1 / 16

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ABSORPTION OF THE EU FUNDS IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA IN 2010

This report provides an overview of the financial implementation of EU funds in Bulgaria in 2010, including progress and delays observed, recommendations for oversight, and a list of abbreviations.

angelcoleman
Download Presentation

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ABSORPTION OF THE EU FUNDS IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA IN 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ABSORPTION OF THE EU FUNDS IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA IN 2010 MONIKA PANAYOTOVA, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE EUROPEAN FUNDS

  2. CONTENT • Financial implementation of the Operational programs - Leaders • Progress achieved / delay observed • Recommendations and vision regarding the oversight of the EU funds

  3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS • OPT – Operational program “Transport” • OPE – Operational program “Environment” • OPRD – Operational program “Regional development” • OPHRD – Operational program “Human Resources Development” • OPC – Operational program “Competitiveness” • OPAC – Operational program “Administrative Capacity” • OPTA – Operational program “Technical Assistance” • UMIS – Unified Management Information System

  4. SCOPE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010 21 EU-funded Programs, incl.: • 7 Operational Programs under the Objective 1 ”Convergence” • 5 Cross-Border Cooperation Operational Programs under the Objective 3 “European Territorial Cooperation” • 2 Programs under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund • The Schengen Facility, the Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area, the Norwegian Cooperation Program and the Transition Facility • 3 Pre-accession Programs (Phare, ISPA and SAPARD)

  5. CHRONOLOGY OF THE CONTRACTING UNDER THE SCHENGEN FACILITY

  6. FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS UNDER THE OBJECTIVE 1 “CONVERGENCE” IN 2010

  7. LEADING OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES IN TERMS OF CONTRACTING AND PAYMENT AT 31 DECEMBER 2010

  8. COMPARING OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES ON THE EXTENT OF LOTHAR 2010 FORECASTS IMPLEMENTATION

  9. STATUS OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES UNDER THE OBJECTIVE 1 “CONVERGENCE” - AT 31 DECEMBER 2010

  10. PROGRESS ACHIEVED IN THE EU FUNDS MANAGEMENT IN 2010 • Positive Compliance Assessment of the management and control systems by the European Commission and the opportunity for making interim payments related to it; • In 2010 a significant growth has been achieved in the payments under the Operational Programs ( 289,1% in the period 31.12.2009г. - 31.12.2010г. or new 601,1 MEUR have reached the Bulgarian beneficiaries) and in the contracting (over 55% or more than 1 Billion Euro) compared to 2009; • Building a stable system for good coordination and control in the EU funds management via institutional, legislative and administrative measures; • Improved communication and cooperation with our partners in Brussels and the International Financial Institutions and creation of opportunities for access to expertise in specific sectors; • Increasing transparency in the process of the EU funds management and a better dialogue between the state administration and the groups of beneficiaries in the country – monthly meetings with the National Association of the Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria; • Improvement of the legislation, related to the Public Procurement and less administrative burden - changes in the Public Procurement Law in 2010.

  11. RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (1) • Unification of the project application and reporting documents • Less administrative burden in project reporting. Introduction of on-line project application and progress reporting • More focus on the implementation of the project activities, rather than on the forms for project reporting • Synchronization of the financial information, generated by different sources (UMIS, Certifying Authority, OP Management Authority) • Further enhancement of the administrative capacity andlimiting qualified staff turn-overwithin the OP Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies on central and local level • Overcoming the delay in the OP implementation, generated by the requirementsof the Public Procurement Law – measures undertaken • Further improvement of the regulatory framework for the EU Funds management – opportunities for unification

  12. RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (2) Why do we need a Law on the EU Funds management? • Need for sustainable regulation of this specific area and greater legal stability for both – administration and beneficiaries • A new institutional framework could be better introduced only with a single legal act • Clear national vision for the EU Funds managementin the next programming period in line with the new trends in the planning of the future Cohesion Policy, as well as in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy • Maximum unification and simplification of the current procedures (incl.introduction of template documents) • More effective inter-relation with other laws, such as -the Public Procurement Law, the Law on investments, the Administrative Procedural Code • Such practice exists in some of the other EU Member-States

  13. RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (3) Law on the EU Funds management – experience in the EU Member-States • Member-States with a Law on the EU Fundsmanagement - Greece, Denmark, some of the new Member-States – Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia • Scope of the Law: • Overall institutional framework for management, monitoring and control of the EU Funds (Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia) • Along with the funds available under the Structural instruments of the EU, the law regulates also the financial allocations from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund(Greece,Slovakia) • Project selection procedures • Appeal Procedures

  14. RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (4) • Need for additionality in the implementation of the Operational Programs and synergy effect generation • Debate on the new Cohesion Policy – challenges of the country

  15. RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (5) Challenges of the country in the light of the Future Cohesion Policy after 2013 • Concentration of the European and national resources on few key priorities which correspond to the specific needs of the country and are in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy, thus achieving a stronger impact • For each chosen key priority the country should set clear and measureable targets and indicators in the beginning of the programming period which will enable the evaluation of the progress achieved • Guaranteeing a stable macroeconomic environment and strong institutional framework, which are an essential prerequisite for receiving EU Structural Funds support • Targeting the Structural Funds assistance at achieving visible results changing citizens’ life • Active participation in the debates concerning the introduction of conditionalities in allocation of the Structural Funds assistance

  16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! MONIKA PANAYOTOVA, CHAIRWOMAN COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE EUROPEAN FUNDS E-mail:kei@parliament.bg Tel.: (+359 2) 987 38 88 Fax: (+359 2) 987 55 03

More Related