ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND … · BG12 Domestic and Gender-based Violence 2,000,000...
Transcript of ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND … · BG12 Domestic and Gender-based Violence 2,000,000...
ISBN: 978-3-943497-81-6
© 2015 Transparency International. All rights reserved.© Cover photo: Istock/narvikk
Transparency International is a global movement with one vision: a world in which government, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption. Through more than 100 chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, we are leading the fight against corruption to turn this vision into reality.
www.transparency.org
1 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
BULGARIA ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
BULGARIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 4
BULGARIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 17
CYPRUS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18
CYPRUS - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 18
CYPRIOT NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS .............. 23
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 26
CZECH REPUBLIC .................................................................................................................................................... 28
CZECH REPUBLIC - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................... 28
CZECH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ................. 38
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 38
ESTONIA .................................................................................................................................................................... 40
ESTONIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................... 40
ESTONIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ........... 48
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 48
GREECE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49
GREECE - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 49
GREEK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ................. 55
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 55
LATVIA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 58
LATVIA - COUNTRY REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 58
LATVIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............... 65
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 66
LITHUANIA ................................................................................................................................................................. 72
LITHUANIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 72
LITHUANIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ........ 80
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 81
MALTA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 83
MALTA - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................... 83
MALTESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............. 88
Mitigation measures ........................................................................................................................................... 88
POLAND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 90
POLAND - COUNTRY REPORT ............................................................................................................................ 90
POLISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............... 101
2 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Mitigation measures ......................................................................................................................................... 102
PORTUGAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 108
PORTUGAL - COUNTRY REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 108
PORTUGUESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ...... 115
Mitigation measures ......................................................................................................................................... 115
ROMANIA ................................................................................................................................................................. 118
ROMANIA - COUNTRY REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 118
SLOVAKIA ............................................................................................................................................................... 131
SLOVAKIA - COUNTRY REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 131
SLOVAK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............. 138
Mitigation measures ......................................................................................................................................... 139
SLOVENIA ................................................................................................................................................................ 141
SLOVENIA - COUNTRY REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 141
SLOVENIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ....... 146
Mitigation measures ......................................................................................................................................... 147
SPAIN ....................................................................................................................................................................... 150
SPAIN - COUNTRY REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 150
SPANISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS ............ 156
Mitigation measures ......................................................................................................................................... 157
3 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PREFACE
This annex complements the publication ‘Addressing Corruption Risk in the EEA and Norway Grants’. It
features the key findings of the risk assessment for 14 beneficiary states1 as well as the mitigation
measures developed in order to address the risks identified. Annex 1 presents the methodology for this
assessment, which was developed and implemented in consultation with relevant parties concerned, i.e.
the donors, the FMO and the beneficiary states.2
It is important to stress that this assessment did not look into any specific incidents of corruption. Instead,
based on a set of criteria, it assessed where corruption may be likely to occur, and how serious its impact
would be should it occur.
For all parties involved, the corruption risk assessment was a pilot exercise that proposed and tested new
ways of looking at corruption risks in the framework of a public grant mechanism, building on the
experience with similar approaches in the private sector. The production of the country reports included
several rounds of consultation with all relevant actors, in particular the National Focal Points (NFPs), the
entities responsible for the implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants in each of the beneficiary
states.
As a pilot exercise, the assessment was subject to particular scrutiny. The NFPs were asked to cross-
check key data and review the findings of the assessment. Their input contributed to improving and
refining both the methodology of this exercise and its results, but also pointed to important shortcomings
and areas for further improvement. A more detailed analysis of the added value and limitations of the
methodology as well as any lessons to be drawn from this experience for future similar exercises can be
found in the main report (pages 7-10).
The NFPs were invited to comment on the key findings for their respective countries and to present their
mitigation measures in official statements. Where provided, these statements are published in full and
unedited in this annex.3
It is also important to note that the timing of the delivery of the country reports varied substantially. The
first three draft reports were submitted in summer 2013 while the last reports were finalised in November
2014. This implies that the key findings may be partly outdated by the time of this publication, for example
because mitigation measures have been introduced in the meantime or because management or
institutional structures have changed. For each country report a date of end of data collection is
mentioned, indicating as of when the information on which the key findings were based was believed to
be correct.
1 Excludes Croatia and Hungary.
2 Transparency International commissioned the Berlin Risk Institute to conduct the corruption risk assessment. All
country reports presented in this annex were produced by the Berlin Risk Institute. 3 Each country report is followed by an official reaction from the relevant NFP, consisting of a response to the findings
and an overview of the risk mitigation measures foreseen or taken to date.
4 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BULGARIA
BULGARIA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 18 August 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Bulgaria distributes a net amount of EUR 117.1 million. Fourteen programmes are
funded in Bulgaria, supporting a range of policy sectors.4 The Monitoring of EU Funds Directorate within
the Council of Ministers serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the
EEA and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the fourteen programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Bulgaria
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
BG08 Cultural Heritage and
Contemporary Arts 14,000,000 Ministry of Culture None
BG10
Green Industry
Innovation
Programme, Bulgaria
13,699,000 Innovation Norway N/A
BG07 Public Health
Initiatives 13,415,000 Ministry of Health None
BG04 Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy 13,260,245
Ministry of Economy,
Energy and Tourism
Norwegian Water
Resources and Energy
Directorate
4 See the official website for Bulgaria http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Bulgaria
5 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BG05
Funds for Non-
governmental
Organisations
11,790,000 Open Society
Institute, Sofia N/A
BG06 Children and Youth at
Risk 8,430,113
Ministry of
Education, Youth
and Science
Council of Europe
BG15
Correctional Services
including Non-
custodial Sanctions
8,400,000 Ministry of Justice Council of Europe
BG02
Integrated Marine and
Inland Water
Management
8,000,000
Ministry of
Environment and
Water
Norwegian Environment
Agency
BG03 Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services 8,000,000
Ministry of
Environment and
Water
Norwegian Environment
Agency
BG13
Schengen
Cooperation and
Combating Cross-
border and Organised
Crime, including
Trafficking and
Itinerant Criminal
Groups
6,000,000
Ministry of Interior,
International Projects
Directorate
National Police
Directorate of Norway,
Council of Europe
BG14
Judicial Capacity-
building and
Cooperation
3,000,000 Ministry of Justice Council of Europe
BG11
Capacity-building and
Institutional
Cooperation
2,016,000
Operational
Programme
Technical Assistance
Directorate, within
the Council of
Ministers
Norwegian Association
of Local and Regional
Authorities, Norwegian
Barents Secretariat
BG12 Domestic and Gender-
based Violence 2,000,000 Ministry of Interior Council of Europe
BG09 Scholarships 1,500,000
Ministry of
Education,
Science and Youth
Norwegian Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education, Icelandic
Centre for Research,
National Agency for
International Education
Affairs, Liechtenstein
6 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
A Donor State institution, Innovation Norway, is responsible for the second-largest programme Green
Industry Innovation (BG10). The FMO is the Programme Operator for another large programme, Funds for
Non-governmental Organisations (BG05), with the Open Society Institute, Sofia, being contracted as the
Fund Operator.
While the Focal Point itself does not serve as a Programme Operator, another Directorate within the
Council of Ministers administration, the Operational Programme Technical Assistance Directorate, is
responsible for managing the programme Capacity-building and Institutional Cooperation (BG11).
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that ten
programmes (BG02, BG03, BG04, BG06, BG09, BG11, BG12, BG13, BG14, BG15) additionally involve
partner organisations from the Donor States or the Council of Europe (generally denoted as Donor
Programme Partners) at the programme level. This involvement not only supports the general goal of
strengthening bilateral and international relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the
respective organisations and Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the
programme.
Furthermore, 11 programmes (BG02, BG03, BG04, BG06, BG07, BG08, BG11, BG12, BG13, BG14,
BG15) feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive
project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme
Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).
7 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Bulgaria.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Bulgaria - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
BU
LG
AR
IA
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk HIGH
The rating is based on Bulgaria's rank in international indices and more detailed reports, which suggest that
corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country. Political instability stemming from frequent government changes
contributes to persistent issues concerning the sustainability of anti-corruption reforms and the independence of
relevant institutions, including the judiciary.
2. Net amount of grants to
country HIGH
The amount of funding allocated to Bulgaria implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in
this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism MED
The rating is based on some limitations regarding the separation of functions in the grants management structure and
the fact that the Complaint Mechanism as advertised is not fully compliant with the suggested standard.
8 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
BG02 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH
The medium grant size in combination with increased sector and procurement risks heighten the risk rating for
criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Project Promoter
institution to the Programme Operator institution, and the implication of the PdP Project Promoter institution in
irregularities concerning public procurement of services heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The
Programme Operator institution’s deficiencies in the management and control of public procurement
procedures in its area of responsibility and involvement in legal controversies regarding construction projects
in protected areas raise the risk rating for criterion 7.
9 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BG03 MED LOW HIGH MED MED
Increased conflict of interest risk due to the identical or subordinated status of the PdP Project Promoter
institutions to the Programme Operator institution, and the implication of both PdP Project Promoter
institutions in irregularities concerning public procurement procedures heighten the risk rating for criterion 6.
The medium grant size increases the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s deficiencies
in the management and control of public procurement procedures in its area of responsibility and involvement
in legal controversies regarding construction projects in protected areas raise the risk rating for criterion 7.
BG04 HIGH LOW MED MED MED
The large grant size in combination with increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The PdP
Project Promoter’s alleged failings to act as an effective and independent regulator of the power sector and
related recent controversies surrounding the adequate sanctioning of irregularities involving various foreign
and domestic electricity companies, increase the rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator institution
being associated with investigations into irregularities concerning the energy sector, including former key
personnel being implicated in corruption issues, concerning relevant allegations surrounding the South
Stream Project, raise the risk rating for criterion 7. The risk rating for criterion 7 and the combined rating for
this programme have been reduced to medium risk exposure only after the recent replacement of Programme
Operator’s key personnel in the current caretaker government of August 2014.
BG05 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size in combination with increased sector risk heighten the rating for criterion 4.
10 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BG06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased sector risk heighten the rating for criterion 4. The
Programme Operator institution’s previous association with corruption issues increases the risk rating for
criterion 7.
BG07 HIGH MED MED LOW MED
The large grant size in combination with increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The lack
of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5. Increased conflict of
interest risks concerning the relationship between both PdP Project Promoter institutions and the Programme
Operator institution raises the risk rating for criterion 6.
BG08 HIGH MED HIGH MED HIGH
The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risks, taking into
account risk mitigation measures provisioned, and the implication of PdP Project Promoter’s key personnel in
corruption affairs in the past, heightens the risk rating for criterion 6. The lack of involvement of a Donor
Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. The association of Programme Operator’s key
personnel with indications of involvement in favouritism in the past, with subsequent media reports failing to
substantiate the indications, raises the risk rating for criterion 7.
11 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BG09 MED LOW N/A MED MED Despite the small grant size, increased sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator
institution’s previous association with corruption issues increases the risk rating for criterion 7.
BG10 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size in combination with increased procurement risk heighten the risk rating for criterion 4.
BG11 MED LOW HIGH MED MED
Increased conflict of interest risk in the relationship between the Project Promoter for PdP2 and the
Programme Operator head institution, and the fact that the Project Promoters for PdP1 and PdP2 are
associated or affected, respectively, by financial corrections or suspension of payments involving EU funds
heighten the rating for criterion 6. Despite the small grant size, increased project size risk raises the rating for
criterion 4. The Programme Operator head institution’s association with major controversies involving
numerous corruption issues and with related political uncertainty in view of snap elections in fall 2014 raise
the risk rating for criterion 7.
12 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BG12 LOW LOW MED MED MED
Uncertainties related to outstanding information about key personnel of the Project Promoter institution and
the National Project Partner institution, which is the same as the Programme Operator institution, raise the
risk rating for criterion 6. Recent implication of the Programme Operation institution in corruption issues and
the lack of information about key personnel increase the risk rating for criterion 7.
BG13 HIGH LOW MED MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk
rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk regarding PdP1, 2 and 6, taking into account risk
mitigations measures provisioned, and the recent implication of the Project Promoter institution for PdP 4 and
5 in corruption issues raise the risk rating for criterion 6. Recent implication of the Programme Operation
institution in corruption issues and the lack of information about key personnel increase the risk rating for
criterion 7.
BG14 MED LOW MED MED MED
Despite the small grant size, increased project size, procurement and sectors risks raise the risk rating for
criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk in relation to three of five PdPs, taking into account DPP
involvement and special measures as mitigating the risks, the indication of an irregularity affecting the
procurement procedure of one PdP, and the association of the Project Promoter of one PdP with
controversies surrounding the political independence of the judiciary increase the risk rating for criterion 6.
The association of the Programme Operator institution with deficiencies in the judicial system and fight
against corruption increase the risk rating for criterion 7.
13 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BG15 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sector risk heighten the
risk rating for criterion 4. The association of the Programme Operator institution with deficiencies in the
judicial system and fight against corruption increase the risk rating for criterion 7.
14 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
BULGARIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Bulgarian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Bulgarian National Focal Point only.
Following the issue of the Transparency International Corruption Risk Filtering Report for
Bulgaria, the NFP was invited to present its response to the here presented summary. As a
general comment, we would like to note that the NFP expected a more serious report which
doesn’t rely on media allegations and unproven materials. Media are following their specific policy
and cannot serve as a basis of a serious analytical work.
Country level criteria 1: Country corruption risk “is based on Bulgaria's rank in international indices
and more detailed reports, which suggest that corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country.
Political instability stemming from frequent government changes contributes to persistent issues
concerning the sustainability of anti-corruption reforms and the independence of relevant institutions,
including the judiciary.”
The National Focal Point does not accept the above statement because Bulgaria has undertaken a
number of initiatives in order to minimise the risk of corruption and to secure a high level of visibility and
prevention on all administrative levels, including:
In 2009 the Bulgarian Government has adopted a “National Strategy for Prevention and Combating
Corruption and Organised Crime”. The instrument for implementation of the strategy is the national
project “Center for Prevention and Countering Corruption and Organized Crime” (CPSCOC) - a body
corporate and a secondary receiver of budget credits.
The Center is assigned to support the legislative, judicative and executive power in Bulgaria.
It has developed a specific Intervention Systems that coordinates the suppression of
corruption and organized crime following the project in partnership with its German
counterpart. The Intervention Systems are a complex whole of measure components and
packages which in combination with synchronized single measures achieves commensurable
efficient results, mostly focused on prevention of corruption.
The action of the Center aiming suppression of corruption has also another positive effect.
The application of innovative technologies has modernized obsolete administration structures
transforming them into efficient ones and gives an important contribution this way to the
modernizing trends of Bulgaria.
The Center is not an operatively active structure. No classified data or any person-related
data should be used. No highly sensitive information or even indices concerning corruption,
immediately relevant for investigation procedures are to be worked on. This is the relevant
difference between the Center and all the other institutions dealing with actions against
corruption. Main goal of the Center is to develop overall commensurable and efficient
prevention measures with an ongoing impact.
Another important tool in preventing and countering corruption risks and practices on national level is the
AFCOS (Protection of European Union Financial Interests) Directorate that works within the Ministry
of Interior and executes control, information and coordination activities. The AFCOS Directorate is a
specialized structure engaged for the overall coordination in the fight against infringements affecting the
European Union financial interests via operational cooperation, reporting irregularities and administrative
control activities. The Directorate is responsible at national level for reporting to the European
Commission of irregularities and frauds with EU funds and provides methodological guidance onto the
irregularities administering. AFCOS controls the National Authorities dealing with EU Funds, Programs
and Financial Instruments, for their compliance with the procedures for administering irregularities.
15 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Country level criteria 2: Net amount of grants to country “The amount of funding allocated to Bulgaria
implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in this country, taking into
consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.”
The NFP does not accept the above statement because we do not see a direct link between the high
amount of allocation and the risk of corruption. Nevertheless, from our practice such programmes are
regarded as a priority and are subject of strict monitoring and audit by a number of institutions. Also,
generally we do not consider the relative programme size so big. The size of the programme is not
important but rather the average size of the projects, therefore we do not agree with the conclusion of the
report.
Country level criteria 3: Separation of functions and complaint mechanism, where it is stated that
the medium risk “is based on some limitations regarding the separation of functions in the grants
management structure and the fact that the Complaint Mechanism as advertised is not fully compliant with
the suggested standard.”, we would like to state the following:
The conclusion is not supported by any evidence. On national level the NFP has created a sound
system for detecting any irregularity. Such a system has been described within the Management and
Control Systems at national level. The same has been done by each Programme Operator. There is a
detailed procedure with consecutive steps to be followed once an irregularity is detected. The procedure
serves as guidance on how to register irregularities by the dedicated irregularities officer within the NFP.
The duties of the Irregularities Officer are described in his job description. Regarding the public
accessibility to submitting irregularities, there is such functionality on the webpage of the NFP and POs
can be contacted via their web pages.
A register for all irregularities is kept and updated at the NFP with all relevant information on every signal
that we receive. We are in close contact with the Programme Operators and with the respective
irregularities officers under each programme in order to facilitate the communication and consider each
case with the appropriate attention. The NFP is also performing monitoring of the procedures on
administrative eligibility level and providing advices to the POs for securing the independency of the
external evaluators. At the predefined projects (pdp) level we are aware that these projects are identified
as a priority for Bulgaria and the Donor States. That is why we are communicating on a regular basis with
the PO to identify any issues with the pdp beneficiaries, including possible conflict of interest.
Therefore, we consider the conclusions under Country level criteria 3 not to be supported by any evidence
and our systematic approach towards handling irregularities to correspond to the standards lain down in
art.11.8 of the Regulation.
Programme-level criteria 4: Grant allocation to programme
The NFP disagrees by using the same arguments as Country level criteria 2. The conclusion of the
report has no direct effect on the corruption risk. It rather depends on the size of the projects.
Programme level criteria 6: Pre-defined projects within programmes.
The NFP does not accept the statement. A predefined project is an instrument for direct intervention in
an area of high importance in a priority area for the donors and the beneficiary. It has different intervention
characteristics and logic from the open calls since the outcome is well known in advance and the
selection of the beneficiary is not the result of a subjective decision. The project promoter under a
predefined project has exclusive positions. Its exclusivity has a dominant positions, it is not a in a
competition with others. That is why there should not be subject to corruption practices.
We would also like to note that according to the report all predefined projects with project promoters within
the same administrative structure as the PO result in increased risk of corruption. When making such an
assumption, it should be taken into account that at the programme approval phase all projects with
16 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
beneficiaries within the same administrative structure as the PO had to present proves and reasonable
justification showing their administrative independence in order to avoid a case of conflict of interest. Such
justification has been presented and considered sufficient by the FMO. In addition, most of the predefined
projects are subject to external evaluation prior to the signing of the contract and the incurred
expenditures are checked by an external verificator – a legal entity independent and unrelated to the PO.
Programme level criteria 7: Programme Operator
The NFP does not accept the statement as we have noticed that the majority of the Programme
Operators have been given High or Medium risk factor. These conclusions are based mostly on
“implications” and “allegations” which are taken from sources that we do not consider viable and in some
cases the presented information dates back to 2004. The NFP would like also to note that the overall
assessment is made on institutional level rather than with focus on the directorates responsible for the
respective programmes. We do not consider many of the presented cases to be relevant to the
implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants and should not lead to conclusions about the risk of
corruption on programme level. Furthermore, conflict of interest at the stage of implementation of the pdp
is not applicable since the selection of external contractor follows the regulations of the Law on Public
Procurement that regulates an open and sound transparent procedure.
The NFP disagrees with the high risk rating for programme BG02 Integrated Marine an Inland Waters
Management for the following reasons:
The PdP Project Promoter institution has management and administrative independence
from the Programme Operator that has been proven in the course of programme approval
and implementation (incl. corresponding conditions from the PA were lifted upon presenting
of a package of documents in evidence of the above);
To mitigate the public procurement risk ex-ante control of the public procurement process is
envisaged according to the Management and Control System for programmes BG 02 and BG
03 at all stages – preparation and publication of tender documentation, evaluation of
submitted offers, drawing up of evaluation report and signature of contract. This ex-ante
control has the purpose to eliminate the risk of
With regards to Programme BG08 the NFP does not accept the implications regarding the pdp Project
Promoter’s key personnel involvement in corruption affairs in the past (criteria 6). These implications are
based on media publications and are not confirmed by the corresponding authorities. No court decision
has confirmed such conclusions and they should be treated more like allegations. We consider that in a
serious report there should be no place for such unproven acquisitions.
Moreover, an external evaluation of the PdP has been carried out by the PO in compliance with Annex I,
point 2.2.2. The external evaluation has been made in compliance with an evaluation grid approved in
advance with the FMO. The external evaluation is very positive and according to it a dedicated project
team has been formed. The PO does not expect any challenges during PdP implementation in this
regard.
Restructuring of the PO is at hand following the last parliamentary elections held in the country. The new
statutes of the Ministry of Culture will be approved in the beginning of December 2014. Having in mind
this, the risk rating for criterion 7 is unreasonably high. In addition all expenditures under the programme
will be subject of external verification.
Specifically under BG11 it is stated that there is “Increased conflict of interest risk in the relationship
between the Project Promoter for PdP2”. There is no connection because the PO is Operational
Programme Technical Assistance Directorate at the Council of Ministers and the project promoter is the
Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (currently named Ministry of Regional Development).
Therefore we consider the conclusions incorrect.
Under BG12 and BG13 both with PO the Ministry of Interior the report notes on “lack of information about
the acting Responsible Senior Official” which increases the risk rating. Information on the Senior Official is
17 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
available on the webpage of the Council of Ministers so the fact that the CV hasn’t been presented cannot
lead to increased risk of corruption.
The NFP would like to state firmly that none of the programmes has been or currently is accused in
corruption practices nor the implementing administrative departments have any history in such cases.
Mitigation measures
Following our comments on the report, we would like to ask for a revision of the made
conclusions. Nevertheless, the NFP always aims to improve the situation and is undertaking the
following measures:
The NFP is closely monitoring all public procedures under all programmes as we and the Royal Norwegian Embassy are participating as observers in the Selection Committee. In addition, on national level, a round table organized by the Deputy Prime-Minister of EU Funds Management was held on the 2
nd of September with the participation of all Bulgarian
institutions involved in the EU fund absorption. The outcome of the round table included the establishment of three working groups with the goal to analyze the existing legal framework, the practices of implementation of the public procurement act and the EC methodology for financial corrections. The aim is to propose a standard approach and a proposal for a law on EU funds management.
