1 / 7

Workshop 3

Workshop 3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MANAGING AUTHORITY AND THE PAYING AGENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES FOR THE FINANCING PERIOD 2007-2013. Summary from questionnaire.

gil
Download Presentation

Workshop 3

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. Workshop 3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MANAGING AUTHORITY AND THE PAYING AGENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES FOR THE FINANCING PERIOD 2007-2013 Summary from questionnaire

  2. The roles are in principal clear on the Regulations, however there is overlapping in the obligations described in art. 6 of Reg. 1290/2005 concerning PA and the art. 75 of Reg. 1698/2005 concerning MA of the respective regulation. As a consequence, the day to day interrelations between both bodies not always are clear. Would be necessary a strong cooperation between PA and MA to harmonise the procedures: Creation of the operational programs. Tenders. And other activities. a) Do you think that the roles of the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency are clear?

  3. MA and PA are structured, in general, in different units under the same Ministry (Authority). The advantages of this structure are: Harmonisation of processes. Flexible and independent activities. Timely execution. Better coordination. In some cases, MAs belong to other different Ministries (Finance): Duplicity in the procedures. Lack of uniformity in the procedures. Less efficacy. b) In your case, the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency are part of the same Unit? Do you agree with the established structure in your country and why?

  4. When the MA and PA are separated in different Ministries or Authorities. Complications could come from the coordination of two different Committees (Funds and Rural Development). PA must have a most important role in the planning of RDP measures in order to make the checks feasible. In some cases, MAs face difficulties to provide all the information required for the payments (X-table). Different approaches between: MA: They are in line with the political objectives of the measures of RDPs. and PA: Clearance of account system. c) Could you describe one situation in which the relationship between the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency led to complications?

  5. Member States, in general, consider that LAG experience is good. Some Member States note problems in the eligibility of LAG as final beneficiary of the aids and their consequences on the issues of transparency (Regulation 259/2008) and recovery of debts. The operational structure of LAG is not clear, particularly concerning relationship among LAG, MA and PA. d) In the special case of the LAG (Local Action Group), do you consider that the structure of functioning is clear? And do the actors of this item (Managing Authority, Paying Agency and LAG) know their responsibilities?

  6. Through periodical coordination meeting and exchange of experiences. Efficiency in the RDP management. Efforts have to be made in order to develop common implementation processes between MAs and PAs. Determinate the degree of responsibility of MA, PA and LAG. e) How do you think to improve the relationship between the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency in the near future?

  7. THANKS

More Related