Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

S E S S I O N 4 Republic of Poland „ Rural Development Operational Programme 2007-2013” Implementing Issues Future of Rural Areas in Europe. Kraków, 30th.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "S E S S I O N 4 Republic of Poland „ Rural Development Operational Programme 2007-2013” Implementing Issues Future of Rural Areas in Europe. Kraków, 30th."— Presentation transcript:

1 S E S S I O N 4 Republic of Poland „ Rural Development Operational Programme ” Implementing Issues Future of Rural Areas in Europe. Kraków, 30th November– 1st December 2005 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

2 Essential documents: Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on financing of the common agricultural policy Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) Drafts Implementing Regulation regarding Council Regulation No 1698/2005 (under preparation by EC) European Commission Guidelines concerning monitoring and evaluation (consultations - EC and Member States)

3 POLISH ASSUMPTION FOR YEARS One programme for the whole country „Rural Development Operational Programme ” Preparation of assumptions and rules of the programme implementation based on partnership Use of working elements of existing programmes: RDP , SOP Continuation of good solutions, changing elements making difficulties in programmes’ realisation Strengthening of cooperation and exchange of information

4 INSTITUTIONS

5 INSTITUTIONS (1) Required authorities shall be established (Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, article 74) Managing Authority…….Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) – Department of Rural Development Paying Agency…………..Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA) Certification Body…….Ministry of Finance (MF) - Bureau for International Treasury Relations probably also: Coordinating Body…….MARD – Department of Finance (DF) OP RDP’s Paying Agency Paying Agency managing part of CAP measures (Agriculture Market Agency – AMA)

6 INSTITUTIONS (2) Regulations 1290/2005 and 1698/2005 define institutions’ responsibilities for implementation of tasks as regards the Programme The realisation of most of the tasks may be delegated to other bodies – retaining the responsibility for the realisation The execution of payment of the Community funds cannot be delegated – it’s the only competence of the Paying Agency Fundamental change comparing to RDP – the responsibility for the projects’ choice (beneficiaries): up to date……………………. Paying Agency ……..……..……… Managing Authority (possibility of delegation eg. to the Paying Agency)

7 MANAGING AUTHORITY (1) Legal base: Regulation 1698/2005, art. 75 Poland (project): Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Department of Rural Development Responsible for: Managing the programme Implementing the programme in an efficient, effective and correct way

8 MANAGING AUTHORITY (2) In particular responsible for ensuring that: Projects’ selection for funding is done in accordance with criteria of the Programme and the Paying Agency receives all necessary information, in particular on the procedures operated and any controls carried out in relation to operations selected for funding before payments are authorised Information about the Program (promotion) is done according to the Community requirements and the beneficiaries and other institutions concerned are well informed about their obligations as regards the support given and fulfill accountancy requirements The computerised system of recording and maintaining the statistical information suitable for the monitoring and evaluation is in place. Programme evaluations are conducted within the time limits laid down in Regulation 1698/2005 and conform to the common monitoring and evaluation framework

9 MANAGING AUTHORITY (3) The list of tasks contains also: Drawing up the annual progress report and, after approval by the Monitoring Committee, submitting it to the Commission. Leading the Monitoring Committee and sending it the documents needed to monitor implementation of the programme in the light of its specific objectives. Submitting evaluations undertaken to the relevant national authorities and the Commission. In case of delegation of part of tasks the Managing Authority retains full responsibility for the efficiency and correctness of management and implementation of those tasks

10 THE PAYING AGENCY (1) Legal base: Regulation 1290/2005, art. 6 Poland (project): Agency for Restructuring and the Modernisation of Agriculture Responsible for: Paying and declaring the amounts from the Community budget to the Commission Carrying out the checks (internal and on-the-spot) Submission of annual accounts Detecting the irregularities and recovering the amounts unduly paid Statements of assurance

11 CERTIFICATION BODY Legal base: Regulation 1290/2005, art. 7 Poland (project): The Ministry of Finance Bureau for International Treasury Relations Responsible for: Certification the truthfulness, completeness and accuracy of the accounts of the accredited paying agency, taking account of the management and control systems set up.

