Improving user-friendliness of structural funds management system

in Lithuania: challenges and opportunities

dr. KLAUDIJUS MANIOKAS

Public company “European social, legal and economic projects” (ESTEP)Lithuania

1

“Open days 2006”Cutting red tape: Managing the Structural Funds between 2007-2013

2

European social, legal and economic projects is a public company ESTEP specialises in:

public policy analysis evaluation of programmes and projects (ex-ante, mid-term, ex-post,

ongoing and meta-evaluation) impact assessment technical assistance and capacity building

Authors of thematic evaluation “Effectiveness of the Implementation System of Lithuanian Single Programming Document for 2004-2006”

ESTEP

Contact details:Europos socialiniai teisiniai ir ekonominiai projektai – ESTEP

Jogailos str. 4, LT-01116 Vilnius, Lithuania

www.estep.lt

3

Introduction Concept of user-friendliness Red tape in Lithuanian SPD implementation in 2004-2006 Challenges and changes in the period 2007-2013 Learning the lessons: ways to reduce administrative burdens

PLAN OF THE PRESENTATION

4

Red-tape - regulations required to gain bureaucratic approval for some activity, especially when excessively complex and time-consuming.

Lithuanian SPD 2004-2006 ~ €895 million from SF Administrative structure:

Managing authority Ministry of Finance 8 intermediate institutions, 6 implementing agencies

Managing Authority commissioned thematic evaluation on the effectiveness of SF administration system (2005). Findings: red-tape at a national level.

Beneficiary survey: 26 % - it was complicated to receive funding; 68 % - encountered some problems

Problems: lack of experience, complexity of regulations, lack of consultations, protracted processes and lack of responsible institutions competence.

Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

5

Institutional framework: Centralised system with some “differentiated” features Non-existent regional dimension Example of good practice: regional units of two implementing

agencies

Administrative system is complex. Factors: Lack of experience New institutions and procedures in the short period Lack of trust with regard to potential beneficiaries and concerns

over misuse of funds safeguards, double-checks

Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

6

Project generation and selection processes High / excessive requirements for project application and selection. E.g.

SPD Measure 3.2 “Improvement of business environment” approx. 70 requirements to be considered eligible

Excessive information requirements Proportionality principle lacking Lack of coordination and exchange of information between responsible

institutions Bottlenecks in the selection process:

Inefficient planning. E.g. timing of calls, choice of the support rendering procedure, number of applications.

No mandatory deadline for project selection (recommended – 3 months) Protracted selection process – in extreme cases more than a year.

Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

7

Publicity Lack of single, user-friendly website on possibilities of structural funding Information fragmented along separate SPD measures and funds Often “passive” approach to provision of information (e.g. LBSA) Applicants lacked consultancy, training and assistance Good practice: “open days” at IA, seminars in the regions, “zero calls”

Transparency and accountability SF implementation seen as insufficiently transparent in the wider public Insufficient involvement of socio-economic partners Shortcomings in the appeal process

Summing up: SPD implementation structure “heavy”, disproportionately high

application costs Mismatch between system requirements and applicants’ capacities

Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

8

European Commission: simpler, transparent procedures, tight control, better balance between the protection of the taxpayer’s money and more user-friendly procedures

High demands on management and delivery system in Lithuania due to: Larger volumes of SF resources (total € 6.62 billions) More autonomy 3 OP’s instead of SPD risk of fragmentation and complexity Considerable increase in the number of participating institutions

need for effective coordination Institutions “newcomers” issue of administrative capacities New steps towards decentralization: involvement of NRDA’s in

project selection and investment planning

New programming period: challenges and changes

9

Important to: maintain accumulated SF management experience avoid the situation where more detailed and burdensome national

rules are created simpler procedures, more consistency, objectivity and publicity

Administrative simplification and streamlined procedures Standardized and consistent procedures according to separate OPs

as far as possible Screening: cut number of requests, eliminate rules with no added

value Proportionality principle for projects of different sizes and types More realistic and rational planning, based on experience Mandatory time limits for project selection Consistency in interpretation of legal and financial provisions Introduce standardized form of guidelines for applicants

LEARNING THE LESSONS:Ways to reduce administrative burdens

10

Greater publicity, transparency and accountability Create central SF web portal Involve partners into decision-making more effectively Strengthen capacities of partners to participate in the process of EU SF

administration process.

Strengthening applicants’ capacities and bringing system closer to “users”

A consulting centre specialising in trainings for applicants, consultancy, provision of methodological support

Deconcentration of functions performed by implementing agencies and establishment of missing regional units

Thank you for attention

LEARNING THE LESSONS:Ways to reduce administrative burdens