programme Operator in every Interim Financial Report (IFR) declared. Thus PO complies with one of the basic principles on the execution of checks; such as the segregation of duties.


Corruption risk addressed Degree of specification and transparency of PdP within the

Programme



etc.) and timeframe

The established level of control refers to 100% of the actions, so that all the expenditure certifications delivered by the PO are reviewed by the independent audit and issues a report in which the accuracy of the data in the IFR is determined.


involved

“Ex ante” verifications

In order to guarantee the correct execution of actions, the PO has

established different control procedures will allow ensuring correct

execution of the programme and will also allow guaranteeing the

existence of a suitable and sufficient audit trail of all the actions in the

Programme.

The established level of control refers to 100% of the actions, in a way

that all the expenditure certifications delivered by the PO will be

reviewed by PwC and will be issued in a report in which the accuracy

of the data in the IFR is determined.


E) 3.- b) On site verifications.

The verifications which the entity PwC make can be carried out on

site.

Furthermore, the on-site Monitoring Plan that the PO carry out yearly;

verifications of expenditure are not performed. However, aspects

related to the expenditure, such as the existence of a separate

account, checking the existence of authorisation for subcontracting,

checking the request for bids for subcontracting, etc. will be verified.



as possible)


Description of measure In order to guarantee the correct execution of actions in the Programme, the PO has designed a Management and Control Systems (MCS) that has been approved by the Audit Authority designated for Spain in the Memorandum of Understanding.



Programme

Integrity of Programme/ Funds Operators Implementation status


etc.) and timeframe


involved

Summing up the internal controls reflected in the MCS, all operations

done by the Programme Operator are supervised by an independent

Financial Controller, assigned to the PO by the national “Audit

Authority” (General Controller of the Public Administration). The

Financial Controller supervises all the payments made to the

Predefined Projects managed through nominal subsidies, as well as

the rest of the expenses executed by him (complementary actions,

bilateral relations, management costs). The independent Financial

Controller assigned to the Women’s Institute (WI) and ascribed to the

Audit Authority as well, supervises all payments made by the WI

Project Promoters related to the Predefined projects, and the

payments done to the open call and small grants schemes

beneficiaries.

With regards to the accusation of political favouritism in the awarding

of grants in the Women Institute (WI).

In July 2013, the WI modified to improve the criteria for the annual

open call in order to make them more transparent and objective. For


the first time, the selection criteria were established under easily

testable and revisable objective parameters. All associations were

informed about these new criteria on time, and a period of provisional

resolution, file review by the applicants, claims and queries processes

were included. It was the first time that there were no administrative or

judicial appeals among the potential beneficiaries of the call during the

whole process due to the high level of transparency.

It is unacceptable that because a press release in which an

association of women poured criticism, the whole report raises

suspicion about a process that has been transparent and based on

objective criteria. Furthermore, it seriously damages the honorability of

honest public servants.



as possible)


Description of measure A “Complaint Mechanism” has been published on the homepage of the Programme web page http://www.eeagrants.spain.msssi.gob.es.



Programme

Integrity of Programme/ Funds Operators



etc.) and timeframe

This “Complaint Mechanism” has been published on the homepage of

the Programme at the end of September 2014.


involved

The complaint mechanism is meant to provide a channel for

confidential reporting of hypothetical bad practises or fraudsters.



as possible)


Description of measure An Executive Commission has been set up (made up by a representative of each Administration participating in the Consortium)


Corruption risk addressed Criterion 4. Grant allocation to Programme




etc.) and timeframe

Completed


involved

An Executive Commission has been set up (made up by a representative of each Administration participating in the Consortium) to:

1. The approval of expenses exceeding the limit of €17,999 plus VAT (minor contracts).

2. Contracts not exceeding that above mentioned amount require joint authorization of the Director of the Centre, the Managers and the Controller.

In both cases, the legal framework for contracting is the Public Administration Contract Law and all contracts will be accompanied by the tender documents setting out the specifications, criteria and legislation ensuring compliance with the principle of free competition.



as possible)



Description of measure Decisions over contracts and expenses are made by collegiate

bodies.


Corruption risk addressed Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme



etc.) and timeframe

Complete


involved

As of the 24th March 2014, decisions over contracts and expenses

are made by collegiate bodies. All contracts will ensure compliance

with the principle of free competition and Controller’s approval is

requested for payment order.



as possible)

Transparency International International Secretariat Alt-Moabit 96, 10559 Berlin, Germany

Phone: +49 30 34 38 200 Fax: +49 30 34 70 39 12

[email protected] www.transparency.org

blog.transparency.org facebook.com/transparencyinternational twitter.com/anticorruption

addressing corruption risk in the eea and … · bg12 domestic and gender-based violence 2,000,000...

Documents