Additionally the NFP has proposed amendments of the Management and Control System on national level where a more detailed procedure for risk management has been proposed. We envisage after receiving a signal to form an internal group at the NFP in order to apply the four-eye principle. The proposed amendment are pending approval by the FMO.
On a horizontal level, the NFP is looking into any signals on possible breach of the principles of implementation laid down in article 1.6 of the Regulation. In this regard we have proposed amendments in the Management and Control System with the inclusion of an internal commission established by the NFP to investigate each case and guarantee maximum transparency.
18 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CYPRUS
CYPRUS - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 2 August 2013]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Cyprus distributes a net amount of EUR 7.3 million. Four programmes are funded in
Cyprus, supporting a range of policy sectors.5 The Planning Bureau within the Ministry of Finance serves
as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the
country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the four programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Cyprus
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
CY04
Norwegian Financial
Mechanism
Programme
3,445,000 Planning Bureau,
Ministry of Finance None
CY02
EEA Financial
Mechanism
Programme
2,163,500 Planning Bureau,
Ministry of Finance None
CY03
Funds for Non-
Governmental
Organisations
1,320,750
PriceWaterhouse
Coopers Ltd.
None
CY22 Decent Work and
Tripartite Dialogue 40,000 Innovation Norway N/A
5 See the official website for Cyprus http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Cyprus
19 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Only three of the four programmes were assessed. Programme CY22 Decent Work and Tripartite
Dialogue (CY22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would
not have been applicable to the advanced project stage of the respective Programme Area 22.
Serving as both National Focal Point in Cyprus and Programme Operator for the two programmes (CY04
and CY02) consuming the majority of the grant, the Planning Bureau within the Ministry of Finance is a
crucial actor in the implementation of the grants scheme in Cyprus. Programmes CY02 and CY04 also
feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project
selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator
and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).
The programme Funds for Non-Governmental Organisations (CY03), is managed by a consortium
bringing together PriceWaterhouse Coopers Ltd. and First Elements Euroconsulting Ltd., selected via
tender by the Focal Point.
20 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Cyprus.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Cyprus - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
CY
PR
US
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED
Although Cyprus scores relatively well in international indices, the overall picture is ambivalent. Significant gaps
persist in the legal framework against corruption and its application, and the lack of a national anti-corruption strategy
and dedicated anti-corruption agency raise concerns about political will to address corruption issues.
2. Net amount of grants to
country LOW
Cyprus receives the second smallest absolute grant of all Beneficiary States. The smaller amount of funding reduces
the overall corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in this country.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism HIGH
Limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure already suggests an increased risk
exposure; above all, the lack of a dedicated “complaint mechanism”, which should be placed prominently on the
grants scheme’s national website, raises a “red flag”.
21 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
CY02 MED MED MED MED MED
This programme is allocated the middle-sized grant in Cyprus, and involves a large Pre-defined Project
which is likely to imply procurement risk, raising the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of
a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. A lack of transparency
regarding information on the status and involvement of two PdP Project Promoters, respectively, raise the
risk exposure for criterion 6. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme Operator and the
indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status6 raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
6 The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of
State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.
22 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CY03 LOW MED N/A MED MED
The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5.
The partly intransparent set-up of the Programme Operator and its National Partner, bringing together two
private companies, and the political connection of key personnel at the National Partner, raise the risk
exposure for criterion 7.
CY04 MED MED MED MED MED
This programme is allocated the largest grant and involves procurement risks, raising the risk exposure for
criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for
criterion 5. The high number of 5 PdP and the exposed political status of one Project Promoter’s key
personnel raise the risk rating for criterion 6. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme
Operator and the indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status raise the risk exposure rating for
criterion 7.
23 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CYPRIOT NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Cypriot National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Cypriot National Focal Point only.
1. Country-level results
1.1 Limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure
In accordance with the requirements of the Article 4.2 of the FM Regulations, the Republic of Cyprus
officially designated in its MoUs (concerning the two FMs) the Directorate General for European
Programmes, Coordination and Development (DGEPCD) of the Republic of Cyprus as the National Focal
Point (NFP).
Furthermore, in accordance with the signed MoUs, the DGEPCD has also been designated to act as the
Program Operator (PO) for the two cross sectoral Programmes (one under each FM).
1.2 Lack of a dedicated Complaint mechanism
The Complaint Mechanism has been set up and is published on the DGEPCD website
(www.dgepcd.gov.cy), under the EEA/Norway Grants section, since March 2014.
Furthermore, it is also published in the new national website for the EEA/Norway Grants,
(http://www.eeagrants.gov.cy).
1.3 Country corruption risk
1.3.1 “significant gaps persist in the legal framework against corruption and its application”
Cyprus has a series of laws aiming at combating corruption. Τhe level of anti-corruption
legislation in Cyprus is satisfactory and, although it is true that more steps are needed in order to
create a coherent and robust legal framework free from inconsistencies, the proposition that
“significant gaps persist” cannot be accepted. It shall be noted that GRECO, which is one of the
most comprehensive groups of experts against corruption, has repeatedly commented in its
reports the adequate level of anti-corruption legislation in Cyprus. The following laws are
relevant:
1. The Penal Code (Cap. 154)
2. The Prevention of Corruption Law of 2012 (Cap.161).
3. The Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of the Council of Europe (Ratification) Laws of
2000 and 2012.
4. The Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption
(Ratification) Laws of 2006 and 2012.
5. The Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European
Communities or officials of the Member States of the European Union (Ratifying) Law 2004.
6. The Convention of the United Nations against Corruption (Ratification) Law of 2008.
7. The Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests and its
Protocols (Ratification) Law of 2003.
8. The Political Parties Law of 2012.
24 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
1.3.2 “lack of a national anti-corruption strategy and dedicated anti-corruption agency”
The Coordinating Body Against Corruption was established in 2003. It is not just an advisory
body, but it has also a mandate to develop and/or elaborate a consolidated anti-corruption
strategy for a wide range of areas. The Coordinating Body Against Corruption meets bimonthly
with its main tasks the continuous examination of the legislative and other measures related to
the fight against corruption and the submission of proposals for taking more initiatives and
measures of a legislative nature aimed at the fight against corruption. It is within this framework
that the Co-ordinating Body works to develop its anti-corruption strategy in all areas. To this
effect, pertinent international standards are also taken into account. The Body is also tasked with
raising public awareness of the risks of corruption and promoting cooperation between public
authorities and the private sector.
Furthermore, it has to be mentioned that, in a wider sense, the existing anti-corruption legislation
in Cyprus is, to a large extend, the outcome of certain anti-corruption strategy, since several laws
have been adopted the last few years as a result of the need to take more initiatives and
measures of a legislative nature aimed at the fight against corruption.
Police also deals with all corruption-related cases and conducts all necessary investigations.
There exists a special unit in the Police which deals with combating financial crime, including
corruption. Moreover, the Cyprus Police Academy organizes special training seminars regarding
the fight and protection against corruption.
It is also noted that the Office of the Attorney General is the prosecution authority in case a
corruption-related case is brought before a criminal court.
2. Programme-level results
2.1 Selection of the Pre-defined projects under the two Programmes
Given the small size of the Grant allocations to the Republic of Cyprus, it was decided in consultation with
the Donors that instead of selecting the projects through open calls with a heavy administrative burden,
that the best option would be the one of proposing pre-defined projects during the MoU negotiation
process. The predefined projects would in turn form the two cross sectoral Programmes (one under each
FM) to be operated by the DGEPCD.
For the selection of the pre-defined projects, the following factors were taken into account by the NFP:
(a) The minimum targets set in the FM Regulations which required that the priority sectors of
Environmental Protection and Management as well as Civil Society be included in the MoUs.
(b) The proposal of the Donors for programming part of the funds for bi-communal projects.
(c) That projects should serve the development aims of the Cyprus Government, so that existing
needs of the country could be met.
(d) That projects should contribute to the overall objectives of the FMs as well as to the specific
Programme outcomes and objectives.
(e) Other factors such as the wish of the Donors for continuity in the investment already provided
under the previous programming period through building up on the results of projects 2004-2009;
the maturity of the projects; their sustainability etc.
The predefined projects were discussed extensively during the MoU negotiations with the Donors on the
basis of Short Draft Proposals that were prepared by the prospective Applicants.
All proposed projects were approved in principle by the Donors and included in the MoUs as pre-defined
projects.
2.2 Procurement Risk
25 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
The Project Promoters are following the national Public Procurement Law and are supported by the
competent Public Procurement Department of the Treasury of the Republic, which also issues compliance
letters when required by the procurement procedure. One Project Promoter however, and according to
paragraph 3 of Article 7.16 of the FM regulation, follows its own internal purchase procedures, which are
similar to public procurement legislation and have been approved by the Programme Operator.
All expenses are subject to 100% verification. The Programme Operator is in frequent communication
with all Project Promoters, through bi-monthly meetings as well as via telephone or email communication,
with the aim of tackling any possible problems ahead of time.
2.3 Lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level
According to the provisions of the Article 3.2 (par.2) of the FM Regulations, the Donor States have
designated through the Norwegian MoU, two Donor Programme Partners (DPPs) for the Programme
Areas “Domestic and Gender Based Violence” and “Civil Society Support”.
No DPPs have been designated in the EEA MoU and due to the specificities of the Cyprus MoUs, where
each Programme Area corresponds to a specific predefined project, no other DPPs will be agreed upon
by the Donor States and the National Focal Point.
Due to the above mentioned specificities of the Cyprus MoUs, the role of the DPPs is restricted to the
specific projects only and not to the preparation and implementation of the Programmes. As a result, the
establishment and operation of a Cooperation Committee between the Programme Operator and the DPP
is not applicable in the case of Cyprus.
2.4 Lack of Transparency regarding information on the status and involvement of two Pre-defined
Projects´ Project Promoters
The two pre-defined projects and their Project Promoters have been agreed with the Donors and they
were included in the signed MoUs. There is no lack of transparency, since all the information regarding
the projects and their PPs was given to and approved by the Donors.
Given the small size of the Grant allocations to the Republic of Cyprus, it was decided in consultation with
the Donors that instead of selecting the projects through open calls with a heavy administrative burden,
that the best option would be the one of proposing pre-defined projects. The predefined projects were
discussed extensively during the MoU negotiations with the Donors on the basis of Short Draft Proposals
that were prepared by the prospective Applicants. All proposed projects were approved in principle by the
Donors and included in the MoUs as pre-defined projects.
2.5 The Focal Point also serves as the Programme Operator
In accordance with the signed MoUs, the Directorate General for European Programmes, Coordination
and Development (DGEPCD) has been designated to act as the National Focal Point (NFP) and as the
Program Operator (PO) for the two cross sectoral Programmes (one under each FM). However, within
the DGEPCD there is segregation of duties regarding the NFP and PO roles. Different officers are
involved in each role and there is no conflict of interest between the two roles.
Furthermore, it is noted that in the EEA/Norway Grants 2004-2009, the DGEPCD was also assigned by
the Donors (and specified in the signed MoUs), its dual role of being the NFP and the PO, where no
problems were encountered.
2.6 NGO fund Programme Operator set-up
26 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
In accordance with the Annex B of the MoU concerning the EEA FM 2009 – 2014, the Programme
Operator for the Programme “Funds for Non-Governmental Organisations” was selected through
competitive tendering procedures. The terms of reference for the Programme Operator were developed in
close cooperation with the Donors.
Furthermore, the status of the successful PO (having two private companies working together) was known
to all parties involved (including the Donor States and the FMO) from the beginning of the evaluation of
the tendering procedure.
Mitigation measures
Complaint mechanism – The Focal Point has already published the “Complaint Mechanism”
for the EEA/Norway Grants in its website (www.dgepcd.gov.cy) and on the national website
for the EEA/Norway Grants (www.eeagrants.gov.cy).
Procurement Risk – the public procurement procedures are followed and every individual
case is monitored accordingly
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure Establishment of a complaint mechanism
Target programme/project All Programmes under the two MoUs
Corruption risk addressed Lack of a dedicated complaint mechanism
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Completed
Description of activities
involved
Set-up of a complaint mechanism and published in the dedicated
national EEA/Norway Grants website and on the NFP´s website.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
The Complaint Mechanism has been set up and is published on the
DGEPCD website (http://www.dgepcd.gov.cy), under the EEA/Norway
Grants section, since March 2014.
Furthermore, it is also published in the new national website for the
EEA/Norway Grants, (http://www.eeagrants.gov.cy).
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure Addressing procurement risk
Target programme/project All Programmes
Corruption risk addressed Procurement risk
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities The Project Promoters are following the national Public Procurement
Law and are supported by the competent Public Procurement
27 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
involved Department of the Treasury of the Republic, which also issues
compliance letters when required by the procurement procedure. One
of the Project Promoters, and according to paragraph 3 of Article 7.16
of the FM regulation, follows its own internal purchases procedures,
which are similar to public procurement legislation and have been
approved by the Programme Operator.
In order to mitigate the risks, the Programme Operator is in frequent
communication, both through bi-monthly meetings as well as via
telephone or email communication with all Project Promoters with the
aim of tackling any possible problems regarding the procurement
procedures. Close monitoring for each individual tendering procedure
is followed by the Pos.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
No major problems concerning procurement procedures have been
encountered.
28 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZECH REPUBLIC
CZECH REPUBLIC - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 22 July 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Czech Republic distributes a net amount of EUR 121.9 million. Fourteen
programmes are funded in Czech Republic, supporting a range of policy sectors.7 The International
Relations Department of the Ministry of Finance serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the
overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the fourteen programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Czech Republic
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
CZ06 Cultural Heritage and
Contemporary Arts 21,490,000 Ministry of Finance Arts Council Norway
CZ11 Public Health
Initiatives 19,180,000 Ministry of Finance
Norwegian National
Institute of Public Health
CZ02
Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services &
Environmental
Monitoring and
Integrated Planning
Control & Adaptation
to Climate Change
18,420,000 Ministry of Finance Norwegian Environment
Agency
CZ09 The Czech-Norwegian
Research Programme 12,500,000 Ministry of
Education, Youth
Research Council of
Norway
7 See the official website for Czech Republic http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Czech Republic
29 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
and Sports
CZ03
Funds for Non-
governmental
Organisations
9,810,000
Civil Society
Development
Foundation
N/A
CZ08
Pilot Studies and
Surveys on CCS
Technology
7,040,000 Ministry of Finance None
CZ14
Schengen
Cooperation and
Combating Cross-
border and Organised
Crime, including
Trafficking and
Itinerant Criminal
Groups
7,040,000 Ministry of Finance None
CZ12
Mainstreaming Gender
Equality and
Promoting Work-life
Balance & Domestic
and Gender-based
Violence; "Let's Give
(Wo)men a Chance"
6,200,000 Open Society
Foundation, Prague None
CZ15
Judicial Capacity
Building Cooperation
and Correctional
Services, Including
Non-custodial
Sanctions
4,928,000 Ministry of Finance Council of Europe
CZ04 Children and Youth at
Risk 4,298,000 Ministry of Finance None
CZ07 Bilateral Scholarship
Programme 3,827,000
Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education
(subordinated to the
Ministry of
Education)
Norwegian Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education, Icelandic
Centre for Research,
National Agency for
International Education
Affairs, Liechtenstein
CZ10
Capacity-building and
Institutional
Cooperation between
Beneficiary State and
Norwegian Public
Institutions, Local and
Regional Authorities
1,760,000 Ministry of Finance Council of Europe
30 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZ05
National, Regional and
Local Initiatives to
Reduce Inter-Group
Inequalities and to
Promote Social
Inclusion
1,242,000 Ministry of Finance None
CZ13
Domestic and Gender-
based Violence and
Mainstreaming Gender
Equality and
Promoting Work-life
Balance
840,000 Ministry of Finance None
The Focal Point institution, the Ministry of Finance, serves as the Programme Operator for ten
programmes.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that seven
programmes (CZ02, CZ06, CZ07, CZ09, CZ10, CZ11, CZ15) additionally involve partner organisations
from the Donor States and the Council of Europe at the programme level (denoted as Donor Programme
Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral and international
relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective organisations and Programme
Operators in the development and implementation of the programme.
Furthermore, nine programmes (CZ02, CZ04, CZ05, CZ06, CZ10, CZ11, CZ13, CZ14, CZ15) feature so-
called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection
and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the
organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).
31 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Czech Republic.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Czech Republic - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
CZ
EC
H R
EP
UB
LIC
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED The rating is based on the Czech Republic’s rank in international indices and more detailed reports, which suggest that corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country.
2. Net amount of grants to country
HIGH The amount of funding allocated to the Czech Republic implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions &complaints mechanism
HIGH The rating is based on a limited separation of functions in the grants management structure and the absence of a complaint mechanism on the grants website, as required by the regulation and the suggested standard.
32 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
CZ02 HIGH LOW MED HIGH HIGH
The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure
to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the assessment of the National Programme Partner
institution under criterion 6 heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. The implication of the Project Promoter
institution in various issues involving allegations of corruption and irregularities in public procurement
procedures raises the risk rating for criterion 6.
33 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZ03 MED MED N/A MED MED
The medium grant size increases the risk rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor
Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5. Indications of unclarified political issues affecting
the Programme Operator’s project selection process increases the risk rating for criterion 7.
CZ04 LOW MED HIGH HIGH HIGH
The recent implication of the PdP Project Promoter institution in corruption related to procurement and to
irregularities affecting EU funds heightens the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator
institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level, and the assessment of the National
Programme Partner institution under criterion 6 heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. The lack of a Donor
Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5.
CZ05 MED MED LOW MED MED
Despite the small grant size, increased project size risk raises the rating for criterion 4. The lack of
involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator
institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level increases the risk rating for criterion
7.
34 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZ06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED
The Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the
National Programme Partner institution’s previous association with a conflict of interest affair increase the
risk rating for criterion 7.
CZ07 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW
CZ08 HIGH MED N/A HIGH HIGH
The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk
rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the
leadership level, the National Programme Partner institution’s implication in various issues involving
allegations of corruption and irregularities in public procurement procedures, and a possible conflict of
interest issue in relation to the National Programme Partner, heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. The lack
of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5.
35 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZ09 MED LOW N/A MED MED
The medium grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s previous
association with irregularities concerning public procurement procedures and financial corrections affecting
EU funds increases the risk rating for criterion 7.
CZ10 MED LOW MED MED MED
Despite the small grant size, increased project size, procurement and sector risks raise the risk rating for
criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risks, taking into account some risk mitigation measures,
concerning the particular role of the Project Promoter institution and its subordinated status in relation to the
Programme Operator institution raise the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator institution’s
exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level increase the risk rating for criterion 7.
CZ11 HIGH LOW LOW HIGH HIGH
The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure
to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the National Programme Partner institution’s earlier
implication in various issues involving irregularities in public procurement and corruption heighten the risk
rating for criterion 7.
36 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZ12 MED MED N/A LOW LOW The medium grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme
Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5.
CZ13 LOW MED Not
included
MED MED
Criterion 6 was not included in the rating due to undeclared changes in the management of the Pre-defined
Project. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the risk rating for criterion 5. The
Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level increases the
risk rating for criterion 7.
CZ14 HIGH MED MED MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk
rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for
criterion 5. Indications of increased exposure of the PdP Project Promoter institution to political influence
raises the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest
risks at the leadership level increases the risk rating for criterion 7.
37 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZ15 MED LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH
Previous irregularities related to the origins of PdP 4-7, the implication of the Project Promoter institutions
for PdP1 and PdP2 in unclarified irregularities in relation to a public procurement procedure, and missing
information regarding key personnel of PdP2, heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The Programme
Operator institution’s exposure to conflict of interest risks at the leadership level and the assessment of the
National Programme Partner institution under criterion 6 heighten the risk rating for criterion 7. Despite the
small grant size, increased project size, procurement and sector risks raise the risk rating for criterion 4.
38 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
CZECH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Czech National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Czech National Focal Point only.
1) As for the country level results the NFP comments to only the criterion 3 is applicable. With regard to the finding that there is a limited separation of functions in the grants management structure, the NFP would like to point out that the management structure was consulted and approved by the donors (during the negotiations of EEA and Norway Grants 2009-2014 as well as by signing the Memorandum of Understanding) and is fully in compliance with the Regulation on the implementation of the EEA(Norway Financial Mechanism 2009 – 2014 (which allows the NFP to act as the Programme Operator). As regards the finding that a complaint mechanism is absent on the grants website, the NFP would like to point out that on the web sites there is a section “Contacts” including the sub-section “Complaints” through which the complaints may be sent to the NFP. Furthermore, there is always the possibility to address complaints to the NFP by standard channels (e.g. mail, data box, e-mail) which are well known to the public. However, in order to react to this finding, the NFP will reconsider the current set up and will make the section “Complaints” more visible within the web sites (this means that “Complaints” will not be under section “Contacts”, but will present a separate section) as well as will develop it more (more information and better mechanism (in compliance with the Regulation and the standard suggested by the FMO) will be established).
2) After going through the report and its annexes, the NFP decided not to comment the general assessment of corruption risks in the Czech Republic; this is not a role of the NFP and it is not in its competency. However, the NFP understands that it was one of the aspects which were used for the risk assessment of the programmes. The NFP is neither going to comment the methodology used. Results of the assessment of particular programmes (especially the criterion 7 – Programme Operator), as it is seen from the annexes, are mostly based on information published in press (not always reliable ones), referring to various allegations about different institutions (Czech Ministries) and different individuals working in these institutions, using the wording “possible conflict of interest” and “possible corrupt practices”. In addition these allegations often occurred in period when these institutions were not involved in the EEA and Norway Grants, but from the report it is not obvious whether the TI took them into account in the assessment. In cases where such information is not available, the result of the assessment is low risk exposure (e.g. CZ07, CZ12). Regarding programme CZ08, we would have welcomed more concrete justifications and recommendations with respect to the finding. This is also the reason why the NFP cannot propose any mitigation measures to the programme-level results.
3) The NFP proposes to reconsider and revaluate the methodology used, especially not to make the results and findings based on the individuals who are not directly involved in the EEA and Norway Grants but working in the institutions involved in these grants.
Mitigation measures
Based on the NFP response and explanation provided in the above section, it is not possible for the NFP
to propose any mitigation measures to the programme-level results as there are no justifications and no
concrete recommendations in respect of those finding.
39 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
As for the country-level results, the NFP proposes mitigation measure in respect of developing the
complaint mechanism (see above).
