EUROPEAN COMMISSION Budget Central Financial Service Financial regulations

REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATION PUBLIC CONSULTATION

MONDAY 19 OCTOBER – FRIDAY 18 DECEMBER 2009

Compilation of contributions received from 'Public Authorities'

EUROPÄISCHE KOMMISSION Haushalt Zentraler Finanzdienst Finanzregelungen

ÜBERPRÜFUNG DER HAUSHALTSORDNUNG ÖFFENTLICHE KONSULTATION

MONTAG 19. OKTOBER – FREITAG 18. DEZEMBER 2009

Zusammenstellung der von 'Behörden' erhaltenen Beiträge

COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE Budget Service Financier Central Règlements Financiers

REEXAMEN DU REGLEMENT FINANCIER CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE

LUNDI 19 OCTOBRE – VENDREDI 18 DECEMBRE 2009

Compilation des contributions reçues des 'Autorités Publiques'

Page P001 - 28.10.2009 Town of Pleternica HR ........................................................................................... 3 P002 - 04.11.2009 Entreprise Ireland IE............................................................................................... 5 P003 - 09.11.2009 Town of Mane-en-Provence FR ............................................................................. 7 P004 - 25.11.2009 Stadt Krefeld DE..................................................................................................... 9 P005 - 01.12.2009 SenterNovem NL .................................................................................................. 11 P006 - 04.12.2009 Aberdeenshire Council UK................................................................................... 13 P007 - 07.12.2009 Flemish Government Division Traffic Center BE ................................................ 21 P008 - 07.12.2009 Kent County Council UK...................................................................................... 23 P009 - 09.12.2009 Waterboard of Schieland and the Krimpenerwaard NL........................................ 28 P010 - 11.12.2009 COSLA UK........................................................................................................... 30 P011 - 15.12.2009 Bucarest Municipality RO .................................................................................... 36 P012 - 15.12.2009 Statistics Denmark DK ......................................................................................... 38 P013 - 15.12.2009 East of Scotland European Consortium UK ......................................................... 40 P014 - 16.12.2009 Landkreise Lüneburg DE...................................................................................... 45 P015 - 16.12.2009 Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart DE ....................................................................... 54 P016 - 16.12.2009 Compact UK ......................................................................................................... 57 P017 - 16.12.2009 Stadt Langen DE................................................................................................... 61 P018 - 17.12.2009 European Ombudsman BE.................................................................................... 63 P019 - 17.12.2009 Fachhochschule Osnabrück EEN DE ................................................................... 74 P020 - 17.12.2009 Czech Trade inspection CZ................................................................................. 102 P021 - 17.12.2009 Hanse-Office DE ................................................................................................ 104 P022 - 17.12.2009 SMULL DE ........................................................................................................ 109 P023 - 17.12.2009 Barnsley Council UK .......................................................................................... 114 P024 - 18.12.2009 Statistical Institutes DE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, SI, SE, FI ... 118 P025 - 18.12.2009 Highland Council UK ......................................................................................... 130 P026 - 18.12.2009 Academy of Science CZ ..................................................................................... 134 P027 - 18.12.2009 IHK Oberfranken Bayreuth DE .......................................................................... 137 P028 - 18.12.2009 Gelderland, Overijssel en Zeeland NL................................................................ 148 P029 - 18.12.2009 Barcelona Provincial Council ES........................................................................ 153 P030 - 18.12.2009 POM West-Vlaanderen BE................................................................................. 158 P031 - 18.12.2009 Ministry of Finances EE ..................................................................................... 162 P032 - 18.12.2009 Communauté d'Agglomération Plaine Commune FR ........................................ 170 P033 - 18.12.2009 Environment Agency for England & Wales UK ................................................ 173 P034 - 18.12.2009 Brighton Hove City Council UK ........................................................................ 175 P035 - 18.12.2009 INSEE FR ........................................................................................................... 179 P036 - 18.12.2009 Romanian Municipalities Association RO.......................................................... 183 P037 - 18.12.2009 Ministry of Finances NL ..................................................................................... 188 P038 - 18.12.2009 Council for Civil Society Development HR ....................................................... 194 P039 - 18.12.2009 Enterprise Europe Vlaanderen BE ...................................................................... 196 P040 - 18.12.2009 Ministry of Industry and Trade CZ ..................................................................... 204 P041 - 18.12.2009 British Government UK ...................................................................................... 206 P042 - 18.12.2009 NKTH HU .......................................................................................................... 213 P043 - 18.12.2009 PNEDC DE-FR-NL-AT-FI-UK .......................................................................... 216

P001 - 28.10.2009 Town of Pleternica

HR

Being involved in preparation and implementation of a dousin EU funded projects (in Croatia), I would like to submit several remarks and suggestions regarding the financial regulation of EU projects. 1. Practical Guide for Contract Procedures is everything but practical. Project managers, beginners in particular, need much easier (and smaller) booklet where rules would be presented in a simplified manner. 2. Administrative costs (7% of eligible costs). In the last couple of years, these costs need to be justified by invoices, but it is said they will not be controlled?! There must be a clear position on these costs, and they should definitely be more flexible for expenditure. Also, the percentage of 7% for large projects (e.i. more than 1.000.000EUR) is too big. That is, sometimes smaller projects (with more "soft" activities like education or public campaigns) ask for more administrative costs that large infrastructural projects, where applicants need to subcontract the actual subcontracting companies. The proposal is that these costs do not need justification and that they are not subject to audit control, but that percentage for large projects is decreased to 4%. 3. Lately, Contracting Authority (CA) in Croatia asks for filling out another excel sheet (Justification and Clarification) where all the budget lines need to be additionally explained and connected with the activities of the action. Also, the prices need to be explained. This work is only repeating all the previously expressed information, and puts additional work in front of project applicant. All the prices are explained in the budget clearing process, and the budget lines are already explained in the Detailed activities description. This sheet is unnecessary. 4. PADOR database is very usefull and should be widely applied. Only, the sectoral distinction is not so clear (and it is too complicated to fill). 5. Realocations within the budget heading must be more flexible. It was said previously that realocation lower than 15% within one budget heading do not need additional justification. However, our CA always asks for explanation and their previous approval. There are many cases when reallocation are not predictable in advance, and this requires additional financial management efforts, while the outcomes and results' modifications could be insignificant. The control must be stronger in the phase of approval, while project management team needs to have minimum freedom in creative work of project implementation. 6. DEADLINES. Duration of the project is very fixed. This is not good. Very often there are periods when, because of uncontrollable influences (e.i. August in some countries means that all the country is at vocation and certain works cannot be executed on time). The change of the project's duration is subject to Contract Addendum, which is very demanding request and lasts for several months. This is why there should be defined situations that allow project's duration prolonguation, without significant changes to the contract (and that procedure is speed up). 7. About the information on grants - there should be one single web page with search engines, where all possible and eligible applicants should see what kind of funding opportunities exist. Currently, there is a load of information on many web sites, but only rare organisations know where to look for it. 8.Lump sums. Definitely, there are situations where applicants cannot know the exact amounts of certain costs. E.i. if projects envisages creation of Marketing plan that will define the specific marketing and promotion activities (adds, commercials), in this case the applicant does not know exactly how much money (and which way) must be spent. Or, if the project plans to include unemployed village women but does not specify from which village (it will depend on their interest), it is not clear where certain investments in job-search support center will take place (and only lump sum can be predicted). 9. Cascading funding should be allowed only for project that envisage activities like public award procedures or similar. In this case, the applicant would organise the manifestation and would be in charge of "sharing" the awarded amounts for other "subprojects". 10. Single tenderer - if it is said that under certain amounts it is allowed to have only one single tenderer and to make direct contracts, that proving that we have conducted detailed market research is redundant. Town of Pleternica

P002 - 04.11.2009 Entreprise Ireland

IE

Consultation Topic #1: The award of grants; As part of the admninistration of grants for Ireland and participation in Framework Programme 7 in particular, I recommend that the processes associated with Grant approval and company validation are too burdensome and are of too long a duration prior to SMEs starting projects in FP7 and should be reduced drastically from the present timeframe of 10 months. To this end, I would suggest a target of 6 months for these two processes and project evaluations in total. This timeframe can be reduced by performing the following

• SME company validation processes. This is currently requested by the Commission thru the coordinator of the FP7 project to the SMEs in question.This is cumbersome to implement and is time hungry. A better system would be to have on-line registration for form filling for the validation process directly rather than thru email requests via the coordinator. The form filling should be comprehensive and would not require multiple revisits for clarification.

• The negotiation stage prior to grant sign-off. Minimum priority prechecking should occur and if passing these checks, then sign-off of the grant agrement occurs with full comprehensive checks occuring in the first 6 months of project execution. The beneficiaries would sign an agreement that if checks do not pass that the expenditure of monies already spent would be returned.

Consultation Topic #2: The Commission's handling of financial files.

• It is very unclear to NCPs and National Delegates in FP7 what the cumbersome detail of the handling procedures are and therefore it is effectively difficult to determine improvements to this process.

Research for the benefit of SMEs, Framework Programme 7 - National Delegate / National Contact Point, Enterprise Ireland, 4500 Atlantic Avenue, Westpark, Shannon, Co. Clare, Republic of Ireland www.fp7ireland.com

P003 - 09.11.2009 Town of Mane-en-Provence

FR

Je vous remercie de votre initiative qui donne ainsi l’opportunité aux citoyens européens de s’exprimer.

Le processus d’appel à propositions ne parvient ou parvient trop tard à la connaissance des candidats potentiels par manque d’information. Par ailleurs des exigences sont exprimées qui ignorent les pratiques nationales. Ainsi un appel à proposition publié en juin dernier pour une réponse en septembre de cette même année nécessitait de justifier de cofinancements nationaux. En France il est impossible dans un délai aussi court et en cette époque de l’année d’obtenir de tels engagements.

Cela d’autant plus lorsque l’engagement porte sur plusieurs exercices budgétaires. Ensuite il s’avère que l’examen des dossiers se limite aux aspects théoriques et ignore les éléments pratiques. Aussi il serait judicieux soit de procéder à une visite sur les lieux ou alors d’auditionner les candidats. Procéder ainsi changerait l’image que les citoyens ont de l’Europe.

Enfin autre handicap la rédaction des dossiers de candidature qui doivent être rédigés en anglais. Cette contrainte peut écarter des projets dignes d’intérêt. Merci encore pour votre démarche http://www.mane-en-provence.com/

P004 - 25.11.2009 Stadt Krefeld

DE

Die Stadt Krefeld tritt für eine deutliche Vereinfachung und Entbürokratisierung der Fördermodalitäten ein. Hier sind einige Anregungen: 1. Für die Antragszeiten sollte ein längerer Zeitraum zur Verfügung stehen. 2. Ein Vorteil ist die bereits teilweise praktizierte Förderung in bestimmten Tranchen (z. B. zu festen Terminen im Frühjahr und Herbst eines jeden Jahres). Wenn solche Zeitkorridiore vorab rechtzeitig bekannt sind, lassen sich Projekte mit Projektpartner besser planen. 3. Manche Programme (z. B: Grundtvig) verlangen die Teilnahme von Projektpartnern aus zu vielen Ländern. Um den Austausch zwischen den Mitgliedsländern zu erhöhen und Hemmnisse abzubauen, sollte es möglich sein, dass lediglich zwei Projektpartner ein Projekt zur Förderung anmelden können (vergleichbar INTERREG IVa). Der Oberbürgermeister Fachbereich Stadtmarketing, Medien und Büro des Rates Europabeauftragter der Stadt Krefeld D-47792 Krefeld Internet: http://www.krefeld.de

P005 - 01.12.2009 SenterNovem

NL

I would like to add a commentary on the EU funding website. I am working with SenterNovem agency of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and I receive project proposals from several SME's. What is really lacking is a comprehensive outlook of each grant and a possibility to contact a person in charge of the specific grant in order to receive advice on a specific project plan. projectadviseur innovatie, milieu en energie Projectadviseur Informatiepunt SenterNovem http://www.senternovem.nl/english/

P006 - 04.12.2009 Aberdeenshire Council

UK

1/7

3 December 2009 Dear Commissioner Šemeta, Financial Regulation Consultation As a local authority from the United Kingdom, Aberdeenshire Council welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the revision of the EU’s Financial Regulation. Our authority has a number of years of experience of delivering European funding on the ground through projects and our hosting of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council. Our experience of delivering projects has highlighted an imbalance between adequate financial control systems and the ability to physically deliver EU policy objectives. While the financial control systems do indeed ensure a high degree of transparency in the spending of funds, they can be excessive in practice and disproportionate to the amount of funding in question. This can actually lead to the misspending of European funding on administration and verification, rather than the activities which it was originally intended for. Aberdeenshire Council would like to see a greater degree of flexibility in the Regulation which takes account of the level of funding awarded and would welcome moves towards performance based grants. Provided that the level of grant can be justified and explained at the application stage, this should be the amount received by the applicant, provided that they deliver the agreed outputs. This would reduce the amount of resources spent on collating financial information for claims and verification, freeing up funding for project delivery. There would of course need to be assurances that European funding was being appropriately spent. Given that public authorities, who are already bound by strict auditing rules, tend to be the organisations implementing projects, there should be delegation of verification to the Member State level. Each project could be subject to a single audit once it is completed, carried out by an agency approved by the Commission. Once the findings of this audit are complete, the project should be deemed as closed. This would reduce the burden of retaining and storing documentation for decades after the end of project activity. The Council would also like to see greater flexibility in the non-profit rule, particularly in cases where it is anticipated that a supported organisation will move towards becoming financially independent. The present system, where any generated income is deducted from the grant, does not encourage organisations to generate income or allow them to build up sufficient resources to become sustainable. Compatibility with the State Aid regime would need to be examined, however. With regards to operating grants, Aberdeenshire Council has experience of this through our hosting of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council. We have identified some issues and potential solutions to them in our response, notably relating to the need for greater flexibility between annual budgets, the deficit of receipts rule and procurement rules for service contracts. Aberdeenshire Council welcomes the review of the regulation and hopes that a suitable balance between financial control and efficiency can be achieved through this action. Yours sincerely, Peter Argyle,

Chair of Infrastructure Services Committee Aberdeenshire Council www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk

2/7

Information about grant opportunities: Calls for proposals are already widely published, notably on the Internet. Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest? Generally, Calls for Proposals are well publicised on the Europa site and through the Official Journal. However, the timescale for responding to calls can be tight, given the need for partnerships to be developed and each partner needing to obtain authorisation from their committees/boards to participate in an application. It would be helpful for applicants if a single web page with all open calls could be set up on Europa, with the option of signing up for e-alerts when new calls are opened. Co-financing and contributions in kind: EU grants must involve co-financing, sometime quite substantially. This obligation is often challenging for actors, in particular when there is no possibility to include contributions in kind like volunteer work as part of the project manager's own contribution. Question 2: Should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle? Greater flexibility in the rules surrounding co-financing requirements would be welcomed, particularly regarding the eligibility of staff time as match funding. Given the present financial situation, it is difficult to secure match funding in the form of cash for projects, given that most funding for public sector applicants is spent on staffing. While the costs of permanent staff which spend time on projects would otherwise be covered by the applicant organisation, there is nonetheless a cost for their time and work. It would be helpful if the rules could reflect such costs and ensure that they can be used as match funding. With regards to volunteer work, any ‘profit’ which would result from this time being used as match funding should be permissible, provided that it is invested into project activities. It is only fair that organisations which rely on volunteers because they do not have the money to pay them, are not penalised and excluded from eligibility for grants which they need to become sustainable.

