Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published bySophia Clarke Modified over 9 years ago
1
Simplified Cost Options
2
Organizational structure National Development Agency Internal Audit Cabinet Legal Affairs Communication HR Vice-president for development and IT HRD MA State Treasury IB Ministry of National Development European Commission State Audit Office Central Government Ministry of National Economy Central Harmonizatio n Unit Directorate General for Audit of European Funds (Audit Authority) Certifying Authority MA
3
Managing Authority for Human Resource Programmes Social Renewal Operational Programme Social Infrastructure Operational Programme Human Resources Development Operational Programme EQUAL ESF ERDF 2007-13 2000-2006
4
Lots of small projects Unexperienced final beneficiaries Complex regulations – administrative burden Implementation of ESF Programmes Professional implementation / goals Administrative Burden
5
Feedback from: Beneficiaries Monitoring Committee Evaluations IB – publicity events Implementaion of ESF Programmes Need for simplification
6
Ongoing process since start of implementation Regulations – 1 government decree instead of ~10 Institutions – 1 IB instead of 3 Scope of Required documents (minimum sufficient sound management verification) Overview of procedures (e.g. complicated/unused types ommitted) Simplification process 2007 2011
7
To be avoided…
8
MA and Monitoring Committee – subcommittee Member State in favor of Simplified Cost Options Flat rate: -Based on the implementation of previous planning period -Sound financial data -Long process (~3 years) Unit cost (future) Lump sum (future) Introducing SCO
9
2004-2007 HRD OP data (collection started 2009) Criteria applied for selecting the projects for the sample were: Absorption rate of the project was over 95% of support approved; Physical implementation of the project was of good quality; Project was approved in the framework of call for proposals, no central programme involved in the sample; Each region is represented; Projects vary by size; Projects implemented by single beneficiaries and by consortia are represented; All operations are included that are likely to be implemented in the 2007-13 period as well. Flat rate
10
Transparently: in advance, fair, equitable, verifiable
11
Key Constraints: Preparation cost not eligible 2004-2007 Cross financingno ERDF Key projectssmall number of projects Flat rate
12
Direct cost – Indirect cost Detailed eligible cost description 2004-2007 Further deatailed eligible cost description 2007-13 Flat rate Cross reference between two planning periods had to be made (Time consuming negotiations with COMM)
13
Flat rate
14
Project size (amount of Direct cost reduced by investments ) Median of flat rate 0-10 MHUF49.38 % 10-25 MHUF17.84 % above 25 MHUF13.14 %
15
Conclusion of the statistical analysis: Sectors were not relevant, Regional distribution was not relevant, Direct ESF cost explained rate of indirect cost. Flat rate
16
In accordance with COCOF 09/0025/04-EN: Flat rate Project size (amount of Direct cost reduced by investments) Flat rates to be applied 0-10 MHUF20 % 10-25 MHUF18 % above 25 MHUF13 %
17
White: Direct cost Grey: Indirect cost (Green: Sum)
18
Flat rate ESF direct cost ESF indirect cost = ESF direct cost X flat rate % ERDF (?) Project Total Cost Σ ESF cost Preparation cost (?) Preparation cost (?)
19
Thank you for your attention! National Development Agency Managing Authority for Human Resources Programmes +36-1-474-7600 Web: www.nfu.hu
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.