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure Developing of Complaint Mechanism
Target programme/project At the country level (NFP) for all programmes
Corruption risk addressed Absence of the Complaint mechanism
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Completion expected within 2015
Description of activities
involved
Improvement of Complaint mechanism on the national EEA and
Norway Grants web sites.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
The section Complaints was made more visible within the web sites
and more contact details were included in October 2014. In 2015 it is
plan to develop an on-line form to address any complaints (and to
develop it in compliance with the Regulation and the standard
suggested by the FMO).
40 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
ESTONIA
ESTONIA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 3 September 2013]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Estonia distributes a net amount of EUR 44,9 million. Eleven programmes are
funded in Estonia, supporting a range of policy sectors.8 The Structural and Foreign Assistance
Department of the Ministry of Finance serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall
management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the eleven programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAMMES IN ESTONIA
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
EE08 Public Health
Initiatives 8,912,000
Ministry of Social
Affairs
Norwegian Institute of
Public Health
EE02
Integrated Marine and
Inland Water
Management
6,900,000 Ministry of
Environment
Norwegian Environment
Agency
EE04 Children and youth at
risk 6,505,000
Ministry of Education
and Research
Norwegian Association
of Local and Regional
Authorities
EE07 Green Industry
Innovation 6,000,000
Ministry of Economic
Affairs Innovation Norway
8 See the official website for Estonia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Estonia
41 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
EE05
Conservation and
Revitalisation of
Cultural and Natural
Heritage
4,510,000 Ministry of Culture Directorate for Cultural
Heritage (RA)
EE06 Research cooperation 3,000,000 Ministry of Education
and Research
Research Council of
Norway
EE03 NGO Programme 2,300,000 Open Estonia
Foundation None
EE09
Mainstreaming Gender
Equality and
Promoting Work-Life
Balance
2,000,000 Ministry of Social
Affairs
Norwegian Ministry of
Children, Equality and
Social Inclusion
EE11 Domestic and Gender-
based Violence 2,000,000
Ministry of Social
Affairs
Norwegian Directorate
of Health
EE10 Scholarships 1,600,000 Ministry of Education
and Research
Icelandic Centre for
Research; National
Agency for International
Education Affairs,
Liechtenstein;
Norwegian Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education
EE22 Decent Work and
Tripartite Dialogue 256,000 Innovation Norway N/A
Only ten of the eleven programmes were assessed. Programme EE22 Decent Work and Tripartite
Dialogue (EE22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would
not have been applicable to the advanced project stage of the respective Programme Area 22.
Ten of the programmes are managed by six Programme Operator institutions. The Ministry of Social
Affairs manages the programmes Public Health Initiatives (EE08), Mainstreaming Gender Equality and
Promoting Work-Life Balance (EE09) and Domestic and Gender-based Violence (EE11). Taking into
consideration both the number and size of the programmes under its control, it is clear that the Ministry of
Social Affairs plays a major role in the grants scheme in Estonia. Another important Programme Operator
institution is the Ministry of Education and Research which also manages three programmes, Children
and youth at risk (EE04), Research cooperation (EE06) and Scholarships (EE10). The NGO Fund
programme (EE03) is managed by a so-called Fund Operator, Open Estonia Foundation, which was
contracted directly by the FMO.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that all
programmes except for the NGO Fund programme additionally involved partner organisations from the
Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports
the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests close cooperation between the
42 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the implementation of the
programme.
All programmes except EE06, EE07 and EE10 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are
exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of
collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined
Project (the Project Promoter).
43 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Estonia.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Estonia - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
ES
TO
NIA
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk LOW
Although corruption issues in the public sector persist, Estonia’s ranking in relevant international corruption indices
such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2012), its overall efficient national institutions
and the government’s recently reissued anti-corruption strategy generally indicate a reduced likelihood of
corruption.
2. Net amount of grants to country LOW
Estonia is one of the five Beneficiary States which receive a comparatively smaller amount of funding in absolute
terms. A smaller amount of funding reduces the overall corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in the
country.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism MED
The limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure suggests a Medium Risk
Exposure; the required “complaint mechanism” is advertised on the grants homepage.
44 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
Co
mb
ine
d P
rog
ram
me
Ra
tin
g
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
EE02 MED LOW MED MED MED
Large grant size and unspecific sector and procurement risks, a high number of Pre-defined Projects, the
fact that three of them are promoted by the same organisation, and one Project Promoter’s association with
a corruption case, increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. Recent incidents of corruption at the
Programme Promoter institution and the indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status9 also
increase risk exposure for criterion 7.
9 The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of
State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.
45 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
EE03 LOW MED LOW LOW LOW The lack of cooperation with a Donor Partner moderately increases risk exposure for criterion 5.
EE04 MED LOW HIGH MED MED
The large grant size and the Pre-defined Project receiving more than one third of the grant amount increase
the risk exposure for criterion 4. The Programme Operator’s institution’s earlier implication in a corruption
incident raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 7. Corruption issues linked to the PdP Project Promoter
institution, which also functions as the Project Promoter in PdP 3 of EE08, and working connections
between key personnel at the department concerned and other key personnel previously implicated in a
corruption case lead to a heightened exposure to corruption risk for criterion 6.
EE05 MED LOW LOW LOW LOW The medium grant size increases the risk exposure for criterion 4. Apart from the indication of key
personnel’s politically exposed status in criterion 7, no relevant issues were revealed.
46 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
EE06 LOW LOW N/A MED LOW The Programme Operator’s institution’s earlier implication in a corruption incident raises the risk exposure
rating for criterion 7.
EE07 MED LOW N/A MED MED
Large grant size and procurement increase risk exposure for criterion 4. The association of the Programme
Operator institution with a corruption issue and the indication of key personnel’s politically exposed status
moderately increase risk exposure for criterion 7.
EE08 HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH
This programme is allocated the largest grant in Estonia. One Pre-defined Project receives more than one
third of the grant amount; in addition, procurement and sector risks also lead to a heightened risk exposure
for criterion 4. Apart from the large size of one Pre-defined Project, the high total number of Pre-defined
Projects and the previous association of Project Promoters with corruption incidents lead to a heightened
risk exposure for criterion 6. The direct implication of personnel of the Programme Operator institution and
Pre-defined Project in corruption incidents, combined with the indication of key personnel’s politically
exposed status, amount to a heightened risk exposure for criterion 7.
47 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
EE09 MED LOW LOW MED MED
Both for EE09 and EE11, the total grant size is relatively small, but one Pre-defined Project receives more
than one third of the grant amount, increasing risk exposure for criterion 4. Recent incidents of corruption at
the Programme Operator institution which is identical for both EE09 and EE11, the fact that the Programme
Operator’s key personnel are identical for both programmes, and the indication of key personnel’s politically
exposed status increase the risk exposure for criterion 7.
EE10 MED LOW N/A MED MED
While the grant size is relatively small, sector risks increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. The
Programme Operator’s institution’s earlier implication in a corruption incident raises the risk exposure rating
for criterion 7.
EE11 MED LOW LOW MED MED
Both for EE09 and EE11, the total grant size is relatively small, but one Pre-defined Project receives more
than one third of the grant amount, increasing risk exposure for criterion 4. Recent incidents of corruption at
the Programme Operator institution which is identical for both EE09 and EE11, the fact that the Programme
Operator’s key personnel are identical for both programmes, and the indication of key personnel’s politically
exposed status increase the risk exposure for criterion 7.
48 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
ESTONIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Estonian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Estonian National Focal Point only.
The National Focal Point acknowledges the corruption risk assessment and takes notice of the results
and recommendations. The NFP does not agree with high risk of the Norway/EEA Grants’ programmes
due to their size in country context. Regarding the high number of pre-defined projects, the NFP is of the
opinion that pre-defining rather helps programmes to have an impact in the field. Regarding the
Programme Operators’ association with previous corruption cases the NFP does not recognise a need for
additional and specific mitigation measures for Norway/EEA Grants. The NFP assumes that management
and control systems set up for all the programmes are adequate to prevent new cases. In addition to the
new anticorruption strategy 2013-2020 already mentioned in the report in 2013 a new version of the Civil
Service Act came into force. The act inter alia regulates public servants’ obligations in connection with
ethic and anti-corruptive behaviour (integrity, independence, dignity etc.), prohibiting the hiring of one’s
close relative under one’s subordination, restrictions on public servants’ activities (prohibiting supervision
over a person connected to oneself, prohibiting earning of profit for services if the same activity is
included in one’s functions etc.) etc. As a result of reorganisation of the control system of Structural Funds
managed by the Ministry of Social Affairs verification of payment claims of the Norway Grants
programmes EE08, EE09 and EE11 was moved to the Ministry of Finance (separately from the NFP) as
of 1st July 2014. Regarding the function of the complaint mechanism on the Grants’ website, it leads a
user to multiple choices. A complaint can be addressed to the European Anti-Fraud Office, the Security
Police or the Ministry of Finance. Complaints will be handled according to the complaint handling set-up in
the relevant institution. Up to the present no complaints regarding the implementation of the Norway/EEA
Grants have been made. In conclusion, the NFP continues its monitoring activities as planned and no
additional corruption mitigation measures will be set up until such need arises during existing monitoring
activities.
Mitigation measures
The NFP continues its monitoring activities as planned and no additional corruption mitigation measures
will be set up until such need arises during existing monitoring activities.
49 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
GREECE
GREECE - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 26 June 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Greece distributes a net amount of EUR 58.6 million. Seven programmes are
funded in Greece, supporting a range of policy sectors.10
A unit within the Special Secretariat for the
National Strategic Reference Framework of the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness and Shipping
serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway
Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the seven programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Greece
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
GR06
Capacity Building of
National Asylum and
Migration
Management Systems
12,524,050
Ministry of Public
Order and Citizen
Protection (European
and Development
Programmes
Division)
Norwegian Directorate
of Immigration
GR02
Integrated Marine and
Inland Water
Management
9,510,000
Ministry of
Environment, Energy
and Climate Change
(Special Service for
the Co-ordination of
Environmental
Activities)
None
GR03 Renewable Energy 9,510,000
Center for
Renewable Energy
Sources and Saving
None
10
See the official website for Greece http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Greece
50 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
GR05
Address Urgent Needs
for the Reception and
Screening of New
Arrivals and for the
Accommodation of
Vulnerable Groups.
Assistance to
voluntary returns.
8,349,367
FMO / International
Organisation for
Migration
Norwegian Directorate
of Immigration
GR04
Funds for Non-
Governmental
Organisations
7,340,000 FMO / Bodossaki
Foundation None
GR08 Solidarity and Social
Inclusion in Greece 4,265,217
FMO /
Pricewaterhouse
Coopers Ltd - First
Elements Euro-
consultants Ltd.,
Cyprus
None
GR07 Research 2,996,311
General Secretariat
for Research and
Technology within
Ministry of Education
and Religious Affairs
None
The Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change is responsible for the programme Integrated
marine and inland water management (GR02). The Ministry also supervises the Center for Renewable
Energy Sources, which is the Programme Operator for the programme Renewable energy (GR03).
The Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) is the Programme Operator for three programmes, using different
Fund Operators for the in-country grant management of each programme.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that the
programmes GR05 and GR06 additionally involve a partner organisation from the Donor State Norway,
the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, at the programme level (Donor Programme Partner). This
involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a
close cooperation between the Donor Programme Partner and the Programme or Fund Operator in the
development and implementation of the programme.
Furthermore, five programmes (GR02, GR03, GR05, GR06, GR08) feature so-called Pre-defined
Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and therefore
present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation
running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).
51 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Greece.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Greece - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
GR
EE
CE
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk HIGH
The rating is based on Greece’s rank in international indices and on more detailed reports, which suggest that
corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country. Greece has only recently launched a strategic reform of its
legislative and institutional anti-corruption framework, the extent and impact of which remain to be seen. Therefore, a
considerable level of uncertainty with regard to future integrity of the public sector persists.
2. Net amount of grants to
country MED
The amount of funding allocated to Greece implies an increased exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in
this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism HIGH
The rating is based on a limited separation of functions between the Focal Point and the Certifying Authority, ongoing
uncertainty surrounding the Focal Point’s management structure, which also concerns the responsibility for
irregularities reporting, and the absence of the required complaint mechanism.
52 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
GR02 MED MED LOW MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased procurement risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.
The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. The
Programme Operator institution’s recent implication in alleged irregularities in relation to a public tender
process in the energy sector, and a complaint against violation of the right to protection of health under the
European Social Charter, recognised by the Council of Europe, increase the risk rating for criterion 7.
53 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
GR03 MED MED MED LOW MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased procurement risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.
The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. Uncertainty
regarding the not yet selected Project Promoter for the Pre-defined Project raises the risk rating for criterion
6.
GR04 MED LOW N/A MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased sector risk raise the rating for criterion 4. Increased
conflict of interest risk attached to Fund Operator’s programme management arrangements with key
personnel also active in private consulting raise the risk rating for criterion 7.
GR05 MED LOW LOW LOW LOW The medium grant size in combination with increased project size risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.
54 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
GR06 HIGH LOW MED MED MED
The large grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk
rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the fact that the Project Promoters for Pre-
defined Projects 1 and 2 report to the PO institution, indicated conflict of interests risks concerning key
personnel of PdP2, and uncertainty regarding the not yet selected Project Promoter for Pre-defined Project
3 raise the risk rating for criterion 6, taking into account relevant risk mitigation measures conditioned with
respect to the operation of the PdPs. The Programme Operator institution’s recent implication in allegations
of human rights violations, reported by the Council of Europe Commissioner of Human Rights, concerning
the ill-treatment of irregular migrants and related corrupt practices by staff members of the border police,
increases the risk rating for criterion 7.
GR07 LOW MED N/A MED MED
The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for criterion 5. Reputational
risk attached to the Programme Operator institution’s recently appointed key personnel’s association with a
fraud scandal, which appears to have occurred during a previous assignment, increases the risk rating for
criterion 7.
GR08 MED LOW HIGH MED MED
The fact that the Project Promoter institution for Pre-defined Project 1 was implicated in a corruption affair
before, uncertainty with respect to not yet selected key personnel for PdP1, and increased conflict of
interest risks concerning key personnel of Pre-defined Project 2 heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The
small grant size in combination with increased project size risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4. The
circumstances of the Fund Operator’s selection and the assumption that a Cyprus-based Fund Operator is
equally suited to manage possible risks attached to projects involving local partners in Greece, raise the risk
rating for criterion 7.
55 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
GREEK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Greek National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Greek National Focal Point only.
The responses of National Focal Point regarding the key findings presented in the corruption risk
assessment country report are the following:
Regarding criterion 1: The head of the National Focal Point is responsible to monitor, record and inform
regarding the progress in the implementation of the national anti-corruption strategy and action plan.
Regarding criterion 3: According to the Regulation (article 4.3) and the Hellenic Management and Control
System (article 7), the functions in the national grant management are separated. More specifically, in the
context of the implementation of the EEA Grants 2009-2014, three National Public Entities - functionally
independent to each other –are established. The Certifying Authority is responsible to certify financial
flows, the Audit Authority is responsible for verifying the effective functioning of the Management and
Control System and the National Focal Point has the overall responsibility for reaching the objectives of
the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and implementing the MoU objectives. Moreover, according to
the Article 2 & Article 39 (OGG 185/A΄/03.09.2014) regarding the new organizational structure of the
Ministry of Development and Competitiveness, the NFP has become a new distinctive unit entitled
“Independent Unit of EEA Planning, Co-ordination and Monitoring – National Focal Point” under the
General Secretariat of Public Investment - NSRF. Finally, a complaint mechanism has been introduced in
the EEA Grants website for Greece (www.eeagrants.gr). The Complaint mechanism is in line with the
recommendations of the FMC and Transparency International.
Regarding the programmes rated at medium or high risk exposure:The calls and the subsequent criteria
launched by the POs are reviewed by the FMO before their publication.
Regarding GR03 and GR06: The selection of the Promoter for the Predefined Project of GR03 was done
through a call that has been launched by the Program Operator, ensuring the appropriate degree of
publicity. The Promoters for the Pre-defined Projects of GR06 have been determined by agreement with
the FMO.
Regarding GR04, GR06 and GR08: In order to decrease the conflict of interest, risks mitigation measures
have been provided in the Program Implementation Agreement. In particular, the three predefined
projects are appraised in accordance with Article 5.5.3 of the Regulation by an independent and external
expert, prior to the signature of the project contracts. The expert is independent of the Ministry of Public
Order and Citizen’s Protection.
In addition, National Focal Point ensures that the Program Operator’s monitoring and control functions
described in Article 4.7.1.e) and f) of the Regulation in respect of the three predefined projects of the
program, is carried out by an entity independent of the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen’s Protection.
The precise division of responsibilities between the Program Operator and this entity is described in detail
in the Program’s management and control system.
Mitigation measures
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
56 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Description of measure Establishment of a national Management and Control System
Target programme/project All Programs
Corruption risk addressed Separation of functions & complaints mechanism
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Partially completed (legislative actions)
Ongoing (website & complaint mechanism)
Description of activities The establishment of a national Management and Control System by
the beneficiary country provides the legislative framework for ensuring
the separation of the functions involved in the context of EEA 2009-
2014.
More specifically, according to the article 7 of the Management and
Control System, three National Public Entities - functionally
independent to each other –are established. The Certifying Authority
which is responsible to certify financial flows, the Financial Audit
Committee, which is responsible for verifying the effective functioning of
the Management and Control System, while the National Focal Point
has the overall responsibility for reaching the objectives of the EEA
Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 and implementing the MoU objectives.
Moreover, according to the Article 2 & Article 39 (OGG
185/A΄/03.09.2014) regarding the new organizational structure of the
Ministry of Development and Competitiveness, the NFP’s structure has
changed. The NFP is a new distinctive unit entitled as “Independent
Unit of EEA Planning, Co-ordination and Monitoring” under the General
Secretariat of Public Investment - NSRF.
The NFS runs the website www.eeagrants.gr (since December 2014),
which supports the function of a Complaint Mechanism in compliance
with the standards suggested by the FMC.
Results of mitigation
measure to date
A clearer structure and a functional complaint mechanism.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure Procedures for the selection of Project Promoters for Pre-defined
Projects
Target programme/project GR-03 & GR-06
57 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Corruption risk addressed Conflict of interest
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Completed
Description of activities In case of GR-03 the selection of the Project Promoter for the pre-
defined project was launched under an open call, ensuring the
appropriate degree of publicity.
In case of GR-06 the selection of the Project Promoters for the three
pre-defined projects has been determined by agreement with the FMO,
and in line with the national legislation.
Results of mitigation
measure to date
GR-03 selection of PP (pending)
GR-06 selection of PPs (completed)
MITIGATION MEASURE 3
Description of measure External evaluation of pre-defined projects
Target programme/project GR-06
Corruption risk addressed Conflict of interest
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities The three predefined projects are appraised in accordance with Article
5.5.3 of the Regulation by an independent and external expert, prior to
the signature of the project contracts. The contracted expert is
independent of the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen’s Protection.
Results of mitigation
measure to date
External appraisals for pre-defined projects
58 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LATVIA
LATVIA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 1 August 2013]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Latvia distributes a net amount of EUR 67.5 million. Eight programmes are funded
in Latvia, supporting a range of policy sectors.11
The EU Funds Monitoring Department of the Ministry of
Finance serves as the National Focal Point responsible for the overall management of the EEA and
Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the eight programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Latvia
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
LV08
Reform of the Latvian
Correctional Services
and Police Detention
Centers
13,056,000
Ministry of Justice, in
cooperation with the
Ministry of the
Interior
The Norwegian
Correctional Service,
Council of Europe
LV06 Green Industry
Innovation 11,328,000
Ministry of
Economics Innovation Norway
LV02 National Climate
Policy 10,365,000
Ministry for
Environmental
Protection and
Regional
Development
Norwegian Environment
Agency; Directorate for
Civil Protection and
Emergency Planning
11
See the official website for Latvia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Latvia
59 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LV03 NGO Fund 10,365,000 Society Integration
Foundation None
LV04
Conservation and
Revitalisation of
Cultural and Natural
Heritage
10,019,500 Ministry of Culture
Directorate for Cultural
Heritage, Arts Council
Norway
LV05 Research and
Scholarships 5,510,250
Ministry of Education
and Science
The Norwegian Centre
for International
Cooperation in
Education, The
Research Council of
Norway
LV07
Capacity‐Building and
Institutional
Cooperation between
Latvian and
Norwegian Public
Institutions, Local and
Regional Authorities
4,992,000
Ministry for
Environmental
Protection and
Regional
Development
The Norwegian
Association of Local and
Regional Authorities
LV22 Decent Work and
Tripartite Dialogue 384,000 Innovation Norway N/A
The Programme Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue (LV22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk
Filtering procedure, because this approach would not have been applicable to the advanced project stage
of the respective Programme Area 22, which is implemented in 12 out of 15 countries with Innovation
Norway as the general Programme Operator.
Seven of the programmes are managed by six Programme Operator institutions. The largest programme
LV08 (Reform of the Latvian Correctional services and Police Detention Centres) is managed by the
Ministry of Justice together with the Ministry of the Interior.
The Ministry for Environmental Protection and Regional Development manages two programmes,
National Climate Policy (LV02) and Capacity-Building and Institutional Cooperation between Latvian and
Norwegian Public Institutions, Local and Regional Authorities (LV07).
It is noteworthy that the Programme NGO Fund (LV03) is managed by the Society Integration Foundation
which is a foundation under public law.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that all
programmes except for the NGO Fund programme additionally involve partner organisations from the
Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports
the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests close cooperation between the
respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the implementation of the
programme.
All programmes except LV05 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the
general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion
60 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the
Project Promoter).
61 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Latvia.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Latvia - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
LA
TV
IA
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED
Corruption is still perceived as a major issue in Latvia, according to the country’s rating in relevant international
corruption indices such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2012). The gap between
anti-corruption legislation and practice, and structural challenges in the public sector persists. It remains to be seen
whether the anti-corruption strategy (2009-2013) will be renewed. There is a new risk that the reputation of
effectiveness which the special anti-corruption agency has earned in Latvia may suffer from internal disputes.
2. Net amount of grants to country MED Latvia is one of the countries which receive a medium sized amount of grants in absolute terms. A medium amount
of funding implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in the country.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism MED
Limited separation of functions in the national grants management structure generally increases the risk exposure.
At the same time the Focal Point advertised an essential “Complaints Mechanism” on its grants website at an early
stage last year, which only requires some updating to comply with the suggested standard practice.
