1. INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR SCF PROGRAMMES IMPLEMENATION IN MEMBER STATES Viktoras Sirvydis, Lithuania CPMA

2. Institutional models in the MS Centralized Denmark, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Greece, Sweden, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg Regionalized Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Austria, Belgium Mixed Poland, France, Finland, Czech Republic, Spain, UK, Ireland, Portugal

3. Institutional models observations Studies shows that different management and control systems in the Member States do not have major differences in administrative costs or workload. In regionalised or mixed management systems, the regulatory framework and rules are often perceived to be too general and in need of substantial interpretation. Delegation can also add to complexity as each new level of delegation brings extra supervision and reporting obligations.

4. Number of MA and IB in MS * - including 63 IB II

5. Location of IB in MS 5 Government administration - ministry Government administration - Agency Government administration - others Regional government administration Local government NGO's Poland16128 59 Slovakia37 8 Cyprus35 2 Malta22 Latvia108 Lithuania753 Hungary8 7 Estonia656 Czech Rep.54113 Bulgaria23 Romania53168 Slovenia14

6. MA AND IB EMPLOYEES AS A PERCENTAGE OF NSRF EMPLOYEES 6

7. How to assess your system? 4 aims: absorption: use funds (use 95-100%) correctness: use them without repayment and recoveries (error rates under 2%) efficiency: use them without additional costs (MS pay co-fin. + no more than additional10- 15%) effectiveness: use them with an impact (this is where the gap is the largest!)

8. Were to focus? Consider to focus on effectiveness and impact: In the current programming period we are under pressure to focus on absorption, correctness and efficiency, not effectiveness and impact – however it’s changing- see draft 2014-20 SCF regulation. Consider to avoid following consequence: If national MCS fails COM intervenes (suspension, financial correction); COM checks reimbursements of payments on account and applies decommitment.

9. MCS authorities and bodies Managing Authority Certifying Authority Member State Audit Authority Paying Body Intermediate Bodies or Accrediting Body Coordinating Body Intermediate Bodies

10. 2012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024 MCS set-up & accredit. Programmi ng Annual closure Progr. closure Evaluation ex-ante Evaluations midterm Evaluation ex-post Annu al CR Preparation Implementation, eligibility periodCompletion Closure MCS improvements Year Durability check Annu al CR Final impl. report EC MS EC MS MA PB Ben. CA MA CA MA MS AA Progammes/projects forecasting and monitoring Projects selection Projects implementation/payments Projects expenditure verification Expenditures certification, payment applications to EC Irregularities/Recoveries management Information and publicity activities MA Annual closure MA Ac.A Decl. of assurance Annu al CR

11. Institutional model options Coordinating Body (Ministry) Managing Authority (Ministry) Member State functions Intermediate Body 1 `(Ministry) Intermediate Body 2 (Agency) Selection tasks Verification tasks Certifying Authority (Ministry) 1 2 3 Managing Authority functions

12. Key functions Coordinating Body – coordination of programming and establishment of common legal framework, harmonisation of national rules and IT system; Managing Authority – monitoring of OP implementation and supervision of delegated tasks; Intermediate Body 1 – programming, selection of operations, grant contracting and monitoring of projects portfolio under it’s priority axis; Intermediate Body 2 – support IB1 in selection, administrative and on-the-spot verification of eligible expenditure, project implementation control.

13. Recommendations Reduce uncertainties- make institutional model and allocation of functions clear, avoid overlapping and various interpretations. Avoid distribution of tasks among many institutions and departments as it weakens the implementation system. Delegation of the tasks to one level can help to increase quality of controls and narrow interpretations of the rules, however avoid complex delegations and sub-delegations, which increase need for coordination and control.

14. Institutional models are only as good as the people who work within them! Thank you for your attention!