Transcript DZIAŁANIA INWESTYCYJNE W KRAJOBRAZIE ROLNICZYM …

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
SESSION 4
Republic of Poland
„Rural Development
Operational Programme 2007-2013”
Implementing Issues
Future of Rural Areas in Europe.
Kraków, 30th November– 1st December 2005
Essential documents:




Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005
of 21 June 2005 on financing of the common agricultural
policy
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
Drafts
Implementing Regulation regarding Council Regulation
No 1698/2005 (under preparation by EC)
European Commission Guidelines concerning monitoring
and evaluation (consultations - EC and Member States)
POLISH ASSUMPTION
FOR YEARS 2007-2013

One programme for the whole country
„Rural Development
Operational Programme 2007-2013”

Preparation of assumptions and rules of the programme
implementation based on partnership
Use of working elements of existing programmes: RDP
2004-2006, SOP 2004-2006
Continuation of good solutions, changing elements making
difficulties in programmes’ realisation
Strengthening of cooperation and exchange of information



INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS 2007-2013 (1)

Required authorities shall be established
(Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, article 74)



Managing Authority…….Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MARD) – Department of Rural Development
Paying Agency…………..Agency for Restructuring and
Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA)
Certification Body…….Ministry of Finance (MF) - Bureau for
International Treasury Relations
probably also:

Coordinating Body…….MARD – Department of Finance (DF)
•
OP RDP’s Paying Agency
•
Paying Agency managing part of CAP measures (Agriculture Market
Agency – AMA)
INSTITUTIONS 2007-2013 (2)




Regulations 1290/2005 and 1698/2005 define institutions’
responsibilities for implementation of tasks as regards the
Programme
The realisation of most of the tasks may be delegated to other
bodies – retaining the responsibility for the realisation
The execution of payment of the Community funds cannot be
delegated – it’s the only competence of the Paying Agency
Fundamental change comparing to RDP 2004-2006 – the
responsibility for the projects’ choice (beneficiaries):
 up to date……………………. Paying Agency
 2007-2013……..……..……… Managing Authority
(possibility of delegation eg. to the Paying Agency)
MANAGING AUTHORITY 2007-2013 (1)

Legal base:


Poland (project):


Regulation 1698/2005, art. 75
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Department of Rural Development
Responsible for:


Managing the programme
Implementing the programme in an efficient, effective and
correct way
MANAGING AUTHORITY 2007-2013 (2)

In particular responsible for ensuring that:
 Projects’ selection for funding is done in accordance with criteria of the
Programme and the Paying Agency receives all necessary information, in
particular on the procedures operated and any controls carried out in relation
to operations selected for funding before payments are authorised
 Information about the Program (promotion) is done according to the
Community requirements and the beneficiaries and other institutions
concerned are well informed about their obligations as regards the support
given and fulfill accountancy requirements
 The computerised system of recording and maintaining the statistical
information suitable for the monitoring and evaluation is in place.
 Programme evaluations are conducted within the time limits laid down in
Regulation 1698/2005 and conform to the common monitoring and
evaluation framework
MANAGING AUTHORITY 2007-2013 (3)

The list of tasks contains also:

Drawing up the annual progress report and, after approval by the
Monitoring Committee, submitting it to the Commission.

Leading the Monitoring Committee and sending it the documents
needed to monitor implementation of the programme in the light of
its specific objectives.

Submitting evaluations undertaken to the relevant national
authorities and the Commission.
In case of delegation of part of tasks
the Managing Authority retains full responsibility for the
efficiency and correctness of management and implementation
of those tasks
THE PAYING AGENCY 2007-2013 (1)



Legal base:
 Regulation 1290/2005, art. 6
Poland (project):
 Agency for Restructuring and the Modernisation of Agriculture
Responsible for:
 Paying and declaring the amounts from the Community budget to
the Commission
 Carrying out the checks (internal and on-the-spot)
 Submission of annual accounts
 Detecting the irregularities and recovering the amounts unduly
paid
 Statements of assurance
CERTIFICATION BODY 2007-2013


Legal base:
 Regulation 1290/2005, art. 7
Poland (project):
 The Ministry of Finance
Bureau for International Treasury Relations

Responsible for:

Certification the truthfulness, completeness and accuracy of the
accounts of the accredited paying agency, taking account of the
management and control systems set up.
COORDINATING BODY 2007-2013



Legal base:
 Regulation 1290/2005, art. 6, par. 3
Poland:
 The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Department of Finance
Responsible for:
 Collecting the information to be made available to the
Commission and handling it over to the Commision
 Promotion of the harmonious application of Community rules
The Coordinating Body will be the subject to specific
accreditation by the Member State as regards the
processing of the financial information
COOPERATING INSTITUTIONS 2007-2013

