Technical Assistancefor the Implementation of

Structural Instrumentsin Romania

No. 4October 2010

EUROPEAN UNION GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA

Structural Instruments2007-2013

Technical Assistance for the Implementation of

Structural Instruments in Romania

No. 4 / 10.2010

Project co-financed from the European Regional Development Fund through OPTA 2007-2013 /Support for the implementation of the ACIS Communication Plan

Editor: Directorate Technical Assistance, Ministry of Public Finance

Publishing date: October 2010

The contents of this material does not necessarily represent the official position ofthe European Union and of the Romanian Government.

4

8

12

16

18

20

24

31

Contents

Status of Using Technical Assistance in Romania as of August 31st, 2010

Information and publicity activities financed under Technical Assistance within the Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development

Technical Assistance Administration Principles and the Possibilities of Using Technical Assistance in Lithuania

Romanian – German Cooperation

Cooperation between the Ministry of Public Finance in Romania and the Ministry of Regional Development in Poland in the field of the European Union Cohesion Policy

Implementation Status of Structural Instruments in Romania

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Formative Evaluation of Structural Instruments in Romania

Contact

The implementation of technical assistance in Romania is done through:

The Technical Assistance Priority Axis within each Operational Programme (OP), which supports the provision of specific assistance for project preparation, monitoring, evaluation and control, as well as for communication activities ensuring appropriate publicity, with regards to specificity of the respective OP and

The Operational Programme Technical Assistance (OPTA) which ensures horizontal assistance tools for the common needs of all structures and actors involved in the management and implementation of the Structural Instruments, by developing an effective single management information system able to provide also transparent information on funds absorption, as well as by activities aiming at general public awareness on the role of the Community support and an overview understanding of the interventions of Structural Instruments.

In the period January – August 2010, the pace for Technical Assistance (TA) use was accelerated by OPTA and TA Axes within the other 6 Operational Programmes, 100 TA projects being contracted in amount of 143 millions lei – EU contribution and payments being made in amount of 35 millions lei – EU contribution. Therefore, on August 31st 2010, TA contracting was 17% out of the EU 2007-2013 allocation, while payments were at 3.36% (varying from 16.26% in the case of ROP to 0% in the case of SOP IEC.

Status of Using Technical Assistance in Romania as of August 31st, 2010

5 No. 4 / 10.2010

Status of using Technical Assistance as of August 31st, 2010

The approval rate of the submitted projects is 86%, namely 206 approved projects at 31 August 2010 out of the 240 submitted projects. The payments made from EU funds, amounting to 98 millions lei, are comprised of pre-financing in amount of 30.5 millions lei and reimbursements in amount of 67.5 millions lei.

Within the last meeting of the Coordination Committee for Technical Assistance that took place on September 30th 2010, the status of public procurement contracts financed within the TA projects was analyzed and the situation of these contracts on August 31st 2010 was the following:

6

Note: Within the contracts included in category I or V, support is granted also for Structural Instruments beneficiaries and it is not possible to divide the amounts for each category.

Total eligible value of contracts: 613 mil. lei

Category I - support for the management of the Operational Programmes, Intermediate Bodies, Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments, Certifying and Paying Authority, Audit Authority: 374.5 millions lei

meetings of committees and working groups (all Operational Programmes)

assistance for preparing the project pipeline and/or the projects evaluation, selection and contracting (SOP Environment, SOP IEC, OP ACD, SOP HRD)

assistance for on the spot checks, projects monitoring (SOP IEC)

staff training from the management structures (OPTA, ROP, SOP HRD)

events focussed on experience exchange (OPTA, SOP Environment)

staff expenses for the Regional Development Agencies and the coordinators of the Growth Poles and their teams (ROP, OPTA)

partial financing of staff expenses for the staff involved in SI coordination, management and control: 6 projects are under contracting - Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Communications, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labour and North-West Regional Intermediate Body for SOP HRD; the remaining 23 projects are under implementation (OPTA)

rents and/or headquarters maintenance (SOP Environment, SOP HRD, SOP IEC, OPTA)

others: accounting services, legal consultancy, public procurement consultancy, documentation management services, preparing projects pipeline, office procurement and supplies, etc.

Category II – support for beneficiaries: 8.7 millions lei:

training for beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries (OPTA, ROP, SOP Environment, SOP HRD, OP ACD)

working sessions with beneficiaries, organisation of events for beneficiaries (ROP)

Category III – evaluation of operational programmes, studies, analyses: 11.8 millions lei

study for identifying the priority directions of reform of the post 2013 Cohesion Policy from Romania’s perspective (OPTA), Technical Assistance Facility study (OPTA), study regarding the ROP implementation in the South-West Oltenia region (ROP)

interim evaluations of the operational programmes (all Operational Programmes, except SOP Environment), evaluation of the National Strategic Reference Framework (OPTA), ad-hoc evaluation regarding challenges related to the public and private beneficiaries’ capacity (OPTA), evaluation of the Communication Plan implementation (SOP IEC), evaluation of the implementation of the priorities and projects targeted at the business environment (ROP)

7 No. 4 / 10.2010

OPTA – Operational Programme Technical AssistanceROP – Regional Operational ProgrammeSOP IEC – Sectoral Operational Programme Increase of Economic CompetitivenessSOP T – Sectoral Operational Programme TransportSOP ENV – Sectoral Operational Programme EnvironmentSOP HRD – Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources DevelopmentOP ACD – Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development

Category IV – information systems: 34.4 millions lei

technical expertise for preparing the tender documentation “Development of MySMIS” (OPTA)

support for the Managing Authority, Intermediate Bodies and beneficiaries of SOP HRD to achieve a better management of the Actionweb system, supporting the maintenance and the preparation of financial and procedural reports for projects financed under the European Social Fund (SOP HRD)

Management Integrated information system (SIM – SOP HRD)

IT equipment and software purchase (OPTA, ROP, SOP IEC, SOP Environment)

purchase of equipment necessary for SMIS functioning (OPTA)

integrated electronic system for document management (SOP Environment) etc.

Category V – information and publicity: 32.6 millions lei

promotion conferences, mass-media campaigns, media spots, opinion polls, promotional objects, information materials, websites maintenance etc. (ROP, SOP Environment, SOP Transport, OP ACD, SOP HRD, SOP IEC, OP ACD, OPTA)

In the same time, besides these procurement contracts, there are still 64 contracts under preparation, with a total eligible value of 150 millions lei (59% support for Operational Programmes management, 25% information and publicity and 15% IT equipment and information systems).

From the above, one can notice that the signed TA projects have subsequent public procurement contracts in different implementation stages (finalized, ongoing, under contracting or under preparation). Nevertheless, in the TA implementation, many problems are still faced, mainly because of the difficult development of the awarding procedures, the lack of experience and guidance regarding defining and using the evaluation factors in the procurement of consultancy services and the lack of staff dedicated to TA-related activities.

Thus, it is necessary to provide support for improving the process of public procurement development and accelerating the contracting pace and therefore the National Authority for Regulating and Monitoring of Public Procurement (ANRMAP) and the National Council for Solving Complaints will be included as potential beneficiaries in the Operational Programme Technical Assistance and may carry out projects supporting the public procurement system.