3/7

Performance-based grants: The current system for the management of grants obliges beneficiaries to meet detailed eligibility conditions and requires multiple checks throughout the duration of a project. This can sometimes discourage potential beneficiaries from even applying for a grant. More simplified management of grants could be achieved through the use of various methods (such as lump-sums, scale of unit costs and flat-rates) avoiding the current complex accounting of costs. The Commission could also envisage a new management system to cover costs based on the expected outputs of a project, i.e. the concrete objectives which are achieved. Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples? Provided that the reasoning behind the calculation of lump sums and flat rates can be justified for transparency, this would be a useful change to the rules as it could significantly reduce administration for applicants. At present, a significant amount of European funding is wasted on tracking payments through organisations’ financial systems to the bank statement. Often this is for a relatively small amount of money, hence the costs required to track these payments can be higher than the grant received. It takes as much time to track a payment for €1 as it does for €1,000,000. It would also be helpful if costs could be covered on the basis of expected outputs, with a budget agreed at the time of application and the grant paid in full if the project delivers its anticipated outcomes. This would naturally require verification of the projects actual outputs, which could increase administration. However, applicants are already required to keep records on their outputs, hence the increase should be far outweighed by the reduction in bureaucracy with regards to financial reporting. Either of these options could help to ensure that more European money is spent on delivering key EU policies, while maintaining accountability and transparency. Aberdeenshire Council, although a reasonably large local authority, has been discouraged from applying for grants due to the level of administration required. We would like to see simpler verification rules introduced where each project would be subject to an audit upon completion. Provided that the auditor (approved by the Commission) is satisfied with the records provided, the project should be deemed as closed and the results accepted by the Commission.

4/7

Non profit rule: EU grants cannot generate profit for beneficiaries since a subsidy should remain a mere incentive to support projects rather than have a commercial purpose. This often creates misunderstandings between the Commission and the beneficiaries as well as excessive administrative work. Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities? There should be flexibility with regards to the non-profit principle, which penalises organisations for generating income. Firstly, it would help to reduce dependency on EU grants (e.g. for operating grants) by allowing recipients to build up reserves and become more self sustaining. The present situation reinforces dependency on European funds by reducing the level of grant received to take account of income generation. As such, there is little incentive for organisations to become self sustaining and no financial cushion should there be any unforeseen expenditure. Secondly, this could help to improve the participation of private sector organisations in projects. The EU appears to be moving more towards partnership working with the private sector and has strongly encouraged their participation in European-funded projects. However, there is again little incentive for them to participate as their involvement would not contribute to their core function – to generate a profit. The State Aid rules would need to be taken into consideration, but funding could be awarded at a scale below the de minimis threshold or through an exemption scheme. Within Aberdeenshire Council, Service Level Agreements are in place with organisations who would otherwise be dependent on grants. These set out the activities to be provided and the amount of funding to be received in return, similar to the concept of costs covered on the basis of expected outputs in question 3. This allows applicant organisations to generate income to become self sustaining and encourages them to do so through the fixed term nature of the Agreement. Ceilings for small grants: Current rules on grants comply notably with the principles of co-financing, equal treatment and fair competition. However, some flexibility is allowed for "low" value grants (≤ EUR 25,000) or "very low" value grants (≤ EUR 5,000). Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants? Given the wide range of activities supported by European funding and the diverse programmes in place to deliver funding, it is difficult to identify specific figures for low and very low value grants. The threshold amounts for public contracts set out in Directive 2004/18/EC could perhaps be used as a basis for varying the degree of financial monitoring/reporting required, although these are significantly higher than the present figures.

5/7

Financial stability for grant applicants: Current rules foresee a gradual decrease of 'operating' grants, i.e. financing administrative expenditure, notably to encourage beneficiaries to diversify and generate own resources. For similar reasons, the duration of framework partnership agreements, established as a long-term cooperation mechanism with beneficiaries, is limited. Such provisions could be examined in order to find the most appropriate balance between the need for financial stability and the risk of excessive reliance on EU funds. Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements? As stated in the response to question 4, the rules relating to income generation need to be revised if recipients of operating grants are to become self sustaining. The duration of a framework partnership agreement would vary dependent on the capacity of the delivery organisation and the timescale of its activities, but should be long enough to allow the recipient to generate sufficient own resources. Aberdeenshire Council has more specific experience of operating grants through the hosting of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC). Based on this experience (and discussions with other Regional Advisory Councils(RACs)), the following issues and potential solutions have been identified:

1) There is no mechanism to allow operational balances to be carried over between financial years. While RACs are required to be set up as legal entities, they are not permitted to transfer or carry over balances between financial years. In practice, his means that it is impossible for RACs to conventionally manage legitimate over or underspend between financial years. As such, the Council would advocate amending the Financial Regulation to provide a system of multiannual budgets in which EU grants are awarded yearly and in which over and under expenditure could be rectified in an additional period of 2 years.

2) The deficit of receipts practice, where the Commission reduces its contribution to the RAC operational budget in the event of income from donors being less than forecast, is also problematic. For example, if contributions from donors are 10% below the amount of forecasted contributions, total expenditure of the RACs must be reduced by 20% in order to avoid further deficits. The solution would be to allow any deficit to be recouped in the following year in the event of a deficit of receipts in a particular year.

'Cascading' grants involving third parties: The possibility for a beneficiary to redistribute part of its grant through subsidies to third parties is currently strictly limited, with a view to notably ensuring adequate monitoring and control of tax payers' money by the Commission. Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action? Aberdeenshire Council has not experienced any problems with this limitation.

6/7

Pre-financing payments to beneficiaries: These payments are considered as the property of the Communities until the action has been fully implemented. As a consequence, the interests generated by these payments have to be reimbursed to the EU Budget. This creates administrative and financial formalities (dedicated bank account, cash consumption analysis…) and checks. Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for pre-financing payments while safeguarding tax payers’ money? Aberdeenshire Council has no comments on this question. Pre-financing guarantees: These guarantees are required to reduce the risk of EU money being lost in case the beneficiary goes bankrupt or otherwise fails to implement the project or repay the money. Yet, the corresponding amount is usually blocked by the bank guarantor, removing the advantage of the pre-financing. Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds? Aberdeenshire Council has no comments on this question. Tendering thresholds for low value contracts: Under certain thresholds, the procedure is simplified: contracts may be awarded on the basis of a single tenderer and payments can be paid made against invoices. Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why? Aberdeenshire Council has not had experience of such tenders and therefore is unable to comment specifically on this question. However, with regards to the management of NSRAC, we would like to comment on the rules surrounding procurement rules for service contracts. In establishing the potential value of the contract and hence the number of candidates to consult, the RAC is required to consider the estimated value of all similar supplies or services that the same contractor may be requested to provide before the RAC can conclude a subsequent procedure for the relevant supplies or services. There is uncertainty as to how long a ‘period of accumulation’ should last. Aberdeenshire Council would argue that the maximum period to be taken into consideration for tendering purposes should be the duration of the grant agreement, unless a contract needs to be serviced for more than 12 months. The Council would also advocate that services such as interpreting services and technical equipment are tendered on a meeting by meeting basis and that auditing and insurance services are tendered annually.

7/7

Paperwork for applicants: As a rule, when participating in a tender or call for proposals, applicants are invited to provide detailed information on their organisation and to present a comprehensive proposal on their project and/or offer. To fulfil these conditions more easily, the current rules foresee the possible use of e-tools but, in practice, this possibility is under-utilised for various technical reasons linked, among other things, to the authentication of documents. In another effort to reduce paperwork, the Commission has also created the possibility to split the grant selection process into 2 steps with a view to only inviting the applicants most likely to be successful to submit a full application. However, while this new procedure reduces work for applicants, it increases the duration of the selection process quite significantly. Considering the above, one idea to continue reducing paperwork could be the introduction of a "label" system so that organisations that have successfully carried out a project and/or contract send only documents relevant to the new application. Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved? Two-stage application processes are indeed helpful for applicants, as they can receive an early steer on the likelihood of success of an application without spending too much time on a full application. This does create administration for those processing the applications, but can in turn reduce the number of full applications which they would otherwise have had to process. It is important to ensure that the forms used only ask for information which is really needed to make an informed and transparent decision on the awarding of grants. More detailed documentation should only be required from the recipient of grants, the production of which would be a condition of grant.

P007 - 07.12.2009 Flemish Government Division Traffic Center

BE

Authority: Flemish government (division Traffic Centre) - Belgium Contribution: Information about grant opportunities is very well accessible via the internet. We have so far not experienced any problems with the current financial regulation. The introduction of the PIC / LEAR concept was an excellent initiative!

P008 - 07.12.2009 Kent County Council

UK

1/4

Dear Sir Review of the Financial Regulation – Public Consultation I am pleased to enclose the response of Kent County Council to the Commission’s public consultation on the financial rules governing EU-funded programmes. We welcome the Commission’s commitment to further simplification and transparency whilst maintaining budgetary rigour. Although previous initiatives in this regard seem unfortunately to have led to even more onerous requirements, we very much agree that there needs this time to be a thorough and more radical approach to the simplification of rules and administrative procedures. KCC has been involved in the implementation of a range of EU Structural Funds programmes are more than 20 years. We are therefore pleased to provide our contribution and practical experience to the issues and questions raised. Yours faithfully

2/4

Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest? • All EU funding calls for proposals allocated through national administrations should be displayed

on a single national website- with a link to the Commission’s ‘Europa’ website • The same rules as for all other EU programmes should apply to communication, timescales and

application deadlines.

Question 2: should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle? • Firstly, the whole principle and application of co-financing needs to be looked at afresh since a

number of adverse affects arise from its current operation. These include disproportionate diversion of energy in devising match-funding packages to the detriment of actual project implementation; confusion over eligibility and interpretation of rules; lack of transparency; subordination of EU programme priorities to those of co-financing bodies and discouragement of take up by the private sector. Conversely, reducing (or even abolishing) the requirement would help to:

- Provide a greater focus on project implementation, outputs and impacts - Ensure the promotion of EU priorities - Promote innovation - Provide real EU added-value from projects - Encourage SME participation, private sector investment and leverage

• Pending a more radical approach:

- One simple, consistent set of rules for match-funding in kind, such as used under UK ESF programmes, should be devised

- A consistent approach is also needed in accounting for the time of unpaid staff time (volunteers) which is currently eligible under some EU programmes but not others.

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples? • As per our response to Q2, we support an increased emphasis on the delivery of outputs as

opposed to detailed eligibility requirements and multiple checks • Flat rates could become the norm below a certain level, say, €50,000 but a rigorous means of

evidencing outputs that was consistent across all programmes would need to be put in place.

3/4

Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities? • We would advocate a degree of flexibility – public sector project promoters are put off by not

being able to make a profit • We have had examples of projects being penalised for generating receipts too quickly and being

too successful • Generated income (or additional match-funding) ploughed back into the project should be

allowed In terms of good practice, the UK National Lottery allows bids from commercial organisations running projects on a not-for-profit-basis, including Community Interest Companies (CICs) and Social Enterprise companies where project profits are reinvested solely into the project.

Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants? • Experience in the UK suggests that grants below £10,000 should be defined as ‘very low’; under

£50,000, ‘low’.

Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework, partnership agreements? • Administrative expenditure should be pegged at a specific percentage of overall project costs • Framework partnership agreements should be for up to 3 years.

Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action? • Because it is difficult to offer grants to small organisations, the perception that EU funding is a

‘closed shop’ for such groups is reinforced by current limitations. • Beneficiaries should be able to cascade grants whilst being fully accountable to the Commission • In the UK, ESF Community Grants (previously Global Grants) are an example of how EU funding

can be open to small organisations which would otherwise be unable to access them.

4/4

Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for pre-financing payments while safeguarding tax payers’ money? No Comments

Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds? No Comments

Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why? • Guidance changes continuously and varies across different programmes whilst additional

compliance rules apply at programme level • More clarity and consistency is needed in the application of rules.

Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved? • The application process needs to be simplified • For example under the Interreg IVA ‘2 Seas’ cross-border co-operation programme a standard

application form for 5 partners is almost 200 pages • This also has to be provided in the official language of each partner, involving unnecessary

additional costs at the application stage • Too much of the wrong type of detail is required at present and forms should be focused on key

information requirements • A two-stage procedure could be beneficial while the increased approval time required need not

exceed 4-8 weeks • A ‘label’ system is also supported – for some small UK grant-schemes specific support

documents are only requested after a ‘conditional grant’ offer is made

P009 - 09.12.2009 Waterboard of Schieland and the Krimpenerwaard

NL

I work for a public body in the Netherlands, the Waterboard of Schieland and the Krimpenerwaard (located in Rotterdam). My job is grant advisor, and as such, I am involved in various European and Dutch grants.

