Enhancing Administrative Capacity for Cohesion Funds Utilization

1. ANNUAL MEETING OF ISPA PARTNERS 2003FROM ISPA TO COHESION AND STRUCTURAL FUNDS BRUSSELS, 9-10 APRIL 2003BUILDING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY Pascal BoijmansDG Regional Policy 1

2. QUESTIONNAIRE CHAPTER 21 • Objective and Scope • Legislative framework • Institutional framework • Administrative capacity • Programming capacity • Financial and budgetary management • Deadline 30 April 2003 • Report to be presented by Commission in July 2003 • Ministerial meeting in October 2003 2

3. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY REPORT • Management • Programming • Implementation • Evaluation and Monitoring • Financial management and control 3

4. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY:MANAGEMENT • Role of Managing Authority (MA) • MA’s have been nominated (requirement chapter 21) • Most often Ministries of Finance or Economic Affairs have been designated • Staffing is still insufficient • Sub-delegation of tasks needs clarification • Conclusion: bodies are designated, but structures and staffing need attention 4

5. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY: PROGRAMMING • EE, LV, LT, SL, MT: 1 programme per country • PL: 1 framework + 7 programmes • CZ: 1 framework + 5 programmes + 2 programmes for Prague • SLK: 1 framework + 4 programmes + 2 programmes for Bratislava • HUN: 1 framework + 5 programmes • CY: 3 programmes • TOTAL: 37 programmes will be submitted between February and May 5

6. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY:PROGRAMMING • Limited number of programmes for period 2004-06 • Keep structures of programmes simple: limited priorities and measures; make clear choices: no shopping lists • Partnership: strengthen inter-ministerial coordination and involvement of regions, social partners and NGOs • Quantification of targets: indicators • Budget allocation per programme and per Fund • Coordination between SF and Cohesion Fund • Conclusion: much progress booked during last year, still some work ahead 6

7. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY:IMPLEMENTATION • Role of intermediate bodies (IB): preparation and selection of projects • Designation is still on-going • No clear definition of tasks • Staffing is still insufficient • EC: possibilities to support from technical assistance • EC recommendation: limit no. of IB’s per programme • Strong dependence on external expertise 7

8. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY: IMPLEMENTATION • Project application flow: • 1. Intake • 2. Assessment • 3. Selection • 4. Contracting • 5. Payments • 6. Monitoring • Project pipeline • Conclusion: area where still considerable work needs to be done in coming year(s). Clear definition on role of IB’s is required 8

9. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY:MONITORING AND EVALUATION • Evaluation culture needs to be developed • Ex-ante evaluations delayed in some countries • Monitoring system: exist, but mainly project based • Monitoring Committees: all relevant partners should participate • Computerised exchange of information: in early stages of development • Conclusion: area where still considerable work is required in the future 9

10. ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY:FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL • Role of Paying Authority (PA) • Central role for payments: MoF or State Treasury • Financial plan: Obj. 1: 75% rate; Obj. 2/3: 50% rate • Internal audit capacity • Procedures and payment flows need to be tested before accession • Financial control system needs to be operational before accession • Conclusion: area where a lot of progress has been made (requirement chapters 21 and 28) 10

11. BUILDING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITYSOME CONCLUSIONS • Basic structures for Management and Financial Management and Control are present • Designation and role of Intermediate Bodies is in process (project application flow!) • HRD plans for additional staffing and training need to be approved and implemented a.s.a.p. (explore possibilities TA!) • Allocation of HR should be in line with sub-delegation of tasks • Tools (written procedures, guidelines, manuals) should guarantee accumulation of know how 11