Twinning Project RO 2003/IB/SPP/05 Task 2 Planning and Programming Structural Funds 2007-2013

Twinning ProjectRO 2003/IB/SPP/05Task 2Planning and Programming Structural Funds 2007-2013 Silke N. Haarich Timisoara, 31 January/1 February 2006

Points to be touched • 1. Framework: Requirements of the Structural Funds • 2. Programming Process and relevant actors – tasks and responsibilities • 3. Programme Management and Monitoring Systems • 4. Project Development, Appraisal and Selection • 5. Evaluation, Control and Feedback

1. EU Structural Funds • 2007-2013 Structural Funds: • For EU-25 + 2. • ERDF, ESF, Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. • former Objective 1 = ‘Convergence’ regions • former Objective 2 = ‘Regional competitiveness and employment’ regions • former INTERREG+EQUAL = ‘Territorial cooperation’ objective • EU co-funding and investments based on Regional Development Plans

1. Framework: Requirements • Programming and Projects based on regional needs and development priorities • Requirements of the Structural Funds • Multi-annual Programming • Structural Fund administrative regulations and financial control • Additionality – Co-financing • Partnership principle • EU horizontal priorities • Sustainability and Environmental Protecion • Equal Opportunities

1. Programming Framework • National Strategic Reference Framework • Operational Programmes (sectoral and regional) • Rationale, Objectives, Strategy, Indicative Actions, Contribution to Horizontal Objectives • More detailed OP Complements • For each measure: objective, implementation issues, eligible activities, beneficiaries (as project developers), target groups, selection criteria, quantified targets and objectives

1. ProgrammeDelivery Cycle Programme development Project Appraisal and Selection

2. Programming Process • 1stPhase: Elaboration of the NDP and Regional Development Plans • Socio-economic description • Needs, analysis and perspectives • Priorities and large interventions foreseen. • 2nd Phase: Negotiation – National Reference Framework • Objectives and Financial Resources • Approval of the EU Commission necessary • 3rd Phase: Regional Programming (ROP) according to CSF • Activities and projects • Financing and Partnership • 4th Phase. Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation.

2. Programming Process • Base: Regional Development Plan • Focussed on socio-economic development • Articulated in Operational Programmes (Sectoral and Regional) • Priorities for Development in Region Vest OP: • Infrastructure • Business Support • Tourism • Urban and Local Development

2. Programming Process • Organization of the Programming Process: • Division of responsibility (National, EU, Regional) • Managing Authority • Intermediate Body • Creation of Working Groups • Plan Teams • Use of External Consultants • Consultation Process

2. Relevant Actors • Managing Authority / Intermediate Body • Responsible for elaborating detailed procedures covering the various stages of Operational Programme implementation. • Define and assure the correct selection of projects to be supported, based on objective criteria. • Check correct delivery and use of goods and services which have been co-financed. • Assure the use of an information system which allows and supports control of payments, control of results, audits and evaluations. • Guarantee the elaboration of evaluations and the compliance with EC rules (accountability, information, state aid, etc.) • Guides the work of the Monitoring Committee • Submits to the EU Commission annual and final reports.

2. Relevant Actors • Managing Authority / Intermediate Body • Should draw up a detailed multi-annual strategy for implementing Technical Assistance Measures • Where Managing Authorities and (depending on delegation arrangements) Intermediate Bodies are in the position of Beneficiaries as well as managers of OP Measures and Technical Assistance, a clear separation of functions in their organisational structures will be essential. • Different tasks may be delegated to separate departments in the Managing Authority, or to other bodies, by the Certifying Authority and Competent Body for Payments depending on the Operational Programme and its management structure

2. Relevant Actors • Certifying Authority, Competent Body for Payments • certifies declarations of payments and eligible expenditure • Guarantess and supervises the coorect verification of payments and declarations • Submits to the EU Commission the certificates • Organises an electronic register of all payments • Supervises the complinace with the n+2 rule.

2. Relevant Actors • Monitoring Committee • The Monitoring Committee is the main co-ordinating and decision-making body of the OP. • It is responsible for the quality and effectiveness of implementing the programme. • The Monitoring Committee will be set up within three months of the Commission Decision approving the OP. • The Monitoring Committee is set up in accordance with the Member States institutional and legal arrangements, traditionally in the framework of partnership between national, regional and local authorities. • The Managing Authority establishes, chairs and provides secretariat to the Monitoring Committee.

2. Relevant Actors • Monitoring Committee – Functions: • it considers and approves the criteria for selecting the operations financed within six months of the approval of the OP and approve any revision of those criteria in accordance with programming needs; • it periodically reviews progress made towards achieving the specific targets of the OP on the basis of documents submitted by the Managing Authority; • it examines the results of implementation, particularly achievement of the targets set for each priority axis and the of evaluations of the OP; ....