With regards to the public consultation, please find below my answers to your questions:

Q1: I am / my organisation is sufficiently informed about upcoming calls. However, the decisions about the call (is my project approved or not) takes sometimes very very long. And with the n+2 rule regarding the spending of the budget, the delay is not a plus, because sometimes a project is also delayed, and as such, grants are not completely used.

Q2: I / my organisation, does not work with in-kind contribution. I have tried this once, with an INTI - grant, and I will never do it again in this way. It takes too much administration in order to have the (dutch) auditor agree with it. Too much 'cost' for less 'profit'

Q3: I really encourage the use of flat rates, e.g. for hourly rates of personel. And any personel, not just the inhouse personel, but also external experts. Please be informed of the following injustice:

When hours are being worked by my organisation, the hourly rate of EUR 100 is used for budgettory reasons. However, e.g. for Interreg, I can only take into account approximately EUR 40 for hourly rate. But, should I ask an external consultant for the same work, the hourly rate of EUR 125 can be taken into account for the grant.

This does not add up. If this can be changed, in such a way that all hourly rates are a maximum of EUR 125 (or less, e.g. EUR 100), this would be a positive outcome. The auditor will have less work while checking the claims, and public authorities have less work to prepare the claim.

As for lump sums, I can think of several budgettory lines in which this can be helpful, such as travelling, but I do not mind the current methods due to the need for checking against fraud.

Costs cannot be covered based upon expected outputs. My understanding with (physical) activities is, that it always costs more than thought before. Currently, it is still possible to ask for alterations within each budgetline.

Q4: Strictly non-profit principle.

Q5: No views on this.

Q6: No views on this. However, I have noticed that partnerships tend to break up after the grant has been received. The ties are broken, and only be tied again if another grant opportunity arises.

Q7: Yes, in a current project (Urban Habitats in the Interreg 2 Seas Programme, JTS Lille). At the time of requesting the grant, it was not yet certain which public body would be responsible for certain activities. As such, my organisation has taken full responsibility within the grant. However, now, when the project is starting, it has been negiotiated that another public body is also responsible for part of the work. However, since the municipality of Rotterdam was not a partner in the grant application, they cannot receive ERDF.

Financial files: I have no remarks on this part of the public consultation. International Projects District Water Board Schieland en de Krimpenerwaard

P010 - 11.12.2009 COSLA

UK

Please find attached the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) officer level technical response to the Financial Regulation consultation

EU Financial Regulation consultation – COSLA officer level submission

• The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) is the representative voice of all Scottish

Local Authorities both nationally and internationally and it has long advocated strong, consistent EU funding programmes which enable local communities to participate in order both to improve the quality of life at a local level and to demonstrate in concrete terms the value of EU membership. In the case if decentralised funding programmes (especially those relating to Cohesion policy and Rural Development) COSLA fully endorses the partnership principle, whereby Local Authorities and other stakeholders are fully involved in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the programmes.

Questionnaire Responses 1 GRANTS Information about grant opportunities: Calls for proposals are already widely published (Art. 110 FR and Art. 166 IR), notably on the Internet. Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest?

• We support web-based instruments that allow interested parties to be made aware of calls as soon as they are published. It is important that these electronic resources allow for personalised use as to enable potential applicants to make specific information requests in other words an interactive FAQ capability..

• Similarly, events such as info days should not only comprise a physical element but to be accessible electronically, via videoconference, streaming etc. It is important that info days take place in each of the member states and that the “contact point” system is further strengthened.

• In addition to standardised information (forms, written guidance, etc) it would be possible to advance in developing communities of practice between the EU and Local Authority funding managers. Possible ideas are:

- an EU-wide publicly accessible website of best as well as bad practices

- that the relevant Commission DGs should create a special Unit to receive complaints or recommendations from practitioners (not just Member States or Managing Authorities) on problems in applying the Regulations governing EU funding programmes. These units should also proactively advise on best practices

- In the case of Cohesion DG REGIO and the Council Cohesion Working Group regularly meet with regional and local stakeholders for a strategic dialogue on how the programmes are performing. This should also be applicable to other funding streams and DGs with a territorial focus.

- Commission-Member States coordination committees (such as COCOF) should, in the interests of transparency, make publicly and electronically available the Guidelines to implement the funds that they jointly agree.

• In the case of decentralised programmes COSLA argues for: the relevant Managing Authorities to

consult on a continuing basis - with local stakeholders when preparing detailed guidance notes (and their interpretations) around each call for applications. The results of each funding call should be made publicly available within 20 working days of the meeting of the relevant body (the Programme Monitoring Committee) or equivalent.

Co-financing and contributions in kind (Art. 109 FR and Art. 172 IR): EU grants must involve co-financing, sometime quite substantially. This obligation is often challenging for actors, in particular when there is no possibility to include contributions in kind like volunteer work as part of the project manager's own contribution. Question 2: should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle?

• We welcome the initiatives of the EU Recovery Programme as regards to accepting in kind contributions as match funding in ERDF as a way forward that needs to be generalised to other funds where a form co-financing is required.

• This is further needed as the current economic crisis and the likely medium-term constraints in public finances will deprive public bodies from other sources of match funding than in kind contributions.

• Also, as suggested by Q2 a differentiated and flexible approach on co-financing should be pursued by allowing that local public beneficiaries, particularly in those local areas (EU15 and EU12) that are more in need, to have a reduced requirement of match funding /in kind contribution. Performance-based grants (Art. 108a FR and Art. 180a & 181 IR): The current system for the management of grants obliges beneficiaries to meet detailed eligibility conditions and requires multiple checks throughout the duration of a project. This can sometimes discourage potential beneficiaries from even applying for a grant. More simplified management of grants could be achieved through the use of various methods (such as lump-sums, scale of unit costs and flat-rates) avoiding the current complex accounting of costs. The Commission could also envisage a new management system to cover costs based on the expected outputs of a project, i.e. the concrete objectives which are achieved. Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples?

• The recent moves in Cohesion Policy as regards to lump sums and flat rates is welcome and should be generalised and made permanent in other EU funding streams.

- to apply a flat-rate system for technical assistance. - to define a higher rate of tolerable error for audit purposes (to 5% in ERDF) - to apply a system of flat rates, overheads and standard costs to reduce administrative burden - to use less restrictive evaluation criteria for innovative projects (to avoid current risk averse culture)

• We agree with the discussions at EU level that Cohesion Policy, and other policies should be more performance-based. As Q3 outlines this highlights a governance issue. We believe that performance can only be improved (and therefore moving away from a funding culture that is too focused on

ensuring the regularity of expenditure rather than effects on the ground) via allowing greater flexibility. The key for achieving both performance (with verifiable results) and (implementation) flexibility, lies in partnership structures.

• The Scottish model of Single Outcome Agreements could be then used as a possible template for managing a number of decentralised EU funding programmes.

Case Study: Scottish Single Outcome Agreements - The Scottish Government and COSLA have jointly developed what it called a Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) that each Council and the Scottish Government have jointly signed. It encourages each council and their community planning partners to address 15 key national outcomes, and decide on which local indicators are used to measure their achievement at a local level. Each SOA covers a rolling three year period. - The approach gives a genuine element of local flexibility as each Council and their partners is ultimately free to prioritise the national outcomes according to local needs, circumstances and priorities. This can mean that a council chooses not to report around national outcomes they do not believe to be a particular priority in their area, and to invest much more heavily in those that are. - Mutual Accountability: each party to the Agreement (local authority, Scottish Government, and Community Planning Partners) has a shared interest in the delivery of the agreed outcomes, and they will jointly take ownership and responsibility for their respective contributions to these outcomes. - Therefore, the parties to the Single Outcome Agreement will be able to measure performance, and crucially, to hold each other to account for the delivery of specific commitments they make to enable the delivery of the agreed outcomes.

�Non profit rule (Art. 109 FR and Art. 165 IR): EU grants cannot generate profit for beneficiaries since a subsidy should remain a mere incentive to support projects rather than have a commercial purpose. This often creates misunderstandings between the Commission and the beneficiaries as well as excessive administrative work. Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities?

• In the UK there have been concerns in the past that current EU funding rules should allow for projects to be revenue generating. The fact that the Recovery package eases existing rules in Cohesion should be welcome; however it is necessary to generalise this to other sources of EU funding and perhaps consider using both percentage rather than a fixed amount as threshold.

• For instance, discounting any revenue generated where this is either in the context of a small scale - less than €1m – project or where the revenue generated represents less than a fixed – say 20% - proportion of the overall project size. In the case of complex partnership projects a distinction needs to be drawn between genuine revenue generation on the one hand and legitimate charging by one partner for services provided by the other, for example the use of childcare facilities.

• The test here should be whether the costs are real (i.e. genuinely borne by the partner) additional, necessary for the execution of the project and represent where this can be verified no more than the “market” rate.. �Ceilings for small grants: Current rules on grants comply notably with the principles of co-financing (Art. 172 IR), equal treatment and fair competition (Art. 173 IR). However, some flexibility is allowed for "low" value grants (≤ EUR 25,000 Art. 172.3 IR and Art. 173.2 IR) or "very low" value grants (≤ EUR 5,000 Art. 114.3 FR and Art. 175b IR). Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants? No comment .

�Financial stability for grant applicants: Current rules foresee a gradual decrease of 'operating' grants, i.e. financing administrative expenditure (Art. 113.2 FR), notably to encourage beneficiaries to diversify and generate own resources. For similar reasons, the duration of framework partnership agreements, established as a long-term cooperation mechanism with beneficiaries (Art. 163 IR), is limited. Such provisions could be examined in order to find the most appropriate balance between the need for financial stability and the risk of excessive reliance on EU funds. Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements? COSLA understands the rationale for these provisions and the dangers that many organisations, particularly NGOs, face if their financial situation is too heavily geared to the receipt of European Funds. In general terms flexibility particularly during sharp economic impacts could also be welcome. A good example would be to allowing flexibilities for cross funding in times (for instance in the case of the Structural Funds between ERDF and ESF). 'Cascading' grants involving third parties: The possibility for a beneficiary to redistribute part of its grant through subsidies to third parties is currently strictly limited (Art. 120 FR and Art. 184a IR), with a view to notably ensuring adequate monitoring and control of tax payers' money by the Commission. Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action? No comment 2 - THE COMMISSION'S HANDLING OF FINANCIAL FILES Background: The financial handling of contracts and grants by the Commission is designed to minimise the risks of error, irregularities and fraud, and to ensure a strict and adequate monitoring and control of tax payers' money. In practice, rules can create additional red tape and checks. The Commission is examining whether these rules can be adapted and how, so as to ensure effective project management as well as a high level of protection of the tax payers' interest. �Pre-financing payments to beneficiaries (Art. 5a FR): These payments are considered as the property of the Communities until the action has been fully implemented. As a consequence, the interests generated by these payments have to be reimbursed to the EU Budget. This creates administrative and financial formalities (dedicated bank account, cash consumption analysis...) and checks. Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for prefinancing payments while safeguarding tax payers' money?

• We welcome the recent flexibilities introduced in relation to advance payments in Structural Fund and would welcome similar moves in other funding streams. Pre-financing guarantees (Art. 152 IR): These guarantees are required to reduce the risk of EU money being lost in case the beneficiary goes bankrupt or otherwise fails to implement the project or repay the money. Yet, the corresponding amount is usually blocked by the bank guarantor, removing the advantage of the pre-financing. Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds? No comment – this issue does not directly affect Scottish local authorities

Tendering thresholds for low value contracts (Art. 129 IR): Under certain thresholds, the procedure is simplified: contracts may be awarded on the basis of a single tenderer and payments can be paid made against invoices. Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why?

• CoSLA fully supports the needs to ensure transparency and best value in securing goods and services required for the delivery of projects co financed by European Funding programmes. However there needs to be greater discretion at the lower end of the scale for less bureaucratic procedures for small value projects.

• COSLA would recommend that as minimum the threshold below which no tender is required be raised to at least €1,000 from the current €500 and for seeking only one tender to at least €10,000 from the present level of €5,000. This would save an excessive amount of effort having to be expended at the audit and control stage on verifying procurement compliance on small scale activities. Audit and control should focus essentially on the major projects. Paperwork for applicants (notably Art. 143 IR, Art. 172c IR and Art. 138a IR): As a rule, when participating in a tender or call for proposals, applicants are invited to provide detailed information on their organisation and to present a comprehensive proposal on their project and/or offer. To fulfil these conditions more easily, the current rules foresee the possible use of e-tools but, in practice, this possibility is under-utilised for various technical reasons linked, among other things, to the authentication of documents. In another effort to reduce paperwork, the Commission has also created the possibility to split the grant selection process into 2 steps (Art. 178 IR) with a view to only inviting the applicants most likely to be successful to submit a full application. However, while this new procedure reduces work for applicants, it increases the duration of the selection process quite significantly. Considering the above, one idea to continue reducing paperwork could be the introduction of a "label" system so that organisations that have successfully carried out a project and/or contract send only documents relevant to the new application. Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved?

• Contracts of Confidence : COSLA would support that the idea of allowing auditing and control to be exercised nationally with only European Commission certifying the total MS envelope should at least be considered within the context of the current discussions for the future of EU funding– there are Treaty issues here but there are emerging arguments for it to be explored.

• We support a move to a more IT-based management and audit processes, including:

- All information –bids, beneficiaries- should be made public via a dedicated website

- Applications should be possible to be made online

- Documents should be able to be scanned and stored online

- All financial information should be hosted only via a standardised website or at least a network of identical standardised websites such as those already existing to implement several key pieces of EU legislation (REACH, SIS, Services Directive).

- to reduce the maximum of years the documents should have to be electronically stored from 10 to 3 years. Audit and control activity should as far as possible be done in “real time” rather than about 10 years after the event.

