150 likes | 291 Views
Content of the p resentation. Progress and Crisis (2004-2006 and 2007-2013) Closure & Reporting (2004-2006) Systems and Simplification (2007-2013 and post 2013) Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013) Lessons learned and Future (post 2014) Any Other Business and Conclusions. 1.
E N D
Content of the presentation • Progress and Crisis (2004-2006 and 2007-2013) • Closure & Reporting (2004-2006) • Systems and Simplification (2007-2013 and post 2013) • Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013) • Lessons learned and Future (post 2014) • Any Other Business and Conclusions 1
3. Systems and simplification (programming period 2007-2013 and post 2013) 3.1. Simplification of EU funds implementation system 2
Flat-rate for indirect costs in ESF projects • 6 MS (BG, CZ, LT, PL, RO, SI) alreadyuse flat-rate for indirect costs in ESF projects • 6 MS (CY, EE, HU, LV, MT, SK) plan to use flat-rate for indirect costs in ESF projects (methodology isn’t approved yet) 3
Flat-rate for indirect costs in ERDF projects • 7 MS (CY, CZ, EE, LT, LV, PL, SI) plan to use flat-rate for indirect costs in ERDF projects • None of the above MS have the methodology for calculation of the ERDF flat–rate 4
Lump sums (simplification; methodology) • 8 MS (CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SK) plan to use lump sums as the tool for simplification • None of the above MShave methodology for lump sums • BG, MT, RO, SIdo not plan to use lump sums as the tool for simplification 5
Unit costs (simplification; methodology) • CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SI, SKplan to use unit costs as the tool for simplification • None of the MS has methodology for unit costs • BG, MT, ROdo not plan to use unit costs as the tool for simplification 6
Simplification in national/regional EU funds management system(I) I Project selection and evaluation 7
Simplification in national/regional EU funds management system (II) II Project implementation 8
Simplification in national/regional EU funds management system (III) III Payments • 11 MS (except MT) make advance payments available for beneficiaries • Advance payments to public sector (including municipalities and NGO’s)(BG, CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, RO, SK, SI) • Advance payments to private beneficiaries (BG, CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, RO) • Some MS pay or plan to pay advance payments to the contractors 9
3. Systems and simplification (programming period 2007-2013 and post 2013) 3.2. The role of the MAs in the implementation system 10
Verifications carried out by MAs • In 6 MS (CZ, EE, LT, LV, PL) verifications are delegated to IBs (MA and CA not directly involved) • In other 6 MS – BG, HU, MT, RO, SI, SK – mixed verifications • In 6 MS (BG, CY, MT, RO, SI, SK) declarations of expenditure are verified by MAs 11
Specific guidelines for monitoring revenue generated projects • No specific guidelines for monitoring revenue generated projects in 7 MS (BG, CZ, MT, LT, RO, SI, SK) • In CY, EE, HU, LV, PL there are specific guidelines used or being elaborated (contents calculation methods of funding gap, explanation what is considered as a revenue, rules concerning monitoring and reporting of revenues) 13
Number of employees of all working for EU funds financed from TA 14