1 / 14

INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SCF PROGRAMMES IMPLEMENATION IN MEMBER STATES

INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SCF PROGRAMMES IMPLEMENATION IN MEMBER STATES. Viktoras Sirvydis, Lithuania CPMA. I nstitutional models in the MS. I nstitutional models observations.

holland
Download Presentation

INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SCF PROGRAMMES IMPLEMENATION IN MEMBER STATES

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. INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SCF PROGRAMMES IMPLEMENATION IN MEMBER STATES Viktoras Sirvydis, Lithuania CPMA

  2. Institutional modelsin the MS

  3. Institutional modelsobservations • Studies 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.

  4. Numberof MA and IB in MS * - including 63 IB II

  5. Locationof IB in MS

  6. MA AND IB EMPLOYEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF NSRF EMPLOYEES

  7. 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!)

  8. Were to focus? • Consider to focus on effectiveness and impact: • In the current programming period weare 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.

  9. Certifying Authority Managing Authority MCS authorities and bodies Accrediting Body Coordinating Body Member State PayingBody AuditAuthority or Intermediate Bodies Intermediate Bodies

  10. EC EC EC EC EC EC EC Ac.A MA MS MA CA AA MS MS MS MS MA CA MA PB Ben. MS Implementation, eligibility period Completion Preparation Closure Year Final impl. report Progr. closure Annual closure Annual closure Annual closure Programming MA Annual closure Evaluation ex-ante Evaluations midterm Evaluation ex-post MA Decl. of assurance MCS set-up & accredit. MCS improvements Progammes/projects forecasting and monitoring MA Information and publicity activities Projects selection Projects implementation/payments Durability check Projects expenditure verification Expenditures certification, payment applications to EC Irregularities/Recoveries management Annual CR Annual CR Annual CR Annual CR Annual CR Annual CR

  11. Coordinating Body (Ministry) Certifying Authority (Ministry) Institutional model options 2 1 3 Member State functions Managing Authority (Ministry) Managing Authority functions Verification tasks Selection tasks Intermediate Body1 `(Ministry) Intermediate Body 2 (Agency)

  12. Key functions • Coordinating 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.

  13. Recommendations • Reduce 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.

  14. Institutional models are only as good as the people who work within them! Thank you for your attention!

More Related