62 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
Co
mb
ine
d P
rog
ram
me
Ra
tin
g
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
LV02 MED LOW MED LOW MED
The large grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Project Promoter for both Pre-
defined Projects is a department within the Programme Operator institution, and the politically exposed
status of Project Promoter’s key personnel12
raise the risk rating for criterion 6.
12
The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.
63 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LV03 MED MED MED MED MED
The grant size raises the rating for criterion 4. The fact that no Donor Partner is involved in the programme
raises the risk rating for criterion 5. A certain lack of transparency regarding the Pre-defined Project and the
relationship between Project Promoter, National Partners and Programme Operator raise the rating for
criterion 6. The fact that the Programme Operator is a state body associated with irregularities earlier, and
the unclear nature of collaboration with one National Partner, which is a ministry, raises the risk rating for
criterion 7.
LV04 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH
A large grant size with one Pre-defined Project almost receiving half of the funding and implying
procurement risks, increases the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Promoter of the
aforementioned and another Pre-defined Project is a State-owned company which was accused of
insufficient performance earlier, heightens the risk exposure for criterion 6. The Programme Operator’s
recent implication with a corruption case (later cleared), key personnel’s politically exposed status and
missing information about key personnel increased the risk exposure for criterion 7.
LV05 MED LOW N/A HIGH HIGH
The fact that Programme Operator’s key personnel have recently been suspended following implication in
irregularities related to a EU-funded programme heightens the risk exposure for criterion 7. Despite a
medium grant size the programme is associated with sector risks, which raises the rating for criterion 4. In
this case the results and the rating regarding criterion 7 dominates the overall rating of LV05.
64 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LV06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED
The grant size, which is the largest among all programmes in Latvia, as well as sector and procurement
risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Programme Operator’s and its National
Partner’s key personnel have a politically exposed status, and some inconsistency in the information about
key personnel’s engagement in the board of a state corporation raised the risk rating for criterion 7.
LV07 HIGH LOW MED MED MED
The large grant size of one Pre-defined Project and increased sector and procurement risks heighten the
rating for criterion 4. The fact that the Project Promoter for two Pre-defined Projects is the same as the
Programme Operator institution, a separate verification agency engaged for that reason however also being
subordinate to the Programme Operator, and the high number of local level partners involved, raise the
rating for criterion 6. The involvement of the Programme Operator in three of four PdPs (as Project
Promoter in two, as National Partner in one) and the increased local risk exposure raise the rating for
criterion 7.
LV08 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH
The largest grants size among all programmes, a Pre-defined Project to which almost 60% of the funding is
allocated and which involves procurement risk, heightened the risk rating for criteria 4. The nature of the
Project Promoters for two (of three) Pre-defined Projects and recent involvements in public procurement
abuse and a bribery scheme heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The politically exposed status of key
personnel of both the Programme Operator and its National Partner raise the risk rating for criterion 7.
65 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LATVIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Latvian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Latvian National Focal Point only.
1) Response to the country-Ievel results.
The Latvian State has delegated the mandate of anti-corruption politics to the Corruption
Prevention and Combating Bureau (CPCB), thereby ensuring that a single independent
institution is responsible for anti-corruption politics of Latvia. CPCB in close co-operation with
other institutions has elaborated Guidelines for the Corruption Prevention and
Combating2014-2020 (the Guidelines) incorporating strategical directions of activities,
specific activities to be implemented by assigned institutions as well as overall information
about anti- fraud policy, strategic objectives, results to be achieved and tasks to be done for
the protection of interests of the EU funds and other foreign financial assistance instruments
(including EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism (Financial
Mechanisms)). The Guidelines have to be adopted by the Government during 2015. After the
adoption the document is binding for the designated institutions across public sector,
including local governments and occasionally requiring co-operation with non-governmental
institutions. This is the country’s third anti-corruption policy document developedby CPCB in
Latvia since 2004 and all the documents including the latest one include activities on integrity
and corruption prevention, thereby maintaining principles of continuity and ensuring that anti-
corruption politics are being implemented. Additionally we would Iike to note, that Corruption
Perception Index (CPI) in 2013 for the first time placed Latvia among countries where
corruption is not considered a serious problem with 53 points out of 100. Comparing with
2012 CPI results none of the six indicators used for generating CPI had downfall in 2013 with
regards to Latvia.
It has to be noted that the Management and control system (MCS) in the management of the
Financial Mechanisms ensures strong internal control in all levels, separation of duties and
multiple levels of decision making to minimise the risk of any decision not being objective and
transparent, as well as Audit Authority assessed that MCS developed for the implementation
of the Financial Mechanisms functions effectively.
"Complaint Mechanism" on NFP website is updated according to suggested standard
practice by the Donor States.
2) Response to the programme-Ievel results.
NFP can't unambiguously agree to the programme-Ievel results, because assessment of
institutional officials are based on information provided by media which is sometimes not
sufficiently substantiated. CPCB has evaluated specific cases reflected in the media and
assessed within the Final Report and they are found not to be in any case attributable to the
Financial Mechanisms. As well as the persons whose specific actions were evaluated in the
Final Report based on the information available in the media, do not make decisions in
relation to any of the Financial Mechanisms programme/ project implementation issues on
their own, as well as respective Programme MCS developed in the institutions involved in the
programme implementation provide multiple levels of decision-making process to minimise
the risk of any decision not being objective and transparent. It has to be mentioned, that all
persons stated in the Final report have already left the position they were on the time of data
analysis (almost year ago).
66 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Regarding the evaluation of transparency of predefined projects we believe that the pre-
defined projects defined in Memorandum of Understanding (LV04, LV07, LV08) and those
initiated by Programme Operators (LV02, LV03, LV06, LV07) later during the elaboration of
programme shall not have the same level of risk. It shall be taken into account that
predefined projects for Programmes LV04 and LV08 (evaluated with high risk) were
evaluated in all levels, discussed with Donor States and included in Memorandum of
Understanding and also approved by Cabinet of Ministers of Latvia, thus ensuring maximum
transparency of approval process. In addition, we would like to note that in the Programmes
LV04 and LV07 one of the pre-defined project was the initiative of the Donor States.
In general, NFP doesn't agree on the evaluation approach where the conclusions about the
potential risk level in each programme is based on separate historical events - irregularities,
which occurred within the implementation process of the EU Funds co-financed projects, e.g.,
high corruption risk rating for LV05 is based mainly on one case - situation in EU co-financed
project «Evaluation of Higher Education» and disciplinary proceedings against officials, that
resulted in no sanctions against officials as well as system audit in Ministry of Education and
Science did not reveal substantial discrepancies in the system.
Corruption risk is assessed by NFP to be unlikely at the current implementation stage.
AllProgrammes (including LV04, LV05, LV08) are being strongly monitored within NFP and
there havenot been corruption related cases in any of them attributable to the Financial
Mechanisms so far toassess this risk to be higher.
3) Any further comments and observations related to the findings
We consider that the corruption risk assessment and filtering exercise needs to be
continuous in order to be effective and done by the most competent experts in the field.
Nevertheless, nationally NFP intends to improve overaIl risk management process and
results (more information please see below in section 2 (a)).
Mitigation measures
In order to control and minimise to the extent possible the corruption risk issues within the implementation
process of the Financial Mechanisms, NFP will take the following main future actions:
1) Starting from September until December 2014 training was ongoing on Risk management
strategy for the representatives of MoF which are working with foreign assistance programmes.
Currently the training process is completed and in the end of November the contractor
elaborated and submitted a report including general results, conclusions of the training as well as
the proposals for Risk management strategy for the Financial Mechanisms formulated during the
training in which the risk of corruption was also considered. Taking into account
recommendations and conclusions expressed in report, consequently the MoF has elaborated a
new Procedure for the risk management for EU funds, Financial Mechanisms and Swiss
contribution and updated the Risk Register template, which were approved in the risk
management group meeting on 19 December 2014. Newly elaborated Procedure determines
main risk groups, risk appetite and risk tolerance, new scales for likelihood and consequence
(adjusted to the Financial Mechanisms) as well as stipulates responsibility of each department
and officials. Enhanced Risk register is more transparent and comprehensible (one sheet for
each risk), as well as methods how to fill the risk register are clearly described in aforementioned
Procedure. The Risk Management Strategy for the Financial Mechanisms is planned to be
developed within May 2015.
As another result from trainings - we are expecting that employees' competence on risk
management shall increase, thus will also rise the quality of risk assessment process at NFP.
2) NFP will collaborate with CPCB on any particular case related to corruption and conflict of
interest issues in relation to Financial Mechanisms co-financed programs and projects in case of
67 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
necessity. CPCB's daily work is connected with the prevention of corruption and the matters of
the conflict of interest, as well as powers to prosecute officials involved in questionable
situations, where fraud or corruption is detected early. This must be noted that the mandate of
NFP is limited and thus we have neither authorization nor instrument for corruption risk
prevention when in the area of the politically exposed high-Ievel officials in other institutions not
subordinated to NFP - the institutions of Programme Operators - ministries and agencies,
especially if it affects the actions of Ministers or Heads of the institutions.
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure
Guidelines for the Corruption Prevention and Combating 2014-2020
Target programme/project
All Programmes in Latvia
Corruption risk addressed
Country corruption risk
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Planned (during 2015)
Description of activities
involved
Improvement of public sector human resources management with the
purpose of promoting ethics values and to decrease occurrence of
corruption and risks of conflict of interest.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
1) Methodological trainings for procurement experts, as well as for
public officials who are temporary taking part in the work of
procurement commission have been provided to decrease number of
violations of public procurement procedures. Immediate result is
raised awareness on specific issues of procurement.
2) Trainings for procurement specialists have been provided by
developing their capacities to identify alleged iIIegal activities in the
stage of bid preparation by using preventive measures (e.g. cartel
agreement) thus countering further support for unaccountable
entrepreneurship from the state and local government financial
resources in case of entering into agreement. Immediate results is
increased capacity of procurement experts for identification of illegal
activities.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure
Risk Management Strategy for the Financial Mechanisms
Target programme/project
All Programmes in Latvia
Corruption risk addressed
Country corruption risk
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Time frame – May 2015
Description of activities
involved
Trainings on risk management in EU Structural Funds and Financial
Mechanisms finished at the end of 2014. Trainings included 3 parts
68 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
(theoretical, strategic, practice). Trainings focused on basic principles
of risk management, identification and assessment of risks,
determination of risk appetite and risk tolerance, risk mapping,
controlling, mitigation and monitoring principles, IT tools, etc. In the
result of the training the proposals on Risk Management Strategy
were developed based on deep risk assessment as well as during the
assessment, risks related to the Financial Mechanisms, including
corruption and fraud risks, were analysed and the main national level
risks were defined.
Taking into account recommendations and conclusions expressed in
report, consequently the MoF has elaborated a new Procedure for the
risk management for EU funds, Financial Mechanisms and Swiss
contribution and updated the Risk Register template, which were
approved in the risk management group meeting on 19 December
2014. Newly elaborated Procedure determines main risk groups, risk
appetite and risk tolerance, new scales for likelihood and
consequence (adjusted to the Financial Mechanisms) as well as
stipulates responsibility of each department and officials. Enhanced
Risk register is more transparent and comprehensible (one sheet for
each risk), as well as methods how to fill the risk register are clearly
described in aforementioned Procedure.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Trainings for the employees of MoF started on 16 September 2014
and shall be finished in December 2014.
MITIGATION MEASURE 3
Description of measure Complaint Mechanism on the www.eeagrants.lv and
www.norwaygrants.lv homepages
Target programme/project
All Programmes in Latvia
Corruption risk addressed
Separation of functions & complaints mechanism
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
"Complaint Mechanism” on NFP's website is updated according to
suggested standard practice by the Donor States as well as taking into
account a draft guide and a checklist on complaint mechanisms by the
Transparency International (received at the Risk Seminar 2014). The
procedure of complaint mechanism is described in the
www.eeagrants.lv and www.norwaygrants.lvhomepages in section
"Submission of complaints” as well as stipulated within the description of
MCS of Financial Mechanisms 2009-2014 in Latvia. When a complaint
is made, the next steps at NFP (MoF) shall be as follows:
1. Taking into account the subject of complaint, MoF delegates it
69 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
to responsible department of MoF which is competent in
particular field and to legal advisers (if necessary) or will
forward a complaint to other responsible institution which is
involved in the Financial Mechanisms’ management or to
CPCB if complaint is about the corruption.
2. Responsible department reviews it and answers on it in
accordance with the rules and deadlines of the Law on
Submissions (it is prohibited to disclose information without the
consent of the submitter of information revealing person's
identity. If the submitter does not want that the facts referred to
in the submission are disclosed, person shall specify it in the
submission. The institution shall revert to the complaint within
10 working days).
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be
as specific as possible)
One complaint has been received.
MITIGATION MEASURE 4
Description of measure Regular monitoring of the programme in order to achieve the planned
outcomes and outputs.
Target programme/project LV04 (responsibility of NFP – to take action in order to monitor
programme closely)
Corruption risk addressed
Minimise risk on not achievement of the programme results
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Status - ongoing
Time frame - programme implementation period
Description of activities
involved 1. Participation in the Programme Cooperation Committee meetings
biannually.
2. Close cooperation with Norwegian Embassy, incl. biannual
meetings on bilateral activities and publicity issues.
3. Monthly monitoring of planned and actual expenditures of
programme.
4. Bi-annually reporting to the Latvian Government on the
implementation progress of Foreign Assistance.
6. During Annual Meeting on 04.06.2014. NFP discussed with Donor
States programme progress and main risks/their mitigation plan.
8. Regular communication by phone/e-mail/letters with PO
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
All procedures for launch of OCs were in place. OC for SGS
Conservation of cultural heritage projects was launched on
16.09.2013 and ended on 06.12.2013. OC for SGS Cultural Exchange
projects was launched on 16.09.2013 and ended on 20.12.2013. In
70 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
both SGSs projects were approved in June/July 2014 and currently
project agreements are being finalized.
MITIGATION MEASURE 5
Description of measure Official request sent to Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) for
improvement of staff capacity in order to ensure timely execution of
PO's functions
Target programme/project LV05 (responsibility of NFP – to take action in order to ensure
sufficient staffing of the PO)
Corruption risk addressed
Problems of the staff capacity of the PO
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Implementation status – completed Time frame – I-III Q 2014
Description of activities
involved
NFP's letter to MoES sent on 15.01.2014. and repeatedly on involved
11.04.2014. as MoES hasn't replied on the first letter.
After several reminders through phone/e-mails and a meeting held
after Annual Meeting on 12.06.2014 between MoES and NFP, replay
was received from MoES on 26.06.2014.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
On 09.06.2014. an additional employee in MoES (senior official of
Structural Funds and International Financial Instruments Department)
whose primary duty is directly related with execution of PO's functions
at MoES was hired. Two other employees – director of department
and deputy director – are involved when needed.
The following employees of programme's Implementing Agency at
Management and External Cooperation Department are involved in
execution of PO's functions delegated by MoES:
1. Director of Management and External Cooperation
Department.
2. Head of International Cooperation Programme Unit of
Management and External Cooperation Department.
3. Senior Project Manager of International Cooperation
Programme Unit of Management and External Cooperation
Department.
MITIGATION MEASURE 6
Description of measure Regular monitoring of the programme in order to achieve the planned
outcomes and outputs.
71 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Target programme/project LV05
(responsibility of NFP- to take action in order to monitor programme
closely
Corruption risk addressed Minimise risk on not achievement of the programme results
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Status – ongoing
Time frame- programme implementation period
Description of activities
involved 1. Participation in the meetings of Programme Cooperation Committee
biannually.
2. Close cooperation with Norwegian Embassy, including biannual
meetings on bilateral activities and publicity issues.
3. Monthly monitoring of planned and actual expenditures of
programme.
4. Biannually reporting to the Latvian Government on the
implementation progress of Foreign Assistance.
6. During Annual Meeting on 04.06.2014. NFP discussed with the
Donor States programme progress and main risks/their mitigation
plan.
7. On 12.06.2014. NFP had a meeting with MoES in order to discuss
action plan on sooner launch of both OCs.
8. Regular communication by phone/e-mail/letters with PO and
Implementing Agency.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
All procedures for launch of OCs are in place. OC for Research
projects was launched on 08.07.2014 and ended on 30.09.2014.
Additional OC for preparatory visits under programme bilateral fund
was launched on 18.09.2014 and will end on 13.11.2014.
OC for Scholarship projects was launched on 10.11.2014 and will end
on 30.01.2015.
As promised at Annual Meeting additional OC for preparatory visits is
launched along with Scholarships' OC in faII 2014.
72 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LITHUANIA
LITHUANIA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 7 January 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Lithuania distributes a net amount of EUR 77.7 million. Fourteen programmes are
funded in Lithuania, supporting a range of policy sectors.13
The International Financial Assistance
Coordination Division of the Ministry of Finance serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the
overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the fourteen programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Lithuania
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
LT06
Conservation and
revitalisation of cultural
and natural heritage
9,000,000 Ministry of Culture Norwegian Directorate
of Cultural Heritage
LT09 Green industry
Innovation 8,000,000 Ministry of Economy Innovation Norway
LT10
Capacity building and
institutional
cooperation between
Beneficiary State and
Norwegian public
institutions, local and
regional authorities
8,000,000 Ministry of Interior
Norwegian Association
of Local and Regional
Authorities;
Norwegian Environment
Agency;
National Police
13
See the official website for Lithuania http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Lithuania
73 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Directorate
LT13
Efficiency, quality and
transparency in
Lithuanian courts
7,700,000
Lithuanian National
Courts
Administration
Norwegian Courts
Administration
LT14
Correctional services
including non-custodial
sanctions
7,700,000 Ministry of Justice Norwegian Correctional
Services
LT03 Biodiversity and eco-
system services 6,520,000
Ministry of
Environment
Norwegian Environment
Agency (former
Directorate for Nature
Management)
LT05 Children and youth at
risk 6,312,000
Ministry of Social
Security and Labour None
LT11 Public health initiatives 6,000,000 Ministry of Health None
LT04 NGO programme in
Lithuania 5,500,000
Human Rights
Monitoring Institute None
LT02
Integrated marine and
inland water
management
5,000,000 Ministry of
Environment
Norwegian Environment
Agency (former
Directorate for Nature
Management)
LT12
Schengen cooperation
and combating cross-
border and organised
crime, including
trafficking and itinerant
criminal groups
3,412,000 Ministry of Interior None
LT08 EEA scholarship
programme 1,420,000
Ministry of Education
and Science
Norwegian Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education
LT07
Promotion of diversity
in culture and arts
within European
cultural heritage
1,000,000 Ministry of Culture Arts Council Norway
LT22 Decent work and
tripartite dialogue 456,000 Innovation Norway N/A
13 programmes were assessed, excluding programme LT22.
74 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
The Ministry of Culture is responsible for the largest programme LT06 and the small-sized programme
LT07. The Ministry of Environment operates another two programmes (LT02 and LT03). The Ministry of
Interior is also in charge of two programmes (LT10 and LT12).
The NGO programme in Lithuania (LT04) is implemented by the Human Rights Monitoring Institute as the
Fund Operator contracted by the FMO as the Programme Operator.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that nine
programmes (LT02, LT03, LT06, LT07, LT08, LT09, LT10, LT13, LT14) additionally involve partner
organisations from the Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This
involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a
close cooperation between the respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the
development and implementation of the programme.
Nine programmes (LT02, LT03, LT04, LT05, LT10, LT11, LT12, LT13, LT14) also feature so-called Pre-
defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and
therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the
organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).
75 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Lithuania.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Lithuania - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
LIT
HU
AN
IA
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED
Lithuania scores moderately in international indices. The current Government’s stated political priority of fighting
corruption has been formalised in a recently renewed Anti-corruption Programme. Anti-corruption agencies appear
to play an effective role in fighting corruption. Overall, the state of the national integrity system suggests a medium
risk exposure rating.
2. Net amount of grants to country MED The amount of funding allocated to Lithuania implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk,
taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions
&complaints mechanism MED
The separation of functions within the Ministry of Finance is somewhat limited. At the same time, the involvement of
the “Central Project Management Agency” (CPMA) in the programme implementation adds an additional control
function to the national grants management system. According to the programme documents, and confirmed by the
Focal Point, the CPMA under the Ministry of Finance is mandated with supervising the execution of all programmes
(except LT04) and mitigating corruption risk emanating from assessed conflict of interest and procurement risks.
While a complaint mechanism exists, it is not yet advertised according to the suggested standard.
76 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
LT02 MED LOW LOW MED MED
The medium grant size and relevant procurement risks increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. The
Programme Operator institution’s earlier implication in a corruption investigation raises the rating for
criterion 7.
77 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LT03 MED LOW LOW MED MED
The medium grant size and relevant procurement risks increase the risk exposure for criterion 4. The
Programme Operator institution’s earlier implication in a corruption investigation raises the rating for
criterion 7.
LT04 MED LOW MED HIGH MED
The overall rating of Medium Risk Exposure for Programme LT04 is based on the ratings of High Risk for
criterion 7, Medium Risk for criteria 4 and 6, and Low Risk for criterion 5. Significant transparency issues
attached to the perceived practice of project selection by the Fund Operator heighten the risk rating for
criterion 7. The medium grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4. Uncertainty in relation to the PdP
Project Promoter institutions and relevant key personnel not yet selected at the time of assessment, raise
the risk rating to medium.
LT05 MED MED LOW LOW LOW The medium grant size and increased procurement risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The lack of
involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level increases the risk exposure for criterion 5.
LT06 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size raises the risk rating for criterion 4.
78 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LT07 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW
LT08 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW
LT09 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size and increased procurement risks raised the rating for criterion 4.
LT10 HIGH MED LOW LOW MED
The large grant size and increased sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. Reported issues concerning
the relationship between the Donor Programme Partner and the Programme Operator increase the risk
exposure for criterion 5.
79 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LT11 MED MED LOW MED MED
The medium grant size and sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4 .The lack of involvement of a Donor
partner on the programme level increase the risk exposure for criterion 5. Indications of earlier and recent
implications of the Programmes Operator institution in corruption issues raise the risk rating for criterion 7.
LT12 MED MED LOW LOW LOW
While the grant size is relatively small, increased project, procurement and sector risks raise the rating for
criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level increases the risk exposure
for criterion 5.
LT13 HIGH LOW MED MED MED
The large grant size and increased project, procurement and sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The
lack of transparency regarding the separation of powers in the relationship between the Programme
Operator and the Project Promoter for the Pre-defined Projects increases the risk exposure for both criterion
6 and 7.
