Effective management of EU Structural funds: 2007-2013 to 2014-2020

1. Effective management of EU Structural funds: 2007-2013 to 2014-2020 Haroldas Brožaitis Knowledge Economy Forum www.zef.lt / info@zef.lt

2. EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013 • Fast absorption (standardisation of management procedures, professionalisation) • Lack of integration (EU SFs v. specific sectors, NSRF v. national sectoral strategies, EU SFs investment as a separate strategy vs. co-funding of the existing national strategies) • Centralised (too many issues going for top level resolution) • Growing partnership: more open vis-à-vis partners in comparison w/ previous period (seeking solutions to strengthen the capacity of representative partners (socio-economic partners, NGOs); • Rules vs their application (changing the rules ≠ changing the management/administrative practice)

3. EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013 • Public infra: Increasingly strategic approach to investment; but the widely used planning sometimes procedure has limitations: • project ideas are planned, funds are allocated to them, but then actual mature projects take time to develop; sometimes underlying strategies (which had to be developed for the projects planning procedure) are better than the projects themselves • sometimes projects receive funding before being ready for implementation and the money is “frozen” • Public procurement: too much control of too small; control v. guidance

4. EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013 • Business support: new fields/areas (e.g., research infrastructure in enterprises; clusters) and forms (financial engineering) of support; large variety of support measures: almost all major needs are covered? (except small and young) • Delays in project project evaluation and selection • Lack of uniformity in interpretation of rules (two projects under the same call may receive different instructions, explanations concerning the same requirement)

5. EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013 • HRD/ESF: High rate of absorption • Very broad (i.e., there is some issue raised, money allocated and then beneficiary can do almost anything) or very complex (i.e., all types of expenditure are almost always eligible and then there are rules what percentage of all budget can be allocated to each type, which tends to change during the implementation and result in problems) interventions • Fragmented approach (too many too narrow in their focus yet too broad in their approach, sometimes overlapping interventions)

6. Comparison with other EU programmes FP7 (especially People): • bottom–up approach with strict boundaries for eligible activities (employment/secondment/exchange) • dominance of fixed costs (over 85% of expenditure) Lifelong Learning Programme, also Erasmus Mundus II: • too many actions… • very high beneficiary satisfaction rates (80%+) • problems caused more by change not the requirements themselves • expert based evaluation and monitoring (Centralized actions) • mostly fixed-costs, but also some real costs (Decentralised actions) • a capable IT tool (e-application, e-evaluation, e-reports)

7. Wishes for the future… • Not WHAT but HOW: developing effective intervention logics; a key precondition for costs simplification and effective monitoring • small is beautiful! (pilot testing vs large scale development) • More flexibility: rules should differ for project of EUR 50 000 vs. the one asking for EUR 1 000 000 (starting with application forms and finishing with control and proof of expenditure) • Implementing agencies shifting from a controller to a more assistant position (especially in the case of public infrastructure projects) • Public infra: Respect the division line between public and private (or absence of it) • Business support: limit grants (deadweight of 2/3 and above), move to financing engineering; • more specialised approach (e.g., support to a R&D project as a high risk venture rather than simple compensation of some costs; lack of focus on D as opposed to R) • HRD: reduce aid intensity for training, more standardized and simplified approach • reaching the SMEs, especially small ones: more attention plus inventory of (tailor made) support tools/mechanisms

8. Thank you! We search for partners (especially from EU12) active in knowledge economy, smart growth area and keen to be active in the EU SFs process in their respective country Visit us at www.zef.lt Contact us at edgaras@zef.lt or info@zef.lt