Supporting and Confirming Institutions
(as for measures under RDP 2004-2006)
Institutions which take part in the process of preparation of
applications, with advising functions and confirming fulfilment of
the criteria during the realisation of particular activity

Implementation Organisations
(as for measures under SOP 2004-2006)
Responsible for the implementation of particular activities
PLANNED
IMPLEMENTATION
STRUCTURE
RDOP 2007-2013
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME
European
Commission
Certifying Body
(MF)
Managing Authority
(MARD)
Refund, audit, control
Certification of Paying Agency’s accounts
Programme management, implementation supervising, audit,
control, monitoring, evaluation, leading of Monitoring Committee,
information
Paying Agency
(ARMA)
Programme implementation, applications’ treatment, monitoring,
information, support granting, payments, controls
Implementing Body’s
delegated tasks
Programme implementation, applications’ treatment, monitoring,
information, support granting
Applicant/Beneficiary
Application submission, implementation of the scheme, support
receiving
Programme implementation

Main implementation components:
- cooperation (partnership)
- management, control (check), information
- monitoring, evaluation, reporting
- technical assistance and networks

Institutions involved in implementation have to manage
support given in favour of rural development in an
efficient way and to monitor its use
Partnership (1)



Support for rural development implemented using
partnership rules (close consultations)
Main partners at EU level:
 European Union
 Poland
Main partners at the state level:
 The competent regional, local authorities and other
public authorities
 The economic and social partners
 Others: non-governmental organisations, environment
protection organisations and bodies responsible for
promoting equality
Partnership (2)


Designation of suitable partners to create broad and effective
cooperation
Cooperation includes:
Preparation and monitoring of the National Strategy Plan
 Preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of the programme
Public consultation at the stage of preparation RDOP 20072013 (published on www.minrol.gov.pl) and National
Strategy Plan
Implementation of Rural Development Operational Plan
2007-2013 in partnership with the social partners



Partnership (3)

National Rural Network
Includes all organisations and administration structures
engaged in rural development (funding from technical
assistance at the programme level)
Tasks:
 Dissemination and exchange of good rural
development practice
 Exchange of knowledge and experience
 Preparation of training programmes for Leader
groups
 Cooperation with Leader groups
Monitoring Committee






Established up to 3 months after programme’s approval
1 Programme = 1 Committee
Chairman – representative of authorities of Member State
or Managing Authority
Activities based on cooperation with partners
Assembling representatives of appropriate local authorities
and other public organisations, economic and social partners,
representatives of other organisations, including NGOs
Representative of EC may be the advisory member.
Monitoring Committee - tasks
Provide appropriate programme implementation by:





Consultations regarding criteria of projects’ selection
for implementation
Periodical evaluations of the progress of programme targets’
implementation
Analysis and approval of the annual reports on implementation
before submitting to the Commission
Proposing to the Managing Authority to make reviews/amendments
of the programme
Analysis and approval of any proposals of amendments concerning
the programme requiring Commission decision
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

1 Fund (agricultural, not structural) and 1 financial management
system for rural development – multiannual programming

Financial rules the same as for Structural Funds

Multiannual legal commitments (decisions, agreements) but
financial commitments divided into annual instalments

Commitments and payments, N+2 rule
(such as PROW 2004-2006 and SOP 2004-2006)

Paying Agency accredited by MS
(such as PROW 2004-2006)

Clearance of accounts
(such as PROW 2004-2006)

Annual decisions on clearance of accounts
Financial Operations

Automatic annual commitments

Payment on account (7% = 2 X 3.5%) – after the
programme adopting

Intermediate payments (4 per year)

N+2 – automatic decommitments (if any)
DECLARATIONS OF EXPENDITURE



The Paying Agency declares 4 times per year the expenditure
incurred between:
 1 January and 31 March - by 30 April
 1 April and 30 June - by 31 July
 1 July and 15 October - by 15 November
 16 October and 31 December - by 31 January
The Commission shall make intermediate payments within 45 days
of registering a declaration of expenditure
The Commission shall develop an IT financial system interfaced
with the MS for submission of declarations and calculation of
payments
The annual and final accounts






By 10 February of the year N+1 the Paying Agency submits the
annual accounts of year N (EAGGF financial year, ie. 16 October
of year N-1 to 15 October of year N).
Commission decision on annual clearance of accounts– prior to 30
April N+1
Annual clearance of accounts based on the annual accounts of the
year N submitted by the paying agency.
Amounts to be recovered - shall be deducted from subsequent
payment for the Paying Agency
Amounts to be paid - shall be added to subsequent payment for the
Paying Agency
Closure of the programme – based on the last annual report and the
clearance of accounts of the last year of programme
implementation.
Controls/checks

Beneficiaries are the subject of the checks carried out by the
Paying Agency


Paying Agency checked by:



