1. 27th Conference of EU Paying Agency Directors Oviedo, Spain 28-30 April 2010 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MANAGING AUTHORITY AND THE PAYING AGENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES FOR THE FINANCING PERIOD 2007-2013 Workshop 3 Summary from questionnaire

2. 27th Conference of EU Paying Agency Directors Oviedo, Spain 28-30 April 2010 Workshop 3 a) Do you think that the roles of the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency are clear?  The roles are in principal clear on the Regulations, however there is overlapping in the obligations described in art. 6 of Reg. 1290/2005 concerning PA and the art. 75 of Reg. 1698/2005 concerning MA of the respective regulation. As a consequence, the day to day interrelations between both bodies not always are clear.  Would be necessary a strong cooperation between PA and MA to harmonise the procedures:  Creation of the operational programs.  Tenders.  And other activities.

3. 27th Conference of EU Paying Agency Directors Oviedo, Spain 28-30 April 2010 Workshop 3 b) In your case, the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency are part of the same Unit? Do you agree with the established structure in your country and why?  MA and PA are structured, in general, in different units under the same Ministry (Authority). The advantages of this structure are:  Harmonisation of processes.  Flexible and independent activities.  Timely execution.  Better coordination.  In some cases, MAs belong to other different Ministries (Finance):  Duplicity in the procedures.  Lack of uniformity in the procedures.  Less efficacy.

4. 27th Conference of EU Paying Agency Directors Oviedo, Spain 28-30 April 2010 Workshop 3 c) Could you describe one situation in which the relationship between the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency led to complications?  When the MA and PA are separated in different Ministries or Authorities.  Complications could come from the coordination of two different Committees (Funds and Rural Development).  PA must have a most important role in the planning of RDP measures in order to make the checks feasible.  In some cases, MAs face difficulties to provide all the information required for the payments (X-table).  Different approaches between:  MA: They are in line with the political objectives of the measures of RDPs. and  PA: Clearance of account system.

5. 27th Conference of EU Paying Agency Directors Oviedo, Spain 28-30 April 2010 Workshop 3 d) In the special case of the LAG (Local Action Group), do you consider that the structure of functioning is clear? And do the actors of this item (Managing Authority, Paying Agency and LAG) know their responsibilities?  Member States, in general, consider that LAG experience is good.  Some Member States note problems in the eligibility of LAG as final beneficiary of the aids and their consequences on the issues of transparency (Regulation 259/2008) and recovery of debts.  The operational structure of LAG is not clear, particularly concerning relationship among LAG, MA and PA.

6. 27th Conference of EU Paying Agency Directors Oviedo, Spain 28-30 April 2010 Workshop 3 e) How do you think to improve the relationship between the Managing Authority and the Paying Agency in the near future?  Through periodical coordination meeting and exchange of experiences.  Efficiency in the RDP management.  Efforts have to be made in order to develop common implementation processes between MAs and PAs.  Determinate the degree of responsibility of MA, PA and LAG.

7. 27th Conference of EU Paying Agency Directors Oviedo, Spain 28-30 April 2010 Workshop 3 THANKS