1. Improving user-friendliness of structural funds management system in Lithuania: challenges and opportunities dr. KLAUDIJUS MANIOKAS Public company European social, legal and economic projects (ESTEP) Lithuania 1 Open days 2006 Cutting red tape: Managing the Structural Funds between 2007-2013

2. 2 European social, legal and economic projects is a public company ESTEP specialises in: public policy analysis evaluation of programmes and projects (ex-ante, mid-term, ex-post, ongoing and meta-evaluation) impact assessment technical assistance and capacity building Authors of thematic evaluation Effectiveness of the Implementation System of Lithuanian Single Programming Document for 2004-2006 ESTEP Contact details: Europos socialiniai teisiniai ir ekonominiai projektai – ESTEP Jogailos str. 4, LT-01116 Vilnius, Lithuania www.estep.lt

3. 3 Introduction Concept of user-friendliness Red tape in Lithuanian SPD implementation in 2004-2006 Challenges and changes in the period 2007-2013 Learning the lessons: ways to reduce administrative burdens PLAN OF THE PRESENTATION

4. 4 Red-tape - regulations required to gain bureaucratic approval for some activity, especially when excessively complex and time-consuming. Lithuanian SPD 2004-2006 ~ 895 million from SF Administrative structure : Managing authority Ministry of Finance 8 intermediate institutions, 6 implementing agencies Managing Authority commissioned thematic evaluation on the effectiveness of SF administration system (2005). Findings: red-tape at a national level. Beneficiary survey : 26 % - it was complicated to receive funding; 68 % - encountered some problems Problems : lack of experience, complexity of regulations, lack of consultations, protracted processes and lack of responsible institutions competence. Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

5. 5 Institutional framework: Centralised system with some differentiated features Non-existent regional dimension Example of good practice: regional units of two implementing agencies Administrative system is complex. Factors: Lack of experience New institutions and procedures in the short period Lack of trust with regard to potential beneficiaries and concerns over misuse of funds safeguards, double-checks Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

6. 6 Project generation and selection processes High / excessive requirements for project application and selection. E.g. SPD Measure 3.2 Improvement of business environment approx. 70 requirements to be considered eligible Excessive information requirements Proportionality principle lacking Lack of coordination and exchange of information between responsible institutions Bottlenecks in the selection process : Inefficient planning. E.g. timing of calls, choice of the support rendering procedure, number of applications. No mandatory deadline for project selection (recommended – 3 months) Protracted selection process – in extreme cases more than a year. Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

7. 7 Publicity Lack of single, user-friendly website on possibilities of structural funding Information fragmented along separate SPD measures and funds Often passive approach to provision of information (e.g. LBSA) Applicants lacked consultancy, training and assistance Good practice: open days at IA, seminars in the regions, zero calls Transparency and accountability SF implementation seen as insufficiently transparent in the wider public Insufficient involvement of socio-economic partners Shortcomings in the appeal process Summing up: SPD implementation structure heavy, disproportionately high application costs Mismatch between system requirements and applicants capacities Red tape in SPD implementation 2004-2006

8. 8 European Commission: s impler, transparent procedures, tight control, better balance between the protection of the taxpayers money and more user-friendly procedures High demands on management and delivery system in Lithuania due to: Larger volumes of SF resources (total 6.62 billions) More autonomy 3 OPs instead of SPD risk of fragmentation and complexity Considerable increase in the number of participating institutions need for effective coordination Institutions newcomers issue of administrative capacities New steps towards decentralization: involvement of NRDAs in project selection and investment planning New programming period: challenges and changes

9. 9 Important to: maintain accumulated SF management experience avoid the situation where more detailed and burdensome national rules are created simpler procedures, more consistency, objectivity and publicity Administrative simplification and streamlined procedures Standardized and consistent procedures according to separate OPs as far as possible Screening: cut number of requests, eliminate rules with no added value Proportionality principle for projects of different sizes and types More realistic and rational planning, based on experience Mandatory time limits for project selection Consistency in interpretation of legal and financial provisions Introduce standardized form of guidelines for applicants LEARNING THE LESSONS: Ways to reduce administrative burdens

10. 10 Greater publicity, transparency and accountability Create central SF web portal Involve partners into decision-making more effectively Strengthen capacities of partners to participate in the process of EU SF administration process. Strengthening applicants capacities and bringing system closer to users A consulting centre specialising in trainings for applicants, consultancy, provision of methodological support Deconcentration of functions performed by implementing agencies and establishment of missing regional units Thank you for attention LEARNING THE LESSONS: Ways to reduce administrative burdens