- to provide more consistent guidance applicable to EU funding programmes in respect of record keeping requirements and applicable for the whole life of the programmes

P011 - 15.12.2009 Bucarest Municipality

RO

Va transmitem propunerile de revizuire a Regulamentului Financiar si a Regulilor de Implementare ale Comisiei Europene. Institutia Prefectului Municipiului Bucuresti ACORDAREA SCHEMELOR DE GRANT

1. Ref. Art. 109 FR şi Art. 172 IR Actualmente, cofinanţarea se referă strict la contribuţia financiară a aplicantului. Totuşi, ar trebui să includă şi contribuţia în natură - mijloacele fixe, munca prestată de voluntari sau de personalul propriu în afara programului de lucru. O parte dintre instituţiile publice nu dispun de fonduri proprii pentru asigurarea cofinanţării în accepţiunea actuală, în condiţiile în care sunt ordonatori terţiari de credite, bugetele acordate nu includ linii bugetare dedicate proiectelor iar plata funcţionarilor publici pentru activitatea desfăşurată în proiecte este restricţionată. În acest sens, contribuţia în natură ar trebui să fie o opţiune posibilă, integral sau în procent de 50% din valoarea totală a cofinanţării, recunoscând astfel contribuţia fiecărui tip de organizaţie şi specificul fiecărui proiect. 2. Ref. Art 108a FR şi Art. 180a&181 IR Pentru asigurarea unei accesibilităţi mai mari şi pentru facilitarea derulării la timp a activităţilor din proiect, grant-urile de până la 25,000 euro ar trebui acordate ca sumă totală (lump sums) după aprobarea proiectului, urmând ca monitorizarea şi evaluarea finală să fie axate pe atingerea obiectivelor specificate în proiect. Pentru granturile a căror valoare depăşeşte 25,000 euro, se vor acorda tranşe anuale la începutul fiecărui an din proiect, conform planificării activităţilor proiectului. Atât tranşele anuale, cât şi acordarea întregii valori a grantului la începutul perioadei de derulare vor include toate categoriile de cheltuieli aferente proiectului. 3. Ref. Art. 109 FR şi Art. 165 IR Paragraful 2 nu trebuie să se aplice în cazurile în care proiectul presupune crearea unui centru de formare, înfiinţarea unei întreprinderi sociale şi alte activităţi similare, a căror finanţare şi existenţă ulterioară depind de obţinerea unui profit. Acest profit va fi obligatoriu reinvestit. 4. Granturile cu valoare mică şi foarte mică – Art. 172.3 IR, Art. 173.2 IR, Art. 114.3 FR şi Art. 175bIR Sugerăm ca plafon pentru granturile cu valoare mică valoarea ≤ EURO 30,000 iar pentru cele cu valoare foarte mică valoarea de ≤ EURO 15,000. 5. Ref. Art. 113.2 FR Pentru granturile cu valoare foarte mică se acordă 90% din valoarea totală a proiectului, incluzând toate tipurile de cheltuieli, restul de 10% putând constitui contribuţia în natură a solicitantului. 6. Documentaţia necesară solicitantului Aplicaţiile pot fi depuse prin poştă, curier, în persoană sau electronic. În prima fază vor conţine exclusiv detalii referitoare la descrierea proiectului. După acceptarea proiectului, solicitantul va trebui să transmită documentaţia de suport. Se vor accepta fotocopii sau, în cazul documentelor transmise electronic, imagini scanate, urmând ca imediat după câştigarea grant-ului şi înainte de efectuarea transferului de fonduri, solicitantul să prezinte documentele originale. Solicitanţii care au beneficiat anterior de acordarea unui grant nu mai este necesar să transmită decât documentele relevante pentru noul proiect. Pentru instituţiile publice se poate renunţa la necesitatea semnăturii electronice. 7. Alte propuneri vizând acordarea finanţărilor - metodologia de rambursare a TVA-ului aferent activităţilor din proiect trebuie clarificată. - simplificarea documentaţiei necesare în cazul instituţiilor publice.

P012 - 15.12.2009 Statistics Denmark

DK

Please, find attached a contribution for the open consultation on the revision on the financial regulation.

STATISTICS DENMARK www.dst.dk

Revision of the financial regulation

Statistics Denmark welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the public consultation on the financial regulation.

For grants, the EU grant contribution is very low compared with the total cost of performing the action agreed upon, as the concept of eligible costs for an action is much lower than the real costs due to overhead costs and other non-eligible, but necessary costs. We would thus like to propose that the co-financing percent for the beneficiaries is reduced.

The minimum grant size should not be set too high, because this will prevent many smaller beneficiaries, including Statistics Denmark, from applying for many EU grants. A way to solve the problem of relatively high administrative costs for small projects could be to implement simpler administrative procedures for grants below a certain value,

Statistics Denmark supports the use of performance-based grants wherever possible, as it will reduce the administrative burden for the beneficiaries as well as improve the accountability of the projects. The administrative burden to the beneficiaries could also be reduced by using flat rates for financing grants; this would also increase budget certainty for the projects.

P013 - 15.12.2009 East of Scotland European Consortium

UK

Please find attached a contribution from the East of Scotland European Consortium to the consultation on the review of the Financial Regulation. www.esec.org.uk As a consortium of local authorities, the East of Scotland European Consortium (ESEC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the revision of the EU’s Financial Regulations. The East of Scotland has many years experience in utilising structural funds to undertake social and economic development activities as well as a wealth of experience participating in transnational EU Programmes. Consequently the network has a wealth of knowledge and practical experience in this field and hope that our input will help shape the future of this important policy area. Our experience of delivering projects has highlighted a growing disproportionate emphasis being placed on financial control requirements. We would welcome a culture shift in this regard and are hopeful of a number of suggestions put forward by DG Budget in the consultation document. Our overall plea for an outcome of this consultation is to see a return to EU Programmes being driven by strategy rather than compliance which has unfortunately taken hold. The key principles which we would like to see taken on board by the European Commission are: _ the need for proportionality; _ a shift toward becoming more performance and outcomes based; and _ the need for simplification and flexibility to be introduced to the audit system 1 Wordle generates “word clouds” from text, in our case the content of this position paper. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text Question 1: Calls for Proposals are well publicised on the Europa site, through the Official Journal and relatively well through networks facilitated by National Contact Points, Managing Authorities and others. However, there is always room for improvement on how information reaches relevant organisations, particularly with regards to timing. As a consortium of local government we have had many experiences of receiving information too close to call deadlines for us to take part. Even when we have advance warning of calls, taking part can be difficult particularly where transnational partnerships need to be developed. In the most part, public sector participants need to obtain authorisation from their committees or boards (which meet relatively infrequently in terms of project development timescales) in order to participate in an application. When building a partnership it can therefore take a long time to get support from all partners for an application to be submitted. We estimate that for a good transnational partnership to be fully developed it takes at least 1 year. This means that Programmes with regular calls with an open and a competitive challenge fund approach (e.g. regional policy Programmes) become more attractive than others which might commission specific activity through work Programmes (e.g. Framework Programme or other sectoral Programmes). More advance notice therefore needs to be given to the calls of the sectoral Programmes to ensure genuine additionally can be demonstrated. Greater communication is needed with a broader set of stakeholders on what themes are likely to feature in future calls, ideally up to a year in advance in order to allow time to develop good quality project bids. We feel that the model used for the Europa EU Calendar which details EU meetings could be used for detailing all new call deadlines. It could also have the option of stakeholders signing up for e-alerts on certain themes. This would hopefully have the effect of a more diverse range of partners participating in some EU Programmes. Question 2: Public sector finances in Scotland will almost certainly be constrained in the short to medium term. The financial crisis is having a delayed impact on the public sector where budgets for the 2009-10 financial year were pre-established and a number of strategic projects were brought forward during that period to help support certain sectors such as the construction industry. In the short to medium term therefore, more flexibility is certainly desirable, as availability of cash match-funding will be limited. The Commission may wish to return to this issue in the longer term, but even in periods of good economic growth this was an issue for many of our members. We would like staff time to be eligible as match-funding across all the Programmes on a permanent basis. Whilst we agree that it is important to demonstrate the additionally of EU funding, we feel that additionally can still be proven while using permanent staff’s time as an in-kind match to EU funds, providing of course that supporting evidence is provided to prevent abuse. It is also

possible to adhere to the “non-profit principle” while using in-kind contributions. This works especially where projects are a mixture of in-kind contributions and cash contributions and where the grant rate generates a grant total significantly less than the in-kind contribution. Money “generated” in this way is simply recycled back into the project’s activity. The issue with the “non-profit principle” seems to be less about in-kind contributions per se and more about the proportion of a project that should permissibly be made up of in-kind contributions. Question 3: A move to utilising lump sums and flat rates together with the suggestion for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs, suggests a move towards a commissioning approach to project activity as opposed to the competitive challenge fund approach which is currently the most prevalent approach used in EU Programmes. Commissioning projects can be highly successful. In the Lowland and Upland Scotland ERDF and ESF Programmes this approach has partially been applied with our Community Planning Partnerships for the delivery of certain activity within these Programmes. However, the approach that partners involved in the Community Planning Partnerships expected they would deliver (i.e. collective funding for a number of community partners for the delivery of a series of collective outputs and results) was not possible based on the current rules. Instead, each partnership must provide transaction lists for each partner who is responsible individually for a certain number of results and outputs. The amount of staff time which is required to collate that information for verification checks is excessively disproportionate. Whilst the utilisation of structural funds has arguably focused the Community Planning Partnership activity in Scotland (prior they were at various stages of development and some were only just in development), the audit and reporting burden of marrying the activity with structural funds has been a fraught process for all concerned. In this example utilising a lump sum and flat rate would have been very useful. In general utilising a lump sum and flat rate system which links awards to outputs would make utilising EU funds much more practical for beneficiaries. If an applicant specifies the outputs of a project and then delivers those outputs then the flat rate specified in the application should be awarded. This would reduce the task of tracing payments back to bank statements and payrolls. It should also reduce the amount Programme budgets which are spent on administration. An outputs based system should switch the focus of a project from administration and compliance to delivery, which we are wholly supportive of. Where possible, we would like to see an approach developed which could retain an open competitive challenge fund approach but be married with the lump sum and flat fee system. This could be termed a “competitive commissioning” approach perhaps. At present, a significant amount of European funding is wasted on tracking payments through organisations’ financial systems to the bank statement. Often this is for a relatively small amount of money, hence the costs required to track these payments can be higher than the grant received. It takes as much time to track a payment for €1 as it does for €1,000,000. We feel that an element of proportionality needs to be built into EU Programmes in this regard. The paper is also correct that the current rules do discourage some organisations from applying for grants due to the level of administration required. We can provide a number of examples when this has been the case. We would therefore like to see simpler verification rules introduced where each project would be subject to an audit upon completion (as opposed to each claim). Provided that the auditor (approved by the Member State as compliant the European Commission rules) is satisfied with the records provided, the project should be deemed as closed and the results accepted by the Commission. We have experienced the situation where approved projects have been subject to audit based on rules introduced for a newer programming period. Audit rules should not be a moving target and should be applicable at the time of implementation and not retrospectively. Whilst we are fully supportive of a move towards lump sums and flat rates, the Commission may wish to give consideration whether this approach is suitable for all Programmes. For instance, innovative projects which are de facto experimental require an element of risk which is not always easy to build into the EU system of accounting. Moreover, if innovation is deemed to be central to achieving future EU economic growth as many believe, we have to accept that sometimes projects do not always achieve what they set out to. EU funds should continue to address market failure and linking project costs to outputs in this particular area may serve as a disincentive to any level of risk. In this situation, it might be worthwhile building in fallback criteria, so that if an innovative project completely does not deliver on its outputs, despite high spend, a minimum allocation of the total project award could still be paid out.

Question 4: Where we have experienced difficulty with this principle is with the desire to do revenue generating projects which respond to market failure. For example, when using EU funds to develop capacity and create investment funds in sectors where the market will not naturally intervene but in future years the project has the potential to generate income thus becoming self-sufficient. There are some circumstances where organisations should not be penalised for generating income as the present situation reinforces dependency on European funds by reducing the level of grant received to take account of income generation. As such, there is little incentive for organisations to become self sustaining and no financial cushion should there be any unforeseen expenditure. There could be flexibility granted to this rule, if the applicant can demonstrate that it responds to a market failure and does not cause distortion to competition. The scope of its usage could be subject to the discretion of the Managing Authority where a high level agreement has been reached between them and their European Commission sponsor Directorate. Question 5: Given the wide range of activities supported by European funding and the diverse Programmes in place to deliver funding, it is difficult to identify specific figures for low and very low value grants. The threshold amounts for public contracts set out in Directive 2004/18/EC could perhaps be used as a basis for varying the degree of financial monitoring/reporting required, although these are significantly higher than the present figures. Question 6: As stated in the response to question 4, the rules relating to income generation need to be revised and be made consistent across all Programmes if recipients of operating grants are to become self sustaining. The duration of a framework partnership agreement would vary dependent on the capacity of the delivery organisation and the timescale of its activities, but should be long enough to allow the recipient to generate sufficient own resources. The issue is that this period could exceed financial programming periods and becomes difficult to account for within the current rules. Question 7: Local Authorities in the east of Scotland have not experienced any problems with this limitation. The closest example where we see this as an issue at all is through participation in transnational cooperation Programme projects which used to structure projects by core partners and subpartners. In the current programming period strict rules on sub-contracting are in place and all involved in a project must be stated on the application form from the onset. It means some projects have a huge number of partners but this is not really an inconvenience. It just means partners have to be clear from the onset about what activity each partner will undertake and consultancy support cannot be procured during project delivery as was practiced by some previously. This is one of the factors which have increased project development time of transnational projects, as outlined in question 1. Question 8: Pre-financing payments are crucial to a number of Programmes and help certain sectors where the retrospective payments can potentially cause cash-flow issues for small organisations (for example community level Programmes such as LEADER or some transnational Programme projects with large partnerships which often experience large time lags between actual expenditure and claim payment because of the length of time it can take to compile the claim transnationally. One partner, or their first level controller, can hold up an entire project’s payment). The upfront payment is designed to offset this issue and we would not advocate a loss of this option. Perhaps a solution would be for smaller pre-financing payments to be exempt from this process (e.g. less than €1,000,000) and the interest lost either picked up through the EU budget’s reserves or the Programme concerned underspends. Question 9: We feel that the pre-financing guarantee is the most effective mechanism for financing EU projects which involve the private sector and the need for loans. The only real alternative is for the company concerned to provide alternative direct securities as part of the contract, such as land or other assets. Often companies

