1 / 19

Simplifying Cost Options for European Structural Fund Programmes and Administrative Processes

This document outlines the challenges and strategies associated with the implementation of the European Social Fund (ESF) and other operational programmes in Hungary. It discusses the need to simplify complex regulations and administrative burdens faced by beneficiaries. The focus is on adopting simplified cost options to improve fund absorption rates and the quality of project implementation. With an emphasis on transparency, fairness, and efficiency, this report highlights key constraints and the ongoing simplification processes aimed at fostering better management and oversight of EU funds.

sissy
Download Presentation

Simplifying Cost Options for European Structural Fund Programmes and Administrative Processes

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. SimplifiedCostOptions

  2. Organizational structure European Commission Directorate General for Audit of European Funds (Audit Authority) Central Government Ministry of National Economy State Audit Office Central Harmonization Unit Ministry of National Development • National Development Agency Internal Audit Vice-president for development and IT Cabinet HRD MA Legal Affairs Communication HR IB IB IB IB State Treasury Certifying Authority MA MA

  3. Managing AuthorityforHuman Resource Programmes Social Renewal Operational Programme Social Infrastructure Operational Programme Human Resources Development Operational Programme EQUAL ESF 2007-13 ERDF 2000-2006

  4. Lots of small projects Unexperienced final beneficiaries Complex regulations – administrative burden Implementation of ESF Programmes Professional implementation / goals Administrative Burden Shift must be avoided

  5. Feedback from: Beneficiaries Monitoring Committee Evaluations IB – publicity events Implementaion of ESF Programmes Needforsimplification

  6. 2007 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 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 (collectionstarted 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. Flatrate

  10. Transparently: in advance, fair, equitable, verifiable

  11. Key Constraints: Preparation cost not eligible 2004-2007 Cross financing no ERDF Key projects small number of projects Flatrate

  12. Directcost – Indirectcost Detailedeligiblecostdescription 2004-2007 Furtherdeatailedeligiblecostdescription 2007-13 Flatrate Crossreferencebetweentwoplanningperiods had to be made (Time consumingnegotiationswith COMM)

  13. Flatrate

  14. Flatrate

  15. Conclusion of the statistical analysis: Sectors were not relevant, Regional distribution was not relevant, Direct ESF cost explained rate of indirect cost. Flatrate

  16. InaccordancewithCOCOF 09/0025/04-EN: Flatrate

  17. White: Directcost Grey: Indirectcost (Green: Sum)

  18. Σ ESF cost Flatrate ESF indirectcost = ESFdirectcost X flatrate % Project Total Cost ESF directcost ERDF (?) 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

More Related