1 / 35

New Member States Conference on Cohesion Policy in Latvia EU FUNDS IMPLEMENTATION IN NEW MEMBER STATES 15 - 17 April 200

New Member States Conference on Cohesion Policy in Latvia EU FUNDS IMPLEMENTATION IN NEW MEMBER STATES 15 - 17 April 2009. 1. Content of the p resentation. Progress and Crisis (2004-2006 and 2007-2013) Closure & Reporting (2004-2006) Systems and Simplification (2007-2013 and post 2013)

redford
Télécharger la présentation

New Member States Conference on Cohesion Policy in Latvia EU FUNDS IMPLEMENTATION IN NEW MEMBER STATES 15 - 17 April 200

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. New Member States Conference on Cohesion Policy in LatviaEU FUNDS IMPLEMENTATION IN NEW MEMBER STATES15 - 17 April 2009 1

  2. Content of the presentation • Progress and Crisis (2004-2006 and 2007-2013) • Closure & Reporting (2004-2006) • Systems and Simplification (2007-2013 and post 2013) • Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013) • Lessons learned and Future (post 2014) • Any Other Business and Conclusions 2

  3. Progress and Crisis(2004-2006 and 2007-2013) 1.1. Update on financial progress 3

  4. 2004-2006 Structural Funds Implementation Progress (01.03.2009.) 4

  5. 2004-2006Cohesion FundImplementation Progress(01.03.2009.) 5

  6. 2007-2013EU FundsImplementation Progress(01.03.2009.) 6

  7. 2007-2013ERDFImplementation Progress(01.03.2009.) 7

  8. 2007-2013ESFImplementation Progress(01.03.2009.) 8

  9. 2007-2013Cohesion FundImplementation Progress(01.03.2009.) 9

  10. Extension of final date of eligibility of expenditures All 10 EU MSs who joined the EU in 2004 have extended the final date of eligibility of expenditures of 2004-2006 programmes 10

  11. Main reasons for extension of final date of eligibility of expenditures (I) • Mainly changes in the socio-economic situation and the labour market, attributable to the unprecedented global financial crisis (CY, MT, PL, SI) • Depreciation of national currency that increased the funds’ allocation and as a result affected negatively the financial implementation of programmes (PL) • Deterioration of financialliquidity of beneficiaries and contractors (PL) 11

  12. To have longer time for administration of programmes and to be able to use the whole allocation (CZ) There were unused funds (about 5 MEUR) (EE) The inability to make payments on time (LT) The conditions of the access to loans and the terms have become more severe in recent months including prefinancing of projects realized by the contribution of SFs (HU) Main reasons for extension of final date of eligibility of expenditures (II)

  13. Main problems that affected the closure of SF programmes (2004-2006) 13

  14. 1.2. Impact of the crisis • Progress and Crisis(2004-2006 and 2007-2013) 14

  15. Economic crisis and 2007-2013 programmes Impact of each of the problem listed on 2007-2013 programmes 15

  16. Economic crisis and 2007-2013 programmes (II) Other effects on implementation of 2007-2013 programmes • Delays in projects (MT) • Private beneficiaries cannot co-finance projects (PL) • Beneficiaries might be unable to sustain the project (CZ) • The cost of projects has been reduced due to the financial and economic crisis. Moreover, the continuing economic crisis and credit shortage might delay the timetable for implementation of some projects despite the efforts for speeding up the whole process. In particular, crisis in the construction sector might have an impact on the timely implementation (CY) 16

  17. Positive effects of the crisis – any? • BG, CY, RO:higher competition for the funding in some measures (and hence better projects) • EE, LT, LV, PL, SK:prices are falling and the projects are becoming cheaper to implement • CZ, HU, MT, SI: crisis has no positive effects on implementaiton of programmes 17

  18. Measures taken to react to the crisis in the framework of EU programmes 18

  19. Other measures taken to react to the crisis (I) 19

  20. Other measures taken to react to the crisis (II) • Increased support to SMEs and especially in the sectors that are expected to be mostly affected (CY) • Extension of catalogue of beneficiaries who may obtain advances on projects’ implementation (PL) • Stimulating competition among programmes – those whose realisation is the quickest may obtain additional resources from the national performance reserve in 2011 (PL) • Introduction of principle of the settlement and certification to the EC expenditures incurred in the first phases of project’s realisation before it is formally approved – in case of major projects (PL)

  21. Economic crisis and implementation of major projects • In 7 MS (CY, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL) economic crisis has affected the plans to implement major projects • In 6 MS (except HU) main problem – plans were affected by change of costs of projects • In HU public procurement procedures ongoing after which the impact of crisiscan be seen • In CZ, SI, SK the crisis did not have an effect to the plans of major project implementation 21

  22. Progress and Crisis(2004-2006 and 2007-2013) 1.3. Information on major projects for the programming period 2007-2013 – submission, launch, spending 22

  23. Major projects planned to be implemented under 2007-2013 programmes 23

  24. Number of major projects (MP) submitted to the EC and approved by the EC 24

  25. Main comments of the EC regarding applications of MP 25

  26. JASPERS expertise used in project applications • CZ, HU, LT will use JASPERS expertise in all applications • All 12 MS were satisfied with JASPERS expertise 26

  27. Other problems regarding preparation and implementation of MP(I) 27

  28. Monitoring& control system of MP • 10 MS do not have special monitoring and control system for MP • In LT and PL there is a special monitoring and control system for MP 28

  29. 1.4. Amendments to the Operational programmes (OPs) and reaction of the European Commission (EC) 1. Progress and Crisis(2004-2006 and 2007-2013) 29

  30. Amendments to the OPs proposed to the EC (I) • BG, CY, EE, RO, SI, SK have not proposed amendments to the OPs • HU amendments involve reallocation of funding between OPs • CZ, LT, LV amendments involve reallocation of funding between priorities • CZ, LT, MT, PL amendments involve modifications to the contents • Only OP of LT has been approved by the EC; for LV – approved partially 30

  31. Modifications to the contents 31

  32. Specific amendments proposed as reaction to financial and economic crisis 32

  33. Amendments and the opinion of the EC (I) 33

  34. Amendments and the opinion of the EC (II) 34

  35. Evaluations carried out before amending OPs • 9 MS (BG, CY, HU, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK) did not carry out evaluations before amending OPs • CZ applied evaluations to all OPs before amendments • In EE evaluation in progress • CZ, EE, HU outsourced evaluation experts 35

More Related