are set up specifically as a mechanism for delivering certain contracts, especially where there is a public private partnership, and so do not technically own other assets unless they are underwritten by the public sector. Given EU intervention is needed where there is a market failure, it is unlikely any company or their bank would take this risk. If this system changed to a focus on securities, it would make the process more risk adverse and most likely discourage private sector participation, which is not desirable. Short of setting up a European Community bank which places a condition on all projects to use it in order to secure EU funding, there is not a great alternative to the pre-financing guarantee. It might be a useful exercise to do a bit of research to establish whether the current system of guarantees (and money actually lost through this process) is cheaper than taking out insurance for this potential loss. Alternatively, perhaps insurance should be built into projects deemed to be high risk. Question 10: Local Government in the east of Scotland has little experience of where Low Value contracts could have applied, at least as an applicant for EU contracts. Having such a process is entirely sensible and the staggered criterion seems fair. The thresholds could all be increased as follows: �€60,000 to €90,000 �€25,000 to €35,000 �€5,000 to €10,000 �€500 to €1,000 Question 11: Two-stage application processes are indeed helpful for applicants, as they can receive an early steer on the likelihood of success of an application without spending too much time on a full application. The Lowlands and Upland Scotland ERDF and ESF Programmes operate such a procedure and may be a useful case-study. This does create administration for those processing the applications, but can in turn reduce the number of full applications which they would otherwise have had to process. It is important to ensure that the forms used only ask for information which is really needed to make an informed and transparent decision on the awarding of grants. More detailed documentation should only be required from the recipient of grants, the production of which would be a condition of grant. It would also be worthwhile researching how far the application forms could be standardised. Perhaps the stage 1 application form could be standardised across all Directorate Generals who administer funds. From a sustainable development and e-governance perspective, the European Commission should be an exemplar in its practices. There should also a move toward online applications and claims processes across all EU Programmes. On a note related to documentation, though views have not been expressly sought on this, we would like to raise the issue of documentation which recipients of EU funds need to maintain. More consistency is required across Programmes as to record keeping requirements and clearer guidance which is applicable for the whole length of Programme until the end of the auditable period for that Programme. The issue of authenticity raised in this question, is the same issue that has prevented scanned copies of invoices being used as evidence in EU projects. There are certain scanners in the market that are able to build in a high level of security against fraud. We would like to see the use of these scanners accepted in EU projects. As well as keeping records of invoices relevant to EU projects, we have to track payments through organisations’ financial systems to the bank statement. Records of pages of bank statements and staff salaries are also kept though potentially only a few transactions will be relevant to a project. The amount of storage needed for evidence of EU projects has now grown out of hand. If this approach to accounting is to continue, electronic evidence needs to be accepted as the Paper Mountains created through record keeping are unsustainable. Many of our suppliers have already moved to electronic systems and the evidence we store is simply a printed version of an electronic invoice, which seems nonsensical. The length of time that documents have to be stored after Programmes closure should also be significantly reduced. A more realistic time-frame would be 3 years. East of Scotland European Consortium www.esec.org.uk

P014 - 16.12.2009 Landkreise Lüneburg

DE

revelgi

Stamp

revelgi

Stamp

revelgi

Stamp

revelgi

Stamp

P015 - 16.12.2009 Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart

DE

The Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart is a district authority and the district is part of the State of Baden-Württemberg in the Federal Republic of Germany. We are responsible for audit certificates and partly for the processing of EFRE-Funds in our district. We were asked to contribute to the consultation by our clients; therefore this contribution represents both the authorities and the stakeholders view on the topic.

Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart

Stuttgart, December 1, 2009

Memorandum for file:

Contribution to the debate to simplify the EU Financial Regulation

Consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/consultations/FRconsult2009_de.htm

Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, as the price control agency for the Stuttgart administrative region,

suggests the need to modify or amend the following points:

1. Recognition of average values in the determination of actual costs incurred

According to the EU guidelines, the determination of actual costs is not, as a rule, an option for

commercial companies. The use of actual costs has been limited in the past, exclusively to

research institutes that hire new staff or acquire facilities exclusively for the performance of the

respective project. In the case of companies, the research and development staff and the facilities

used for a new EU funded project already exist. The current EU regulation requires the exact

identification of resources actually used at the level of the cost center, which in practice -

especially in the area of overhead – is not possible.

Suggestion: It should be possible to use predetermined average hourly rates (normalized)

to account for an entire cost center. The determination uses historical costs on the basis of

the annual cost center costs, adjusted for non-allocable cost types, divided by the working

resources provided to the cost center.

According to the EU legislation, average costs may only be applied when accompanied by a

“methods certificate”, which relies on statistical measures to accurately calculate the difference

between average and actual costs. A tolerance corridor is defined for the amount of this

difference. However, a tolerance corridor does not solve the problem because the detailed

identification of all actual costs is still required. If the actual costs can be determined, then it no

longer makes sense to use the average costs.

Suggestion: In the future, the provision describing a tolerance corridor should be dropped

and, in its place, a simple method to determine average costs accepted.

2. Greater uniformity in cost criteria between EU and national rules for grants

There are different rules in each EU framework program, which again differ from those of, for

example, the Federal German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Germany. In

practice, however, there is often an entity somewhere in the business economy that is

simultaneously processing multiple EU projects from different framework programs, a BMBF

project in Germany as well as public contracts under national regulations (Public Ordinance No.

30/53) in addition to their own projects and all under different accounting criteria.

Suggestion: Align the rules and regulations to reduce the administrative burden and

documentation costs for the companies.

3. Duty to preserve records and the retention period

The retention period prescribed in association with the duty to preserve records should be reduced

to a more reasonable time.

Suggestion: Reduce the retention period related to the duty to preserve records to a

maximum of 10 years. There is no reason this period should be greater than the period

required by the provisions of the national tax laws.

4. Electronic time sheets

Regulations require time sheets to be signed by the supervisor. Today, time sheets are managed

electronically and do not allow handwritten signatures by the employee and the supervisor.

Suggestion: Recognize time sheets that are not signed by the employees or the

supervisors.

5. German as an official language

The rules for auditors are published only in the English language. Accordingly, project agreements

with the companies are then prepared in English, and the certification statements

(“CERTIFICATES ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS; FP7”) are to be written in the English

language (see, “GUIDANCE NOTES FOR BENEFICIARIES AND AUDITORS”). In effect, this

makes English the sole official language (at a German agency).

Suggestion: EU should provide an official German language translation of key forms and

rules for financially supported EU-projects. The certification statements prepared by a

German agency should be accepted in the German language.

We would sincerely appreciate a favorable consideration of our comments.

P016 - 16.12.2009 Compact

UK

Please find attached the Commission for the Compact's response to the public consultation on the review of the Financial Regulation. The Commission for the Compact is a non departmental public body operating in England. We would be happy to discuss any aspect of our response in more detail - please get in touch with us if you would like to do so. European Commission public consultation on the review of the Financial Regulation Commission for the Compact Response Background to the Compact and the Commission for the Compact The Compact is an agreement between Government and the third sector in England for mutual benefit and community gain. The Commission for the Compact is an independent organisation that oversees this Compact agreement. Among other things, the Compact commits the Government in England to ensuring the third sector has fair access to public sector funding opportunities in order to maximise outcomes for communities. By the ‘third sector’, we mean not for profit organisations such as voluntary and community groups, social enterprises, charities and cooperatives. Some people refer to these organisations collectively as ‘civil society’. Background to our response Our response is focussed on how the financial rules for the programmes funded by the budget of the European Union affect the third sector in England. Our response is based on the principles of the Compact and also on a piece of research we recently conducted into the administration of European Structural Funding in England1. The research involved collecting data from 16 case studies of third sector organisations applying for funding, and included interviews with third sector organisations and national, regional, and local government funding bodies involved in administering the funds. The research is due to be published in January 2010 on www.thecompact.org.uk The Compact has recently been updated, and from January 2010 it will commit public bodies in England to ensure that Compact commitments are applied as far as possible when they distribute European funding. We therefore believe that European funding should be in line with the Compact, both in the way that it is administered at national level, and in the rules set at European level. The detail of our response suggests ways that would help to ensure this happens. 1. Overhead costs The Compact requires public bodies in England to recognise the legitimacy of including relevant overhead and administrative costs in funding bids. Our recent research found that some third sector organisations have been unable to recover their full overhead costs when delivering European funding programmes. This is often due to percentage limits set on the proportion of overhead costs that can be claimed, e.g. a limit that only 10% of the grant can be for administration costs. These limits are set by public bodies in England, who claim that they are setting them in response to steers from the European Commission.

1 Commission for the Compact (unpublished) Research on Compact Application and the Administration of European Structural Funding.

We believe that European funding should allow organisations in receipt of grants to recover their full costs, and that the European Commission should enable this through its financial regulations. Costs that are related to projects such as administration, project management, and monitoring and evaluation should be included in this. We believe this can be implemented, without any contradiction of the important ‘non profit principle’. The following website includes more details of the full cost recovery process in England. http://www.fullcostrecovery.org.uk/about_fcr/full_cost_recovery?section=48 2. Sub contracting / cascading grants Our research found that due to the current rules on cascading grants, small organisations are restricted from bidding for European Structural Funding. This is because they can only bid if they are able to deliver discrete elements of a project themselves. We believe small third sector organisations would significantly benefit if the limitations on cascading grants were less strict. Less strict limitations would mean that private sector organisations or larger third sector organisations could redistribute part of their grants to smaller third sector groups, who often have valuable expertise of working with certain communities or particular local areas. Our research also found that current decisions in the UK about subcontracting/cascading are based on informed judgement by UK officials on the likely position of European auditors. Some of our case study subjects thought that these UK officials were being over cautious in their judgements, leading to unnecessary inflexibility in interpreting the rules. A clearer steer from the European Commission on how many levels of subcontracting/cascading are permissible would therefore be beneficial for smaller third sector organisations in England. Finally it is important to note that the Compact now contains a commitment for all public and private bodies who distribute public money to work within the Compact, regardless of how many levels of subcontracting there are. 3. Timescales The Compact contains commitments for public bodies to make funding agreements with third sector organisations that are for 3 years or more, and to ensure that timetables for funding applications allow third sector organisations enough time to apply and to form partnerships and consortia. Our research found that sometimes these conditions are not met during European funding programmes. This is often because European funding has to run to very tight timetables, due to the EU funding tranches and the rule that money not spent and claimed by the end of the tranches is lost to the UK (the n+ 2 rule). In addition, we found that if delays in contract negotiations lead to slippage in programme starts; this can create significant risks to the delivery of throughput targets, because there is no flexibility to delay the end of the programme. The Compact contains a commitment for public bodies to agree how underspend or overspend will be managed. We believe that more flexibility in the timescales set at the EU level, would greatly assist third sector organisations in England, and help them to deliver better outcomes. 4. Output targets The requirement for funding recipients to meet expected outputs have caused problems with the European Social Fund in England. For example, our research found that many organisations in receipt of this funding were unable to recover their costs, because their expected outputs related to the numbers of people getting jobs, and the economic downturn meant that these were unattainable. We are uncertain as to the remedy for this problem, but felt it was still worth raising in our response.

5. Monitoring The Compact includes a commitment to ‘ensure that monitoring and reporting is proportionate to the nature and value of the opportunity’. Our research found that in some cases the monitoring requirements for European Funding are perceived as being quite burdensome. We believe this could potential be a barrier for third sector organisations applying for European Funding, and that it therefore would be beneficial if monitoring requirements were more proportionate to the value of grants awarded. The Commission for the Compact would be happy to discuss any aspect of this response in more detail with the European Commission. Commission for the Compact www.thecompact.org.uk

P017 - 16.12.2009 Stadt Langen

DE

Vielen Dank für die Möglichkeit, Verbesserungsvorschläge für die neue Förderperiode äußern zu können! Ich denke, dass ein Bürokratieabbau mehr als angebracht ist. Folgende Vorschläge möchte ich Ihnen unterbreiten:

• Grundsätzlich sollte die Vielzahl an Förderprogrammen gestrafft werden. Ich denke, dass es einfach zu viele unterschiedliche Programme gibt und alleine dadurch schon die Beantragung erschwert wird. Das richtige Förderprogramm zu finden ist derzeit eine echte Herausforderung. Dieser Förderdschungel wirkt abschreckend.

• Weiterhin wäre es deutlich einfacher, wenn die Antragsverfahren vereinheitlicht würden. D.h., die Antragsformulare sollten identisch sein, ebenso die Abwicklung der Projekte und die Vorschriften zum Verwendungsnachweis sollten weitestgehend und grundsätzlich einheitlich sein.

• Spenden und Zuschüsse Dritter sollten grundsätzlich als Kofinanzierungsmittel zugelassen sein. Vor dem Hintergrund der desolaten finanziellen Situationen der Kommunen wird es immer schwieriger, die notwendigen Eigenmittel bereitzustellen. Könnten hier entsprechende private Mittel ohne aufwendige Organisationsstrukturen (PPP) eingesetzt werden, hätten die Kommunen deutlich mehr Handlungsspielraum.

Gerne stehe ich Ihnen für Rückfragen und weitere Informationen zur Verfügung.

Wirtschaftsförderung

Web: http://www.langen.eu

P018 - 17.12.2009 European Ombudsman

BE

T H E E U R O P E A N O M B U D S M A N

RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC

CONSULTATION ON REVIEW

OF THE

FINANCIAL REGULATION

Strasbourg, 17 December 2009

Summary of the Ombudsman’s proposals

1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, to which the Treaty of Lisbon now gives the same legal value as the Treaties, includes the citizens’ right to good administration. The Financial Regulation should take account of this new provision by providing guidance to officials as to how they should ensure both sound financial management and good administration. It should, in particular, make clear that the duty of those with financial responsibility is not to eliminate all risk of error, but to pursue, in a transparent way, a long term strategy that aims both to identify and manage financial risks and to promote good administration.

2. Applicants for grants should receive information about the legal remedies available to them.

3. Authorising officers should be able to waive recovery of a sum that has been unduly paid if recovery would be inconsistent with the right to good administration, or if recovery would be oppressive or unfair in the circumstances of the case.

4. The Financial Regulation should, in exceptional cases, provide for ex gratia payments, as redress for material loss, serious inconvenience, or severe distress caused by maladministration.