LT14 HIGH LOW MED LOW MED
The large grant size and increased project and procurement risks raised the rating for criterion 4. While risk
mitigation measures are in place to reduce general conflict of interest risk for criterion 6, the rating is based
on a transparency issue linked to key personnel of one PdP.
80 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
LITHUANIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Lithuanian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Lithuanian National Focal Point only.
As regards the country-level observation, we would like to point out that the legal and policy framework at
national level for public financial management is an important instrument for mitigating corruption and
providing transparency and accountability in implementation of the EEA and Norwegian Grants
(hereinafter referred to as the Grants). The created set-up of implementation of the Grants in Lithuania as
such together with the established Management and Control System (MCS) and risks mitigation and
monitoring strategies implemented by the line ministries and other involved public institutions form a basis
for anti-corruption policy in the specific areas covered by the Grants.
Concerning the ratings of the Programmes with higher level of possible exposure to corruption due to the
procurement risk, a possible conflict of interest when the Project Promoter and the Programme Operator
is the same institution or the integrity issues of the Programme Operator, we would like to highlight the
fact that a number of measures has been already introduced while creating the Grants MCS in Lithuania
in order to create the sufficient level of assurance and reduce corruption/mismanagement risk. The unified
implementation procedures and requirements for all the programmes and projects approved by the
National Focal Point, separation of management functions and decisions on the eligibility of expenditure
and irregularities towards Project Promoters between Programme Operators and the Central Project
Management Agency (CPMA), ex-ante and ex-post control of procurements performed by the CPMA
provide for minimization of the risk factors indicated in the Report for the relevant programmes operated
by the Lithuanian Programme Operators. Moreover, automatisation of administrative functions by the
specifically created IT-based management system increases transparency and allows for the controlling
institutions to get sufficient and timely information on all the processes and persons involved in the
programmes implementation and decision-making, also reviewing the supporting documents.
The minimization of risk factors during the implementation of the Grants in Lithuania will remain as a top
priority for the National Focal Point and other competent institutions, and corruption risk assessment
results and observations provided in the Report will be taken into account in their routine risk
management and monitoring activities.
81 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Mitigation measures
Among the ongoing measures, we would like to highlight the ones for mitigation of a possible conflict of
interest, procurement risks and mismanagement in general (presented in detail below).
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure
Mitigation of a possible conflict of interest.
Target programme/project
All Programmes, with a particular focus on Programme LT13 and
other programmes containing pre-defined projects.
Corruption risk addressed
Conflict of interests and/or collusion
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
Separation of programme management functions and decisions taking
on the eligibility of expenditure and irregularities towards Project
Promoters.
The supervisory role for collecting and appraisal of applications,
monitoring of implementation of the approved projects, verification of
payment claims and expenditure eligibility issues and investigation of
the irregularities is assigned for the CPMA.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
The involvement of the CPMA in the programmes implementation
works as effective corruption risk mitigation measure in prevention of
conflicts of interest and/or collusion between the Programme Operator
and the Project Promoter in case the Project Promoter is in the same
institution as the Programme Operator or subordinate to the
Programme Operator.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure
Mitigation of procurement risk
Target programme/project
All projects
Corruption risk addressed
Restriction in competition in public procurements, violation of public
procurement requirements and procedures.
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
Trainings, methodological advice on requirements and recurrent
errors also standard procurement documents provided to Project
Promoters by the CPMA.
The CPMA performs ex-ante check/verification of procurement
82 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
documents and procedures for selected projects and procurements
based on the risk analysis results and ex-post check of all
procurement procedures during verification of eligibility of
expenses/costs.
Double check of the procurement documents as well as monitoring of
the implementation of the procurement contract on IT-based risk
analysis results performed by the Public Procurement Service.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
No irregularities have been detected up to date as regards the
procurement
MITIGATION MEASURE 3
Description of measure Complaint mechanism
Target programme/project
All Programmes and projects
Corruption risk addressed
Suspected corruption and malpractice
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved The complaint mechanism operates on the website specifically
designed for the Grants in Lithuania
(http://www.eeagrants.lt/en/transparency) and it is operational from
February 2014. The introduced functionalities allow submission of
information on suspected mismanagement or corruption to the
designated bodies anonymously.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be
as specific as possible)
83 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MALTA
MALTA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 2 August 2013]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Malta distributes a net amount of EUR 4.2 million. Four programmes are funded in
Malta, supporting a range of policy sectors.14
The Funds and Programmes Division at the Ministry of
European Affairs serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA
and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the four programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Malta
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
MT02
EEA Financial
Mechanism
Programme
2,139,000
Ministry of European
Affairs (Funds and
Programmes
Division)
None
MT04
Norwegian Financial
Mechanism
Programme
1,440,000
Ministry of European
Affairs (Funds and
Programmes
Division)
None
MT03 NGO Funds
Programme 505,000
Solidarity Overseas
Service Malta None
MT22 Decent Work and
Tripartite Dialogue 16,000 Innovation Norway N/A
14
See the official website for Malta http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Malta
84 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Only three of the four programmes were assessed. Programme MT22 Decent Work and Tripartite
Dialogue (MT22) was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would
not have been applicable to the advanced project stage of the respective Programme Area 22.
Three of the programmes are managed by two Programme Operator institutions. The Funds and
Programmes Division at the Ministry of European Affairs, which is also the Focal Point, manages the
programmes EEA Financial Mechanism Programme (MT02) and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism
Programme (MT04). The NGO Fund programme (MT03) is managed by a so-called Fund Operator,
Solidarity Overseas Service Malta, which was contracted directly by the FMO.
Programmes MT02 and MT04 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the
general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion
between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the
Project Promoter).
85 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Malta.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Malta - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
MA
LT
A
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED
The rating of Malta in relevant international corruption indices such as Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index, and media reports about systemic issues affecting the state of integrity in the country raise the
exposure to corruption risk to medium.
2. Net amount of grants to
country LOW
Malta receives the smallest amount of funding in absolute terms. A smaller amount of funding reduces the overall
corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in the country.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism LOW
The Focal Point also serves as a Programme Operator for two programmes; but otherwise the separation of functions
in the national grants management structure is given, and the Focal Point advertises a “complaint mechanism”
according to suggested standard practice on its website.
86 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL P
RO
GR
AM
ME
S
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
MT02 MED LOW HIGH MED MED
This programme is allocated the largest grant in Malta and involves increased project size and procurement
risks. However, the absolute amount of the grant is in fact so small that a High Risk rating for criterion 4
may be inadequate. This leads to a Medium risk exposure for criterion 4. The Project Promoters for each of
the three Pre-defined Projects are a state-owned company or government agencies. One of the Project
Promoters has been associated with poor performance. Another Project Promoter institution has been
implicated in a public procurement scandal and other corruption incidents in the past. This heightens the
corruption risk exposure for criterion 6. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner at the
Programme level is largely compensated by the involvement of a Donor Partner in Pre-defined Project 2;
this leads to a Low risk exposure for criterion 5. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme
Operator raises the risk exposure for criterion 7.
87 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MT03 LOW MED N/A LOW LOW The Programme does not involve a Donor Programme Partner which raises the risk rating for criterion 5.
Otherwise no indications of corruption risk were revealed.
MT04 MED MED MED MED MED
The large grant size of one Pre-defined Project and increased sector and procurement risk raise the rating of exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner at the Programme level 7 raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. Indication of current delay in planning the aforementioned Pre-defined Project following the change in government raises the risk exposure for criterion 6. The fact that the Focal Point also serves as the Programme Operator raises the risk exposure for criterion 7.
88 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MALTESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Maltese National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Maltese National Focal Point only.
The NFP takes this opportunity to reiterate its comments in respect of risk filtering criteria 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7
as these have not been addressed in the Final Corruption Risk Filtering Report. In particular, the report
should acknowledge that Malta’s risk exposure for criterion 2 cannot be on the same level of those
countries receiving €44.9 million (third group of countries as per on page 2 of Annex 1: Operationalisation
of the Risk Filtering Criteria – Explanatory Notes). The NFP cannot see why Malta was grouped with
countries receiving up to €45 million.
Furthermore, no explanation is offered as to why the fact that the NFP also serves as the PO (as
approved by the Donor States and included in the MoU and as permitted by the Regulations) raises the
level of risk exposure for criterion 7 to Medium. The Funds and Programmes Division’s track record as
NFP/PO seems to have been completely overlooked. As the FMO is aware, the Funds and Programmes
Division has been administering the EEA and Norway Grants since 2004 and it has never faced even the
slightest allegation of corruption. Within the Division, separate reporting mechanisms are in place
whereby programme management reports to the Director (Programmes and Projects) and financial control
reports to the Director General. All this is described in detail in the Description of the Management and
Control System submitted to the FMO.
The NFP would also like to contest the assertion on page 4 of the Report that “Programmes MT02 and
MT04 also feature so-called pre-defined projects, which…. present a greater risk of collusion between
personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the pre-defined project (the Project
Promoter)“. What is the basis for such a statement? In the case of Malta the selection of projects was
approved by a body independent of the Programme Operator, eliminating any scope for its collusion with
a Project Promoter to favour the choice of one pre-defined project over another.
In the results of the MT04 Programme-level risk filtering procedure it is stated that “the set up of the pre-
defined project suggest that pre-defined project 2 is more exposed to political risk following the change of
government”. The Maltese authorities would appreciate having the specific reason underpinning to such
an assessment, instead of just a blanket statement.
Finally, the NFP has noticed that the Dow Jones Risk and Compliance Due Diligence Reference on
project MT02/3 concerns an entity unrelated to the Project Promoter. The Project Promoter is Heritage
Malta but the Due Diligence Reference relates to Heritage Insurance Management (Malta) Ltd.
Mitigation measures
In terms of planned and/or implemented risk mitigation measures, including extra monitoring of the pre-
defined projects in MT02 which were rated high risk exposure, the NFP has updated its monitoring plan to
take account of the findings in the Final Corruption Risk Filtering Report. The updated plan has been
submitted to the FMO. It is worth noting that (a) monitoring actions related to project MT02/1 ‘CO2
Energy: Development of algae-derived bio-fuel production plant’ have been deleted following the
cancellation of that project and (b) on-the-spot checks are being carried out following award of contract
and prior to verification of first expenditure. This represents an upgrade of the Programme Operator’s
obligation in the original plan which was to perform one on-site visit per programme per year.
89 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure Updated Monitoring Plan to include extra monitoring of the pre-
defined projects in MT02 which were rated high risk exposure
Target programme/project MT 02
Corruption risk addressed Risk Filtering Criterion 6
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing until completion of project
Description of activities
involved
On-the-spot checks are being carried out following award of contract
and prior to verification of first expenditure. This represents an
upgrade of the Programme Operator’s obligation in the original plan
which was to perform one on-site visit per programme per year.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Although no corruption was alleged or discovered, these extra on-the-
spot checks have enabled the PO/NFP to identify potentially ineligible
expenditure prior to it being incurred by the Project Promoters.
90 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
POLAND
POLAND - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time of
writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct or
indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection : 11 November 2013]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Poland distributes a net amount of EUR 534.7 million. Seventeen programmes are
funded in Poland, supporting a range of policy sectors.15
The Department of Assistance Programmes
within the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for
the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the 17 programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Poland
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
PL04
Saving energy and
promoting renewable
energy source
145,000,000
Ministry of
Environment (with
the support from the
National Fund for
Environmental
Protection and Water
Management)
None
PL08
Conservation and
revitalisation of cultural
and natural heritage
70,000,000
Ministry of Culture
and National
Heritage
None, but close
cooperation with the
Norwegian Directorate
for Cultural Heritage
PL12 Polish-Norwegian
research programme 62,830,000
National Centre for
Research and
Development
Research Council of
Norway
15
See the official website for Poland http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Poland
91 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PL07
Development and
better adaptation of
health care to
demographic and
epidemiological trends
58,000,000 Ministry of Health None
PL05 NGO programme in
Poland 37,000,000
Stefan Batory
Foundation None
PL02
The protection of the
biological diversity and
the ecosystems
20,000,000
Ministry of
Environment (with
the support from the
National Fund for
Environmental
Protection and Water
Management)
None
PL18 Green industry
innovation 20,000,000 Innovation Norway N/A
PL13 Reducing social
inequalities in health 18,000,000 Ministry of Health
Norwegian Directorate
of Health
PL03
Improving
environmental
monitoring and
inspection
15,000,000
Ministry of
Environment (with
the support from the
National Fund for
Environmental
Protection and Water
Management)
Norwegian Environment
Agency
PL10
EEA scholarship
programme;
Norwegian Polish
scholarship
programme
15,000,000
Foundation for the
Development of the
Education System
(FRSE)
Icelandic Centre for
Research (RANNIS),
National Agency for
International Education
Affairs (AIBA),
Norwegian Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education (SIU)
PL16
Judicial capacity
building and
cooperation/
improvement of the
efficiency of justice
14,000,000 Ministry of Justice Norwegian Courts
Administration
PL17
Correctional services
including non-custodial
sanctions
13,000,000
European Funds
Team, Central Board
of the Prison Service
Norwegian Correctional
Services
PL15 Schengen cooperation
and combating cross-
border crime including
10,000,000 Ministry of Interior None
92 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
trafficking and itinerant
criminal groups
PL09
Promotion of diversity
in culture and arts
within European
cultural heritage
10,000,000
Ministry of Culture
and National
Heritage
Arts Council Norway
PL06
Urban development by
strengthening the
competence of self-
government units,
social dialogue and
cooperation with civil
society
representatives
9,544,500
Ministry of
Infrastructure and
Development
(Department of
Assistance
Programmes)
None
PL14 Domestic and gender-
based violence 3,000,000
Ministry of Labour
and Social Policy None
PL22 Decent work and
tripartite dialogue 3,112,000 Innovation Norway N/A
15 programmes were assessed here, excluding programme PL18 and PL22 (PL18 as it was still under
preparation, PL22 because this approach would not have been applicable to the advanced project stage
of the respective Programme Area 22).
The Ministry of Environment is a crucial actor in the grants scheme, being the Programme Operator for
three programmes (PL02, PL03, PL04) and responsible for implementing programmes worth EUR 180
million, or one third of the total grants allocation to Poland.
Another important Programme Operator institution is the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, which
is responsible for managing two programmes (PL08 and PL09). The Ministry of Health is also a
Programme Operator for two programmes (PL07 and PL13).
There is also a large NGO Programme in Poland (PL05) for which the private Stefan Batory Foundation
serves as a Programme Operator.
The programme Urban development by strengthening the competence of self-government units, social
dialogue and cooperation with civil society representatives (PL06) is managed by the Department of
Assistance Programmes within the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, which is the same
institution as the National Focal Point.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that seven
programmes (PL03, PL09, PL10, PL12, PL13, PL16, PL17) additionally involve partner organisations from
the Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only
supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests cooperation between the
respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and
implementation of the programme.
Ten programmes (PL02, PL03, PL04, PL06, PL08, PL13, PL14, PL15, PL16, PL17) also feature so-called
Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and
93 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the
organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).
94 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Poland.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Poland - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
PO
LA
ND
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED
Poland scores moderately in international indices. Although, the country’s institutions appear to have an advanced
capability to control corruption, there also seems to be a sense of stagnation and lack of coherence in the
governmental anti-corruption policy, suggesting a medium risk exposure rating.
2. Net amount of grants to
country HIGH
Poland receives the largest absolute grant amount of all Beneficiary States. The large amount of funding heightens
the risk exposure due to increased opportunities, i.e. likelihood, for corrupt practices, and with respect to the high
impact corrupt practices, should they occur, would have on the Donors’ interests.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism LOW
Although the management organisation within the Ministry of Regional Development (involving Focal Point and
Certifying Authority) is not fully transparent, the separation of functions regarding Audit Authority and irregularities
reporting is given. The complaint mechanism conforms with the recommended standard, which leads to a low risk
exposure rating overall.
95 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
PL02 MED MED LOW MED MED
This programme is allocated a medium-sized grant in Poland, raising the risk exposure for criterion 4 (also in view of the grant size of programme PL03 and PL04, which have the same Programme Operator). The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s current implication in a corruption case increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.
96 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PL03 MED LOW HIGH MED MED
The direct association of PdP Project Promoters’ key personnel with negative news about irregularities, possible conflict of interest, and implication in an ongoing corruption investigation, heighten the risk exposure for criterion 6. The medium grant size in combination with project and procurement risks increase the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s current implication in a corruption case increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.
PL04 HIGH MED LOW MED MED The huge grant size (largest grant) heightens the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level increases the risk for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s current implication in a corruption case increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.
PL05 MED MED N/A LOW LOW The medium grant size raises the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level increases the risk for criterion 5.
97 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PL06 LOW MED LOW MED MED
The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5.
The Programme Operator institution’s recent association with a corruption affair concerning EU funds
increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.
PL07 HIGH MED N/A MED MED
The large grant size and increased sector risk heighten the risk exposure for criterion 4. The lack of
involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. The
Programme Operator institution’s past association with corruption increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.
PL08 HIGH MED LOW LOW MED
The large grant size (second largest) and perceived procurement risk heighten the risk exposure for
criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for
criterion 5.
98 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PL09 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW
PL10 MED LOW N/A LOW LOW The medium grant raises the risk exposure for criterion 4.
PL12 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant raises the risk exposure for criterion 4.
99 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PL13 MED LOW LOW MED MED The medium grant size and increased sector risk raise the risk exposure for criterion 4. The Programme
Operator institution’s past association with corruption increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.
PL14 LOW MED MED LOW MED The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure for criterion 5. The implication of the Project Promoter for one PdP in corruption issues and the politically exposed status of PdP key personnel
16 raise the risk exposure for criterion 6.
PL15 MED MED LOW MED MED
Increased procurement risks raise the exposure rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor
Partner at the programme level increases the rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s
past association with corruption increases the risk exposure for criterion 7.
16
The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.
100 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PL16 HIGH MED MED MED MED
Increased project and procurement risks heighten the risk exposure for criterion 4. Reported limitations to
the Donor Programme Partner’s involvement in the development and implementation of the programme
increase the risk exposure for criterion 5. The fact that the programme consists of PdPs which all have
Project Promoters who are subordinate to the Programme Operator, increases the corruption risk exposure
for criterion 6 to medium, taking into account that the FMO has introduced a number of risk mitigation
measures. The Programme Operator institution’s association with two corruption investigations increases
the risk exposure for criterion 7.
PL17 MED MED MED LOW MED
Medium grant size and increased procurement risk raise the risk exposure for criterion 4. Reported
limitations to the Donor Programme Partner’s involvement in the development and implementation of the
programme increase the risk exposure for criterion 5. The fact that all but one PdP Project Promoters are
subordinate (one being superior) to the Programme Operator increase the corruption risk exposure for
criterion 6.
101 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
POLISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Polish National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Polish National Focal Point only.
Regarding to the results on the country level we are glad that ‘complaints mechanisms’ designed for the
Financial Mechanisms were judged as compliant with the standards and the managing structure
transparent within the criterion no. 3. At the same time referring to the corruption indicators presented
within risk criterion no. 1 it is worth mentioning that according to the newest surveys Corruption
Perceptions Index (2013) Poland’s score of 60 corresponds with a rank as 38 out of 177 countries. This
implies that the corruption risk within our country is having decreasing tendency, which is worth
considering in the report. In the same time that Index (2013) shows that Poland stands higher in the
ranking list than in 2012. In the group of 16 beneficiary countries that receive the Financial Mechanisms
Assistance, Poland has the fourth position, behind Estonia (score of 68), Cyprus (score of 63) and
Portugal (score of 62).
Not questioning the methodology at that stage, we take note that the level of the risk criterion no. 2 is
fixed since Poland is the biggest beneficiary. However, it is worth having in mind that Poland has huge
experience in implementation the similar programmes/projects with a much higher allocation, such as the
European Union structural funds and is positively assessed in their absorption.
Additionally, referring to the comments in the document Results of the Country-level Risk Filtering
Procedure I would like to explain that FP does not function as the Programme Operator for PL06. Full
transparency of the separation between the Programme Operator and National Focal Point was provided
in the programing documents. This institutional solution was approved by the Donors at the Programme
proposal’s stage and in Memorandum of Understanding. Taking into account above National Focal Point
should not be connected in any way with activities of the Programme Operator. Both units operate under
one ministry, however they are organizationally separated in line with the transparency principles.
With reference to the recommendation on DPP’s involvement in the implementations of the Programme
PL16 PO informed that this recommendation was discussed on Cooperation Committee meeting and
such decisions were made:
CC meetings will be held 3 times a year, additional – if necessary – teleconferences will be
held, decisions of the CC could also be taken via emails,
The PO will provide the Partner with all Interim Financial Reports showing progress in
Programme implementation, unless the Partner has access to IFRs through DORIS system
Both parties will provide each other with translated strategic documents,
PO will provide the Partner with a translated list of initiatives developed and implemented by
the Ministry of Justice; if the Partner will be interested in any of initiatives PO will provide the
DPP with additional information.
PO of PL17 with reference to the recommendation on DPP’s involvement in the implementations of the
programme PO has informed that DPP has a constant and current opportunity to influence on the
implementation of the Programme. For that are made the cyclical meetings of the Monitoring Committee
for the Programme PL17 (minimum 3 times a year) and current contacts between representatives of the
PO and DPP. As anticorruption countermeasure institution of the PL17 PO in February 2011 established
a proxy of Director General of the Prison Service for prevention of corruption in the Prison Service. He
leads i.a. current activities to eliminate the occurrence of this type of the threat and educational and
prevention action among the prison staff.
Referring to the risks on the programme level, the assumption that the lack of involvement of Donor
Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure suggests that the corruption appears only at the
102 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Beneficiary State and the Programme Operator level. As it was pointed out during giving opinion on
Corruption Risk Assessment Tool, we think that risk management concerns all actors of the system,
including also level of Donors’ partners, who are involved in the programme/project managing process
and their role is not defined as a control one. From our point of view, the corruption risk might also occur
on the partners side, regardless theirs origin.
Pre-defined projects: I would like to draw your attention to the hypothesis that lack of the involvement of a
Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure. However not only the programme but also
the pre-defined projects are being implemented in partnership. Therefore, following assumption that the
presence of Donor Programme Partner is a factor decreasing corruption risk, presence of project partners
in projects should be considered in the same way.
Moreover, it should be emphasized that implementation of pre-defined projects has been agreed between
the Donor States and the Republic of Poland at the stage of framing the implementation of the Financial
Mechanism 2009-2014. Pre-defined projects are listed in Annex B to the Memorandum of Understanding.