8

9 No. 4 / 10.2010

The project “Technical assistance for the Managing Authority for Administrative Capacity Development in view to ensure information and publicity processes for the Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development (OP ACD)” started on May 17th

2010, being contracted with the company DIADIKASIA Business Consultants SA – Greece, in partnership with Publicis PLC – Romania. The project activities will be carried out during 18 months, benefiting of a budget of 2,456,700 lei, broken on specific components of the project.

This technical assistance project is part of the Priority Axis 3, the key area of intervention “Support for OP ACD promotion and communication”. It is subject to the European Commission Regulation 1159/2000 and its recommendations defining the obligations of the Managing Authorities related to the publicity and information measures for the assistance available from Structural Funds. Its fundamental goals are increasing programme visibility and developing a promotion and information system for potential beneficiaries, for beneficiaries and the general public regarding OP ACD, in order to improve the communication activities of MA OP ACD.

Thus, important activities were foreseen in the tender documentation to accomplish an efficient communication and awareness regarding OP ACD. These basic actions were proposed, on one hand, to answer to the findings in the Communication Plan of OP ACD, and on the other hand to cover the needs found at the level of projects and programme implementation. They are based on two strategic axes:

A - Awareness and InformationAddressed to the potential applicants of OP ACD, it includes the implementation of an efficient information campaign to increase funds absorption, by creating an identity manual of the programme, by purchasing and delivering promotion objects, printing information materials, organizing information events dedicated to projects beneficiaries and conferences dedicated to potential beneficiaries;

B – Institutional Capacity BuildingAddressed to the MA OP ACD, this strategic axis, besides obtaining an added value of the project, aims at developing the administrative capacity of the MA OP ACD to implement the Communication Plan and other promotion measures, increasing the interaction with potential beneficiaries, by implementing a range of training sessions and internal and external work visits for the staff MA OP ACD regarding the information activities, as well as by preparing support materials for the implementation of the annual Communication Plan.

Information and Publicity Activities Financed under Technical Assistance within the Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development

10

Analytically, as concerns the additional services presented by the service provider in the technical offer (the winner), the project comprises the following activities and will achieve the following results:

1. Preparation of the visual identity of MA OP ACD Within this activity, the service provider proposed to draw up a methodology for the consultation of all actors involved in the implementation of the OP ACD in order to create a logo of OP ACD. This logo is to become, together with the slogan “Innovation in administration”, the logo to recognize and identify the programme within the potential beneficiaries of projects and the general public and in the same time a logo for the users (beneficiaries). The logo is to be attached on all materials printed or delivered within OP ACD, following a certain typology described in the Identity Manual of OP ACD. According to the tender documentation requirements, the (final) result of this activity is the Identity Manual for OP ACD.

2. Preparation, purchasing and distribution of promotional objects In order to support the action of building a single image of OP ACD through a logo and the consecrated slogan, a range of promotional objects are to be purchased within the project and personalised with the developed elements of visual identity. These promotional objects are to be distributed at events organized within the OP ACD, this project as well as within other projects. According to tender documentation requirements, the service provider shall personalise 38,100 promotional objects.

3. Conceiving, printing and distributing information materials In order to support the potential beneficiaries, but also the current beneficiaries of OP ACD projects, a range of information materials shall be printed within the project. These materials are also to be personalised with the OP ACD logo and slogan. Besides the requirements of the tender documentation regarding the type of publications and the number of printings, the service provider offered support in creating the graphic concept for each material, making DTP (inserting the text in the graphics and the printable format), developing the content of materials, in order to choose the format and the most attractive and intelligible language for the target groups. The results aimed are 28 different publications printed and distributed, amounting to a total printing of around 96,500 pieces.

11 No. 4 / 10.2010

4. Organizing information and publicity events at central and local levels This activity, the central theme of this project, is addressed on one hand to the potential projects beneficiaries, and on the other hand to the existing beneficiaries of projects contracted out of OP ACD. The aim of these actions is to increase the absorption of OP ACD funds by developing mature proposals but also by making a correct implementation and within the agreed period of time. Thus, 4 regional conferences of 2 days each, initially dedicated to potential beneficiaries, in the event of launching new calls for proposals, and 3 seminars of 2 days each dedicated to projects beneficiaries were asked in the tender documentation. The technical offer of the service provider assigned as the winner proposes the organization of 8 conferences of 2 days each for minimum 50 participants – one for each development region – opening with a press conference and followed by one regional seminar of 1 day at a period of 1-2 weeks. This information/promotion mini-campaign for the new calls for proposals was planned in order to favour the development of mature project proposals and clarify possible more difficult sections from the financing application. In case where there will be no more new calls for proposals, these events will be oriented towards the projects beneficiaries.

In the technical offer of the service provider, the projects beneficiaries are allocated a number of 5 training seminars of 2 days each. The theme of the seminars is to be detailed in the Concept Note prepared for each event.

Also, in addition to the tender documentation requirements, the winning technical offer added to this information campaign 10 announcements/articles of interest, in central press, 8 announcements/articles of interest in regional press (one for each development region) and 5 radio interviews on OP ACD related themes.

5. Training MA OP ACD employees in order to acquire necessary skills in communication activities The activity is dedicated to

develop the MA OP ACD employees’ ability to plan and carry out communication and information actions regarding OP ACD, by training courses and experience exchanges with counterpart bodies in the EU countries.

6. Preparing annual action plans for information and publicity activities, as well as other strategic documents The service provider will prepare annual action plans for information and publicity activities and will ensure the know how transfer regarding their preparation, by training at the workplace of the MA OP ACD employees, for obtaining a coherent vision on all activities specific to the OP ACD promotion campaign. In order to support the communication and promotion activities of OP ACD, the

12

service provider proposed preparing communication guides accompanied by checklists for each communication action:

A guide for preparing and publishing a newsletter;

A guide for implementing a Communication Campaign on Structural Funds;

Reporting and Monitoring on the information instruments in the Communication Plan;

A guide for organizing a press office dedicated to OP ACD;

A guide for organizing events on Structural Funds/ OP ACD. In order to support the information activities for potential applicants, and implicitly to support the press officers responsible with implementing the visibility and transparency activities, the service provider will initiate negotiations with the training institutions for developing training programmes in the fields specific to the project: writing projects generally, projects in the administrative reform especially, PR and publicity actions and preparing strategic promotion documents. The service provider will make available the course programmes and the proposed lists of lectors.

One of the first events organized within this contract took place in July 2010 at Constanţa. The seminar was dedicated to those who already implemented projects financed by OP ACD and benefited of a large participation of representatives of public authorities in the South-East area. For the two days, the topics tackled were related to projects implementation monitoring, financial management, mandatory visibility elements, as well as reimbursement mechanisms and validation of expenditures. According to questionnaires filled in the end, more than 60 people who participated in this event appreciated especially the practical applications and the openness with which the subjects were dealt.