5. The threshold for automatic interest in case of late payment should be reviewed. Creditors who do not benefit from automatic interest should be informed about their right to claim interest.

6. Sub-contractors and staff of contractors should be informed, and given the opportunity to respond, when an EU institution criticises their performance.

2

Introduction

The European Commission is holding a public consultation on the second review of the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules. According to the consultation document1, the Commission will present its proposals in mid-2010. The Commission identifies two topics as being of most direct concern to recipients and potential recipients of EU funds. These topics are:

- The award of grants; - The Commission's handling of financial files. The Commission states that it would also appreciate contributions

relating to other topics covered by the Financial Regulation.

The European Ombudsman has dealt with a large number of complaints to which the provisions of the Financial Regulation and/or the Commission’s Implementing Regulation have proved relevant2. He has also conducted several own-initiative inquiries into subjects relating to the Financial Regulation. The present response to the consultation is based on the Ombudsman’s accumulated 14 years of experience with these cases3. It also takes into account the Ombudsman’s discussions and meetings with Members and staff of the EU institutions4, and with organisations which are, or which represent, recipients of EU funds (trade associations, Chambers of Commerce, non-governmental organisations).

The Ombudsman’s proposals concern: - The objectives of the Financial Regulation as regards risk; - Information about remedies; - Waiver of recovery of sums unduly paid; - Interest in case of late payment; - The rights of sub-contractors and staff; - Ex gratia payments in exceptional cases of maladministration.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/consultations/FRconsult2009/consultation_paper_en.pdf

2 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, 2002 OJ L 357, p.1.; Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Communities 2002 OJ L 357, p.1 (as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23 April 2007, 2007 OJ L 111, p. 13).

3 An initial database search identified 136 decisions and 10 draft recommendations which mentioned the Financial Regulation. Some of these cases concerned provisions that have already been amended.

4 For convenience, this response uses the term “institution” to refer to all the EU Institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. When referring to an Institution in the sense of Article 7 of the EC Treaty, the term “Institution” is capitalised.

3

These proposals are relevant to the two topics identified by the Commission, but also have broader application. They are explained in detail below.

This response does not address issues related to the Early Warning System, which is currently the subject of an own-initiative inquiry by the Ombudsman5.

1 The objectives of the Financial Regulation as regards risk

The EU and its institutions are ultimately financed by European citizens. Citizens in general are entitled to expect the institutions to handle their money wisely and properly and, in particular, to take appropriate measures to avoid the mismanagement or misappropriation of funds. Furthermore, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (to which the Treaty of Lisbon gives the same legal value as the Treaties) provides that every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. The right to good administration also applies to financial matters, such as contracts and grants.

The fall of the Santer Commission in 1999 was a traumatic event for the EU institutions, especially the Commission. The search for ways to tackle the problems that had caused it led to many changes, mostly for the better. One consequence, however, was to encourage the view that the ideal level of financial risk in the EU institutions is zero. In this context, it is important not to confuse zero-risk of financial error with the policy of zero-tolerance of fraud. The latter policy should mean that, whenever fraud is detected, criminal and disciplinary measures are pursued. Zero-tolerance in this sense is both valuable and deliverable, but only a very small proportion of the financial errors that occur each year involve fraud6.

A policy that aims to reduce the level of financial error to zero is doomed to failure, because efforts to avoid errors are subject to diminishing returns: ultimately, zero-risk of error would imply zero activity.

In practice, the philosophy that any error is unacceptable results in slow administration, or even inertia, because it brings forth excessively detailed and complex procedures and because it encourages a state of mind in which officials seek to avoid the personal risk that they will be held responsible for 5 OI/3/2008/FOR. Details of the own-initiative inquiry are available on-line:

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/initiatives.faces

6 On average, the Court of Auditors reported 3.5 cases of suspected fraud per year to the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the four years 2004-7: see the Court’s Information Note on the 2007 Annual Report on the 2007 EU Budget.

4

errors. These consequences are especially likely to occur when financial error is wrongly equated with fraud.

The end result of such circumstances is that the institutions find it difficult to respect the right to good administration of persons who have financial dealings with them. The impact on the image of the EU is negative, especially since the burdens are particularly heavy for individuals and SMEs, which find it more difficult to obtain bank credit than large companies and, as a result, may well screen themselves out of competing for EU contracts and grants.

The current review should ensure that, in addition to sound financial management, the Financial Regulation encourages and promotes respect for the right to good administration. In this context, the review also offers an opportunity for the main Institutions that deal with the EU budget (the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors) to communicate to the public the distinction between (i) zero-tolerance of fraud, when it is detected, and (ii) accepting a reasonable and appropriate level of financial risk. This could be facilitated by amending the Financial Regulation to make clear that the duty of those with financial responsibility is not to eliminate all risk of error, but to identify and manage financial risks in a transparent way.

This change would benefit citizens in general, by promoting better functioning of the institutions. It would also benefit citizens, enterprises (especially SMEs) and associations by reducing the administrative burdens that they face in dealing with the EU institutions.

2 Information about remedies

The Ombudsman is pleased to note that, following the 2007 revision7, the obligations imposed on the EU institutions by Article 149 (3) of the Implementing Regulation include the provision of information to unsuccessful tenderers about the legal remedies available to them.

There is, however, no requirement to inform unsuccessful applicants for grants about remedies.

The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour states that:

7 Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) 478/2007 of 23 April 2007 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom)

2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, 2007 OJ L 111 p.13.

5

A decision of the institution which may adversely affect the rights or interests of a private person shall contain an indication of the appeal possibilities available for challenging the decision. It shall in particular indicate the nature of the remedies, the bodies before which they can be exercised, as well as the time limits for exercising them. (Article 19)

The Ombudsman notes that recent case-law confirms the admissibility before the Community Courts of an action to annul a decision refusing a grant application8.

The Ombudsman, therefore, considers that it would be appropriate for the relevant provision of the Implementing Regulation (Article 179) to require that information be given about available legal remedies whenever a grant application is rejected.

3 Waiver of recovery of sums unduly paid

Article 87 of the Implementing Regulation provides that the authorising officer may waive recovery only in the following cases:

a) where the foreseeable cost of recovery would exceed the amount to be recovered and the waiver would not harm the Community's image;

b) where the amount receivable cannot be recovered in view of its age or the insolvency of the debtor;

c) where recovery is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality.

Waiver of recovery of sums due to the EU budget should be an exceptional measure and the provision authorising it should be interpreted and applied restrictively. However, the Ombudsman has dealt with a number of cases where the institution concerned has interpreted and applied Article 87 so narrowly as to be unreasonable. Furthermore, once a waiver has been refused, the institutions appear extraordinarily reluctant to change their position. In one case, for example, the institution concerned had made payments to a citizen, who was the heir of a deceased official. One payment was made mistakenly, and the institution tried to recover the relevant sum several years later. The complainant contested the recovery on the grounds that (i) he had acted in good faith; (ii) the institution only asked for repayment four and a half years after the payment was made; (iii) he had not been aware of the amounts in the relevant bank account because of tragic circumstances, namely, the loss of several members of his family in a short time; and (iv) as a voluntary worker in an

8 Order of the Court of Justice of 5 March 2009 in Case C-183/08 P, Commission v Provincia di Imperia,

dismissing as manifestly unfounded the Commission’s appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance in Case T-351/05, Provincia di Imperia v Commission, [2008] ECR II-241.

6

NGO, he had no means to reimburse the sum. The Ombudsman agreed with the complainant. The institution, however, rejected a proposal for a friendly solution and it was necessary for the Ombudsman to make a draft recommendation before it agreed to cancel the recovery order9.

In such cases, the risk to the European Union’s reputation for good administration vastly outweighs any possible benefit to the Community budget from recovering the sums involved. In the Ombudsman’s view, recovery in such cases would be inconsistent with the principle of proportionality and should therefore be waived in accordance with Article 87 (c) of the Implementing Regulation as it now exists. However, for the avoidance of doubt and to prevent further cases of this kind, the latter provision should be clarified.

As mentioned above, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (right to good administration) provides that every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time (emphasis added). This right should be explicitly mentioned in Article 87 (c) of the Implementing Regulation, so that it would refer to cases “where recovery is inconsistent with the right to good administration or the principle of proportionality, in particular because it would be oppressive or unfair in the circumstances.”

This change would clearly signal to the institutions the need to take the right to good administration into account, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

In order to ensure a consistent approach, it could be useful for the heads of administration of the institutions (who meet regularly) to examine periodically how the revised provision is applied in practice.

4 Ex gratia payments in cases of maladministration

When maladministration occurs, an apology and correction of the error normally constitute adequate redress for the complainant. In exceptional cases, where the maladministration has caused the complainant to suffer material loss, serious inconvenience, or severe distress, financial redress may be appropriate.

9 Cases 1617/2005/JF and 902/2007/RT. The Ombudsman’s decisions are available on-line at:

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/2910/html.bookmark, http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/3327/html.bookmark

7

In accordance with Article 3 (5) of his Statute10, when the European Ombudsman finds maladministration, he seeks a friendly solution, if possible. The Ombudsman has noted that the institutions have been very reluctant to co-operate in the few cases for which he has proposed a friendly solution that would consist of, or include, financial redress. The main reason appears to be the view that such payments imply that the conditions for contractual or non-contractual liability are met. Since these conditions include the illegality of the institution’s behaviour, reluctance to accept the Ombudsman’s proposals is unsurprising. Furthermore, the institutions may also fear that agreeing to financial redress could be construed as an admission of legal liability, which would expose them to an action for damages.

The Ombudsman considers that the above-mentioned concerns are unjustified. The case-law of the Community courts clearly indicates that a finding of maladministration by the Ombudsman does not necessarily imply that the behaviour of the institution concerned was unlawful. In the Ombudsman’s view, it follows from this case-law that financial redress as a solution to maladministration does not depend on the conditions for contractual or non-contractual liability being met. Furthermore, the Ombudsman consistently emphasises that financial redress for maladministration is ex gratia and does not involve any admission of legal liability.

Even if they accept the Ombudsman’s views on this point, however, institutions may be reluctant to agree to financial redress on the grounds that, unless the conditions for contractual or non-contractual liability are (at least arguably) fulfilled, there is no legal basis for making an ex gratia payment.

The Ombudsman, therefore, considers that it would be useful to recognise the possibility of financial redress for maladministration in the Financial Regulation and Implementing Regulation. This could be done through the introduction of a new Article 179b into the Financial Regulation as follows:

The implementing rules shall make provision for the authorisation of ex gratia payments, in exceptional cases of material loss, serious inconvenience, or severe distress caused by maladministration.

The corresponding provision of the Implementing Regulation could be a new Article 265b as follows:

10 Decision of the European Parliament 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and

general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties, 1994 OJ L 113 p. 15, as last amended by Decision of the European Parliament 2008/587/EC, Euratom of 18 June 2008, 2008 OJ L 189 p. 25.

8

1 Each institution shall lay down in its internal rules the conditions and procedure for delegating the power to authorise ex gratia payments in exceptional cases of material loss, serious inconvenience, or severe distress caused by maladministration.

2 Each institution shall send to the budgetary authority each year a report on the payments referred to in paragraph 1 involving EUR 5000 or more. In the case of the Commission, that report shall be annexed to the summary of the annual activity reports referred to in Article 60(7) of the Financial Regulation.

As in the case of waiver (section 3 above) and with an eye to ensuring a consistent approach, it could be useful for the heads of administration of the institutions to examine periodically how the new provision is applied in practice.

5 Interest in case of late payment

The problem of late payment by Community institutions has given rise to many complaints to the Ombudsman and has led to own-initiative inquiries, one of which is ongoing11.

The Ombudsman notes that, following the 2007 revision12, Article 106 of the Implementing Regulation foresees automatic interest in case of late payment. However, by way of exception, when the interest is lower than or equal to EUR 200, it is paid only if the creditor makes a request within two months. This is a significant improvement compared to the former situation, in which any payment of interest had to be specifically requested by the creditor. However, as the Ombudsman has already pointed out13, in many cases of excessive delay in paying citizens or small and medium-sized undertakings, the amount of interest due is likely to be less than EUR 200.

The Ombudsman does not exclude the possibility that calculating and paying interest in each and every case of late payment could impose a disproportionate administrative burden on the EU institutions. The Ombudsman is not aware, however, of the legal or other basis on which the threshold of 200

11 OI/1/2009/GG. Details of the own-initiative inquiry are available on-line:

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/initiatives.faces

12 Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) 478/2007 of 23 April 2007 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, 2007 OJ L 111 p.13.

13 OI/5/2007/GG http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/3387/html.bookmark See point 1.10.

9

EUR was chosen. Furthermore, that figure seems too high to represent a reasonable compromise between the rights of creditors and the need to avoid unnecessary administrative work. The Ombudsman suggests, therefore, that the Commission review the need for a threshold. In the event that it considers that a threshold should be maintained, detailed evidence should be provided to justify its level. Moreover, in that event, creditors should not be prevented from claiming interest, even if the amount is minimal. In order to enable them to do so, clear information on their rights should be provided.

6 The rights of sub-contractors and staff

The Commission implements many EU programmes by entering into contracts. In many cases, the contractor enters into sub-contracts. The Commission has no contractual responsibilities towards sub-contractors, or the staff employed by contractors and sub-contractors. Moreover, the Financial Regulation and the Implementing Regulation do not confer rights on such persons.

This situation can result in procedural unfairness; in particular where the Commission gives a negative assessment of the performance of a sub-contractor or member of staff. For example, in one case dealt with by the Ombudsman, the Commission insisted on removing the complainant from his position as team leader of a project, even though his employer was happy with his performance and informed him that he was being dismissed only because of the Commission’s insistent demands to that effect14. In such cases, the person whose performance is negatively assessed by the Commission may not even be informed of the details of the negative assessment, let alone have the opportunity to state his or her point of view.

In the Ombudsman’s view this situation is unfair and incompatible with the right to good administration. The Ombudsman, therefore, suggests that the Financial Regulation and/or the Implementing Regulation should make provision for sub-contractors and staff to be informed, and given the opportunity to respond, when an EU institution criticises their performance.