Thus, the implementation of the above-mentioned projects was approved by the Donor States and it is not
possible to include other pre-defined projects without their consent. The possibility of realizing pre-defined
projects also results from the relevant provisions of Regulation on the implementation Financial
Mechanisms. In addition, it should be emphasized that, apart from selection mode, implementation of pre-
defined projects does not differ from implementation of projects selected in open calls.
In case of the Programme PL06 predefined project functions alongside a competitive call for proposals
procedure. Predefined project is implemented by institution independent from the Programme Operator
(namely the Association of Polish Cities) and its idea is positively perceived by both applicants and
beneficiaries (predefined project serves as a support within a whole project’s life cycle). Moreover, the
Programme Operator had carried out formal and content-related appraisal before the predefined project
was launched. Bearing in mind the above facts suggested risk of collusion between personnel at the
Programme Operator and the organization running the predefined project is excluded.
It is therefore difficult to understand the conclusion included in the report that the ordinary implementation
of pre-defined projects is a factor that could increase the risk of corruption.
The press releases (attached to the report) were taken during the survey as one of the very important
information to judge exposure to the corruption risk. It should be noted that information in the news is not
always coherent with the actual status of the case or might be based on not confirmed suspicions. This
kind of information requires due diligence and taking into account final results and measures applied by
the institution in the given case, otherwise it should be treated as questionable and/or not reliable source
of information. For example in case of the Ministry of Health article concerns person who has never been
involved in the programme financed within Financial Mechanisms and was subject to investigation as an
employee of other institution than Ministry of Health. The similar situation is in case of programme PL15.
The IT Project Centre mentioned in the respective article is fully independent from the PO and is not
included in the structure of the Ministry serving as operator.
Mitigation measures
With reference to planned or implemented risk mitigation measures please be informed the Operators
prevent corruption and mismanagement by:
establishment of a management and control systems in accordance with the provisions of
Article 4.8 of the Regulation, by preparing relevant documents – the Descriptions of
Management and Control Systems and the Manual of Procedures and Audit Trails;
the internal organization of Programme Operators complying with Article 4.7 of the
Regulation, referring to the requirements of establishing organizational structures of the
Programme Operators that ensure independence and functional separation of the unit
responsible for the implementation of the programme;
providing access to basic information on Programmes, projects, financial data and
information on grant-awarding processes;
103 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
transparent and competitive selection of projects to benefit from support in the form of
grants; the appeal procedure consists of two instances – the PO is an appeal body of the
first instance, the National Focal Point is an appeal body of the second instance;
applying transparent and lawful procurement of services related to the implementation of the
Programme - the provisions of the Public Procurement Law Act and Guidelines to orders
under the EEA and Norway Grants, to which Public Procurement Law is not applicable of
the Minister of Regional Development;
carrying out regular inspections (desk and on site controls) of projects under the
Programme;
ensuring the use of external institutions to carry out the evaluation of the Programme.
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure Management of potential reputational damage of the Programme
Operators, responsible for preparing and implementing the
Programmes
Target programme/project PL02, PL03, PL04, PL06, PL07, PL08, PL09, PL13, PL14, PL15, PL16
Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities
involved
All employees of all Ministries are obligated to provide a written
statement confirming that they are familiar with the content of the
Ordinance no. 70 of the Prime Minister of October 6, 2011 on
guidelines for complying with the civil service rules and on the ethical
rules of the civil service corps.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
All employees of the Ministries are obliged to follow Rules of ethics of
the civil service issued by the Prime Minister.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure Management of corruption risk and potential reputational damage of
the Programme Operators, responsible for preparing and implementing
the Programmes
Target programme/project PL02, PL03, PL04, PL06, PL07, PL08, PL09, PL13, PL14, PL15, PL16
Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities All civil servants employed in the Ministries as well as middle and
senior managers (Director and Deputy Directors of Department, heads
104 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
involved of units) are legally binded to provide declaration of their assets.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
Monitoring of the personnel’s assets.
MITIGATION MEASURE 3
Description of measure Management of corruption risk and potential reputational damage of
the Programme Operator, responsible for preparing and implementing
the Programmes
Target programme/project PL07 and PL13
Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities
involved
Dissemination of Anti-corruption guidebook for the officers and
Recommendations for anti-corruption proceedings in applying the
public procurement (both publications were drawn-up by the Central
Anti-corruption Bureau) among employees.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
Providing indispensable knowledge to public sector personnel.
MITIGATION MEASURE 4
Description of measure Management of corruption risk and potential reputational damage of
the Programme Operator, responsible for preparing and implementing
the Programmes
Target programme/project PL07 and PL13
Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities
involved
Team for counteracting healthcare fraud and corruption appointed by
the Ordinance of the Mister of Health of October 4, 2006, has been
operating for several years.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
The Team performs consultative and advisory functions for the Minister
of Health.
105 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 5
Description of measure Management of corruption risk and potential reputational damage of
the Programme Operator, responsible for preparing and implementing
the Programmes
Target programme/project PL07 and PL13
Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities
involved
The threat of corruption is to be eliminated by the solutions covered by
the generally applicable provisions of the Procedure for receiving
external clients in the Ministry of Health.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
The procedure ensures transparency of the rules, on the basis of
which the meetings with the external entities are prepared and
conducted in particular with focus on potential lobbying activities.
MITIGATION MEASURE 6
Description of measure Management of corruption risk and potential reputational damage of
the Programme Operator, responsible for preparing and implementing
the Programme
Target programme/project PL12
Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
Currently working on the Anticorruption Policy, which will set uniform
standards for the PO’s institution staff and cooperating experts. This
measure will provide a coherent set of rules and requirements
concerning execution of tasks on different levels of the organization.
This policy also imposes mandatory reporting on identified corruption
for all staff members.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
NA
106 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 7
Description of measure Introducing of the complaints mechanism
Target programme/project All Programme Operators and NFP
Corruption risk addressed Separations of functions and complaints mechanism
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
Good governance practices are also exercised by creating websites of
POs and NFP, on which the email address serving to anyone i.a.
willing to report any mismanagement of public funds or corruption
activities is easily available. An access via the phone is also ensured.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
7 complaints concerning the Programme/projects’ realisation have
been received and handled.
MITIGATION MEASURE 8
Description of measure Increase of the Donor Programme Partner involvement in the
development and implementation of the Programme
Target programme/project PL16
Corruption risk addressed Degree of transparency of Programme including involvement of Donor
Programme Partner
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Planned
Description of activities
involved Cooperation Committee meetings will be held 3 times a
year, additional – if necessary – teleconferences will be held, decisions of the CC could also be taken via emails,
The PO will provide the Partner with all Interim Financial Reports showing progress in Programme implementation, unless the Partner has access to IFRs through DORIS system,
Both parties will provide each other with translated strategic documents,
PO will provide the Partner with a translated list of initiatives developed and implemented by the Ministry of Justice; if the Partner will be interested in any of initiatives PO will provide the DPP with additional information.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
NA
107 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 9
Description of measure Increase of the Donor Programme Partner involvement in the
development and implementation of the Programme
Target programme/project PL17
Corruption risk addressed Degree of transparency of Programme including involvement of Donor
Programme Partner
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
DPP has a constant and current opportunity to influence on the
implementation of the Programme. For that are made the cyclical
meetings of the Monitoring Committee for the Programme PL17
(minimum 3 times a year) and current contacts between
representatives of the PO and DPP.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
NA
MITIGATION MEASURE 10
Description of measure Management of corruption risk and potential reputational damage of
the Programme Operator, responsible for preparing and implementing
the Programme
Target programme/project PL17
Corruption risk addressed Integrity of Programme Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities
involved
PO in February 2011 established a proxy of Director General of the
Prison Service for prevention of corruption in the Prison Service.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be as
specific as possible)
He leads i.a. current activities to eliminate the occurrence of this type
of the threat and educational and prevention action among the prison
staff.
108 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PORTUGAL
PORTUGAL - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 4 March 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Portugal distributes a net amount of EUR 53.6 million. Eight programmes are
funded in Portugal, supporting a range of policy sectors.17
The Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning
and Energy serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and
Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the eight programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Portugal
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
PT02 Integrated Marine and
Coastal Management 19,247,250
Directorate-General
of Maritime Policy
(Portuguese Ministry
of Agriculture and
Sea)
None
PT06 Public Health
Initiatives 10,000,000
Central Health
Administration
(Ministry of Health)
Norwegian Institute of
Public Health
PT05 NGO Programme in
Portugal 8,697,500
Calouste Gulbenkian
Foundation (Fund
Operator)
None
17
See the official website for Portugal http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Portugal
109 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PT03 Renewable Energy 4,000,000 Electricity of the
Azores (EDA)
The Icelandic National
Energy Authority (OS)
PT08
Conservation and
Revitalisation of
Cultural and Natural
Heritage
4,000,000
Regional Directorate
of Culture in Central
Portugal
None
PT04 Adaptation to Climate
Change 3,000,000
Portuguese
Environment Agency
Norwegian Directorate
for Civil Protection
PT07
Mainstreaming Gender
Equality and
Promoting Work-Life
Balance
2,500,000
Commission for
Citizenship and
Gender Equality
(CIG)
None
PT09 Cultural Diversity and
Cultural Exchange 1,000,000
Directorate-General
for the Arts Arts Council Norway
The Directorate-General of Maritime Policy under the Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture and Sea is
responsible for the aforementioned largest programme PT02.
The second-largest programme PT06, Public Health Initiatives (EUR 10m), is managed by the Central
Health Administration within the Ministry of Health.
The NGO Programme in Portugal is the third-largest programme (PT05) funded with EUR 8,7 million and
operated by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation under direct contract with FMO.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that four
programmes (PT03, PT04, PT06, PT09) additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States
at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal
of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective Donor
Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the
programme.
All programmes except PT05 (NGO programme) also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are
exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of
collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined
Project (the Project Promoter).
110 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Portugal.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Portugal - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
PO
RT
UG
AL
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED Portugal's rating in international indices does not fully reflect recent opinion polls in the country and detailed analysis of the national integrity system and state of anti-corruption policies. While main reform topics have been put on the political agenda, a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy is still to be concluded.
2. Net amount of grants to country
MED The amount of funding allocated to Portugal implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism
LOW The national grant management system in Portugal is set to ensure a separation of functions between the Focal Point, the Certifying Authority and the Audit Authority. The Focal Point does not act as a Programme Operator at the same time. The complaint mechanism is publicly advertised and conforms with the recommended standard.
111 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
P
RO
GR
AM
ME
S
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
PT02 HIGH MED LOW LOW MED The large programme grant size and increased project size, procurement and sector risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5
112 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PT03 HIGH LOW MED LOW MED The medium programme grant size and increased project size, procurement and sector risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The increased conflict of interest risk in the relationship between the Programme Operator and the Pre-defined Project Promoter raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 6.
PT04 MED LOW LOW MED MED While the programme grant size is relatively small, increased project size risk raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s implication in allegations of cronyism raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
PT05 MED LOW N/A MED MED The medium programme grant size raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. Fund Operator’s personal links to business and commercial interests raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
113 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PT06 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED The large programme grant size and increased sector risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. Major fraud schemes in the National Health Service that have recently affected the Programme Operator institution raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
PT07 LOW MED LOW LOW LOW The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5.
PT08 HIGH MED MED LOW MED
The medium programme grant size and increased project size and procurement risks heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner on the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5. Perceived corruption risk exposure of the Pre-defined Project Promoter and lack of information about the involvement of a Donor Partner raise the rating for criterion 6.
114 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PT09 LOW LOW HIGH LOW MED The lack of information about the Pre-defined Project Promoter institution and key personnel heightens the risk exposure rating for criterion 6.
115 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
PORTUGUESE NATIONAL FOCAL POINT RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Portuguese National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Portuguese National Focal Point only.
1) Country level results serves as framework context in which the programme level risk filtering results
should be read. A MEDIUM Risk for Portugal at Criterion 1 (Country Corruption Risk) and Criterion 2 (Net
amount of grants to country) must be taken into account in the risk management of the EEA GRANTS at
both national and programme level.
The LOW risk at Criterion 3 (Separation of functions & complaints mechanism) does not recommend
specific mitigation measures under the EEA GRANTS management.
2) Results at programme level are prone to be outdated (possible amendments to theMemorandum of
Understanding or modifications to Programme Agreements could change fundamental information
assessed in each of the criterion; modification of key personnel assessed in the risk filtering, etc.). The
Risk Filtering Tool could benefit from updating reviews.
At the Programme level HIGH ratings in individual criteria were given mostly due to the programme grant
size, except for one HIGH rating for PT09 based on the lack of information about the PdP promoter
institution and key personnel. MEDIUM risk result for 7 out of 8 programmes does not seem to justify for
any relevant discrimination between programmes. Further attention should extend to all programmes.
3) Further comments: The results from the Corruption Risk Assessment - Risk Filtering Stage – for
Portugal, in particular the results at programme level, require attention from FMO and national entities
designated for the implementation of the EEA GRANTS (NFP, Audit and Certifying Authority). Joint
identification of potential risk mitigation measures tailored for corruption risk identified is desirable.
Mitigation measures
Recommendations from the Country Risk Filtering Report for Portugal do not seem to call for
extraordinary mitigation measures at this stage.
At Country level: Development of a Strategy for Irregularities, Reimbursements, Report and Complaint
System with further detail on procedures and measures is foreseen in the Description of the Management
and Control Systems at national level and could contribute for improvement of prevention, handling and
response to corruption risk.
At Programme and Project level: Criterion 4 and 5 should be taken into account as background context
in the risk assessments. Criterion 6 and 7 at Programme level individual criterion results may call for
targeted follow up. Close monitoring on Programmes by NFP under Article 4.3 of the Regulation should
take multiple and active approaches. Audit Authority and Certifying Authority should be involved in the
Corruption Risk assessment.
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure Development of a Strategy for Irregularities, Reimbursements, Report
and Complaint System
116 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Target programme/project All Programmes (except for PT05)
Corruption risk addressed Undifferentiated
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Planned on the Description of the Management and Control System at
national level
Timeframe TBD
Description of activities
involved
NFP, in collaboration with all entities involved in the management and
control system of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 at national
level, shall develop a strategy for preventing, investigating, reporting,
recording, resolution and recovering of funds unduly paid.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
N/A
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure Multiple and active approaches from the NFP for Monitoring
onProgrammes
Target programme/project All Programmes (except for PT05)
Corruption risk addressed Undifferentiated
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Implementation mode from January 2014 to all Programmes (except
for PT05)
Description of activities
involved
Monitoring meetings with key personnel from Programme Operators,
twice a year;
Quarterly reports on progress on Programmes, covering financial
execution, progress on outcomes, calls and pre-defined projects,
Risk assessment and monitoring and Communication;
Presence of NFP in meetings and events as observer
(CooperationMeetings, Selection Committees meetings, etc.)
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Monitoring meetings with Programme Operators provide
targetedaction plans for short and medium term (second round of
meetingsfor 2014 started in September);
Quarterly reports provide regular information on progress and
canprovide indications for further investigation;
Presence of NFP in Selection Committee meetings as observer
areconsidered particular relevant for assessing any
117 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
potentialshortcomings in the selection procedure prone to rise
thecorruption risk (such as lack of measures to address potential
conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, etc.)
MITIGATION MEASURE 3
Description of measure Audit Authority and Certifying Authority to be involved in theCorruption
Risk assessment.
Target programme/project All Programmes (except for PT05)
Corruption risk addressed Undifferentiated
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
NFP to share Corruption Risk Assessment’s results and
relevantmaterial from FMO Seminars and Workshops on Corruption
RiskAssessment with Audit and Certifying Authorities.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
118 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
ROMANIA
ROMANIA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 19 June 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Romania distributes a net amount of EUR 283 million. Twenty-one programmes are
funded in Romania, supporting a range of policy sectors.18
The General Directorate for Non-reimbursable
Mechanisms and Instruments at the Ministry of European Funds serves as the National Focal Point,
responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the twenty-one programmes, arranged according to
the amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Romania
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
RO09
Funds for Non-
governmental
Organisations
36,300,000
FMO/Civil Society
Development
Foundation
N/A
RO17
Green Industry
Innovation
Programme, Romania
24,000,000 Innovation Norway N/A
RO10
Children and Youth at
Risk and Local and
Regional Initiatives to
Reduce National
Inequalities and to
Promote Social
Inclusion
22,000,000 Romanian Social
Development Fund Council of Europe
18
See the official website for Romania http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Romania
119 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO19 Public Health
Initiatives 21,104,000 Ministry of Health None
RO14 Research within
priority sectors 20,000,000
Ministry of National
Education
Research Council
Norway
RO02 Biodiversity and Eco-
system Services 15,000,000
Ministry for
Environment and
Climate Change
Norwegian Environment
Agency
RO12
Conservation and
Revitalisation of
Cultural and Natural
Heritage
14,000,000 Ministry of Culture Norwegian Directorate
of Cultural Heritage
RO04
Reduction of
Hazardous
Substances
10,000,000
Ministry for
Environment and
Climate Change
Norwegian Environment
Agency
RO03
Environmental
Monitoring and
Integrated Planning
and Control
8,181,250 Ministry of European
Funds None
RO05 Energy Efficiency 8,000,000 Ministry of Economy None
RO06 Renewable Energy 8,000,000
Romanian
Environment Fund
Administration
(subordinated to the
Ministry of
Environment)
Norwegian Water
Resources and Energy
Directorate,
Icelandic National
Energy Authority
RO23
Correctional Services,
including non-custodial
sanctions
8,000,000 Ministry of Justice Norwegian Correctional
Services
RO24
Judicial Capacity-
building and
Cooperation
8,000,000 Ministry of Justice
Council of Europe,
Norwegian Courts
Administration
RO13
Promotion of diversity
in culture and arts
within European
cultural heritage
6,818,750 Ministry of Culture Arts Council Norway
RO18
Capacity-building and
institutional
cooperation between
Romanian and
Norwegian public
institutions, local and
regional authorities
6,000,000 Ministry of European
Funds
Norwegian Radiation
Protection Authority
120 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO07 Adaptation to Climate
Change 5,000,000
Ministry for
Environment and
Climate Change
None
RO21
Schengen
Cooperation and
Combating Cross-
border and Organised
Crime, including
Trafficking and
Itinerant Criminal
Groups
5,000,000 Romanian Ministry of
Internal Affairs
Norwegian National
Police Directorate
RO11
Mainstreaming Gender
Equality and
Promoting Work-Life
Balance
4,519,478
Ministry of Labour,
Family and Social
Care
None
RO15 Scholarships 4,000,000
National Agency for
Community
Programmes in the
Field of Education
and Vocational
Training
(subordinated to the
Ministry of
Education)
Centre for International
Cooperation in
Education, Icelandic
Centre for Research,
National Agency for
International Education
Affairs, Liechtenstein
RO20 Domestic and Gender-
based Violence 4,000,000 Ministry of Justice
Council of Europe,
Norwegian National
Police Directorate
RO25 Poverty Alleviation 20,000,000 FMO
20 programmes were assessed, as the more recently agreed Programme RO25 was still inpreparation
and could therefore not be included in this report.
The Focal Point institution, Ministry of European Funds, also acts as the Programme Operator for two
programmes (RO03 and RO18).
The Donor institution Innovation Norway is the Programme Operator for the large Green industry
innovation (RO17). The FMO is the Programme Operator for the large NGO programme (RO09), which is
managed in-country by the Fund Operator Civil Society Development Foundation.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that 13
programmes (RO02, RO04, RO06, RO10, RO12, RO13, RO14, RO15, RO18, RO20, RO21, RO23,
RO24) additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States at the programme level (Donor
Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of strengthening bilateral
relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective Donor Programme Partners and
Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the programme.
Furthermore, 13 programmes (RO02, RO03, RO04, RO07, RO09, RO10, RO12, RO18, RO19, RO20,
RO21, RO23, RO24) feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the general approach
121 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion between personnel at the
Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the Project Promoter).
122 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA anf Norway Grants in Romania.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Romania - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
RO
MA
NIA
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk HIGH
The rating is based on Romania’s rank in international indices, and more detailed reports, which suggest that
corruption, despite some progress in the prosecution of corruption, is still of a systemic nature in the country. Overall,
the political will to address corruption and promote high standards of integrity is regarded as being inconsistent.
2. Net amount of grants to
country HIGH
The amount of funding allocated to Romania implies a heightened exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk in
this country, taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism HIGH
While a separation of functions between National Focal Point, Certifying Authority and Audit Authority exists, the
rating is based on the fact that for two programmes the National Focal Point also acts as the Programme Operator
rated as medium risk exposures on the programme level, and due to a lack of compliance with requirements
regarding the advertisement of a Complaint Mechanism according to the suggested standard.
123 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
RO02 MED LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH
Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Promoter institution with regards
to the Programme Operator institution, and the past and current implications of the PdP Promoter institution
in irregularities and publicly reported complaints about irregularities, respectively, heightens the risk
exposure rating for criterion 6. The implication of the Programme Operator institution in a corruption case
and reported allegations of corrupt practices concerning key personnel heighten the risk rating for criterion
7.19
The medium grant size and increased project size risk raise the rating for criterion 4.
19
The Programme Operator’s key personnel have changed since delivery of this report.
124 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO03 MED LOW LOW MED MED
The small grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks raise the rating for
criterion 4. The Programme Operator (NFP) institution’s association with the occurrence of irregularities in
relation to EU funds increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
RO04 MED LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH
Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Promoter institution with regards
to the Programme Operator institution, and the implication of the PdP Promoter institution in an ongoing
corruption case heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 6. The implication of the Programme Operator
institution in a corruption case, and reported allegations of corrupt practices concerning key personnel
heighten the risk exposure for criterion 7.20
The medium grant size and increased procurement risks raise
the rating for criterion 4.
RO05 MED MED N/A MED MED
The small grant size in combination with increased sector and procurement risk raise the rating for criterion
4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. Previous
implications of the Programme Operator institution in corruption cases increase the rating for criterion 7.
20
The Programme Operator’s key personnel have changed since delivery of this report.
125 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO06 MED LOW N/A MED MED
The small grant size in combination with increased sector risk raise the rating for criterion 4. The
Programme Operator institution’s recent implication in corruption and its close relationship with the
Programme Operator for RO02, RO04, and RO07 raise the risk rating for criterion 7.