13 No. 4 / 10.2010

Technical Assistance Allocation Principles

In Lithuania, EU structural assistance is allocated under 4 operational programmes: Human Resources Development OP, Economic Growth OP, Cohesion Promotion OP (hereinafter – topical operational programmes) and Technical Assistance OP. Each topical operational programme and the Technical Assistance Operational Programme have one technical assistance priority, which is subdivided into three technical assistance measures: administration measures of operational programmes, information on EU structural assistance and EU structural assistance publicity measures (hereinafter – information and publicity measures), EU structural assistance evaluation and evaluation capacity building measures (hereinafter – evaluation measures).

Technical Assistance Administration Principles and the Possibilities of Using Technical Assistance in Lithuania

14

Administration Measures of Operational Programmes:

1.These measures aim at establishing the management and control system of EU structural assistance received under the Convergence objective and ensuring the effective functioning of the system, also improving professional skills, knowledge and abilities of public servants and employees administering 2007–2013 EU structural assistance;

2.Funds of these measures are used for financing the preparation, implementation, management, monitoring, control and audit of the Human Resources Development OP, Economic Growth OP, Cohesion Promotion OP and Technical Assistance OP, as well as training and improvement of professional skills of public servants and employees administering 2007–2013 EU structural assistance;

3.18 projects under these measures are currently under implementation.

Information and Publicity Measures:

1.These measures, by emphasising the role of the European Community, aim at endeavouring more transparent allocation of EU assistance, securing presentation of public information on operational programmes to all target groups by widely using various communication means;

2.Funds of these measures are used for financing the implementation of information and publicity plans, information and publicity capacity building, information and publicity supervision;

3.16 projects under these measures are currently under implementation.

Evaluation Measures:

1.These measures aim at reinforcing the quality, efficiency and continuity of the use of EU structural assistance, improving the strategy of operational programmes and its implementation;

2.Funds of these measures are used for financing the on-going performance evaluation of EU structural assistance, on-going strategic evaluation of EU structural assistance, implementation of EU structural assistance evaluation capacity building measures;

3.7 projects under these measures are currently under implementation.

15 No. 4 / 10.2010

Technical Assistance Planning Principles

National legal acts embed that TA beneficiaries may be institutions and agencies that perform EU structural assistance administration, information and publicity, and/or evaluation functions. The majority of TA beneficiaries (14) is budgetary institutions, 3 TA beneficiaries have the status of public institutions, while 1 TA beneficiary is a private limited company. However, it should be noted that despite the legal status of TA beneficiaries, all technical assistance allocated to them is planned along with the State budget appropriations, i.e. is allocated following the same principles as those for the State budget funds. TA projects implemented under OP administration, information and publicity measures are drafted for the entire EU structural assistance administration period 2007–2013, i.e. expenditure under these projects may be incurred from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2015. The financing for these projects is allocated on yearly basis under real requirement by TA beneficiaries, i.e. on the basis of activities planned to be implemented during a year concerned. At the beginning of the year, TA beneficiary receives total amount of technical assistance allocated to it for the year concerned, it uses the assistance in the course of the year and, following the established schedules for submission of payment requests, reports to the Implementing Agency about used technical assistance. Thus, TA beneficiary is not required to use its own funds, it is granted a possibility of using immediately technical assistance. The Implementing Agency, after verification and certification of the payment requests, does not make real payments any longer, it only certifies whether TA beneficiary properly used technical assistance allocated to it. In such case, if TA beneficiary unduly uses assistance allocated, it has to pay such expenditure from other than technical assistance (own resources). Technical assistance projects implemented under evaluation measures are drafted following the same principles as those for ordinary projects, i.e. they are drafted for the call period, project expenditure is paid by way of paying invoices or reimbursing expenditure etc.

Possibilities of Using Technical Assistance in Lithuania

National legal acts establish categories of expenditure that can be financed from technical assistance. National legal acts also embed that TA beneficiary itself can choose which expenditure out of the approved list it will finance from technical assistance and which from the State budget funds or own resources (embedded possibility, but not an obligation).

Basic categories of expenditure

National legal acts also embed a possibility of applying pro rata principle, i.e. TA beneficiaries are granted a possibility of financing not only expenditure which is by 100 per cent related to administration of EU structural assistance, but also expenditure which is partially related to administration of EU structural assistance. For instance, national legal acts establish that each TA beneficiary can finance from technical assistance wages and salaries of all employees of the institution, whose functions performed are fully or partially related to administration of EU structural assistance. The employee’s functions are considered to be partially related to administration of EU structural assistance, when the employee performs not only the functions of administration of EU structural assistance,

16

but also other functions that are not related to EU structural assistance administration (e.g. a lawyer checks or prepares legal acts regulating not only EU structural assistance administration, but also other legal acts attributable to the competence of the institution). TA beneficiary, willing to apply pro rata principle has to draft and approve its methodology, which would establish the principles based on which a specific expenditure amount to be financed from technical assistance is calculated. If TA beneficiary does not have the mentioned methodology, it cannot apply pro rata principle. According to methodology, a partial payment from technical assistance can also be made for capacity building, equipment of workplaces and other expenditure. It is worth mentioning that the application of pro rata principle during the economic crisis created a possibility of saving the State budget funds, considering that the majority of TA beneficiaries prepared and approved their above-mentioned methodologies and applied pro rata principle for the wide range of expenditure.

TA projects financed from the European Social Fund are also subject to application of the cross-financing method allowing project operators to acquire furniture and equipment necessary to perform EU structural assistance administration functions. It should be noted that these projects are also subject to the requirements laid down in Article 34(2) of Regulation 1083/2006, for the implementation monitoring of which the responsibility falls on the Managing Authority.

17 No. 4 / 10.2010

After the Revolution in December 1989, Romania started a profound process of State, economy and civil society reconstruction. Within the bilateral cooperation between Romania and the member states of the European Union, the Federal Republic of Germany is one of the most important partners. The Romanian-German cooperation registered many successes until today and Romania has appreciated especially the support provided by the Federal Republic of Germany for preparing for the accession to the European Union as well as in other important fields for the country economic development. The assistance granted by the Federal Republic of Germany aimed at creating an internal framework for market economy (fighting inflation, privatization, limiting State participation in economy, reducing budget deficit, creating an efficient tax system, promoting investments and reducing consumption expenses), as well as adapting the economy of countries in transition to the demands of international markets (currency convertibility, external economic balance, international competitiveness). The assistance granted to Romania by the Federal Republic of Germany was implemented especially through a real partnership and supported by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) GmbH. The cooperation between the Romanian Government and the German Government took the form of financial cooperation and technical cooperation. The financial cooperation took place based on governmental agreements that were concluded to this aim. During this time, Romania received an important financial support from the Federal Republic of Germany. Although the bilateral cooperation has started since 1991, the legal base for technical cooperation was represented by the “Framework agreement regarding the technical cooperation between Romania and the Federal Republic of Germany”, signed on May 6th 1994, ratified by the Romanian Parliament by Law no. 17 on March 6th 1995 and entered into force on September 10th 1996. This Agreement allowed the signing of supplementary agreements regarding different technical cooperation projects. In the same time, each contracting party of this Agreement assumes the responsibility for technical cooperation projects in his country. In ’project agreements’, there are set: the joint conception regarding the project, especially the project objective, the activities of each party, the tasks and organizational status of participants, as well as the calendar for the project development. The technical cooperation was at two levels - sectorial, carried out in the benefit of the Romanian governmental institutions (ministries, governmental agencies); - general, carried out in partnership with the governmental institutions, universities, NGOs, professional associations etc. The bilaterally promoted projects regarding the technical assistance had as main objectives: preparing and training the experts, adjusting social assistance structures, making partnerships in economy, providing consultancy on market economy issues, fighting unemployment and professional integration of the unemployed.

