Transcript 2007-2013 to 2014-2020

Effective management of EU
Structural funds:
2007-2013 to 2014-2020
Haroldas Brožaitis
Knowledge Economy Forum
www.zef.lt / [email protected]
EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013
• Fast absorption (standardisation of management procedures,
professionalisation)
• Lack of integration (EU SFs v. specific sectors, NSRF v.
national sectoral strategies, EU SFs investment as a separate strategy
vs. co-funding of the existing national strategies)
• Centralised (too many issues going for top level resolution)
• Growing partnership: more open vis-à-vis partners in
comparison w/ previous period (seeking solutions to strengthen the
capacity of representative partners (socio-economic partners, NGOs);
• Rules vs their application (changing the rules ≠ changing
the management/administrative practice)
EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013
• Public infra: Increasingly strategic approach to
investment; but the widely used planning sometimes
procedure has limitations:
▫ project ideas are planned, funds are allocated to them, but then
actual mature projects take time to develop; sometimes
underlying strategies (which had to be developed for the projects
planning procedure) are better than the projects themselves
▫ sometimes projects receive funding before being ready for
implementation and the money is “frozen”
• Public procurement: too much control of too small;
control v. guidance
EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013
• Business support: new fields/areas (e.g., research
infrastructure in enterprises; clusters) and forms
(financial engineering) of support; large variety of
support measures: almost all major needs are covered?
(except small and young)
• Delays in project project evaluation and selection
• Lack of uniformity in interpretation of rules (two
projects under the same call may receive different
instructions, explanations concerning the same
requirement)
EU SFs in Lithuania 2007-2013
• HRD/ESF: High rate of absorption
• Very broad (i.e., there is some issue raised, money
allocated and then beneficiary can do almost anything)
or very complex (i.e., all types of expenditure are almost always
eligible and then there are rules what percentage of all budget can
be allocated to each type, which tends to change during the
implementation and result in problems) interventions
• Fragmented approach (too many too narrow in their
focus yet too broad in their approach, sometimes
overlapping interventions)
Comparison with other EU programmes
FP7 (especially People):
• bottom–up approach with strict boundaries for eligible activities
(employment/secondment/exchange)
• dominance of fixed costs (over 85% of expenditure)
Lifelong Learning Programme, also Erasmus Mundus II:
• too many actions…
• very high beneficiary satisfaction rates (80%+)
• problems caused more by change not the requirements themselves
• expert based evaluation and monitoring (Centralized actions)
• mostly fixed-costs, but also some real costs (Decentralised actions)
• a capable IT tool (e-application, e-evaluation, e-reports)
Wishes for the future…
• Not WHAT but HOW: developing effective intervention logics; a key precondition
for costs simplification and effective monitoring
• small is beautiful! (pilot testing vs large scale development)
• More flexibility: rules should differ for project of EUR 50 000 vs. the one
asking for EUR 1 000 000 (starting with application forms and finishing with
control and proof of expenditure)
• Implementing agencies shifting from a controller to a more assistant position
(especially in the case of public infrastructure projects)
• Public infra: Respect the division line between public and private (or absence of it)
• Business support: limit grants (deadweight of 2/3 and above), move to financing
engineering;
• more specialised approach (e.g., support to a R&D project as a high risk venture
rather than simple compensation of some costs; lack of focus on D as opposed to R)
• HRD: reduce aid intensity for training, more standardized and simplified approach
• reaching the SMEs, especially small ones: more attention plus inventory of (tailor
made) support tools/mechanisms
Thank you!
We search for partners (especially from EU12)
active in knowledge economy, smart growth area
and keen to be active in the EU SFs process in
their respective country
Visit us at www.zef.lt
Contact us at [email protected] or [email protected]