Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Twenty years of EU co- financed programmes in Greece: Dex AGOURIDES Director General Management Organisation Unit of the Community Support Framework (M.O.U.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Twenty years of EU co- financed programmes in Greece: Dex AGOURIDES Director General Management Organisation Unit of the Community Support Framework (M.O.U."— Presentation transcript:

1 Twenty years of EU co- financed programmes in Greece: Dex AGOURIDES Director General Management Organisation Unit of the Community Support Framework (M.O.U. s.a.) evolution of administrative structures structures

2 2 Benefits Structural funds in Greece were managed by public bodies Despite persisting problems, experience has shown that after 20 years: Technical and administrative capacity improved Transparent monitoring and coordination mechanisms established Reformed institutions in place

3 : CSF I : CSF II : CSF III Light Regulatory Framework Simple implementation procedures Reformed Regulatory Framework Responsibilities transferred to Member States. Strict audit systems. Need for reforms in public administration Standardised Regulatory Framework EU and Member-States equally responsible in programming and decision making Implementation of EU Regional Policy in Greece

4 4 From CSF I to CSF II Appointment of external Management Consultants (use of Technical Assistance) Introduction of interministerial cooperation process (i.e. Mixed Guidance Committees) Establishment of government agencies run with private sector rules Introduction of a uniform MIS Establishing a networking mechanism Response: Weaknesses: Structural inefficiencies in public sector Needs: Greater involvement of the private sector

5 5 From CSF II to CSF III Weaknesses: Bureaucratic procedures Lack of flexibility due to the public accounting system for payments Lack of specialised staff Technological gaps (IT) Lack of incentives for accelerated performance Needs: Decentralisation of decision making Less bureaucracy Emphasis on monitoring, evaluation and control Sound financial management, transparency in implementation Emphasis on human resources (skills & expertise, training) New institutional framework introduced Legislative reforms New technologies in the public sector and new tools Systematic use of technical assistance Partnership / Consultation Response:

6 6 MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION Fragmentation in many small projects Large number of weak and inefficient Final Beneficiaries Lack of specialised human resources and know-how Technological gaps Cumbersome procedures delaying implementation Lack of flexibility Inadequate coordination between Government departments Lack of independence of management bodies FRAMEWORKISSUES REGULATORY Tight requirements, too demanding and causing delays in implementation Introduction of uniform procedures rather than adjusted to national standards Incompatibilities of national legislative framework with management and control systems established by EU regulations Overall assessment

7 7 Cumbersome proceduresSimplification of procedures Large number of Operational Programmes Reduction of Operational Programmes Coordination problems, synergies, overlap of responsibilities Development of an innovative management and control system based on best practices Multitude of weak and inefficient implementing bodies (Final Beneficiaries) Rationalisation of implementing bodies - Enhancement of their technical and managerial capacities - Introduction of certification system Issues of compliance of legislation, in sectors crucial for co-funded projects Consolidation of pending legislative issues Transition towards the period Guiding principles for the future Difficulties encountered so far

8 8 Wide consultation with social partners Establishment of a more coherent institutional framework Gradual improvement of performance in terms of planning & implementing programmes and projects Partnership with the private sector Introduction of reforms with positive spillover benefits across the entire public administration The main impact of Structural Funds on Greek Administration: Good Governance

9 9 Why MOU? The CSF Management Organisation Unit (MOU s.a.) is a non-profit making institution operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Economy and Finance. It was established in 1996 as a support mechanism in order to: Tackle problems identified during the implementation of the CSF Fill specific know-how gaps Strengthen the administrative and management capacity of CSF implementing bodies By-pass the rigid administrative procedures and inflexibilities of the Greek Civil Service The MOUs role is to complement and not substitute civil-service tasks The MOUs role is to complement and not substitute civil-service tasks MOU supports public administration in the effective management and implementation of the CSF by meeting specific needs in: highly specialised human resources infrastructure support (offices, equipment and IT) consulting (management systems, tools and know-how)

10 10 Value-Added It is a unique agency combining qualified experts from both the private and public sector New cultural aspect in public administration: pilot The MOU is widely recognised as a model, flexible and efficient structure: It provides quality technical assistance Modernisation of public structures It is able to timely respond to a number of urgent needs and demands Flexibility, efficiency & immediate response


Download ppt "Twenty years of EU co- financed programmes in Greece: Dex AGOURIDES Director General Management Organisation Unit of the Community Support Framework (M.O.U."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google