Romanian – German Cooperation

18

In the period 1991–2010, the technical and financial assistance provided to Romania was substantial, around 129 millions euro. The fact that this money was well invested is proved by multiple positive examples of some projects, such as:

Rehabilitating the historical centre of the city of Sibiu;

Supporting the School of Administration in Timişoara;

Developing the Apuseni region;

Improving competitiveness and eliminating commercial technical barriers;

Consolidating the potential for tourism in the villages in Transylvania;

Promoting the private sector and the employment;

Supporting the ongoing training in agriculture and rural development;

Careful rehabilitation and economic incentive of old historic buildings in Timişoara.

The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), in the names of German Federal Ministries, was charged to manage and implement many of the programmes regarding the institutional capacity building processes, which were financed by pre-accession funds (PHARE). In the same time, Romania benefited of large support measures from Germany, under bilateral programmes that were, also, implemented by GTZ, in the name of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). One of these programmes was the “Programme for economic development and promoting employment” (GTZ-WBF), which concluded on 31.05.2010. The experience acquired in this period was shared to the authorities in the candidate countries and potential candidate countries in the South-East Europe, within the “Conference on developing the capacity to manage structural funds”, organized on May 26th 2010 in Bucharest.

Along with Mr. Leo Kreuz – the Head of the South-East Europe Department within the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Mr. Ştefan Ciobanu – general director ACIS and Mr. Răzvan Cotovelea – deputy general director ACIS, representatives from public institutions in Romania involved in managing structural funds, the representatives of GTZ in Romania and Balkan countries, as well as guests from Balkan countries (Croatia, Serbia, Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania) representing the National Coordination Points of EU Assistance participated to the conference.

The conference outlined the need and the opportunity for an organized information exchange between the public institutions of different countries and confirmed the fact that experiences specific to administrative structures in new member states are of special interest for the administrations of candidate countries. An experience exchange organized at technical level is essential. Besides the general experience exchange, future information and knowledge exchanges must focus also on specialized instruments and on developing instruments within the transition and adjusting processes.

The participants outlined the importance and the benefits of multilateral information and knowledge exchanges at regional level, between different organizations and institutions involved in the EU funds management and implementation. The activities carried out as a part of this cooperation interaction should also promote setting up informal contacts between participants. The potential regarding the experience and knowledge exchange, clearly proved by this conference, should be promoted by setting up several specialized forums regularly organized.

19 No. 4 / 10.2010

The Ministry of Public Finance through the Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) has started to cooperate with Poland since 2005, within the first twinning it benefited from Phare 2003 in order to strengthen the administrative capacity and to prepare for the Structural Instruments coordination and management after the accession to the European Union.

The project, amounting to 1,935,000 euro, was implemented in the period September 2005 – March 2007, in cooperation with the Department of Trade and Industry from the United Kingdom and DATAR – Department for International Cooperation in France. Within the project, besides the two resident twinning advisors, 65 short term experts from the United Kingdom, France, Hungary and Poland participated and obtained the following outcomes:

Interministerial coordination – created and operational – the activity of the National Committee was improved under ACIS coordination;

ACIS prepared to accomplish tasks defined in the European regulations in the field; Programming documents for the period 2007-2013 finalized, forwarded and negotiated

with the European Commission; Systems, structures, responsibilities, guidelines and operational procedures for an efficient

evaluation of the National Development Plan and the Operational Programmes and staff trained in the relevant activity fields;

The Managing Authority for the Operational Programme Technical Assistance – operational and prepared to accomplish its tasks defined in the European regulations in the field;

The Operational Programme Technical Assistance forwarded and approved by the European Commission and the framework document for implementation prepared.

Following this project, in the period September 2007 – April 2009, ACIS contracted and implemented another twinning financed from Phare 2006 in order to improve the coordination capacity of Structural Instruments, but also the capacity of other structures involved in the Structural Instruments management. The project, amounting to 1,000,000 euro, was implemented in cooperation with the Ministry of Economy, Technology and Equal Opportunity from Germany and the Ministry of Regional Development from Poland. Within the project, besides the resident twining advisor, 34 short term experts from Germany, Poland and Hungary participated and the following outcomes were reached:

An early warning system was developed that enables monitoring the use of Structural Instruments and timely identification of the areas that could not ensure the observance of the rule n+3/n+2;

The bases for monitoring the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF), for strategic reporting and for preparing the national annual report on Structural Instruments implementation were set up;

Support on different themes such as: SMIS, evaluation, communication etc. was ensured; MA OPTA benefited from the experience of their colleagues responsible for the

implementation of the Operational Programmes Technical Assistance in Poland (2004-2006 and 2007-2013);

Cooperation between the Ministry of Public Finance in Romania and the Ministry of Regional Development in Poland in the field of the European Union Cohesion Policy

20

More than 500 people were trained in different fields: introduction into Structural Instruments, evaluation, monitoring, eligibility of expenditures, indicators, financial management, preparing and implementing projects financed from Technical Assistance etc.

Besides the experience exchange within twinnings, between the representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development from Poland and ACIS representatives, bilateral meetings took place (May 5th -6th 2008, February 25th 2009, July 15th 2010), focussed on topics such as: the coordination of Structural Instruments, strategic and operational issues in managing these funds and possibilities to cooperate during the debates that take place at European level regarding the future of Cohesion Policy.

In order to create the general framework for cooperation (objective, cooperation fields and ways) between Romania and Poland, after finalizing the twinnings, a letter of intent was signed at minister level, in May 2010.

The activity areas where the cooperation with the Ministry of Regional Development in Poland will be continued, are:a. system of implementation, evaluation, management and coordination of the operational programmes co-financed from Structural Instruments and the Cohesion Fund,b. system of financing of programmes,c. institutional capacity and effectiveness of the implementation system,d. future of Cohesion Policy,e. technical assistance,f. promoting cooperation initiatives on regional and sub-regional level,g. distribution of information on possibilities offered by Structural Instruments in both countries,h. other relevant matters which can be mutually agreed upon.

The cooperation is done by:a. trainings, seminars, meetings and study visits for staff development; b. experts consultancy in the field of cohesion policy, as well as assistance in realization of territorial cooperation projects between the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Romania;c. exchange of information, also through the organization of conferences;d. exchange of strategic documents and evaluation thereof;e. preparation and implementation of common projects.

In its capacity as coordinator, the Ministry of Public Finance shall involve, in the activities foreseen within this cooperation, as the case may be, other relevant institutions in this field, such as: the managing authorities, the intermediate bodies, the Audit Authority, the Ministry for Regional Development and Tourism etc.

The cooperation with the Ministry for Regional Development from Poland proved to be extremely useful in the period for preparing for Structural Instruments management and implementation, as well as in the first years of actual implementation.

