1. Investing in the Western Balkans future: From IPA to Cohesion Policy Ognjen Mirić Serbian European Integration Office Deputy Director, Coordinator for EU Funds Open Days, Brussels, October 2011

2. 2 No 1Serbia has demonstrated high absorption capacities No 2Management of IPA (especially IPA components III/IV/V), as learning by doing exercise for Structural Funds, has learned us about our own weaknesses No 3In April 2011 the Western Balkans countries reached joint position about the new financial perspective No 4Post 2013 pre-accession assistance should be well prioritized and results oriented. The WB should have access to the other parts of the EU 2014-2020 budget for win-win projects with the EU. KEY MESSAGES

3. No 1: Serbia has demonstrated high absorption of pre-accession assistance over the past decade While annual allocation is approx. 200 million per year, contracting rate in 2009-2010 was 445 million Programming of IPA for period 2007-2011 has been finalized and first CBC calls have been successful Institutional Building vs. Investments approx. 60:40% Preparations for IPA III/IV/V 2012-2013 are ongoing Development of the DIS structures ongoing (currently in compliance assessment stage, fourth stage out of six) 2007200820092010201120122013 IPA I181.5179.4182.5186.2189.9193.8203.1 IPA II8.211.512.311.711.912.011.6 Total189.7190.9194.8197.9201.8205.8214.7

4. The main advantages of IPA III/IV/V: – Learning by doing exercise for Structural Funds; – We have again learned about our own weaknesses. At the same time we have a lot of practical knowledge gained under IPA I/II to notice difficulties that are not under our control. No 2: IPA III/IV/V = Learning by doing exercise

5. 5 DifficultiesPotential response Unnecessary complexity (institutional and strategic framework) and in some cases parallel structures. Keep the strategic and institutional framework simple. Cohesion policy is not about regionalisation. Complementarity between Cohesion policy and national regional policy is a must. Weak strategic planning and lack of mature projects. SWAp could be an option. Timely preparation of projects. Administrative capacity of DIS structures. Number of trained staff in line with Work Load and proper training and clear retention policy. Lack of monitoring and evaluation culture. Independent ex-ante, mid-term, ex-post evaluation as a basis for decision making. No 2: There are absorption difficulties faced by the beneficiaries that need to be solved

6. 6 DifficultiesPotential response Timing of the MIPDs is not aligned with programming requirements (e.g. IPA 2007, IPA 2011) Framework for new financial period should be in place in 2012 (programming should start next year) MIPD priorities are too broadConcentration of priorities Delays in approval of Financing Agreements and projects More efficient procedures should be introduced (e.g. Inter Service Consultations). Implementation should start in the same year. Clear guidance on SWAp does not existClear guidance should be prepared but taking into account ownership and specificities of each country Lack of standardized approach in project preparation (e.g. EC and IFIs) Standardized approach and coordination mechanism should be agreed 6 No 2: However, there are also absorption difficulties that are not under the beneficiaries control

7. Pre-accession assistance post 2013: – Smoothly profile the allocation of EU funds to beneficiary countries (linearisation) – Greater National IPA Coordinators ownership over identification and preparation of projects – Simplify and align IPA fully with the Structural Funds model – Adopt timely the strategic and institutional framework Macro-economic stability and sound public finances – Inclusion of the Western Balkans in the European Semester mechanism through creation of the Western Balkans Guarantee Facility 7 No 3: Joint position of Western Balkans countries reached in April 2011

8. The draft MFF 2014-2020 allocates 12.5 billion euro to the IPA (will 1% of the EU budget for enlargement be enough?) The EC states that: What happens outside the borders of the EU can and does directly affect the prosperity and security of EU citizens. It is therefore in the interest of the EU to be actively engaged in influencing the world around us, including through the use of financial instruments. In some case, those parts of the EU that are not yet linked to the main electricity and gas grids, transportation and ICT networks depend on investments made in the Western Balkans. Some of the (pre)accession countries, at the borders of the EU, are often the transit route for trafficking in human beings and the smuggling of weapons and drugs. 8 No 4: Post 2013 pre-accession assistance should be results oriented…

9. We advocate that the MFF proposal for IPA (12.5 billion euro) stays unchanged In addition to IPA funds, the Western Balkans, being on a track for accession, should have access to the other parts of the EU 2014- 2020 budget for projects of common interest (Connecting Europe Facility, Internal Security Fund and European Emergency Response Capacity) We should ensure concentration of available funding to key priorities and projects with proven impact Blending of available resources should be enhanced Mature projects are of crucial importance Consideration should be given to the simplification and flexibility of rules (e.g. performance reserve) and align IPA fully with the Structural Funds model 9 No 4: Post 2013 pre-accession assistance should be results oriented…

10. Thank you for your attention! Serbian European Integration Office Nemanjina 34, Belgrade www.seio.gov.rs omiric@seio.gov.rs