RO07 MED LOW MED HIGH HIGH
The implication of the Programme Operator institution in a corruption case and reported allegations of
corrupt practices concerning key personnel heighten the risk exposure for criterion 7.21
The small grant size
in combination with increased project size risks raise the rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest
risk due to the subordinated status of the PdP Promoter institution with regards to the Programme Operator
institution, and the fact that key personnel of the PdP institution has not been selected yet raise the risk
rating for criterion 6.
RO09 HIGH LOW MED LOW MED
The large grant size heightens the risk exposure rating for criterion 4. Uncertainty resulting from unavailable
information about relevant Project Promoters institutions and key personnel for three PdPs raises the risk
rating for criterion 6.
21
The Programme Operator’s key personnel have changed since delivery of this report.
126 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO10 HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW The large grant size and increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4.
RO11 MED MED N/A MED MED
The small grant size in combination with increased sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4. The lack of
involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator
institution’s recent implication in a corruption case increases the risk rating for criterion 7.
RO12 HIGH LOW LOW HIGH MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased sector and procurement risks heighten the risk rating
for criterion 4. An indication of favouritism involving non-compliance with the regulation of open and fair
project selection for the programme heightens the risk rating for criterion 7.
127 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO13 LOW LOW N/A HIGH MED An indication of a conflict of interest involving non-compliance with the regulation of open and fair project
selection for the programme heightens the risk rating for criterion 7.
RO14 HIGH LOW N/A MED MED
The large grant size in combination with increased sector risks heighten the risk rating for criterion 4. The
implication of the Programme Operator institution in an ongoing corruption investigation increases the risk
rating for criterion 7.
RO15 MED LOW N/A LOW LOW The small grant size in combination with increased sector risk raise the risk rating for criterion 4.
128 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO17 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size in combination with increased procurement risk heighten the risk rating for criterion 4.
RO18 MED LOW LOW MED MED
The small grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks raise the risk rating
for criterion 4. The Programme Operator (NFP) institution’s association with the occurrence of irregularities
in relation to EU funds increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
RO19 HIGH MED HIGH MED HIGH
A large grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sector risks heighten the risk
rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the four PdP
Promoter institutions with regards to the Programme Operator institution, and the previous implication of the
Project Promoter institution for PdP1 in a corruption case heighten the risk rating for criterion 6. The lack of
involvement of a Donor Programme Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. The previous implication of the
Programme Operator institution in a corruption case increases the risk rating for criterion 7.
129 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO20 MED LOW HIGH LOW MED
The implications of National Partner institutions with regards to the PdP Project Promoter institutions in
corruption and accusations of irregularities heighten the rating for criterion 6. The small grant size in
combination with increased project size and sector risks raise the rating for criterion 4.
RO21 MED LOW HIGH LOW MED
Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the six Project Promoter institutions with
regards to the Programme Operator institution; the implication of Project Promoter institution for PdP2 in
and association of key personnel with a corruption case; and the implication of a National Partner institution
in PdP 5 in a corruption case heighten the risk exposure rating for criterion 6. The small grant size in
combination with increased project size and procurement risks raised the rating for criterion 4.
RO23 MED LOW MED LOW MED
The small grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sector risks raise the
rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risk due to the subordinated status of the Project Promoter
institution for four PdPs with regards to the Programme Operator institution raise the rating for criterion 6.
130 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
RO24 MED LOW MED LOW MED
The small grant size in combination with increased project size, procurement and sectors risks raise the
rating for criterion 4. The recent accusation of one National Partner institution in PdP1 of irregularities
increases the rating for criterion 6.
131 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SLOVAKIA
SLOVAKIA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 22 April 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Slovakia distributes a net amount of EUR 74.7 million. Nine programmes are
funded in Slovakia, supporting a range of policy sectors.22
The Government Office of the Slovak
Republic, Department of Management and Implementation of EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms,
serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway
Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the nine programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Slovakia
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
SK07 Green Industry
Innovation 16,788,000
Government Office
of the Slovak
Republic
Innovation Norway
SK08 Cross-border
Cooperation 12,720,000
Government Office
of the Slovak
Republic
Norwegian Barents
Secretariat
SK02
Adaptation to climate
change: flood and
drought prevention
12,463,750
Government Office
of the Slovak
Republic
Norwegian Directorate
for Civil Protection and
Emergency Planning;
Norwegian Water
Resources and Energy
Directorate
22
See the official website for Slovakia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Slovakia
132 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SK05
Conservation and
revitalisation of cultural
and natural heritage &
promotion of diversity
in culture and arts
within European
cultural heritage
11,922,500
Government Office
of the Slovak
Republic
None
SK09 Domestic and gender-
based violence 8,440,000
Government Office
of the Slovak
Republic
Norwegian Directorate
of Health; Council of
Europe
SK10
NGO Programme
“Active Citizenship and
Inclusion” in Slovakia
3,701,500 Ekopolis Foundation None
SK03
NGO Programme
“Human Rights and
Democracy” in
Slovakia
3,701,500
Open Society
Foundation,
Bratislava
None
SK06 EEA Scholarship
Programme 1,917,500
Slovak Academic
Information Agency
Icelandic Centre for
Research (RANNIS);
National Agency for
Education Affairs,
Liechtenstein;
Norwegian Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education
SK04
Local and regional
initiatives to reduce
national inequalities
and to promote social
inclusion
1,000,000
Government Office
of the Slovak
Republic
Council of Europe
For six out of nine programmes the National Focal Point also acts as the Programme Operator.
The FMO is the Programme Operator for two NGO programmes, one Human Rights and Democracy in
Slovakia (SK03) managed by the Fund Operator Open Society Foundation, Bratislava, the other Active
Citizenship and Inclusion in Slovakia (SK10) managed by the Fund Operator Ekopolis Foundation.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that six
programmes (SK02, SK04, SK06, SK07, SK08, SK09) additionally involve partner organisations from the
Donor States at the programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports
the general goal of strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the
respective Donor Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and
implementation of the programme.
Four programmes (SK04, SK05, SK09, SK10) also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are
exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of
133 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined
Project (the Project Promoter).
134 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Slovakia.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Slovakia - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
SL
OV
AK
IA
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk HIGH
The rating is based on Slovakia's rank in international indices, and heightened by more detailed reports, which
suggest that despite some reforms, corruption is still of a systemic nature in the country. As regards public integrity
issues, structural weaknesses appear to persist in the judiciary and in the prosecution of political corruption. A
comprehensive and effective anti-corruption strategy including legal protection of whistleblowing is not in place.
2. Net amount of grants to
country MED
The amount of funding allocated to Slovakia implies a medium exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk,
taking into consideration the potential negative impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism HIGH
The rating is based on the fact that despite a division of tasks at the Government Office for those programmes, where
the Focal Point also acts as Programme Operator, the separation of functions is limited, essentially establishing a
politically centralised grants management structure on the national and programme level. While a Complaints
Mechanism exists it has not been established and advertised according to the suggested standard. Recent EU
reports about possible deficiencies in the auditing function at the Ministry of Finance heighten the rating from medium
to high risk exposure.
135 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
SK02 MED LOW N/A MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased procurement risks increase the risk exposure rating
for criterion 4. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its
politically exposed status23
and association with negative news reports – which were not further
substantiated – increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
23
The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.
136 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SK03 LOW LOW N/A MED MED
The rating is based on the ratings of Medium Risk for criterion 7, which is assigned an extra weight, and
Low Risk for criteria 4 and 5. Unclarified conflict of interest risks related to the Fund Operator’s key
personnel raise the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
SK04 LOW LOW LOW MED LOW
The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its politically
exposed status and association with negative news reports – which were not further substantiated –
increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
SK05 MED MED MED MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risks raise the rating for
criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the rating for criterion 5. While
provision were made to separate functions, the Project Promoter for the large PdP 1 is still located within
the same Programme Operator institution, which does not dispel conflict of interest concerns. This raises
the risk exposure rating for criterion 6. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and
Programme Operator, its politically exposed status and association with negative news reports – which
were not further substantiated – increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
SK06 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW
137 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SK07 HIGH LOW N/A MED MED
The large grant size in combination with increased procurement and sector risks heighten the rating for
criterion 4. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its
politically exposed status and association with negative news reports – which were not further substantiated
– increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
SK08 MED LOW N/A MED MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased sector risk raises the rating for criterion 4. The
Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its politically exposed
status and association with negative news reports – which were not further substantiated – increase the risk
exposure rating for criterion 7.
SK09 MED LOW MED MED MED
The medium grant size raises the rating for criterion 4. The politically exposed status of PdP Promoter’s key
personnel and its close connections to the Programme Operator raising conflict of interest concerns
increase the rating for criterion 6. The Government Office’s dual role as the National Focal Point and
Programme Operator, its politically exposed status and association with negative news reports – which
were not further substantiated – increase the risk exposure rating for criterion 7.
SK10 LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW
138 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SLOVAK NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Slovak National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Slovak National Focal Point only.
Response to the country-level results
1st criterion
Fighting corruption is a long-term process. Over the past years, Slovakia has succeeded in introducing
several anti-corruption tools, such as the compulsory disclosure of all public contracts, disclosure of
judgments, public procurement reform and others. It is very likely that these measures have had positive
effects on the anticorruption policy.
However, Slovakia remains at the bottom of the list of countries according to the Corruption Perception
Index, the CPI. The difference between the perception of corruption and the corruption rate itself makes
the use of this criterion questionable.
It would be beneficial if more relevant statistical data were considered in the first criterion, such as the
recently adopted measures, the number of persons alleged and/or convinced of corruption in the last
reporting period, the enforceability of the anti-corruption legislation, punitive sanctions in the countries
surveyed and others. It is in no way clear whether Slovakia would have ranked better. However, the
criterion would become more objective.
3rd
criterion
The separation of functions between the Focal Point and the Programme Operator had been discussed
many times before this model was accepted. The control tasks of the National Focal Point in the
programming period 2009 – 2014 are very limited. The National Focal Point bears the overall
responsibility for the EEA and Norway Grants; however, most of the control competences lie with the
Audit Authority and the Certifying Authority.
Response to the programme-level results
Public Procurement
Public procurement is a long-lasting problem of Slovakia. The entire process is complicated, creates high
demands on the quality management at different levels and generally does not lead to the desired result –
to increase the competitiveness in public contracts. Apart from the technical failures that are to some
extent caused by the complicated legislation, our experience shows that the average number of bids in
the public procurements is very low. This is for us the key indicator of whether the public procurement
processes are attractive for the potential participants in the public procurement. The other big problem in
Slovakia is the collusion among bidders. Under the mitigation measures, you may find activities which we
had proposed and successfully implemented in this programming period.
Politically exposed status of the National Focal Point and Programme Operator, its dual role and
unsubstantiated negative news reports
139 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
The Government Office is a public institution and as its name indicates, it will always be associated with
the former or recent Slovak governments. Anything done at the governmental level will always have some
indirect effect on the Government Office, and thus we agree that the status of the Government Office is
politically exposed and such negative reports can occur and will always have some impact also on our
organisation. We are not able to respond with introducing mitigation measures to the occurrence of similar
reports not directly related to the implementation of EEA and Norway Grants. However, we underline that
the news reports have not been further substantiated.
On the other side, under the EEA and Norway Grants, the Government Office, performing the tasks of the
National Focal Point for almost 10 years, have never been linked with negative news reports that would
have questioned the management of the EEA and Norway Grants in Slovakia. The stability of the units
responsible for the management of EEA and Norway Grants proves that the EEA and Norway Grants are
apolitical and well managed in Slovakia.
Mitigation measures
Protection of whistleblowers:
On 16 October 2014, The Slovak Parliament enacted the first act on the protection of whistleblowers in
Slovakia. The Act no 307/2014 Coll was adopted under the name Act on Certain Measures related to the
Reporting of Anti-social Activities and on amendments of certain laws. It is supposed that the Act will
become effective as of 1 January 2015. Transparency International Slovakia had been consulted during
the preparation of the Act.
Complaint mechanism:
The complaint mechanism has been revised to comply with the new recommendations and can be found
at www.eeagrants.sk and www.norwaygrants.sk.
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure Public procurement
Target programme/project All programmes operated by the National Focal Point
Corruption risk addressed 4
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Completed
Description of activities
involved
A separate department was established under the structure of the
Government Office. The main task of this Public Procurement Control
Department is to carry out an ex-ante and ex-post control of the public
procurements.
Cooperation with Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic resulted
in an extensive vocabulary for Project Promoters, with the main aim to
increase competitiveness in public procurement and detect possible
collusion and other unfair business practices in the public
procurement.
An external company has been contracted to, inter alia, check the
effectiveness of purchases, which is another major contribution to the
140 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
support of competition in the public procurement.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Several cases of collusion have already been detected. The ex-ante
control of public procurement has discovered many technical but also
several serious issues in the preparation of the public procurement.
Two seminars for Project Promoters, focused mainly on public
procurement and collusion already took place, with more seminars
planned for 2015.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure Politically exposed status of the National Focal Point and Programme
Operator, its dual role and unsubstantiated negative news reports
Target programme/project All programmes operated by the National Focal Point
Corruption risk addressed 7
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Completed
Description of activities
involved
Several tasks have been delegated to the working level, in order to
mitigate the risk of political exposure.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
The delegation of functions should foster the apolitical principle of the
implementation of EEA and Norway Grants.
141 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SLOVENIA
SLOVENIA - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 14 October 2013]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Slovenia distributes a net amount of EUR 24.9 million. Five programmes are
funded in Slovenia, supporting a range of policy sectors.24
The Financial Mechanisms Division within the
European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office of the Government Office for
Development and European Cohesion Policy serves as the National Focal Point, responsible for the
overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the five programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Slovenia
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
SI05
Norwegian Financial
Mechanism
Programme
11,668,000
Government Office
for Development and
European Cohesion
Policy
Norwegian Institute of
Public Health
SI02
EEA Financial
Mechanism
Programme
8,812,500
Government Office
for Development and
European Cohesion
Policy
None
SI03
Funds for Non-
Governmental
Organisations
1,875,000
Regional
Environmental
Center for Central
and Eastern Europe,
Country Office
None
24
See the official website for Slovenia http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Slovenia
142 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Slovenia
SI04
EEA and Norwegian
Scholarship
Programme
1,845,000
Centre of Republic of
Slovenia for Mobility
and European
Educational and
Training
Programmes
(CMEPIUS)
The Icelandic Centre for
Research, Norwegian
Centre for International
Cooperation in
Education, National
Agency for International
Education Affairs
SI22 Decent Work and
Tripartite Dialogue 144,000 Innovation Norway N/A
Only four of the five programmes were assessed. Programme SI22 Decent Work and Tripartite Dialogue
was excluded from the Corruption Risk Filtering Process, because this approach would not have been
applicable to the advanced project stage of the respective Programme Area 22.
Serving as both National Focal Point and Programme Operator for the EEA Financial Mechanism
Programme (SI02) and the Norway Financial Mechanism Programme (SI05), which receive the largest
parts of the grant in Slovenia, the European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office of the
Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy is a crucial actor in the
implementation of the grants scheme in this country.
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that
programmes SI04 and SI05 additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States at the
programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of
strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests close cooperation between the respective Donor
Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the implementation of the programme.
Programmes SI02 and SI05 also feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are exempt from the
general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of collusion
between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined Project (the
Project Promoter).
143 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Slovenia.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Slovenia - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
SL
OV
EN
IA
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED Slovenia scores relatively well in international indices, but public surveys and recent high-level corruption scandals suggest that corruption is still of a systemic nature in this country. The special anti-corruption agency is actively involved in uncovering corruption, thus implementing the anti-corruption strategy.
2. Net amount of grants to country
LOW Slovenia receives the third smallest absolute grant of all Beneficiary States. The smaller amount of funding reduces the overall corruption risk exposure of the grants scheme in this country.
3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism
MED The limited separation of functions between Focal Point and Programme Operator for two programmes and shortcomings in the “complaint mechanism” to advertised on the national grants website increase the rating to medium risk exposure
144 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
P
RO
GR
AM
ME
S
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
SI02 MED MED LOW MED MED
This programme is allocated the second-largest grant size in Slovenia, raising the risk exposure for criterion 4 (also in view of the grant size of programme SI05, which has the same Programme Operator). The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5. The Programme Operator institution’s recent association with fraud and corruption issues concerning EU funding, increases the risk exposure for criterion 7 to medium.
145 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SI03 LOW MED N/A LOW LOW The lack of involvement of a Donor Partner at the programme level raises the risk exposure rating for criterion 5.
SI04 LOW LOW N/A LOW LOW The overall rating of Low Risk Exposure for Programme SI04 is based on the rating of Low Risk for criteria 4, 5 and 7, with criterion 6 not being applicable.
SI05 HIGH LOW LOW MED MED
This programme is allocated the largest grant size in Slovenia, which, together with increased sector risk, heightens the risk exposure for criterion 4 (also in view of the grant size of SI02, which has the same Programme Operator). The Programme Operator institution’s recent association with fraud and corruption issues concerning EU funding, increases the risk exposure for criterion 7 to medium.
146 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SLOVENIAN NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Slovenian National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Slovenian National Focal Point only.
1. Response to the country-level results
1.1 The provision of response to the country-level corruption risk criterion, which describes the systemic
nature of corruption in Slovenia, is not subject to the authority of the NFP and Programme Operators for
the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. In accordance with the
Slovenian legislation, the provision of such a response is the responsibility of other institutions. The
institutions, which are responsible for the overall management of the EEA Financial Mechanism and the
Norwegian Financial Mechanism programmes, are, indeed, responsible to act in accordance with the
national legislation pertaining to zero tolerance for corruption, identification of the potential areas where
corruption is most likely to occur (provision of information to the potential applicants prior to the
publication of the calls for proposals, approval of projects in the framework of the calls for proposals) and
taking appropriate action with the Slovenian institutions in the event of potential acts of corruption by also
immediately notifying the Donor States of such potential acts.
1.3 Despite the fact that organisation-wise the same institution serves as the National Focal Point and the
Programme Operator for two programmes (SI02 and SI05), adequate separation of functions is provided.
In accordance with the Regulation on the Implementation of the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-
2014 and the Regulation on the Implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014 the National
Focal Point is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the programmes is terms of the progress
made toward reaching the expected outcomes and objectives of the programme.
After the Transparency International (TI-S) report was published, the complaints mechanism was
amended in accordance with the proposal (form) which was submitted by the Financial Mechanism Office.
2. Response to the programme-level results
SI02
Risk filtering criterion 4 (MEDIUM RISK)
We believe that the criterion pertaining to the amount of the grant allocation to the Programme cannot in
itself be a sufficient criterion to evaluate the Programme as having medium risk exposure.
Risk filtering criterion 5 (MEDIUM RISK)
We believe that the lack of involvement of the Donor Partner at the programme level (DPP) cannot be in
itself be a sufficient criterion to evaluate the Programme as having medium risk exposure.
Risk filtering criterion 7 (MEDIUM RISK)
The Cohesion Policy Office is part of the organisational structure of the institution (Government Office for
Development and European Cohesion Policy) in the framework of which the Programme Operator for the
Programme SI02 is established. The European Commission interrupted payments to the Cohesion Policy
Office due to suspicion of irregularities. The European Commission has already lifted the said interruption.
We would also like to underline that the Programme Operator is established within the European
147 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office which is an organisation unit separated from the
Cohesion Policy Office. Indeed, the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator are established in
the framework of the same Office (European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office) but
adequate separation of functions between the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator is
provided.
The Programme Operator is no longer established in the framework of the Ministry for Economic
Development and Technology – as of 1 March 2014 it is established within the Government Office for
Development and European Cohesion Policy, thus we cannot respond to the issues pertaining to
corruption in the framework of the calls for proposals under the Consumer Protection Act.
SI05
Risk filtering criterion 4 (HIGH RISK)
The amount of the grant allocation to the Programme cannot automatically increase the corruption risk
exposure. The healthcare sector is, indeed, one of the sectors most exposed to corruption in terms of
public procurement procedures however such procedures are not carried out in the framework of
Programme SI05 management.
Risk filtering criterion 7 (MEDIUM RISK)
The Cohesion Policy Office is part of the organisational structure of the institution (Government Office for
Development and European Cohesion Policy) in the framework of which the Programme Operator for the
Programme SI05 is established. The European Commission interrupted payments to the Cohesion Policy
Office due to suspicion of irregularities. The European Commission has already lifted the said interruption.
We would also like to underline that the Programme Operator is established within the European
Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office which is an organisation unit separated from the
Cohesion Policy Office. Indeed, the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator are established in
the framework of the same Office (European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office) but
adequate separation of functions between the National Focal Point and the Programme Operator is
provided.
As regards criterion 7, four offices are established in the framework of the Government Office for
Development and European Cohesion Policy, which was established on 1 March 2014. The four offices
are: Cohesion Policy Office, European Territorial Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office, General
Affairs and IT Support Office and Control Office. The National Focal Point and the Programme Operator
for the Programme SI02 and the Programme SI05 are established within the European Territorial
Cooperation and Financial Mechanism Office. We would like to reinforce the staffing structure for the
management of the EEA and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism but this unfortunately proves unrealistic
in light of the current financial situation of the public sector.
Due to difference of opinion between the Republic of Slovenia and the European Commission with regard
to compliance with the EU acquis and the Slovenian legal framework, and the fact that the European
Commission established suspicion of irregularities made by the Slovenian authorities, the European
Commission interrupted payments of EU funding to the Cohesion Policy Office. The fact that the
interruption to payments has already been lifted and that the Slovenian authorities have already identified
the irregularities is proof that the Slovenian institutions are efficient in their actions and that they perform
their tasks adequately.
Mitigation measures
148 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
The National Focal Point amended the complaints mechanism in accordance with the Financial
Mechanism Office recommendations and published it on the dedicated website.
The complaints mechanism will be further developed in accordance with the Transparency International
guidelines with the latter being published on the dedicated website (http://norwaygrants.si/) in first quarter
of 2015.
The measure pertains to the separation of functions between the National Focal Point and the
Programme Operator. Due to the small size of the allocated grant from the Donor States and the current
financial situation in public administration we cannot expect the entities, performing the abovementioned
functions, to reinforce their staffing structure and consequently separate the two functions by organising
them into two separate organisational units.
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure The measure pertains to the separation of functions between the
National Focal Point and the Programme Operator. Due to the small
size of the allocated grant from the Donor States and the current
financial situation in public administration we cannot expect the
entities, performing the abovementioned functions, to reinforce their
staffing structure and consequently separate the two functions by
organising them into two separate organisational units.