In the context when Romania faces concrete issues in managing and implementing these funds, continuing bilateral relationships in order to have an experience exchange with a partner who faced and/or faces similar issues is a necessary initiative for the following period.

21 No. 4 / 10.2010

I. Context

The absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds is a major priority of the Romanian Government.Starting with 2009, at Government level, specific measures were taken in order to simplify the implementation mechanisms and eliminate the blockages and the delays in absorption, such as:

Improving the Applicants’ Guides and reducing the number of documents required when submitting the projects (by eliminating some documents or replacing them with beneficiaries’ declarations on their own responsibility);

Increasing the flexibility of some eligibility criteria for applicants (e.g. criterion regarding the lack of debts to the public budgets, in the sense of taking into consideration the net debts and accepting submission of projects from applicants with moderate net debts to the public budgets);

Accelerating the tender procedures by modifying the public procurement legislation, in the sense of reducing tender periods and making the process more flexible, as well as in the view of setting up more efficient mechanisms to solve the appeals;

Adopting a comprehensive and coherent legislative framework for the financial flows of the Structural and Cohesion Funds (Government Emergency Ordinance no. 64/2009)

Granting financial facilities to beneficiaries:

Doubling the pre-financing level (from 15% to 30% out of the eligible amount of the financing contract);

Granting pre-financing also to beneficiaries who are under state aid rules, up to 35% of the grant value;

Establishing a state guarantee mechanism of credits for ensuring co-financing, contracted by local authorities, regional water operators and promoters of the development projects for the research-development infrastructure;

Eliminating the obligation for small businesses to ensure their own contribution (within the Key Area of Intervention 4.3 of the Regional Operational Programme);

Ensuring with priority the financial resources for the beneficiaries that are institutions of the central public administration by allocating for the projects the full amount in the State budget;

Modifying the budgetary legislation in order to facilitate the planning and multi-annual execution (some exceptions were introduced from the compulsoriness of the public beneficiaries who grant advances to contractors to recover the amounts by the end of the year, if they are not justified by delivered goods, executed works or provided services).

Implementation Status of Structural Instruments in Romania

22

The simplification and improvement measures of the legal, institutional and financial framework generated a visible acceleration of the implementation process of the Operational Programmes in the period 2009-2010.In spite of registered progresses, further actions are necessary to make the absorption process more efficient. To this aim, the Ministry of Public Finance submitted a Plan of priority measures to the Government for approval in order to accelerate the absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds. This plan that was adopted on July 13th 2010 contains short and medium term measures:

strengthening the administrative capacity of the structures responsible for the coordination, the management and the control of Structural Instruments, as well as the public beneficiaries;

strategic planning at the level of each Managing Authority and Intermediate Body of the contracting targets and payments up to December 2011;

accelerating the projects implementation and the payments:

terminating the financing contracts with beneficiaries who register unjustified major delays for the effective start-up of the implementation;

setting up a monitoring system of the period of checking the payment claims and making the payments, in order to identify major delays and take corrective measures;

introducing the obligation for the beneficiaries - central public institutions - to send payment claims in maximum three months from the time the payments for the project were made.

II. Implementation Status of Operational Programmes

The situation of submitted projects, approved projects, signed financing contracts/decisions and of payments made to the beneficiaries, for the seven Operational Programmes, on August 31st 2010, is the following:

Submitted Projects The total number of projects submitted for financing in the framework of the 7 Operational Programmes was 19,371, amounting to 179.19 billions lei (around 42 billions euro).

Approved Projects The projects selection and approval process was extremely complex and required sustained efforts from the Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies, so that from the 19,371 projects, a number of 4,878 projects to be approved up to August 31st 2010, in total amount of 4.6 billions lei (around 10.9 billions euro, out of which 7 billions euro EU contribution, which means around 84% out of the 2007-2010 EU allocation). The difference between the projects submitted and those approved includes also 8,589 projects rejected under evaluation because of their non-conformity from administrative point of view or lack of fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

23 No. 4 / 10.2010

In this context, it needs to be specified that among the number of approved projects 30 major projects (projects with an individual amount over 50 millions Euro) are also included, with a total amount of 2.43 billions euro in the field of the environment (24 projects), transport (5 projects) and energy (1 project). Also, 3 major projects in the transport field (road and railway), 3 in the environment field (water and waste) and 1 project in the energy field (desulphurisation unit) were submitted to the European Commission for analysis and approval.

Financing contracts/decisions signed with the beneficiaries The progress is also significant regarding the number of financing contracts/decisions concluded with beneficiaries. Up to August 31st 2010, out of 4,878 approved projects 3,507 contracts were signed, with an eligible amount around 29.68 billions lei (7 billions euro, out of which the EU contribution is around 5.6 billions euro), representing around 64% out of the EU 2007-2010 allocation.

Payments to the beneficiaries The total payments to the beneficiaries, representing pre-finances and reimbursements (except VAT reimbursement), amounted to around 1.09 billions euro. The internal payments of EU funds are 12% out of the 2007–2010 allocation. The acceleration of payments is shown also by the annual evolution of payments to the beneficiaries up to August 31st 2010:

A situation for each Operational Programme of the number and the volume of the submitted, approved and contracted projects, as well as the payments to the beneficiaries is below:

III. Conclusions

The implementation status of the Operational Programmes on August 31st 2010 shows important progresses registered in improving the implementation process, following the identification of procedural solutions and measures for overcoming main difficulties in this field. Strengthening the absorption capacity needs further special efforts to detect and to promptly remove any barriers when implementing projects financed from Structural Instruments (major infrastructure projects as well as those dedicated to regional and local development, the business environment or developing human resources), as well as for strengthening the administrative capacity of structures that ensure the coordination, the management and the control of these funds. The technical assistance available within the Operational Programme Technical Assistance, as well as in the priority axis specific to each Programme is a basic instrument at the reach of authorities in their approach to consolidate the management system of Operational Programmes, so that the proposed objectives are achieved with the estimated impact.

24

Operational Programme

SUBMITTEDPROJECTS

APPROVEDPROJECTS

FINANCING CONTRACTS/DECISIONS

PAYMENTS TO THE

BENEFICIARIES

No. Total amount (millions lei)

No. Total amount (millions lei)

No. Eligible amount

(millions lei)

Total payments (millions lei)