12 COORDINATING BODY Legal base: Regulation 1290/2005, art. 6, par. 3Poland: The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Department of Finance Responsible for: Collecting the information to be made available to the Commission and handling it over to the Commision Promotion of the harmonious application of Community rules The Coordinating Body will be the subject to specific accreditation by the Member State as regards the processing of the financial information

13 COOPERATING INSTITUTIONS Supporting and Confirming Institutions Supporting and Confirming Institutions (as for measures under RDP ) Institutions which take part in the process of preparation of applications, with advising functions and confirming fulfilment of the criteria during the realisation of particular activity Implementation Organisations Implementation Organisations (as for measures under SOP ) Responsible for the implementation of particular activities

14 PLANNED IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE RDOP

15 GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME European Commission Managing Authority (MARD) Certifying Body (MF) Implementing Body’s delegated tasks Applicant/Beneficiary Paying Agency (ARMA) Refund, audit, control Programme management, implementation supervising, audit, control, monitoring, evaluation, leading of Monitoring Committee, information Certification of Paying Agency’s accounts Programme implementation, applications’ treatment, monitoring, information, support granting Application submission, implementation of the scheme, support receiving Programme implementation, applications’ treatment, monitoring, information, support granting, payments, controls

16 Programme implementation Main implementation components: - cooperation (partnership) - management, control (check), information - monitoring, evaluation, reporting - technical assistance and networks Institutions involved in implementation have to manage support given in favour of rural development in an efficient way and to monitor its use

17 Partnership (1) Support for rural development implemented using partnership rules (close consultations) Main partners at EU level: European Union Poland Main partners at the state level: The competent regional, local authorities and other public authorities The economic and social partners Others: non-governmental organisations, environment protection organisations and bodies responsible for promoting equality

18 Partnership (2) Designation of suitable partners to create broad and effective cooperation Cooperation includes: Preparation and monitoring of the National Strategy Plan Preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the programme Public consultation at the stage of preparation RDOP (published on and National Strategy Planwww.minrol.gov.pl Implementation of Rural Development Operational Plan in partnership with the social partners

19 Partnership (3) National Rural Network Includes all organisations and administration structures engaged in rural development (funding from technical assistance at the programme level) Tasks: Dissemination and exchange of good rural development practice Exchange of knowledge and experience Preparation of training programmes for Leader groups Cooperation with Leader groups

20 Monitoring Committee Established up to 3 months after programme’s approval 1 Programme = 1 Committee Chairman – representative of authorities of Member State or Managing Authority Activities based on cooperation with partners Assembling representatives of appropriate local authorities and other public organisations, economic and social partners, representatives of other organisations, including NGOs Representative of EC may be the advisory member.

21 Monitoring Committee - tasks Provide appropriate programme implementation by: Consultations regarding criteria of projects’ selection for implementation Periodical evaluations of the progress of programme targets’ implementation Analysis and approval of the annual reports on implementation before submitting to the Commission Proposing to the Managing Authority to make reviews/amendments of the programme Analysis and approval of any proposals of amendments concerning the programme requiring Commission decision

22 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 1 Fund (agricultural, not structural) and 1 financial management system for rural development – multiannual programming Financial rules the same as for Structural Funds Multiannual legal commitments (decisions, agreements) but financial commitments divided into annual instalments Commitments and payments, N+2 rule (such as PROW and SOP ) Paying Agency accredited by MS (such as PROW ) Clearance of accounts (such as PROW ) Annual decisions on clearance of accounts

23 Financial Operations Automatic annual commitments Payment on account (7% = 2 X 3.5%) – after the programme adopting Intermediate payments (4 per year) N+2 – automatic decommitments (if any)

24 DECLARATIONS OF EXPENDITURE The Paying Agency declares 4 times per year the expenditure incurred between: 1 January and 31 March - by 30 April 1 April and 30 June - by 31 July 1 July and 15 October - by 15 November 16 October and 31 December - by 31 January The Commission shall make intermediate payments within 45 days of registering a declaration of expenditure The Commission shall develop an IT financial system interfaced with the MS for submission of declarations and calculation of payments

25 The annual and final accounts By 10 February of the year N+1 the Paying Agency submits the annual accounts of year N (EAGGF financial year, ie. 16 October of year N-1 to 15 October of year N). Commission decision on annual clearance of accounts– prior to 30 April N+1 Annual clearance of accounts based on the annual accounts of the year N submitted by the paying agency. Amounts to be recovered - shall be deducted from subsequent payment for the Paying Agency Amounts to be paid - shall be added to subsequent payment for the Paying Agency Closure of the programme – based on the last annual report and the clearance of accounts of the last year of programme implementation.

