1 / 13

AER Committee C Technical Seminar „Managing Structural Funds“ 14 October 2004 in Eger

Dortmund. Essen. Duisburg. Cologne. Düsseldorf. Ruhr Region. NRW. Daniela Glimm-Lükewille Objective 2 Secretariat. AER Committee C Technical Seminar „Managing Structural Funds“ 14 October 2004 in Eger Experiences from the Objective 2 Programme North-Rhine Westphalia.

Download Presentation

AER Committee C Technical Seminar „Managing Structural Funds“ 14 October 2004 in Eger

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Dortmund Essen Duisburg Cologne Düsseldorf Ruhr Region NRW Daniela Glimm-LükewilleObjective 2 Secretariat AER Committee C Technical Seminar „Managing Structural Funds“ 14 October 2004 in Eger Experiences from theObjective 2 Programme North-Rhine Westphalia

  2. NRW Objective 2 Funding Area • The Objective 2 area comprises large parts of the Ruhr Area.

  3. Programme Structure - Priorities Priority 1: Business and start-up finance (5 measures; 12.7 % of total budget) Priority 2: Innovation and development of competence (10/11 measures; 41.5 % of total budget) Priority 3: Innovation-related infrastructure (5 measures; 36.9 % of total budget) Priority 4: Support for particular target groups (4 measures; 7.6 % of total budget) Priority 5: Technical Assistance (1.3 % of total budget) • All in all, the programme has a total volume of 2 billlion Euro, of which about 1 billion Euro are EU-funds (ERDF: € 859.7 mio.; ESF: € 153.1 mio.). It is currently the second largest Objective 2 programme in Europe.Until now (30. June 2004), approximately 1.300 ERDF-projects have been committed (with 924  mio. Euro EU and Land contribution), as well asca. 1000 ESF-projects (with 116 mio. Euro EU and Land contribution).

  4. Legal, political and and administrative framework General framework conditions • In Germany • Länder governments are legally responsible for regional policy • Länder dispose of own tax revenues and budget which can be used for economic development (e.g. co-financing of Structural Funds) • Democratic control by regional parliament (‘Landtag’) • Little or no interference of the federal government in regional policy (exception: ”joint task” of the federal and regional governments) • Structural funds programmed and managed by Land governments • In NRW • Traditionally high commitment of the Land government for domestic regional policy • EU structural funds mainly subsumed under existing regional aid schemes • Long tradition of regionalised structural policy, currently reorganisation of (sub-)regional structures aiming at integrating economic policy and labour policy • Monitoring committee is established at the Land-level

  5. MONITORING COMMITTEEPolitical or executive directors level ManagingAuthority Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour NRW Unit EU-Affairs andEU StructuralFunds Paying Authority NRW.BANK SectionPaying Authority Independent Body Ministry ofEconomic Affairs and Labour NRW Unit in Departm. f. Internal Services Audit Body NRW.BANK Section Audit Body Objective 2 Secretariat Commissionedto agiplan GmbH INTERMEDIATE BODIES Sectoral Ministries NRW.BANK SpecialAgencies Private Auditors Subordinate Bodies Administrative structures, NRW Objective 2 Programme 2000-06 About 70 !!

  6. A very good management system and close dialogue with implementing bodies is of greatest importance! Legal, political and and administrative framework Programme management framework: Subsumed Implementation Structure Structural Fund resources are aligned closely to pre-existing policies, schemes and administrative structures • Advantages: • High involvement of regional structures • High expertise and good knowledge of local conditions in the implementing bodies • Only limited need to establish new structures • High degree of accordance with regional political strategies • Disadvantages: • Low “visibility” of Structural Funds programme; lack of own (strategic) profile • High effort for coordination and information transfer

  7. Programme management - positive and negative experienceDaily management • Example: Monitoring • High degree of quantification of objectives • Extensive indicator system (financial and physical indicators) • Yearly updates • Close monitoring of financial project performance (n+2) • Monitoring of achievement of horizontal objectives • Regular „Traffic light reports“ to the Monitoring Committee • Advantages: • Close monitoring of project, measure and programme performance - early warning - early action • Disadvantages: • High effort for applicants and implementing bodies (online interface not yet in place) • Too many indicators which are partly not made use of • Difficulties: • Project assessment, especially concerning job creation, Horizontal Themes