Regional OP 6,143 49,292.96 937 10,189.07 719 7,468.13 1,717.79

SOP Environment 262 24,441.03 142 10,502.89 118 7,448.26 966.17

SOP Transport 54 19,527.52 26 5,220.68 24 2,214.72 157.74

SOP Increase of Economic Competitiveness

6,260 51,752.20 1,724 6,603.98 1,252 3,770.33 777.56

SOP Human Resources Development

5,609 32,503.72 1,763 13,224.14 1,139 8,307 989.58

OP Development of Administrative Capacity

974 1,332.15 232 308.69 208 271.33 25.37

OP Technical Assistance 69 346.21 54 268.68 47 205.32 16.18

TOTAL 19,371 179,195.79 4,878 46,318.13 3,507 29,685.09 4,650.40

25 No. 4 / 10.2010

Conducting evaluations for the period 2009-2010 The Evaluation Central Unit within the Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) implements the project Conducting evaluations for the period 2009-2010, financed from the Operational Programme Technical Assistance. The project has two main components, the first is a Formative Evaluation of Structural Instruments in Romania, and the second has four other evaluations, that is the Interim Evaluation of the Operational Programme Technical Assistance, a Synthesis Report of all evaluations carried out in the period 2009-2010, as well as two other ad hoc evaluations on thematic and cross-cutting issues. One of the main accomplishments of the project up to today is the finalization of Formative Evaluation of Structural Instruments in Romania, comprising the following conclusions and recommendations.General conclusions: The evaluation highlighted the fact that the Structural Instruments (SI) management and implementation system in Romania has not yet managed to scale the administrative burden involved in the procurement and financial management and control relative to the complexity of interventions, individual projects and the risk of default and fraud attached to them. Another feature of the Romanian Structural Instruments system is the tendency to ‘gold-plate’ requiring 100% control coverage, as well as many levels of checks. The costs involved in control and audit, in terms of human resources and time, are not always tailored to the financial and moral hazard involved in the less-than-perfect enforcement of the applicable rules and regulations.General recommendations: A key overall recommendation is that ACIS and the Managing Authorities (MAs) ensure that the administrative arrangements pertaining to Structural Instruments implementation are proportional to the potential risk of the interventions. To this end, ACIS and the MAs are advised to adopt a classification of interventions (such as simple, normal, complex) according to their total budgets, complexity and risk of the project implementation and sustainability, and to re-design the project selection mechanism so as to match this classification of interventions. This approach would allow the selection of projects for simple interventions based only on eligibility criteria; general calls for proposals would apply to normal interventions and be based not only on eligibility criteria but also on scored project selection criteria; individual appraisals based on strict, preset criteria would apply only to complex interventions. In addition, ACIS is recommended to investigate – on the basis of the findings of individual OP-level interim evaluations – what options exist for funds re-allocation to counteract the effects of the current economic downturn, the perceived and projected absorption capacity, as well as the level of demand of non-reimbursable funds requested by potential beneficiaries.

Conclusions and Recommendations of the Formative Evaluation of Structural Instruments in Romania

26

What is the real performance of the Structural Instruments under implementation in Romania related to the expectations and the goals set and the capacity of the entities involved in their implementation?Main conclusions: At the evaluation cut-off date, 30 June 2009, the volume of payments carried out amounted to 1.5% of the total allocation. This volume is very low when considered in proportion to the time that has elapsed since the start of the programme. The fact that this ratio had increased to only 3.7% by 30 June 2010 makes this issue even more urgent.The planning of interventions is not always satisfactory and has led to a number of priority axes not taking off as early as intended or with a lower mobilisation tempo than envisaged. The OPs are structured in such a way that annual allocations tend to rise over the period 2007-2013. In all cases, with the possible exception of Sectoral Operational Programme Increase of Economic Competitiveness (SOP IEC), this has resulted in end-loaded programmes in terms of beneficiary access to Structural Instruments grants, partly because of a desire on the part of the planners to reassure beneficiaries there would always be access to the support. This may cause “bunching up” of approvals in 2012-2013 and payments during the years 2013-2015, which may put severe stress on domestic co-financing capacity during a period of uncertain economic stability from the present perspective. The National Strategic Reference Framework is heavily orientated towards the public sector and shows up a relatively high representation of public sector organisations amongst its applicants and beneficiaries of non-reimbursable funds. Nevertheless, this representation is higher than one would expect of a set of interventions targeting both the private and public sectors. It is understood that this public sector bias within the Romanian NSRF is founded upon an assessment by the authorities that the efficiency of the public sector forms a major factor in underpinning private sector development. Seen in this light, the authorities have drawn an apposite consequence. There is capacity problems within most MAs and Intermediate Bodies (IBs) related to the large number of unfilled and ‘inactive’ positions. In spite of the high level of visibility of these problems, coupled with a general awareness within the administration that something must be done to solve them, solutions have proved to be elusive to date. In the present economic climate and in the aftermath of the financial crisis, solutions will continue to be hard to find. The staff turnover rate, by many thought to be very high, turns out to be within acceptable bounds, averaging at less than 10%. Lack of capacity can be a problem at those OPs where both non-reimbursable allocated grants/employee ratio and the expected projects/employee ratio are high. SOP IEC and Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD) are cases in point. This is a result of the fact that the methods of application evaluation and approval are very similar and take similar amounts of staff time, regardless of the number and value of applications under a given intervention. In case the lack of performance of one or more IBs, MAs options are few and limited to a great extent at: (i) advising IBs in order to improve the performances; or (ii) re-absorption of their delegated functions. The re-absorption of operational functions delegated to those IBs can worsen current capacity problems of the MA or can generate difficulties connected to the capacity.

27 No. 4 / 10.2010

Main recommendations: ACIS is recommended to develop measures in respect of acceleration of payment processes in order to enable the full absorption of Structural Instruments by the disbursement deadline set for the current programming period and enhance public entities’ motivation to seek reimbursement of pre-financed contributions. ACIS and the MAs are recommended to prepare – in the course of the fourth quarter of 2010 and with a deadline of 31 December 2010 – an additional Action Plan 2011-2013 for each OP, with a view to detailing the measures for ascertaining funds absorption. ACIS, the MAs and IBs are advised to re-examine critically all interventions that have not been launched or showing limited progress (i.e. low demand from beneficiaries). Should it be concluded that interventions are not capable of achieving their targets, it is recommended that they be cancelled and the funds re-allocated to more promising interventions. ACIS, the MAs and IBs are recommended to continue to find the ways and means to fill the unfilled and ‘non-active’ positions – if necessary on a temporary basis with appropriate emoluments – to prevent the current lack of capacity and capability from continuing to hamper the implementation of the programmes. ACIS, the MAs and the IBs are advised that the respective roles of MA and IB deserve clear separation and delineation. The MAs should focus on policy and strategic issues, while the IBs should be more responsible for operations at project level. ACIS, the MAs and the IBs are recommended to design and introduce a ‘demand planning’-system to manage the timing of calls for proposals, thus forestalling excessive peaks in the receipt and processing of applications.

What are the major external and internal factors influencing the performance? Main conclusions: Generally, procurement procedures under the Structural Instruments in Romania tend to be slow, due to complicated procurement legislation, interpretation differences and the ingrained habit of contesting selection procedure outcomes. The management and control procedures under Romanian law are stricter in places than EU Structural Instruments related Financial Regulations stipulate. The beneficiaries which are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Romania continue to encounter difficulties in accessing the bridging loans necessary for pre-financing their own contributions under Structural Instruments interventions, because of stricter lending policies of commercial banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis and during the current economic crisis. In spite of the fact that over the past decade more training programmes have been implemented, oriented, also toward MAs and IBs, no real policies of human resources for public institutions in Romania seems to be drafted and implemented till now. Decisions related to staff numbers and the hiring and firing of staff appear to not be based on a clear assessment of the workload of the different departments in the administration. Recent decisions related to cutting MA/IBs staff numbers and salaries are likely to impact Structural Instruments absorption negatively. The Structural Instruments implementation appears negatively affected by a series of horizontal factors, at the level of public policy and, especially, the lack of correlation in strategic, legislative and financial terms. Structural Instruments strategies (as embodied in the NSRF and the individual OPs) appear insufficiently anchored in the overall national development strategy. This leads to a lack of correlation between the legislation governing Structural Instruments implementation and other relevant pieces of national legislation. The problems resulting from internal factors are generally not related to a lack of procedures or regulations or their inadequate quality. The quality of manuals explaining the regulations and detailing the application of procedures is generally adequate. The fact that all MAs and many IBs form part of the structures of their respective

