INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SCF PROGRAMMES

IMPLEMENATION IN MEMBER STATES

Viktoras Sirvydis, Lithuania CPMA

Institutional models in the MSCentralized

Denmark, Lithuania,

Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia,Slovakia, Hungary,

Greece, Sweden,Romania, Bulgaria,

Cyprus, Malta,Luxembourg

Regionalized

Germany, Italy,Netherlands,

Austria,Belgium

Mixed

Poland, France, Finland,

Czech Republic, Spain,

UK, Ireland, Portugal

Institutional models observationsStudies shows that different management

and control systems in the Member States do not have major differences in administrative costs or workload.

In regionalised or mixed management systems, the regulatory framework and rules are often perceived to be too general and in need of substantial interpretation.

Delegation can also add to complexity as each new level of delegation brings extra supervision and reporting obligations.

Number of MA and IB in MS

22

11

1 1 1 1

7

1

18

7 7

95

18

10

4

1815 15 17

23

5

32

MA IB

* - including 63 IB II

5

Location of IB in MS

 

Government administration - ministry

Government administration - Agency

Government administration - others

Regional government administration

Local government

NGO's

Poland 16 12 8   59  

Slovakia 3 7     8  

Cyprus 3 5       2

Malta 2 2        

Latvia 10 8        

Lithuania 7 5 3      

Hungary 8     7    

Estonia 6 5 6      

Czech Rep. 5 4 1 13    

Bulgaria 2 3

Romania 5 3 16 8

Slovenia 14          

6

MA AND IB EMPLOYEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF NSRF EMPLOYEES

62%

71%

82%

84%

77%

86%

69%

45%

61%

49%

14%

40%

49%

34%

35%

41%

26%

7%

5%

21%

23%

40%

6%

16%

Poland

Slovakia

Cyprus

Malta

Latvia

Lithuania

Hungary

Estonia

Czech Rep.

Slovenia

Bulgaria

Romania

IB MA

How to assess your system?4 aims:

absorption: use funds (use 95-100%)correctness: use them without

repayment and recoveries (error rates under 2%)

efficiency: use them without additional costs (MS pay co-fin. + no more than additional10-15%)

effectiveness: use them with an impact (this is where the gap is the largest!)

Were to focus?Consider to focus on effectiveness and impact:In the current programming period we are

under pressure to focus on absorption, correctness and efficiency, not effectiveness and impact –however it’s changing- see draft 2014-20 SCF regulation.

Consider to avoid following consequence:If national MCS fails COM intervenes

(suspension, financial correction);COM checks reimbursements of payments

on account and applies decommitment.

MCS authorities and bodies

Managing

Authority

Certifying

Authority

Member State

AuditAuthori

ty

PayingBody

Intermediate Bodies

or

Accrediting Body

Coordinating Body

Intermediate Bodies

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

MCS set-up & accredit.

Programming

Annual

closure

Progr. closur

eEvaluation ex-ante

Evaluations midterm

Evaluation ex-post

Annual CR

Preparation Implementation, eligibility period

Completion

Closure

MCS improvements

Year

Durability check

Annual CR

Annual CR

Final impl. report

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

MS

MS

MS

EC

EC MS

MA

PBBen.

CA

MA CA

MA

MA

MS

MS

AA

Progammes/projects forecasting and monitoring

Projects selection

Projects implementation/payments

Projects expenditure verification

Expenditures certification, payment applications to EC

Irregularities/Recoveries management

Information and publicity activities

MA

Annual

closure

Annual

closure

Annual

closure

MA

MA

Ac.ADecl. of assuranc

e

Annual CR

Annual CR

Annual CR

Institutional model optionsCoordinating

Body(Ministry)

Managing Authority(Ministry)

Member State functions

Intermediate Body 1

`(Ministry)

IntermediateBody 2

(Agency)

Selectiontasks

Verification tasks

CertifyingAuthority(Ministry)

1 2 3

Managing Authorityfunctions

Key functionsCoordinating Body – coordination of

programming and establishment of common legal framework, harmonisation of national rules and IT system;

Managing Authority – monitoring of OP implementation and supervision of delegated tasks;

Intermediate Body 1 – programming, selection of operations, grant contracting and monitoring of projects portfolio under it’s priority axis;

Intermediate Body 2 – support IB1 in selection, administrative and on-the-spot verification of eligible expenditure, project implementation control.

RecommendationsReduce uncertainties- make institutional

model and allocation of functions clear, avoid overlapping and various interpretations.

Avoid distribution of tasks among many institutions and departments as it weakens the implementation system.

Delegation of the tasks to one level can help to increase quality of controls and narrow interpretations of the rules, however avoid complex delegations and sub-delegations, which increase need for coordination and control.

Institutional models are only as good as the people who work within them!

Thank you for your attention!