Target programme/project SI02, SI05
Corruption risk addressed separation of functions NPF and PO
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Description of activities
involved
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure The National Focal Point amended the complaints mechanism in
accordance with the Financial Mechanism Office recommendations
and published it on the dedicated website.
The complaints mechanism will be further developed in accordance
with the Transparency International guidelines with the latter being
149 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
published on the dedicated website (http://norwaygrants.si/).
Target programme/project complaints mechanism
Corruption risk addressed shortcomings in the “complaints mechanism”
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing
Description of activities
involved
The National Focal Point amended the complaints mechanism in
accordance with the Financial Mechanism Office recommendations
and published it on the dedicated website.
The complaints mechanism will be further developed in accordance
with the Transparency International guidelines with the latter being
published on the dedicated website (http://norwaygrants.si/).
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Upgrading of complaint mechanism, first quarter of 2015.
150 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SPAIN
SPAIN - COUNTRY REPORT
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All
information was believed to be correct as of the end date of data collection referred to in this report. The
recommendations offered in this report are based on information provided by the stakeholders of the EEA
and Norway Grants, as specified in the report, as well as other relevant information available at the time
of writing. Transparency International and Berlin Risk Institute accept no liability whatsoever for any direct
or indirect loss associated with any use of this report or further communication made in relation to it.
This report has been funded by the EEA and Norway Grants. The contents of the publication reflect the
views of Transparency International.
[End of data collection: 10 July 2014]
Introduction
The grants scheme in Spain distributes a net amount of EUR 42.5 million. Six programmes are funded in
Spain, supporting a range of policy sectors.25
The Deputy General Directorate for the Cohesion Fund and
European Territorial Cooperation within the Ministry of Finance and Public Administrations serves as the
National Focal Point, responsible for the overall management of the EEA and Norway Grants in the
country.
Table 1, below, presents key information on each of the six programmes, arranged according to the
amount of each programme’s grant allocation (column 3).
Table 1: Overview of Programmes in Spain
Programme
code Programme title
Programme
allocation
(EUR)
Programme
operator
Donor programme
partners
ES02
Environmental and
Climate Change-
Related Research and
Technology
18,215,000
Centre for Technical
Industrial
Development (CDTI),
Ministry of Economic
Affairs and
Competitiveness
Innovation Norway
ES04 Gender Equality and
Work-Life Balance 10,191,250
Ministry of Health,
State Secretariat for
Social Services and
Equality
Equality and Anti-
discrimination Ombud
(LDO)
ES03 NGO Fund 4,585,000
Platform of NGOs for
Social Action
(POAS)
N/A
25
See the official website for Spain http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Spain
151 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
ES05
Conservation and
Revitalisation of
Cultural and Natural
Heritage
4,085,000
Ministry of
Education, Culture
and Sport, State
Secretariat for
Culture
None
ES07 EEA Scholarship
Programme 3,918,000
Complutense
University of Madrid
(UCM)
Norwegian Centre for
International
Cooperation in
Education, Icelandic
Centre for Research,
National Agency for
International Education
Affairs, Liechtenstein
ES06 Cultural Diversity and
Cultural Heritage 500,000
Royal Norwegian
Embassy to Spain None
While the programmes are chiefly managed by the Programme Operators, it is worth noting that three
programmes (ES02, ES04, ES07) additionally involve partner organisations from the Donor States at the
programme level (Donor Programme Partners). This involvement not only supports the general goal of
strengthening bilateral relations but also suggests a close cooperation between the respective Donor
Programme Partners and Programme Operators in the development and implementation of the
programme.
Furthermore, three programmes (ES03, ES04, ES05) feature so-called Pre-defined Projects, which are
exempt from the general approach of competitive project selection and therefore present a greater risk of
collusion between personnel at the Programme Operator and the organisation running the Pre-defined
Project (the Project Promoter).
152 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Results of the corruption risk filtering process
Table 2, below, presents the ratings of exposure to corruption risk for the EEA and Norway Grants in Spain.
Table 2: Corruption Risk Filtering for Spain - Summary of Results
A. COUNTRY-LEVEL
SP
AIN
COUNTRY-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
UN
TR
Y
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
1. Country corruption risk MED
The rating is based on Spain’s deteriorated rank in international indices and on more detailed reports, which suggest
that while promoting a comprehensive anti-corruption regime has recently moved to the top of the national political
agenda, increased corruption risks on the regional and local level persist, requiring more targeted strategic measures
in the future.
2. Net amount of grants to
country LOW
The amount of funding allocated to Spain implies a lower exposure of the grants scheme to corruption risk, also with
respect to the potential impact on the Donors’ interests should corruption occur.
3. Separation of functions &
complaints mechanism HIGH
The rating is based on a limited separation of functions between the Focal Point (also responsible for reporting
irregularities), the Certifying Authority, and the Audit Authority, all residing within the same ministry, and on the
absence of the required complaint mechanism.
153 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
B. PROGRAMME-LEVEL
PR
OG
RA
MM
ES
PROGRAMME-LEVEL CRITERIA
CO
MB
INE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
RA
TIN
G
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
4.
Gra
nt
allo
ca
tio
n to
Pro
gra
mm
e
5.
Don
or
Pro
gra
mm
e
Pa
rtn
er
invo
lve
me
nt
6.
Pre
-define
d P
roje
cts
with
in p
rog
ram
me
7.
Pro
gra
mm
e O
pe
rato
r
ES02 HIGH LOW N/A LOW LOW The large grant size heightens the risk exposure rating for criterion 4.
154 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
ES03 MED MED MED LOW MED
The medium grant size increases the rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme
Partner raises the rating for criterion 5. Uncertainty regarding the not yet selected Project Promoter for the
Pre-defined Project increases the risk exposure rating for criterion 6.
ES04 HIGH LOW HIGH MED HIGH
The large grant size heightens the risk rating for criterion 4. Increased conflict of interest risks due to the
subordinated status or close affiliation of three PdP Project Promoter institutions in relation to the
Programme Operator institution (partly mitigated by independent auditing), the implication in the past of the
Project Promoter institutions for PdP1/2 (also involving one National Partner for PdP2) and PdP5 in
irregularities related to contracting and procurement practices, and for PdP4 in corruption issues, heighten
the risk rating for criterion 6.Ongoing investigations on an unresolved affair which might have an impact on
the PO institution raise the risk rating for criterion 7.
ES05 HIGH MED MED LOW MED
The medium grant size in combination with increased project size and procurement risk heighten the risk
rating for criterion 4. The lack of involvement of a Donor Programme Partner increases the risk rating for
criterion 5. The increased exposure of the PdP to irregularities risk given the nature and history of the
concerned project, and the politically exposed status of key personnel26
raise the risk rating for criterion 6.
26
The expression “politically exposed person” refers to natural persons who are or have been entrusted with prominent public functions. This category includes, among others, Heads of State, National Government Ministers, Senior Civil Servants in National and Regional Government, Political Party Officials, City Mayors, etc.
155 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
ES06 LOW N/A N/A LOW LOW
ES07 MED LOW N/A MED MED
The medium grant size raises the rating for criterion 4. The Programme Operator institution’s implication in
a number of past and current allegations of fraud and corruption affairs increases the risk rating for criterion
7.
156 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
SPANISH NATIONAL FOCAL POINT’S RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION RISK FILTERING RESULTS
This response has been provided by the Spanish National Focal Point and is reproduced in full and
unedited. The contents of this response reflect the views of the Spanish National Focal Point only.
Methodology of the risk filtering approach
Dealing with the development of the risk filtering assessment by BRI-TI,
The risk assessment is based on broad general issues and the highest political levels, based on
past events related with former persons that are not already related to PO’s institutions, and
without paying enough attention to the particular measures and procedures in force in the POs
that in most cases means total management independence of these units from the findings.
There was a close communication between the POs, NFP, FMO, TI and BRI, during the
procedure of risk assessment and the NFP was asked for comments to a DRAFT report by TI.
The comments and documentation provided proved that some of the findings and risks identified
by TI were not accurate or had been completely corrected at that date. However there was no
answer to these comments nor does the FINAL report reflect most of these changes. Only the
issues discussed in a meeting devoted to a specific item of the report were considered.
Measures at country-level already in place and reported to FMO before the finalisation of the report
Criterion 3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism:
a. The structure of the different Units involved and the assigned functions were agreed by the
Beneficiary State and the Donor States in the Memorandum of Understanding on 18.11
2011, without any reserve dealing with the separation of functions.
b. There is a specific complaint mechanism implemented by the NFP, available on EEA Grants
Spain webpage (http://www.eeagrants.es/sitios/eeagrants/en-
GB/Paginas/alerta_irregularidades.aspx) since 25.08.2014, including a Good Governance
and Anti-corruption policy guide for the EEA Grants.
Measures at programme-level already in place and reported to FMO before the finalisation of the report
In the last paragraph of point 1. Introduction, it is identified the PdP as a greater risk of collusion
between personnel at the PO and the PP. The appointment of these PdPs were agreed by the
PO and the Donors in the signed Programme Agreements. In ES03 and ES05 the PdP have
been selected under competitive project selection. In ES03, none of the NGOs members of the
PO can participate in those selection processes.
Programme ES03. Criterion 5. Donnor Progamme Partner involvement: The opportunity for
having national partnership from Island, Norway and Liechtenstein was open during the open call
(August 2013). As a result, two projects have local partners from Norway and Island.
Programme ES03. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: A common rule for all
the programme was adopted during the negotiation of the programme in 2012-2013: any NGO´s
integrated in the NGO´s Platform cannot manage any fund.
Furthermore the selection process of the procurement call was implemented on the basis of the document approved by the FMO (August 2014).
Programme ES04. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: Key personnel involved
in PdP1, PdP2 and PdP5 are civil servants with a large experience in managing programmes in
the Public Administration and none of them has been involved in cases of bad practises nor has
been investigated for any corruption issues. Regarding PdP3/4, no key personnel responsible for
the implementation of the project, has ever been investigated for any corruption issues.
157 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Programme ES05. Criterion 4. Grant allocation to Programme: Federico García Lorca
Consortium is a public institution subject to public law. Whenever the contracts require an open
tender process, the announcement will be sent to the Official Journal of the European Union.
Programme ES05. Criterion 5. Donor Progamme Partner involvement: This Programme
consists basically of one PdP. In the PA the Beneficiary State and the Donors agreed a PdP
without the participation of any Project Partner or Donor Programme Partner. In addition a hard
work of search and collaboration with partners has been done with the aim of strengthening the
bilateral relations of the programme.
Programme ES05. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: As of the 24th March
2014, decisions over contracts and expenses are made by collegiate bodies. All contracts will
ensure compliance with the principle of free competition and Controller’s approval is requested
for payment order. Collegiate bodies involved are Executive Commission and Contracting Board
of the Federico Garcia Lorca Consortium.
Programme ES07. Criterion 7. Programme Operator: The decision making and management
structure, including the participation of donor programme partners, external experts and other
institutions, guarantees the absence of any conflict of interest both at the programme and at the
project levels.
Concerning the “corruption affairs” mentioned in the TI first draft report, the three of them were clearly replied: irregularity suspicion report issued by the Court of Accounts was closed without any procedure started against the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and with the annual accounts approved; for the two other questions, it has been the university who has started the inspection procedures and has sent the cases to the Justice Courts because it was the institution which was attacked. None of the data provided by the Programme Operator’s replying to the draft report has meant any amendment on TI’s first opinion.
Mitigation measures
Mitigation measures at country-level:
Criterion 3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism:
There is a specific complaint mechanism of the NFP, available on EEA Grants Spain webpage
(http://www.eeagrants.es/sitios/eeagrants/en-GB/Paginas/alerta_irregularidades.aspx) since
25.08.2014.
Further developments in continuous improvement of NFP’s complaint mechanism will be implemented.
Mitigation measures at programme-level:
Programme ES03. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: As a follow up of
measures already in place, more than 20 entities have been invited to present their projects
among the agreed procedures (October 2014), an external support (technical assistance) made
recommendation about the selection of two project promoters, (October 2014), and the selection
was made by the Board of Directors of the NGO´s Platform (12 November 2014).
A form about the lack of conflict of interest is going to be signed.
Programme ES04:
a. Donor Programme Partner (Equality and Antidiscrimination Ombud in Norway, LDO) is
closely involved in the Programme development.
b. The PO has proceeded to contract an external and independent audit company, which is executing the checks and verifications of the expenses reported by the Programme Operator in every Interim Financial Report (IFR) declared. Thus PO complies with one of the basic principles on the execution of checks; such as the segregation of duties.
158 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
c. In order to guarantee the correct execution of actions in the Programme, the PO has designed a Management and Control Systems (MCS) that has been approved by the Audit Authority designated for Spain in the Memorandum of Understanding.
d. A “Complaint Mechanism” has been published on the homepage of the Programme web page http://www.eeagrants.spain.msssi.gob.es. The complaint mechanism is meant to provide a channel for confidential reporting of hypothetical bad practises or fraudsters.
e. Regarding the possible conflict of interests that could appear between the PO and the PP, these have been mitigated by an external audit
f. All the lacking information that the FMO asked for, was sent on 16/09/2014 to the NFP, and from there to the FMO on 18/09/2014.
Programme ES05. Criterion 4. Grant allocation to Programme: An Executive Commission has
been set up (made up by a representative of each Administration participating in the Consortium)
to:
1. The approval of expenses exceeding the limit of €17,999 plus VAT (minor contracts). 2. Contracts not exceeding that above mentioned amount require joint authorization of the Director of the Centre, the Managers and the Controller. In both cases, the legal framework for contracting is the Public Administration Contract Law and all contracts will be accompanied by the tender documents setting out the specifications, criteria and legislation ensuring compliance with the principle of free competition..
Programme ES05. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme: As of the 24th March
2014, decisions over contracts and expenses are made by collegiate bodies. All contracts will
ensure compliance with the principle of free competition and Controller’s approval is requested
for payment order.
159 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 1
Description of measure Improvement of the complaint mechanism in place
Target programme/project ES01
Corruption risk addressed Country-level. Criterion 3. Separation of functions & complaints mechanism
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Ongoing. 1st Quarter 2015
Description of activities
involved
Improve management and communication procedures
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Standardization of inputs and outputs.
MITIGATION MEASURE 2
Description of measure Transparency with PdP
Target programme/project ES03
Corruption risk addressed Programme-level. Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) And timeframe
Ongoing, 1st Quarter 2015
Description of activities
involved
A common rule for the entire programme have been adopted during the
negotiation of the programme in 2012-2013: any NGO´s integrated in
the NGO´s Platform cannot manage any fund.
A selection process has been implemented on the basis of the document approved by the FMO (August 2014). More than 20 entities have been invited to present their projects among the agreed procedures (October 2014), an external support (technical assistance) made recommendation about the selection of two project promoters, (October 2014), and the selection was made by the Board of Directors of the NGO´s Platform (12 November 2014). A form about the lack of conflict of interest will be signed
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be
as specific as possible)
160 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 3
Description of measure Donor Programme Partner (Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud in Norway, LDO) is closely involved in the Programme development.
Target programme/project Programme ES04
Corruption risk addressed Degree of transparency of Programme including involvement of DPP
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
According to article 3.3 of the Regulation, the Cooperation Committee provides advice on the preparation and implementation of the Programme. All bilateral relations and complementary actions are agreed upon by the DDP, PO and the Norwegian Embassy
Description of activities
involved
The tasks of the Cooperation Committee include the following: (a) Advising on selection criteria and the texts for calls of
proposals
(b) Advising on possible project partners in the Donor States
(c) Reviewing progress made towards achieving the outcomes and objectives of the programme
(d) Examining the results of the implementation of the Programme;
(e) Reviewing the annual Programme reports;
(f) Advising the Programme Operator of any revision of the Programme likely to facilitate the achievement of the Programme’s expected outcomes and objectives; and
(g) Advising on the use and the set-up of the fund for bilateral relations at the programme level.
In particular is important to highlight the following aspects:
- Donor Programme Partner (DPP) was deeply involved in the design of the predefined projects and remains so in its monitoring stage.
- DPP is participating since the very beginning in the design of the two open calls and Small Grant Schemes included in the Programme as well as in all the selection committees.
These committees also participate as observers in the Financial Mechanism Office (FMO), the National Focal Point (NFP) and the Norwegian Embassy.
Results of mitigation
measure to date (please be
as specific as possible)
All the projects and activities included in the Programme have the consensus and approval of the DPP. The Cooperation Committee has met regularly (thirteen times27 since September 2012 until September 2014, which means an average of more than once every two months).
27
24/09/12 (Madrid) 12/12/12 (Madrid), 18/02/13 (Madrid), 11/06/13 (Madrid), 26/09/13 (Brussels), 18/09/13 (Madrid), 19/11/13 (Madrid), 12/12/13 (Madrid), 30/01/14 (Madrid), 7/04/14 (Brussels), 22/05/14 (Madrid), 20/06/14 (Oslo), 16/09/14 (Madrid)
161 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 4
Description of measure Regarding the possible conflict of interests that could appear between the PO and the PP, these have been mitigated by an external audit.
Target programme/project ES04
Corruption risk addressed Possible conflict of interests that could appear between the PO and some of the PdP
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
The external audit has been contracted in 22/11/2013 and will last
until next November 2016.
Description of activities
involved
Activities devoted to check the actions developed under the PdP1 and
PdP2 and their associated costs
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Every declared cost in all the IFR presented so far has been audited by this external auditor.
MITIGATION MEASURE 5
Description of measure The PO has proceeded to contract an external and independent audit company, which is executing the checks and verifications of the expenses reported by the Programme Operator in every Interim Financial Report (IFR) declared. Thus PO complies with one of the basic principles on the execution of checks; such as the segregation of duties.
Target programme/project ES04
Corruption risk addressed Degree of specification and transparency of PdP within the
Programme
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
The established level of control refers to 100% of the actions, so that all the expenditure certifications delivered by the PO are reviewed by the independent audit and issues a report in which the accuracy of the data in the IFR is determined.
Description of activities
involved
“Ex ante” verifications
In order to guarantee the correct execution of actions, the PO has
established different control procedures will allow ensuring correct
execution of the programme and will also allow guaranteeing the
existence of a suitable and sufficient audit trail of all the actions in the
Programme.
The established level of control refers to 100% of the actions, in a way
that all the expenditure certifications delivered by the PO will be
reviewed by PwC and will be issued in a report in which the accuracy
of the data in the IFR is determined.
162 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
E) 3.- b) On site verifications.
The verifications which the entity PwC make can be carried out on
site.
Furthermore, the on-site Monitoring Plan that the PO carry out yearly;
verifications of expenditure are not performed. However, aspects
related to the expenditure, such as the existence of a separate
account, checking the existence of authorisation for subcontracting,
checking the request for bids for subcontracting, etc. will be verified.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
MITIGATION MEASURE 6
Description of measure In order to guarantee the correct execution of actions in the Programme, the PO has designed a Management and Control Systems (MCS) that has been approved by the Audit Authority designated for Spain in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Target programme/project ES04
Corruption risk addressed Degree of specification and transparency of PdP within the
Programme
Integrity of Programme/ Funds Operators Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Description of activities
involved
Summing up the internal controls reflected in the MCS, all operations
done by the Programme Operator are supervised by an independent
Financial Controller, assigned to the PO by the national “Audit
Authority” (General Controller of the Public Administration). The
Financial Controller supervises all the payments made to the
Predefined Projects managed through nominal subsidies, as well as
the rest of the expenses executed by him (complementary actions,
bilateral relations, management costs). The independent Financial
Controller assigned to the Women’s Institute (WI) and ascribed to the
Audit Authority as well, supervises all payments made by the WI
Project Promoters related to the Predefined projects, and the
payments done to the open call and small grants schemes
beneficiaries.
With regards to the accusation of political favouritism in the awarding
of grants in the Women Institute (WI).
In July 2013, the WI modified to improve the criteria for the annual
open call in order to make them more transparent and objective. For
163 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
the first time, the selection criteria were established under easily
testable and revisable objective parameters. All associations were
informed about these new criteria on time, and a period of provisional
resolution, file review by the applicants, claims and queries processes
were included. It was the first time that there were no administrative or
judicial appeals among the potential beneficiaries of the call during the
whole process due to the high level of transparency.
It is unacceptable that because a press release in which an
association of women poured criticism, the whole report raises
suspicion about a process that has been transparent and based on
objective criteria. Furthermore, it seriously damages the honorability of
honest public servants.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
MITIGATION MEASURE 7
Description of measure A “Complaint Mechanism” has been published on the homepage of the Programme web page http://www.eeagrants.spain.msssi.gob.es.
Target programme/project ES04
Corruption risk addressed Degree of specification and transparency of PdP within the
Programme
Integrity of Programme/ Funds Operators
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
This “Complaint Mechanism” has been published on the homepage of
the Programme at the end of September 2014.
Description of activities
involved
The complaint mechanism is meant to provide a channel for
confidential reporting of hypothetical bad practises or fraudsters.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
MITIGATION MEASURE 8
Description of measure An Executive Commission has been set up (made up by a representative of each Administration participating in the Consortium)
Target programme/project ES05
Corruption risk addressed Criterion 4. Grant allocation to Programme
164 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Completed
Description of activities
involved
An Executive Commission has been set up (made up by a representative of each Administration participating in the Consortium) to:
1. The approval of expenses exceeding the limit of €17,999 plus VAT (minor contracts).
2. Contracts not exceeding that above mentioned amount require joint authorization of the Director of the Centre, the Managers and the Controller.
In both cases, the legal framework for contracting is the Public Administration Contract Law and all contracts will be accompanied by the tender documents setting out the specifications, criteria and legislation ensuring compliance with the principle of free competition.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
165 ADDRESSING CORRUPTION RISK IN THE EEA AND NORWAY GRANTS – ANNEX 2: COUNTRY REPORTS AND RESPONSES
MITIGATION MEASURE 9
Description of measure Decisions over contracts and expenses are made by collegiate
bodies.
Target programme/project ES05
Corruption risk addressed Criterion 6. Pre-defined Projects within programme
Implementation status
(planned, ongoing, complete
etc.) and timeframe
Complete
Description of activities
involved
As of the 24th March 2014, decisions over contracts and expenses
are made by collegiate bodies. All contracts will ensure compliance
with the principle of free competition and Controller’s approval is
requested for payment order.
Results of mitigation measure
to date (please be as specific
as possible)
Transparency International International Secretariat Alt-Moabit 96, 10559 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 30 34 38 200 Fax: +49 30 34 70 39 12
[email protected] www.transparency.org
blog.transparency.org facebook.com/transparencyinternational twitter.com/anticorruption