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

14 Case 2477/2005/GG. The Ombudsman’s decision on the case is available on-line

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/2979/html.bookmark

P019 - 17.12.2009 Fachhochschule Osnabrück EEN

DE

1/27

Das EU-Büro der Fachhochschule Osnabrück ist Partner im Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) der Europäischen Kommission. Im Rahmen unserer Arbeit für EEN haben wir die Teilnahme von Unternehmen, Institutionen und Bürgern an der Öffentliche Konsultation zur Überprüfung der Haushaltsordnung beworben. Im Anhang finden Sie den Rücklauf von 13 ausgefüllten Fragebögen. Fachhochschule Osnabrück Wissenschaftstransfer Osnabrück Enterprise Europe Network

2/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Im Prinzip halte ich mich grundsätzlich für ausreichend informiert über kommende Ausschreibungen. Als Verbesserung möchte ich vorschlagen, dass über neue bzw. kommende Ausschreibungen zusätzlich in einem Newsletter-Verfahren informiert wird. Zu diesem Verfahren könnten sich Interessierte für einzelne Bereiche einschreiben und nur für diese Bereiche die entsprechenden Informationen regelmäßig (z.B. monatlich) zugesandt bekommen.

Antwort: Die Bestimmungen zur Ko-Finanzierung sollten auf jeden Fall und soweitgehend wie möglich flexibler gestaltet werden, abhängig von der Art der Maßnahme und der das Vorhaben durchführenden Organisation. Mit Sachleistungen könnte einfacher umgegangen werden, indem festgelegte Bezugsgrößen geschaffen werden (z.B. durch einen pauschalisierten Stunden- bzw. Tagessatz für Freiwilligenarbeit, der in Abhängigkeit von der Qualifikationsstufe des Erbringenden gestaltet werden kann).

Antwort: Die Nutzung von Pauschalbeträgen und eine Finanzierung auf Grundlage von Pauschaltarifen könnte zumindest eine im Gegensatz zur aktuellen Praxis weitere Anwendung bzw. Verbreitung finden. Dass ein solches Verfahren die Norm werden sollte, kann ich nur bedingt empfehlen, da dieses dazu führen könnte, insbesondere innovative und kostenintensive Vorhaben schwieriger werden zu lassen. Von einer Kostenübernahme in strikter Korrelation zur Zielerreichung möchte ich ebenfalls abraten, da dieses ebenfalls besonders innovative und vielleicht auch riskante, weil noch nicht erprobte Maßnahmen behindern würde bzw. ein Hemmnis für die Entwicklung solcher Vorhaben darstellen könnte.

Antwort: Die Bestimmungen sollten sich strikt an den Grundsatz der Gemeinnützigkeit halten. Eine gewisse Flexibilität sollte in diesem Zusammenhang ein zu begründender Ausnahmefall bleiben.

Antwort: Für Finanzhilfen von geringem Wert halte ich einen Wert < 50 000 EUR und für Finanzhilfen von sehr geringem Wert halte ich einen Wert < 12 500 EUR für angemessen.

Antwort: Zur Flexibilität der als Betriebskostenzuschuss gewährten Finanzhilfen: hier plädiere ich für eine Beibehaltung der bisherigen Praxis. Ebenso halte ich die gegenwärtige Dauer der Rahmenpartnerschaftsabkommen für angemessen.

Antwort: Nein, eine Verhinderung der Zielerreichung ist mir nicht bekannt. Trotzdem würde ich in diesem Zusammenhang für eine Flexibilisierung eintreten, um sowohl die Qualität als auch den Umfang sowie die Geschwindigkeit der Zielerreichung zu verbessern.

3/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Auf die Rückerstattung der erwirtschafteten Zinsen könnte verzichtet werden, da andererseits die aufgrund einer Vorfinanzierung notwenigen Zinsaufwendungen des Begünstigten auch nicht erstattet werden. Insofern wäre hier eine Gleichbehandlung wünschenswert.

Antwort: Hier sollte geprüft werden, ob auch andere Garantiegeber als die Bank akzeptiert werden könnten.

Antwort: Ich plädiere für eine Erhöhung der derzeitigen Schwellenwerte, zumindest bei der Vergabe von Dienstleistungsaufträgen. Diese Erhöhung würde zu einer Vereinfachung und Beschleunigung der Durchführung von Vorhaben beitragen. Zugleich können durch die Beibringung von Fachlichkeitsnachweisen (z.B. Referenzlisten) und transparenten Kalkulationen des Anbieters die Aspekte der Wirtschaftlichkeit gewahrt werden.

Antwort: Der Idee, zur weiteren Reduzierung des Verwaltungsaufwands eine besondere Kennzeichnung derjenigen Organisationen einzuführen, die bereits erfolgreich ein Projekt und/oder einen Auftrag durchgeführt haben, damit diese nur noch jene Unterlagen einzureichen haben, die für den neuen Antrag relevant sind, stehe ich sehr aufgeschlossen und positiv gegenüber. Die Umsetzung einer solchen Verfahrensvereinfachung würde ich sehr begrüßen.

4/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Informationen sind im ausreichenden Maß vorhanden, allerdings ist der Zugang zu diesen, durch die Form der Verbreitung oft unzureichend.

Antwort: nein

Antwort: nein

Antwort: nein

Antwort: 10 000 € geringer Wert, 2500 € sehr geringer Wert

Antwort: Insbesondere die Abrechnung von Personalkosten sollte vereinfacht werden, derzeit zum Teil verwendete Systeme, bei denen Personalkosten zunächst in nicht geläufige Einheiten um gerechnet werde, um dann im weiteren wieder in Personalkosten pro Stunde zurückgerechnet zu werden sind zum einen nur mit einem hohen Zeitaufwand zu berechnen und führen teilweise sogar zu Verzerrungen der Kosten.

Antwort: Nein, dennoch wurde bei einem mit bekannten Projekt ein zeitintensiver Prozess etabliert um diese Kaskaden zu verhindern.

5/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: keine

Antwort: keine

Antwort: Schwellenwerte sind angemessen

Antwort: Standardisierte Formulare zur Antragsstellung und Berichterstattung, Berichterstattung sollte in national üblicher Form geregelt werden können.

6/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: nein, da Adressen und email der Partner (so auch hier) ständig erfasst werden, können diese Informationen auch per email verschickt werden.

Antwort: Ko-finanzierungen sollten besser aufeinander abgestimmt werden. Vor allem sind häufig nationale Ko-finanzierungsstellen nicht hinreichend informiert. Zur Gemeinnützigkeit können keine Aussagen gemacht werden.

Antwort: Pauschalen sind der richtige Weg. Sie waren früher bereits üblich und finden sich auch bereits jetzt wieder in einigen Programmen. Arbeitserleichterung für alle Seiten, ohne das es teurer wird. Zu 2. Nein – den häufig handelt es sich um Modell- und Erprobungsprojekte. Besonders in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik sind Ergebnisse von vielfältigen externen Faktoren abhängig.

Antwort: Flexibilität erhöht häufig die Qualität.

Antwort: passt so.

Antwort: Rahemenpartnerschaftsabkommen zementieren den Status , sie führen zu Monopolisierung und starren Strukturen.

Antwort: keine Erfahrungen damit.

7/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Seit 1993 konnte noch kein Projekt mit Vorfinanzierung durchgeführt werden. Bisher lag die Vorfinanzierung immer auf Seiten des Mittelempfängers.

Antwort: keine Erfahrung damit.

Antwort: passt so.

Antwort: dieser Vorschlag ist voll zu unterstützen.

8/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Aufgrund meiner beruflichen Anforderungen und Situation bin ich ausreichend und zeitnah informiert. Bei „normalen ) Unternehmen, insbesondere KMU, wird dieses aber in keinem Fall so sein. Ist ein Ausschreibungsserver mit allen Ausschreibungen der EU (FuE, Auftragsvergabe, Bildung, Landwirtschaft, etc.) möglich?

Antwort: Unbedingt sollten die Ko-Finanzierungsregel gelockert werden. Insbesondere der Nachweis der Kofinanzierung ist reformbedürftig, da hier ein enorm hoher Verwaltungsaufwand (zumindest in Deutschland) besteht. Kleine Unternehmen und Institutionen werden durch den Zwang der Kofinanzierung besonders im Verhältnis zu großen Unternehmen bzw. öffentlichen Einrichtungen benachteiligt, da hier keine Ressourcen zur Kofinanzierung bereit stehen.

Antwort: Pauschalbeiträge sind wesentlich einfacher in der Verwaltung zu handhaben. Selbstverständlich sind die gesamten Projektkosten nachzuweisen, jedoch müsste es ausreichen, wenn die EU einen bestimmten Anteil zur Finanzierung bereit stellt, ohne exakt zu wissen, ob diese Gelder z.B. in Personalkosten, Reisekosten, Sachkosten etc. fließen. Im Programm Lebenslanges Lernen – Erasmus – wird mittlerweile erfolgreich mit Pauschalen gearbeitet: die Studierenden erhalten ein Stipendium, dass sie selbst z.B. in Sprachkurse, reise kosten oder Unterhaltkosten verplanen können.

Antwort: Auch künftig sollten keine Gewinne beim Empfänger durch EU-Beihilfen generiert werden.

Antwort: Die Definitionen „geringer bzw. sehr geringer Wert“ sind nicht nachvollziehbar. Je nach Projekt und Projektart sind bestimmte Kostenumfänge als Hoch oder niedrig einzustufen. Diese Definitionen sollten ganz wegfallen.

Antwort: Das bestehende verfahren ist derzeit nachvollziehbar. Details zur Optimierung sind mir nicht bekannt.

Antwort: nein

9/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Gerade für kleine Unternehmen und Organisationen ist die Vorfinanzierung eine nicht zu stemmende Hürde. Eine Abschlagzahlung zu Beginn eines Projektes ist sinnvoll.

Antwort: Die Bürgschaften sollten ausschließlich über öffentliche Banken laufen.

Antwort: das verfahren braucht meiner Ansicht nach nicht verändert werden, da hier gerade KMU mit wenig Aufwand agieren können.

Antwort: Einfache Formulare, ein einziger Informationsserver in allen EU-Sprachen.

10/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Die Ausschreibungen und damit auch die Finanzhilfen werden in der Regel erst drei Monate vor der Einreichfrist veröffentlicht. Dieser Zeitraum ist viel zu gering, um mit den Vorbereitungen an einem Antrag zu beginnen. Frühzeitiger zu beginnen ist aber auch schwierig, gerade bei Förderprogrammen, die thematisch festgelegte Ausschreibungsinhalte vorgeben. Eine frühzeitig veröffentlichte Liste mit Ausschreibungsthemen (mind. 6 Monate vorher) wäre sehr hilfreich. Das trifft auch auf die Finanzhilfen zu, da wir bei Änderungen in den Finanzhilfevereinbarungen oftmals innerhalb von drei Monaten nur bedingt reagieren können.

Antwort: Flexibilität, als auch eine Reduzierung der z.T. recht hohen Kofinanzierungsanteile von 50% (EFRE) und mehr, wären wünschenswert. Eine Ausweitung der Sachleistungen auf Personal- als auch auf Sachkosten, aber auch auf Gemeinkosten wäre hilfreich. Eine Vereinheitlichung in allen Förderprogrammen wäre äußerst wünschenswert und wesentlich effizienter.

Antwort: Die Abrechnung von Pauschalkosten, so wie die Gemeinkostenabrechnung in einigen Förderprogrammen, vereinfachen die Abrechnungen ungemein und binden nicht so viele personelle Ressourcen, wie es bei Einzelabrechnungen der Fall ist. Auch wäre eine Vereinheitlichung in allen Förderprogrammen äußerst wünschenswert und wesentlich effizienter. Die Einführung einer Finanzierung auf Grundlage von Pauschaltarifen sehe ich vor allem aufgrund der Diversität der europäischen Personalkosten als schwierig an. Da sich gerade bei Forschungsprojekten der Projektverlauf nicht 100% voraussagen lässt, halte ich eine Kopplung der Finanzzahlungen bzw. Kostenanerkennung an die vereinbarten Ergebnisse für nicht sinnvoll.

Antwort: Ja, die Bestimmungen sollen sich strikt an den Grundsätzen der Gemeinnützigkeit halten. Für gewinnerzielende Maßnahmen gibt es Möglichkeiten, im Rahmen von Auftragsforschungen mit der Industrie zusammen zu arbeiten.

Antwort: Ich halte die oben angegebenen Werte für angemessen.

Antwort: Das Thema kann ich nicht nachvollziehen.

Antwort: Nein. Mir ist der Bezug der Frage zu dem obigen Text nicht deutlich geworden.

11/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Alternativen sind mir nicht bekannt.

Antwort: Alternativen sind mir nicht bekannt.

Antwort: Die Schwellenwerte scheinen mir angemessen zu sein.

Antwort: Eine Vereinheitlichung aller Antragsverfahren wäre auch hier sehr hilfreich. Gerade bei Drittlandanträgen, die über die Europe Aid, abgewickelt werden, wäre eine einmalige Registrierung mit den entsprechenden Dokumenten für Hochschulen sehr hilfreich. Eine Bestätigung der vorliegenden Daten der jeweiligen an dem Antrag teilnehmenden Hochschulen wäre aus meiner Sicht ausreichend. Das elektronische PADOR-System der Europe Aid zur elektronischen Anmeldung, ist aus meiner Sicht katastrophal und überarbeitungsbedürftig im Hinblick auf Anwenderfreundlichkeit.

12/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Es gibt eine ausreichende Anzahl von Informationsquellen. Mir ist nicht bewusst, ob es eine zentrale Website gibt, auf der nur die kommenden Ausschreibungen gelistet sind (Halbjahres / Jahreszeitraum könnte angemessen sein)

Antwort: Unbedingt flexibler zu gestalten, indem Kosten nicht nur als Ausgaben definiert werden, sondern als Aufwand. Contributions-in-kind sollten deutlich erklärt werden; auch der Wertansatz.

Antwort: Das wäre angemessen, wenn die Ergebnisse quantitativ – einschließlich eines Wertansatzes - erfassbar und zurechenbar sind.