28

ministries and are subject to those ministries’ internal operations and procedures is not the advantage it appears to be at first sight. The differences between Structural Instruments and internal procedures, combined with the fact that the Structural Instruments entities have to compete for support services (legal, procurement, HR management and IT) within their ministry, poses efficiency problems. MAs and IBs have tried to address these problems by different means (contact persons, dedicated staff within support sections), but they not always proved to be as effective as expected. In cases when IBs are not situated in the same ministries with MAs, the coordination and cooperation problems are multiplied. This happens especially because of the fact that each minister sets up its own priorities and procedures, which cannot always be easily reconciled with those of other ministries. The lack of instruments to enforce good performance is primarily a function of the fact that financing of IBs is not dependent on their performance in terms of their delegation agreement with MA. At the level of individual staff members, remuneration is not linked to performance targets and paid irrespective of the quality and the quantity of the work done. In theory, MAs can terminate the agreement with an IB, but in practice they would re-absorb delegated tasks in case of low performance by that IB. This practice does not contribute to further development of the operational capacity of the IB or the system at large, because it blurs the necessary separation of policy making, on the one hand, and execution, on the other hand. It also puts stress on the operational capacity of the MA itself and is therefore unsustainable in the longer term.Main recommendations: Responsible policy makers and ACIS are recommended to carry out a revision of the public procurement legislation and regulatory framework in place, in order to ensure that the legislation and regulations do not themselves constitute a brake on the absorption of Structural Instruments funds in Romania. There exists an urgent need for dedicated instruments designed to assist SMEs in getting access to Structural Instruments. One of the measures recommended to adopt is to relieve SMEs of the necessity to provide liquidity-reducing pre-financing guarantees, especially in the case of small-budget, moderate-risk interventions. The Government is advised to establish and implement a human resources policy for all administration entities at central level. The policy would capitalise on the very substantial training effort undertaken over the past ten years. It should encompass a thorough training needs analysis, based on career development and performance management tools. The resources necessary to implement the policy and evaluate its effectiveness and impact on a continuous basis should be provided. Decisions regarding staff hiring and remuneration are recommended to take into account real staff performance. For the next programming period (post-2013), ACIS and other relevant entities are advised to ensure coherence between Structural Instruments related strategies, on the one hand, and national policies, programmes and measures for fostering socio-economic development, on the other hand. It is recommended to involve in the Structural Instruments coordination mechanisms not only ACIS and the MAs, but also ministries not hosting an MA or IB. At the same time, regional coordination mechanisms (e.g. similar to the Regional Committee for Strategic Correlation and Appraisal) should be created or reinforced.ACIS, the MAs and the IBs are advised that especially the IBs should adopt and adhere to procedures and business processes suitable for the efficient and effective operation of Structural Instruments, even if these structures are different from the host-entities (typically ministries). In the short-term this implies the separation of the IB within its host-entities. The separation in turns implies that the IB’s access to the host-entity’s support services should be made subject of a dedicated services agreement, specifying rights of access, service response times, costs and cost coverage. For the next programming period, whereas MAs would continue to resort within the ambit of the relevant line ministry, IBs might well be separated from their host-entities and reconstituted as professional services providers with quasi-independent status, carrying out their Structural Instruments related activities on a payment-basis under services agreements with MAs.

29 No. 4 / 10.2010

How well did the technical assistance support the Structural Instruments management and implementation? Main conclusions: Structural Instruments funded technical assistance has so far not been used extensively due to the fact that there is still an “overhang” of pre-accession funds financed technical assistance available at present. This overhang is about to be exhausted and it is likely that Structural Instruments funded technical assistance under OPTA and the technical assistance priority axes of each OP will meet with better demand in the period 2010-2011. Another reason for the low uptake of Structural Instruments funded technical assistance is the reluctance to spend on such measures under current budget constraints. It cannot be said at present when the co-financing situation will improve to the extent that more calls will be made on the Structural Instruments funded technical assistance. It must be considered unlikely that it will be possible to absorb all technical assistance funding, in spite of the fact that there is a clear need for the technical assistance (studies, study tours, process development, twinning, adoption of best practice and specialist training), in order to improve current state of the Structural Instruments management and implementation system. The slow uptake of Structural Instruments funded technical assistance is another result of the difficult and slow procurement situation. The underlying causes consist of: (i) lack of experience and detailed knowledge required for tender documentation preparation; (ii) lack of human resources and time for their preparation; (iii) difficulties in accessing legal and public procurement services within ministries; and (iv) interference by procurement staff in the technical details of the tender documentation.Main recommendations: In view of the current and likely persistent domestic budget constraints, ACIS and the MAs are recommended to explore the possibilities that may exist for utilising the externally financed part of technical assistance allocations without or with reduced domestic co-financing, inter alia by expanding the list of eligible costs. ACIS and the MAs are recommended to conduct, with the participation of all IBs, a joint needs assessment to identify areas where technical assistance can be brought to bear relatively quickly and with most effect, giving special attention to those operations not yet launched or lagging behind (e.g. specialised surveys in support of planned operations, market studies and development needs, external support for the preparation of Action Plans 2011-2013 for each OP, workshops and consultations with stakeholders in the context of elaborating calls for proposals, thematic evaluations and case studies of examples of good practice). ACIS and the MAs are recommended to stress the need for increased technical assistance utilisation under each OP, including OPTA, when reviewing the Framework Documents for Implementation and preparing the Action Plans 2011-2013.

Have sufficiently adequate information and publicity measures been taken far reaching the targeted audience? Main conclusions: Only a limited number of communication campaigns have been carried out, but that small number is not the main reason why Structural Instruments progress is lagging behind expectations. The main cause is the slow pace of approval and contracting of information and publicity measures. Secondly, the slow progress of the information and publicity interventions financed under the Structural Instruments can be explained by the fact that Phare assistance substantially supported the communication activities until the cut-off date, thus decreasing the motivation to use Structural Instruments resources.This slow approval and contracting pace will likely prove insufficient for a complete

30

absorption of the funds allocated to information and publicity actions. It is difficult to assess the real impact of information and publicity at the cut-off date. Moreover, the assessment of effectiveness of the information and publicity measures is hampered by a lack of coherent Communication Plan (CP) objectives, a lack of consistency between CP, OP and Framework Document for Implementation (FDI) indicators, a clear predominance of output indicators instead of result ones (with the exception of indicators concerning the awareness level among the potential beneficiaries), which prevents assessing the impact of information and publicity interventions, as well as a poor connection between the effects of information and publicity measures and the absorption process of the Structural Instruments.