2. Relevant Actors • Monitoring Committee – Functions: • it considers and approves the annual and final reports on OP implementation; • it is informed of the annual control report, or of the part of the report referring to the OP concerned, and of any relevant comments the Commission may make after examining that report or relating to that part of the report; • it may propose to the Managing Authority any revision or examination of the OP likely to make possible the attainment of the Funds’ objectives, or to improve its management, including its financial management; • it considers and approves any proposal to amend the content of the Commission decision on the contribution of the Funds.

2. Relevant Actors • Monitoring Committee – Members: • The composition will vary from OP to OP: • National members (Chairperson, Head of MA for OP, Certifying Authority /Competent Body, Competition Council, National Agency for Environment, National Agency for Equal Opportunities, Intermediate Bodies) • Regional members (Regional / Local Authorities (as appropriate)) • Non-governmental members (Higher education, Vocational training sector, Business development NGO, National employer association, National employee association–Trade Unions, Environmental NGO, Equal opportunities NGO) • EU Members (consultative role) (European Commission, European Investment Bank / European Investment Fund (invited))

2. Relevant Actors • Regional Coordinating Committee • The establishment of a Coordinating Committee in each of the 8 Development Regions has been proposed by the Romanian authorities, in the spirit of partnership embodied by Article 10 of the General Regulation. • These Regional Coordinating Committees are intended to ensure coherence at the NUTS II regional level between all interventions financed under the SOPs and the ROP, as well as the Rural Development Programme and Fisheries OP. • In this context, the Regional Coordinating Committees will be expected to provide input into the project selection process for all OPs and to undertake monitoring of progress in relation to the Regional Development Plan for each region.

2. Relevant Actors • Regional Coordinating Committee – Possible Members: • Presidents of the County Councils • Head of RDA • Representatives of Local Councils • Higher education sector • Local Chambers of Trade and Industry, Other business development NGO • Employer association, Employee association – trade unions • Regional Employment Agency • Regional Environmental Protection Agency (REPA) • Environmental NGO • Equal opportunities NGO • Representatives of MA of ROP and other Sectoral OP

2. Relevant Actors • Regional Coordinating Committee: • The Secretariat for the Regional Coordinating Committee should be a Directorate based in the Regional Development Agency with independent funding and reporting –lines, which co-ordinates preparation of documentation on progress made in relation to the Regional Development Plan. • As a minimum, the Regional Coordinating Committee will meet twice a year, but more often as business demands. • Ensuring the transparency of Regional Coordinating Committee business will be an important component of the Secretariat’s work. • Costs of members’ participation in Regional Coordinating Committees, as well as all secretariat tasks in relation to the Regional Coordinating Committee will be eligible for support under Technical Assistance.

2. Relevant Actors • Additional Partnership Groups: • Working Groups, sub-committees • Any additional partnership groups established will be set up under the auspices of the Monitoring Committee. • The most important additional partnership groups are likely to be project selection groups (see later section on project selection). • Other partnership groups might be set up, for example, to help develop aspects of programme strategy, to review indicators and targets of achievement under programme measures, or indeed to prepare future draft programming documents.

2. Relevant Actors • Technical Assistance • Technical Assistance resources are available to support preparatory, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities of OPs together with activities to reinforce the administrative capacity for implementing the Structural Instruments. • In Romania there will be an overarching national OP for Technical Assistance, as well as Technical Assistance Measures under a separate Priority in each mainstream OP. • In theory, any programme partner organization (including the Managing Authority and Intermediate Bodies), at national, regional or local level, may apply for Technical Assistance resources under these Measures.

2. Relevant Actors • Technical Assistance – possible activities: • Support for the costs of Monitoring Committees and other partnership groups • Programme evaluation • Research into different strategic aspects of the OP (e.g. quantification of indicators) • Studies into how best to prepare certain types of projects under particular Measures • Support to MA / IBs for project appraisal and monitoring and control (including ICT support, external consultants) • Implementation of Communications Action Plan, other publicity • Training of personnel involved in implementing the OP, as well as Beneficiaries.