26 Controls/checks Beneficiaries are the subject of the checks carried out by the Paying Agency Possibility of delegation of this function to the external bodies Paying Agency checked by: Managing Authority – responsible for the implementation of the Program EC auditors – correctness of the expenditures Insititutions with delegated functions controled by the delegating institutions Particular role of the internal audit units

27 Information Publication of the National Strategy Plan, Rural Development Operational Program with the information about the Community contribution At the program level the Managing Aurthority shall inform about: The possibilities offered by the programme and the rules for gaining access to programme funding The Community contribution The role played by the Community in the programmes and the results thereof

28 MONITORING Monitoring – more strategic than now Aggregation of results and influence at the UE level Use of monitoring as a support for evaluation of priorities’ achievement (Community and country level) Indicators of existing situation, results and impact of the programme. Limited number of common indicators at the Community-Axis- Measure level Limited number of additional indicators specific for the programme Indicators should be better defined at the beginning of programming period – baseline evaluation, monitoring basis. Requirements concerning monitoring (consolidated document – common monitoring and evaluation framework) discussed by EC and Member States

29 EVALUATION Rising of „on-going” evaluation significance. Key elements of evaluation system: ex-ante evaluation on-going evaluation (annual report) mid-term evaluation ex-post evaluation Evaluation conducted by external evaluators

30 REPORTING Reporting based on common guidelines: Annual report at the programme level (connected with annual accounting). National reports summarising progress in implementation of the National Strategy: Commission report presented to the Council and Parliament summarising progress in implementation of Community Strategy: „On-going” evaluation:ex-ante on-going (annual reports) mid-term (2010) ex-post (2014)

31 POLAND ASSUMPTIONS AND STATE OF ART Coordination of RDOP preparation – MARD, Department of Rural Development Establishing of working groups: on programming measures within RDOP on rules of implementation of RDOP Working groups’ tasks – establishing of rules: Implementing measures and criteria for granting support Programm’s managing Programm’s implementing Financial aspect of programm’s implementation Monitoring and evaluation Use of IT tools Preparation of rules and setting up the National Network – 2006

32 ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED OVERLAPING PERIOD

33 EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION - CONDITIONS Clearly specified, legal based roles, tasks and responsibilities of all institutions involved in implementation Importance of wide and active partnership on all stages of programming and implementation, strong and effective coordination of partners’ cooperation Setting up of National Network – effective cooperation, rise of involvement of partners in implementation of the programme Preparation and implementation of monitoring and evaluation system at each level Clear, reliable and prompt information for potential beneficiaries, friendly and transparent system (applications, instructions, rules of projects choice, lists of contact persons…) Applicants support (consulting, loans…)

34 OVERLAPING PERIOD New Managing Authority for RDOP? New Paying Agency for RDOP? Separated IT systems – Paying Agency, Managing Authority, regional partners… Monitoring of multiannual commitments of RDP for In the same time - implementation and management of several programmes by the same institutions, necessary division of tasks Financial management – different systems simultaneously…

35 Paying Agency Accreditation RDP Poland –accreditation of ARMA in stages: As regards the realisation of particular tasks e.g. – financial procedures As regards realisation of particular measures of RDP As regards realisation of succesive stages of realisation of the measures – e.g. receiving and registering of the applications Consequences: Long-term process of full accreditation (about 2 years) Delay in implementation of some measures of RDP High costs of external audits carried out.

36 Paying Agency Accreditation RDOP Aims: Changing the model of accreditation – give it to the Insitution (ARMA) for the implementation and realisation of tasks. Taking into account the „up to date” state of the current accreditation and experience gained during the implementation of SOP Significantly shorten the accreditation process as regards RDOP

37 IT TOOLS Providing complete, reliable, detailed data Providing of comparison of monitoring and financial data Availability of historic data Availability for current monitoring of Programme’s implementation. Basic tool of management of the Programme Possibility of simulating and forecasting in long time period

38 SUMMARY In Poland - implementation of RDOP similar to the RDP Possible use of experience gained (with necessary modifications), not necessary to prepare everything new In relation to the present state of art increase of responsibility of Managing Authority – necessity for strengthening of resources Increase of importance of good cooperation between partners Required better coordination of activities concerning the Programme implemented by all institutions, Monitoring Committee, beneficiaries Special importance of precise financial management Priority – IT system for monitoring and evaluation


Download ppt "S E S S I O N 4 Republic of Poland „ Rural Development Operational Programme 2007-2013” Implementing Issues Future of Rural Areas in Europe. Kraków, 30th."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google