Main recommendations: Policy makers, ACIS and the MAs are recommended to update the National Strategy for Communication, as well as their respective CPs, inter alia on the basis of the findings of the interim evaluations of the OPs carried out in the period 2009-2010. ACIS and the MAs are recommended to improve the measurability of the CPs’ achievements by setting up realistic, clear and coherent objectives, as well as a comprehensive S.M.A.R.T indicators system, based on adequately benchmarked targets. Clear identification of the indicators used to monitor the accomplishment of each specific objective will substantially enhance assessment of results and objective achievement. Strictly observing the proportionality principle (i.e. by ensuring that only a limited number of indicators is included in the OPs), ACIS and the MAs are recommended to improve the coherence and consistency of the indicators established in CPs and those set out in OPs and FDIs, with a view to avoid duplication of effort. ACIS and the MAs are recommended to measure on a regular basis, by means of surveys (promotion activities) or questionnaires (information activities), the impact of information and publicity actions.

Are the project portfolios and project selection processes appropriate for creating the conditions for achieving efficiency and effectiveness of funds?Main conclusions: The eligibility criteria have less emphasis than project selection criteria in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. The filtering function of the eligibility criteria in respect of project selection and portfolio compositions is typically limited to regulatory compliance and legal issues. It has generally not led to the technical or financial filtering of applications. In exchange, project selection criteria tend to reflect a much higher level of focus on both effectiveness and efficiency than eligibility criteria. This increases the chances of having a larger and better range of project ideas for selection, although it places a significant burden on the organisational units dealing with the registration, as well as the administrative, eligibility and technical-financial evaluation of the applications. In respect of effectiveness, there appear to be no monitoring tools for keeping track of how the major policy issues that should shape and inform all levels of programming (NSRF, OPs, Applicants’ Guides) are served by the selection projects and the composition of portfolios.

31 No. 4 / 10.2010

In terms of efficiency, project selection and portfolio composition methods generally do not use internationally proven standards for counteracting the ‘dead-weight’ effect (dead-weight – modifying the situation of the beneficiary that would have resulted also if lacking public financing). Such might include a dedicated project for the selection of the potential group of beneficiaries by setting the eligibility and award criteria appropriately or the introduction of minimum and maximum thresholds of non-reimbursable financing (using a scientific approach) for enabling developments whilst minimizing market distortion effects.Main recommendations: With regard to future calls for proposals, it is recommended that MAs and IBs ensure that eligibility criteria play a more important role than project selection criteria in the process of filtering applications. This can be done through improved identification of the types of potential applicants and the formulation of more sophisticated criteria. MAs and IBs are advised that better targeting can be achieved through more precise interpretation of the objectives of NSRF thematic priorities. The Action Plan 2011-2013 provides the basis for that improved interpretation. ACIS, MAs and IBs are recommended to make more use of the FDI for the purpose of ensuring that major policy issues influence and form the basis for programming interventions at all levels (NSRF, OPs, Applicants’ Guides).

32

Authority for Coordination of Structural InstrumentsMinistry of Public Finance, www.fonduri-ue.roGeneral Director: Ştefan CIOBANU, tel.: 021 302.52.00, fax: 021.302.52.64Public Relations: Coralia Zadorojnai, tel.: 021.302.53.13, fax: 021.302.52.64, e-mail: fonduri.ue@mfinante.ro

Managing Authority for Operational Programme Technical AssistanceMinistry of Public Finance, www.poat.ro, www.mfinante.ro Director: Livia CHIRIŢĂ, tel.: 021.302.52.37, fax: 021.302.52.64Public Relations: Cristina DINU, tel.: 021.302.52.24, fax: 021.302.52.64, e-mail: cristina.dinu@mfinante.ro

Managing Authority for Operational Programme Administrative Capacity DevelopmentMinistry of Administration and Interior, www.fonduriadministratie.roDirector: Ruxandra POPOVICI, tel.: 021.310.40.60, fax: 021.310.40.61Relaţii publice: Marius GUBERNAT, tel.:021.314.39.29, fax: 021.310.35.61e-mail: marius.gubernat@mai.gov.ro

Managing Authority for Sectoral Operational Programme TransportMinistry of Transport and Infrastructure, www.mt.ro Director General: Şerban Alexandru CUCU, tel.: 0750.032.260Relaţii publice: Cristina CHIŞER, tel.: 0750.032.290, fax: 021.319.61.78e-mail: cristina.chiser@mt.ro

Managing Authority for Sectoral Operational Programme EnvironmentMinistry of Environment and Forests, www.mmediu.ro General Director: Doina FRANŢ, tel.: 021.335.35.65, fax: 021.316.07.78Public Relations: Mălina FRĂTEANU, tel.: 021.316.6157, fax: 021.316.07.78,e-mail: malina.frateanu@mmediu.ro

Managing Authority for Sectoral Operational Programme Increase of Economic CompetitivenessMinistry of Economy,Trade and Business Environment, www.minind.ro General Director: Cătălina MELIŢĂ, tel.: 021.202.52.72, fax: 021.202.52.75Public Relations: Valentin BARBU, tel.: 021.202.5258, fax: 021.202.52.75,e-mail: valentin_barbu@minind.ro

Contact

33 No. 4 / 10.2010

Managing Authority for Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources DevelopmentMinistry of Labour, Family and Social Protection, www.fseromania.ro General Directors: Cristina IOVA, tel.: 021.315.02.09, fax: 021.315.02.06Public Relation: Mihaela HANCIA, tel.: 021.315.02.08, fax: 021.315.02.06, e-mail: posdru@fseromania.ro

Managing Authority for Regional Operational ProgrammeMinistry of Regional Development and Tourism, www.inforegio.ro General Director: Gabriel FRIPTU, tel.: 037 211 14 12, fax: 037 211 16 30Public Relations: Andreea MIHĂLCIOIU, tel.: 037 211 14 09,e-mail: info@mdrt.ro

Joint Managing Authority of the Joint Operational Programme Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova 2007-2013Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism, www.ro-ua-md.net, www.mdrt.ro Programme Manager: Daniela POPESCU, tel./fax 0372 111 456Public Relations: Claudia CRISTEA tel.: 0372 111 332, fax: 0372 111 323,e-mail: info.ro-ua-md@mdrt.ro

Black Sea Basin Joint Operational Programme 2007-2013Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism, www.blacksea-cbc.net, www.mdrt.ro Head of Unit: Sorina CANEA, tel.: 0372.111.309, fax: 0372.111.456Public Relations: Ana GHEORGHE, tel.: 0372.111.323, fax: 0372.111.456 e-mail: blacksea-cbc@mdrt.ro

Managing Authority of the Romania-Bulgaria Join Programme 2007-2013Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism, www.cbcromaniabulgaria.eu, www.mdrt.ro Head of Unit: Mihaela PIROI, tel.: 0372.111.369, fax: 0372.111.456/318 Public Relations: Daniel FAUR, tel.: 0372.111.340, fax. 0372.111.318e-mail: robg@mdrt.ro

Managing Authority of the Romania-Serbia IPA Cross-border Cooperation ProgrammeMinistry of Regional Development and Tourism, www.romania-serbia.net, www.mdrt.roHead of Unit: Oana CRISTEA, tel.: 0372.111.309, fax: 0372.111.456e-mail: romania-serbia@mdrt.ro