Points to be touched • 1.Framework: Requirements of the Structural Funds • 2.Programming Process and relevant actors – tasks and responsibilities • 3. Programme Management and Monitoring Systems • 4. Project Development, Appraisal and Selection • 5. Evaluation, Control and Feedback

3. Management of OP • OP phases • Launch • Implementation • Mid-term evaluation • End of commitment • Programme closure • Final Evaluation • Redefinition of strategy • Next Pogramming phase

3. Management of OP • Management involves: • Clear Division of Responsabilities • Communication procedures and links • Relationships with the EU Commission • Control Systems and Monitoring Systems • Information and Publicity actions (EC rules) • Technical Support (ICT, data bases, electronic application, project information management) • Technical Assistance (on-going, puntual)

3. Management System • Management Information Systems: • Problem: how to ensure standard implementation and comparable information on SF interventions across regions, sectors and different institutions? • Solution: • Specific national guidelines and manuals • Computerised information systems • Need for training and technical support • Need to create unified systems for the different Funds

3. Management System • Annual Implementation Reports: • For Community financed assistance, Annual and Final Implementation Reports are fundamental tools for measuring the advancement of an OP. • They serve as a basis for communication between the Managing Authority and the European Commission. • The reports allow the Monitoring Committee to have a comprehensive view of the achievements and shortcomings of the programme implementation in order to decide major adjustments to its priorities, measures or instruments.

3. Management System • Annual Implementation Reports should contain: • a) the progress made in implementing the OP and priorities in relation to their specific, verifiable targets, with a quantification; • b) the financial implementation of the OP, detailing for each priority axis: • the expenditures paid out • the corresponding public contribution, the total payments received from the Commission. • c) for information purposes, the breakdown of the allocation of funds by categories.

3. Management System • Annual Implementation Reports should contain: • d) the steps taken by the Managing Authority or the Monitoring Committee with regard to monitoring and evaluation measures, including data collection arrangements; a summary of any significant problems encountered; the use made of technical assistance • e) the measures taken to provide information on and publicise the OP • f) a statement by the Managing Authority that, in so far as they are aware, community law has been complied with in the implementation of the operational programmes. • g) the progress and financing of major projects, etc.

3. Management System • Annual Implementation Review: • Every year after the implementation report is submitted to the European Commission a bilateral meeting between the Commission and the Managing Authority shall take place to review the main outcomes of the previous year . • The meetings are intended to analyse: • the implementation reports of the previous year and additional information, provided by the Romanian authorities.

3. Management System • Annual Implementation Review: • The agenda of the implementation review meeting includes: • information about any major change in the programme environment (socio-economic framework, sectoral or regional policy priorities); • an overall analysis of the updated OP implementation data, in financial and physical terms; • an assessment of the work carried out related to control and monitoring; • information about the use of technical assistance allocation, namely regarding publicity actions.

4. Project Development • Project Development, Appraisal and Selection: • “Project selection using transparent selection criteria” as one of the qualitative criteria to judge the quality of SF management. • Systems of Project Selection depend very much on decision-making circuits in the Member States. • Two general approaches for decision-making: • Structural-Fund specific / differentiated  NL, UK, Sweden • Subsumed systems, single competent authority (SF and national, regional policies)  Germany, Austria, Spain

4. Project Development • Advantages of larger projects: • more visibility for the European funding, less administrative work, less controlling work load in comparison with a series of many small projects. • Advantages of small projects: • sometimes an important impact on the integration of new priorities in traditional funding schemes. • especially the smaller partners with less financial resources such as local authorities, training centres have more possibilities to support activities within environmental, gender and training issues because of the European funding. • effective and innovative measures happened to be the ones with the local authorities involved. • less financial resources needed to have positive effects.

4. Project Development • Decentralised Programming: • No specific EU requirements, only EU regulation for: • Rates of Assistance to be given to project • Rules for Eligibility of Expenditure • To assure that Funds have been used according to the agreement at project approval • Member State / Managing Authority in charge of project selection(exception: major projects > 25, 50 Mill. EUR) • Monitoring Committee’s task to “consider and approve the criteria for selecting the operations financed under each measure within six months of approval of the assistance”. (EC regulation for 2000-2006).

4. Project Development • Building the project pipeline: • Information of potential applicants • a) the administrative formalities to be completed; • b) the procedures for examining applications for funding; • c) the criteria for selecting and assessing the projects; • d) names of persons or contact points at regional or local level. • Project Generation • Open Calls, • pro-active, • local action plans, • project packages, • Outsourcing.

4. Project Development • Project Elaboration – necessary to define: • Its justification in the context of the development need, • Its objectives, as well as measurable indicators to attain these objectives, • The best methods for reaching the goals, on the basis of different alternatives, • The detailed list of tasks to be implemented, • The time table of implementation, • The responsible person or organisation, • The detailed financial plan, • The human and organisational resources necessary, • The external conditions necessary for the success of the project.

4. Project Development • Projects have to fit to: • The funding priorities of ERDF, • ERDF regulation and eligibility rules (material, staff, travel, etc.) • Regional Development Programme and the specific requirements of its priorities and measures, • Financial requirements: • Time framework (annual or multiannual budgeting) • Assured co-financing • Are aware of the Structural Fund financial mechanisms and be able to pre-finance total investment until receiving EU funding • Respect EU horizontal priorities and general policies (equal opportunities, environment, rules of competition)

4. Project Development - Example • Basic requirement of major projects are cost-benefit analyses (definition, appraisal, selection, ranking). • CBA or parts of it help to establish the priority of projects. • 1. projects have to be viable and feasible, • 2. priorize feasible projects with higher benefit or with less costs (financial, social, environmental). • 3. establish possible risks and influence of external factors.