  8. Programme management - positive and negative experienceDaily management Example: Monitoring / Traffic Lights for commitments (priority level)

  9. Programme management - positive and negative experienceFinancial management Example: prevention of automatic decommitment due to the n+2-Rule • Steps taken: • Direct contacting of intermediate bodies and of project managers, partly revision of annual tranches and formal agreement with project managers including annual automatic decommitment of non-spent funds and regular reporting to intermediate bodies; joint problem-solving, • Shifting of funds from 2004 to 2003 (2005 to 2004) for measures with high spending, • Mobilisation of additional funds for co-financing, • Establishment of endowment funds managed by intermediaries, • Retrospective funding (inclusion of eligible projects formerly funded through other sources), • Partial postponement of scrutiny of requests for payment, • Change of modalities for reimbursement of expenditures in income-generating projects, • Extension of the period for the submission of the payment requests at the federal government, • Review of projects in order to check whether co-financing previously declared as private could be accepted as public (higher intervention rates).

  10. Programme management - positive and negative experienceFinancial management / control Example : The 'Prüfstelle' The 'Prüfstelle' (audit body) has bees established on a voluntary basis to guarantee an accompanying quality control. It carries out additional management system and project checks in order to identify potential problems or irregularities at an early stage. • Advantages: • Opportunity to prevent mistakes that might lead to financial corrections by the Commission later on • Awareness-raising and expert information concerning the financial rules and regulations for all persons involved in programme implementation • Disadvantages / Difficulties: • Project managers and programme implementing bodies often do not recognise that the control activities of the “Prüfstelle” are undertaken in order to support them and are not meant to be a formal, restrictive instrument. Thissometimes leads to a lack of cooperation.

  11. Programme management 2007-2013 - opinion concerning the Commission‘s proposals (selected issues) • Agreement: • Attempts to simplify and decentralise Structural Policy (Mono-fund programmes, payments on priority-basis, etc.) • Disagreement: • Too little influence for regional level (but full risk) • Strategic reference framework – too detailed and too complex • Annual national progress reports - too cumbersome • Possible necessity of adaptations of OPs after annual consultation; right of initiativefor the Commission - too high administrative effort and lack of planning reliability • Co-financing only of public funds - private participation important (PPP), leverage effect would be reduced • N+2-Rule - no general rejection but need for flexibility in order not to impede innovative, high-quality approaches • Performance reserve - has not proved to be of value (no incentive for higher effectiveness); inappropriate indicators • Reserve for unexpected sectoral or local shocks: too bureaucratic

  12. Programme management 2007-2013 – recommendations to the Commission • Do not over-regulate Structural Policy • Attach more importance and more scope of decision to regional (sub-national) level • More risk-sharing between EU, national and regional level • Allow more flexibility in funding actions eligible under ESF in ERDF-programmes and vice-versa (e.g. 15% instead of 5%) • Allow more flexibility for regions to quickly adapt programmes according to need • Abolish performance reserve and reserve for unexpected sectoral or local shocks • Adapt n+2-Rule in order to create more flexibility • Interregional cooperation should not be prescribed (discretionary provision instead of mandatory regulation)

  13. Thank you for your attention! • Daniela Glimm-Lükewille • agiplan GmbH • Kölner Straße.80-82 • 45481 Mülheim an der Ruhr • GERMANY • E-Mail: dglimm@agiplan.de • Website: http://www.agiplan.de • or: • Ziel 2 Sekretariat • im Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit • des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen • Haroldstraße 4 • 40190 Düsseldorf • Tel.: +49 (0)211-837-2553 • Fax: +49 (0)211-837-2665 • E-Mail: daniela.glimm-luekewille@mwa.nrw.de • Website: www.ziel2-nrw.de

More Related