Possibility of delegation of this function to the external bodies
Managing Authority – responsible for the implementation of
the Program
EC auditors – correctness of the expenditures
Insititutions with delegated functions controled by the
delegating institutions

Particular role of the internal audit units
Information


Publication of the National Strategy Plan, Rural
Development Operational Program with the information
about the Community contribution
At the program level the Managing Aurthority shall
inform about:
 The possibilities offered by the programme and the
rules for gaining access to programme funding
 The Community contribution
 The role played by the Community in the programmes
and the results thereof
MONITORING








Monitoring – more strategic than now
Aggregation of results and influence at the UE level
Use of monitoring as a support for evaluation of priorities’
achievement (Community and country level)
Indicators of existing situation, results and impact of the programme.
Limited number of common indicators at the Community-AxisMeasure level
Limited number of additional indicators specific for the programme
Indicators should be better defined at the beginning of programming
period – baseline evaluation, monitoring basis.
Requirements concerning monitoring (consolidated document –
common monitoring and evaluation framework) discussed by EC and
Member States
EVALUATION



Rising of „on-going” evaluation significance.
Key elements of evaluation system:
 ex-ante evaluation
 on-going evaluation (annual report)
 mid-term evaluation
 ex-post evaluation
Evaluation conducted by external evaluators
REPORTING
Reporting based on common guidelines:
 Annual report at the programme level
(connected with annual accounting).
 National reports summarising progress in implementation of the
National Strategy: 2010-2012-2014
 Commission report presented to the Council and Parliament
summarising progress in implementation of Community Strategy:
2011-2013-2015.
 „On-going” evaluation:
ex-ante
on-going (annual reports)
mid-term (2010)
ex-post (2014)
POLAND
ASSUMPTIONS AND STATE OF ART




Coordination of RDOP preparation – MARD, Department of
Rural Development
Establishing of working groups:
 on programming measures within RDOP 2007-2013
 on rules of implementation of RDOP 2007-2013
Working groups’ tasks – establishing of rules:
 Implementing measures and criteria for granting support
 Programm’s managing
 Programm’s implementing
 Financial aspect of programm’s implementation
 Monitoring and evaluation
 Use of IT tools
Preparation of rules and setting up the National Network – 2006
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED
OVERLAPING PERIOD
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION CONDITIONS






Clearly specified, legal based roles, tasks and responsibilities of
all institutions involved in implementation
Importance of wide and active partnership on all stages of
programming and implementation, strong and effective
coordination of partners’ cooperation
Setting up of National Network – effective cooperation, rise of
involvement of partners in implementation of the programme
Preparation and implementation of monitoring and evaluation
system at each level
Clear, reliable and prompt information for potential
beneficiaries, friendly and transparent system (applications,
instructions, rules of projects choice, lists of contact persons…)
Applicants support (consulting, loans…)
OVERLAPING PERIOD
2007-2008






New Managing Authority for RDOP?
New Paying Agency for RDOP?
Separated IT systems – Paying Agency, Managing Authority,
regional partners…
Monitoring of multiannual commitments of RDP 2004-2006
for 2007-2013
In the same time - implementation and management of
several programmes by the same institutions, necessary
division of tasks
Financial management – different systems simultaneously…
Paying Agency Accreditation
RDP 2004-2006


Poland –accreditation of ARMA in stages:

As regards the realisation of particular tasks e.g. –
financial procedures

As regards realisation of particular measures of RDP

As regards realisation of succesive stages of realisation of
the measures – e.g. receiving and registering of the
applications
Consequences:

Long-term process of full accreditation (about 2 years)

Delay in implementation of some measures of RDP

High costs of external audits carried out.
Paying Agency Accreditation
RDOP 2007-2013

Aims:

Changing the model of accreditation – give it to the
Insitution (ARMA) for the implementation and
realisation of tasks.

Taking into account the „up to date” state of the
current accreditation and experience gained during the
implementation of SOP 2004-2006

Significantly shorten the accreditation process as
regards RDOP
IT TOOLS
Providing complete, reliable, detailed data
 Providing of comparison of monitoring and
financial data
 Availability of historic data
 Availability for current monitoring of
Programme’s implementation.
 Basic tool of management of the Programme
 Possibility of simulating and forecasting in long
time period

SUMMARY







In Poland - implementation of RDOP 2007-2013 similar to the RDP
2004-2006
Possible use of experience gained (with necessary modifications), not
necessary to prepare everything new
In relation to the present state of art increase of responsibility of
Managing Authority – necessity for strengthening of resources
Increase of importance of good cooperation between partners
Required better coordination of activities concerning the Programme
implemented by all institutions, Monitoring Committee, beneficiaries
Special importance of precise financial management
Priority – IT system for monitoring and evaluation