4. Project Development - Example • Proposals shall contain: • a) the body to be responsible for implementation; • b) the nature of the investment and a description of it, its financial volume and location; • c) the timetable for implementing the project; • d) cost-benefit analysis including financial costs and benefit, a risk assessment and informations on the economic viability of the project; • e) plus: - in the case of investments in infrastructure: the analysis of the costs and the socio-economic benefits of the project, including an indication of the anticipated rate of use, the foreseeable impact on the development or conversion of the region concerned, and the application of Community rules on public contracting; - in the case of investment in production facilities: the analysis of the market prospects in the sector concerned and the anticipated return on the project; ......

4. Project Development - Example • f) the direct and indirect effects on the employment situation, as far as possible in the Community; • g) information allowing an evaluation to be made of the environmental impact and the implementation of the precautionary principles; • h) information needed to assess compliance with competition rules, inter alias rules on State aids; • i) an indication of the influence of the contribution of the Funds on whether the project will be implemented; • j) the financing plan and the total financial resources expected from the contribution of the Funds and any other sources of Community finance.

4. Project Development - Example • Neccesary requirements for Project proposal elaboration: • Objectives definition • Project identification • Feasibility and options analysis • Financial analysis • Economic analysis • Multicriteria analysis • Sensitivity and risk analysis

4. Project Development - Example Frequent Errors in Objectives definition: • Socio-economic variables should be measurable, such as per capita income, rate of employment, consumption value per capita, etc. • a vague statement that the project will promote economic development or social welfare is not a measurable objective; • hectares of new forest are easily measurable, but they are not themselves a social objective: they are project outputs, not outcomes. • per-capita GDP within a given region is a measurable social objective, but only very large projects, probably those of interregional or national scale may have a measurable impact on it; only in such cases may it be worthwhile to try to forecast how aggregate regional GDP will change in the long term with and without the project.

4. Project Development - Example Check list for objectives definition: • Does the project have a clearly defined objective in terms of socio-economic variables? • Are these socio-economic benefits attainable with implementation of the project? • Are the objectives connected logically? • Are the overall welfare gains arising from the project worth its cost? • Have all the most important direct and indirect socio-economic effects of the project been considered? • If it is not possible to measure all direct and indirect social effects, have all proxies related to the objective been identified? • Are the means of measuring the attainment of objectives indicated? • Is the project coherent with the EU objectives of the funds? (pursuant to Art. 25 Reg. 1260/1999) and with the EU objectives specific to the sector of assistance?

4. Project Appraisal • Project Appraisal: • Eligibility test – represents the first stage of project appraisal. If a project is found to be ineligible, it will not proceed to a technical appraisal. • In general, the following criteria should be assessed for all projects: • occur within the eligible area; • take place within the permitted time-scale; • match the activities defined in the relevant OP Priority / Measure / Call for proposals; • are submitted by applicants as defined in the call for proposals • have necessary co-financing resources in place.

4. Project Appraisal • Project Appraisal: • Completeness test – checks primarily the appropriate filling in of the application form and the submission of the required documents . • Technical and financial appraisal: • In many places, appraisal is carried out by advisory groups or technical secretariats, which give out recommendations to a regional Monitoring or Steering Committee, which eventually decides; • Appraisal methods include: • Use of detailed selection criteria • Strategic allocation • Scoring methodology

4. Project Appraisal • Project Appraisal: • Core selection criteria are: • contribute to one or more of the socio-economic objectives of the OP; • have measurable outputs and detail clear, attainable and verifiable targets; • have a funding package in place which identifies both own funds of the applicant and the source of co-financing; • demonstrate the principle of additionality; • are economically viable; • Integrate aspects of environmental protection and equal of opportunities ; • ensure compliance with EU rules on state aid and public procurement; • linkage with other projects financed by EU or national funds; • are supported by external conditions (e.g. connected projects will be implemented).

4. Project Appraisal • Project Appraisal: • Financial assessment includes: • value for money against projected outputs and results (e.g. No. of jobs or firms created); • check of eligibility and necessity of costs; • profitability and returns in case of income generating projects. • Technical assessment: • whether the project is in keeping with the objectives of the call for proposal; • whether the project is built on clear concepts, harmony between the planned activity and the expenditures and incomes; • whether the project has some unique characteristics (distinction, novelty, partnership); • whether the project should be considered as strategic (from point of view of the applicant or the sector / region)

Twinning Project RO 2003/IB/SPP/05 Task 2 Planning and Programming Structural Funds 2007-2013