Antwort: Das sollte abhängig von der Art der Organisation sein. Privatwirtschaftlich orientierte Partner sollten angemessene Gewinne erwirtschaften können.

Antwort: Diese Beträge sollten indexiert und damit regelmäßig angepasst werden.

Antwort: Die Dauer sollte mit den Projektleitern festgelegt werden.

Antwort: -

13/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Bei erfolgreichem Verlauf sollten die Zinsen beim Mittelempfänger verbleiben. Könnte auch als Motivationsanreiz dienen.

Antwort: -

Antwort: Sie sind regelmäßig zu erhöhen – siehe auch Frage 5: Bindung an einen Index

Antwort: Die bereits früher erfolgreichen Organisationen erhalten eine „Stammnummer“, unter der alle ihre Basisdaten gesammelt werden. Neue Anträge verweisen auf diese Nummer. Erfolgreiche Projekte werden laufend in diese Datenbank eingegeben.

14/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Bei Calls für Förderprogramme fühle ich mich nicht ausreichend informiert. Vor allem wenn ich nicht selber aktiv werde und suche. Daher fände ich es sinnvoll, wenn ich Themen oder Schlagwörter festlegen könnte um dann automatisch per Mail über kommende Calls informiert zu werden.

Antwort: Eine flexiblere Gestaltung der Ko-finanzierung ist auf jeden Fall sinnvoll. Dadurch erhalten möglicherweise mehr Organisationen eine Möglichkeit auf Förderung.

Antwort: Pauschalbeträge sind sicherlich sinnvoll, wenn sie die Verwaltung tatsächlich vereinfachen und Bürokratie abbauen. Oftmals muss viel Projekttätigkeit auf Verwaltung und Reporting verwendet werden. Auch eine Kopplung an Zielerreichung ist sinnvoll, solle jedoch Ausnahmen zulassen. Es ist schließlich durchaus möglich, dass gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht werden können, ohne dass dies durch z.B. unzureichende Projektarbeit verschuldet wurde. Gerade bei Forschungsprojekten sehe ich eine verpflichtende Zielerreichung kritisch.

Antwort: Grundsätzlich sollte die Gemeinnützigkeit beibehalten werden, allerdings sollte die Möglichkeit auf Gewinnerzielung nicht ausgeschlossen werden. Es wäre allerdings sinnvoll Gründe für die Gewinnerzielung auflegen zu müssen, um Missbrauch auszuschließen.

Antwort: Ich finde die Beträge so wie sie sind angemessen. Ich vermute aber, dass die Vergabe dieser geringen Finanzhilfen für Unternehmen nicht kurzfristig genug erfolgt. Außerdem finde ich die Kommunikation über die Möglichkeit geringe und sehr geringe Finanzhilfen zu erhalten unzureichend. Ich glaube vielen Unternehmen ist diese Möglichkeit nicht bekannt.

Antwort: Betriebskostenzuschüsse könnten an die Größe/Alter der Firma gekoppelt werden um so flexibler auf die Bedürfnisse der Firmen reagieren zu können.

Antwort: Keine Beispiel bekannt.

15/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: k.A.

Antwort: k.A.

Antwort: Die Werte sind angemessen.

Antwort: Das Verfahren sollte beschleunigt werden. Die Zeit von Antragstellung bis Bewilligung ist zu lang. Das Verfahren ist zu bürokratisch und zu aufwendig.

16/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Eine gezieltere Information über Ausschreibungen, z.B. über einen Newsletter der Kommission, würde voraussichtlich gerade für Unternehmen, die nur wenig Zeit zur regelmäßigen Internetrecherche haben, sehr nützlich sein. Dieser Newsletter sollte zielgruppenorientiert (z.B. Schwerpunkt Energie, Umwelt) erstellt werden. Zur Vereinfachung des Newsletters wäre auch eine aktuelle Auflistung mit entsprechenden Links zu den Ausschreibungen der Kommission denkbar. Im Vorfeld wäre eine Umfrage (per E-Mail) sinnvoll, die die interessierten Unternehmen erfasst und deren Fachgebiete ermittelt.

Antwort: Eine Flexibilität hinsichtlich der Ko-Finanzierung wäre sicher wünschenswert. Ggf. sollten statt regionaler öffentlicher Stellen andere Ko-Finanzierungen anerkannt werden.

Antwort: Eine Finanzierung auf Grundlage von Pauschalbeiträgen wird wahrscheinlich in vielen Fällen die Projektabwicklung für die Projektleitung sowie Projektpartner erleichtern. Im Rahmen eines Interreg-III Projektes (Beispiel) sind wir angehalten worden, die Ausgaben unserer Projektmittel nicht nur anhand von Belegen nachzuweisen, sondern diese auch im Original einzureichen. Diese wurden uns dann nach ca. 4 Wochen wieder zurückgesandt. Darüber hinaus war eine halbjährliche Prüfung durch eine unabhängige Wirtschaftsprüfung erforderlich, die wiederum für die Projektpartner zusätzliche Kosten verursachte. Eine Vereinfachung der Abrechnung wäre hier sicher wünschenswert. Eine Finanzierung auf Grundlage von Pauschalbeträgen wäre ein möglicher Weg.

Antwort: Evtl. könnte man eine Anteilsfinanzierung auf Kostenbasis vereinbaren, die dann auch nachzuweisen wären. Dieser Anteil würde dann als festgelegt gelten bis zu einer maximalen Summe, die der kalkulierten Fördersumme entspricht. Sollten weitere Finanzierungsmittel eingeworben werden können, sollte dies undschädlich für die Fördersumme sein.

Antwort: Die Werte sollten verdoppelt werden, also Förderungen < 50.000 € wären Finanzhilfem von geringem und Beträge von < 10.000 € von sehr geringem Wert.

Antwort: Nein.

17/27

Frage 11:

Antwort: Eine Durchführung des Antragsverfahrens in 2 Schritten halten wir für sinnvoll, da hier bereits im Vorfeld der eigentlichen Antragstellung bereits eine Rückmeldung über die Erfolgsschancen zu bekommen. Es wäre wünschenswert, wenn zum ersten Schritt eine möglichst kurzgefasste Projektskizze ausreichen würde, um auch den Aufwand des Antragstellers zu reduzieren. Auch eine besondere Kennzeichnung der Unternehmen, die bereits erfolgreich einen Antrag durchgeführt haben (wie oben vorgeschlagen), würden wir zur Vereinfachung des Antragsverfahrens begrüßen.

18/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Für Nutzer, die das System kennen, sind die Informationen hinreichend und rechtzeitig. Für Newcomer könnten frühzeitigere Information und vertiefte Erläuterungen sinnvoll sein.

Antwort: Eine solche Flexibilisierung wäre durchaus sinnvoll. Bei gemeinnützigen Organisationen könnte der Eigenanteil abgesenkt werden. Eine weitere Möglichkeit wäre, die Höhe des Eigenanteils ex post und in Abhängigkeit von der Qualität der Ergebnisse abzusenken. Zudem könnte damit ein zusätzlicher Anreiz zur Qualitätsverbesserung geschaffen werden.

Antwort: Von einer Kostenübernahme in Abhängigkeit von der Zielerreichung halte ich nichts. Ich sehe nicht, wie das auf der Basis einer unabhängigen, wirtschaftlichen, seriösen und vor allem unstrittigen Messung – immerhin mag es hierbei um die Existenz von Projektbeteiligten gehen - geschehen könnte. Die verstärkte Verwendung von Pauschalbeträgen / -tarifen sollte in den Vordergrund treten.

Antwort: Ein Abgehen vom Grundsatz der Gemeinnützigkeit halte ich nicht für sinnvoll.

Antwort: Ich halte die bestehenden Werte für sinnvoll.

Antwort: Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit und Angemessenheit bei der Kürzung von Betriebskostenzuschüssen sollte eigentlich ausreichend Flexibilität gewährleisten. Es ist fraglich, ob konkretere Bestimmungen und Festlegungen zu mehr Flexibilität führen können. Die Dauer der Rahmenpartnerschaftsabkommen ist zwar arbiträr, aber vertretbar, da man sich sonst in aufwändigen Einzelfallprüfungen verlieren könnte.

Antwort: Nein

19/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Ich halte die aktuelle Verfahrensweise im Interesse der Kontrolle öffentlicher Gelder für vertretbar. Sinnvollere Alternativen weiß ich nicht.

Antwort: Denkbar ist die Umgehung der bürgenden Bank bzw. die Auflage des Zugriffs des Begünstigten auf die Vorfinanzierung, wobei fraglich bliebe, ob dann noch Bürgschaften in ausreichendem Maße bereit gestellt würden.

Antwort: Die derzeitigen Schwellenwerte sind angemessen.

Antwort: Grundsätzlich ist der Einsatz von e-tools zu verstärken. Neben der Beachtung der bislang nicht immer gewährleisteten ausreichenden Hardware-Kapazität (EU-Server kollabiert) muss die Nutzung moderner Authentifizierungs-Tools forciert werden. Es gibt schließlich in diesem Bereich immer mehr funktionierende Lösungen, die in Antragsverfahren eingesetzt werden könnten. Zusätzlich sollten der Kommission bereits bekannte Antragsteller gekennzeichnet werden und ihre aus früheren Verfahren vorhandenen Daten und Unterlagen in einer Art Datenbankkonto gespeichert werden. Auf dieses Konto hätte der Antragsteller stets Zugriff (etwa für Aktualisierungen / Änderungen), die Kommission jeweils antragsbezogen.

20/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Ja. Zusätzliche Informationen kommen durch Mcon (Dieter Meyer Consulting Oldenburg). Zur Weitergabe an Ratsuchende im Kreis Osnabrück.

Antwort: ja. Sofern Sachleistungen von Dritten erbracht werden können (z.B. im Rahmen eines Schulprojektes). Sinnvoll wäre, im Einzelfall, eine zeitliche Streckung eines Projektes.

Antwort: Ja, zu einem gewissen Teil. Wichtig wäre vor allem, Mittel flexibeler bei der eigentlichen Ausstattung bzw. bei Löhnen/Gehältern einsetzen zu können. So kommt es oft vor, dass Initiativen Geld für Material haben, aber nicht für Mitarbeiter.

Antwort: Ja, das sollte es geben. Häufig bewegen sich Initiativen in einem „Graufeld“ zwischen gemeinnütziger und wirtschaftlicher Arbeit. Beispielsweise im falle eines Flyers: Der Mitarbeiter einer Druckerei erstellt während der Arbeitszeit einen Flyer für einen gemeinnützigen Verein, dessen Mitglied er ist. Die Druckerei bekommt vom Verein diesen Flyer bezahlt, evtl. ist es für den gemeinnützigen verein günstiger. Die Arbeitszeit des Mitarbeiters fällt eigentlich gemeinnützig an, für die Druckerei ist der Flyer aber ein Geschäft.

Antwort: Der Wert scheint mir angemessen.

Antwort: Solange vor Ort keine „belastbare“ Ausstattung der Initiativen mit eigenkapital vorhanden ist, führt kein Weg an einer langfristigen Rahmenpartnerschaft vorbei. (5-10 Jahre). Es sollte künftig eine Flexibilität im Hinblick auf einen Vermögensaufbau geschaffen werden.

Antwort: derzeit nicht

21/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Eine Übernahmeerklärung der Risiken durch involvierte Träger (Z.B. Landkreise): Hier könnte z.B. festgelegt werden, dass Zahlungen/Rückzahlungen über bestimmte, bereits bestehende Konten abgewickelt werden.

Antwort: Notarielle Beglaubigungen, Bonitätserklärungen durch Banken oder Auskunfteien (z.B. Creditreform). Nachweis eines Risikomanagements bei Großprojekten.

Antwort: Die Schwellenwerte sollten den allgemeinen Preissteigerungen angepasst werden und einen „Puffer“ für wirtschaftliche Verwerfungen bzw. die Bekämpfung ihrer Folgen enthalten. Langfristig müssen die Schwellenwerte erhöht werden.

Antwort: Zusammenarbeit der EU mit Organisationen, die Initiativen bewerten. So könnte z.B. das „Deutsche Spendensiegel“ Organisationen benennen, die in den meisten Fällen allen Anforderungen genügen.

22/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Antwort: Die Information ist ausreichend

Antwort: Eine Möglichkeit wäre den Anteil der Ko-Finanzierung an die öffentlich gemachten Ergebnisse (public deliverables, open source code, public workshops) flexibler anzupassen.

Antwort: Hier sollte keine Änderung erfolgen. Insbesondere Hochschulen brauchen Planungssicherheit und nachträgliche Kostenübernahme würde jede innovative und risikobehaftete Forschung ersticken.

Antwort: Ziel der Förderung sollte sein Arbeitsplätze in Europa zu schaffen. Wenn dies nachvollziehbar nachgewiesen wird, sollte bei der Mittelvergabe eine gewisse Flexibilität gewährleistet sein. Patente, innovative Produktvorentwicklung und Standardisierung können dann unterstützt werden.

23/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Die Vorfinanzierung sollte entsprechend dem Arbeitsplan erfolgen (z.B. halbjährlich), so dass Zinsgewinne verwaltungsmäßig vernachlässigt werden können (mitteln sich heraus).

Antwort: Unabhängige Gutachter sollen die genehmigten Projekte mindestens einmal jährlich begutachten. Bei Unregelmäßigkeiten sollte eine vertiefte Begutachtung vor Ort erfolgen. Der Projektofficer in Brüssel sollte mehr Macht (Executive Power) erhalten, um im Zweifel die Auszahlung zurückzuhalten. Ein unabhängiges Gremium („eine Art Aufsichtsrat“) sollte einmal jährlich den Projektofficer überprüfen und ggf. entlasten.

Antwort: Es gibt immer wieder Probleme mit der elektronischen Antragseinreichung im 1. Call eines Rahmenprogrammes, da die Werkzeuge erst nach Genehmigung des Rahmenprogramms in Auftrag gegeben werden dürfen. Hier sollten Ausnahmeregelungen er EU gestatten ihre elektronischen Werkzeuge rechtzeitig von Software-Firmen entwickeln zu lassen. Werkzeuge die die Übernahme von administrativen Angaben früherer Projektanträge erlauben, sind zu begrüßen.

24/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: Ich fühle mich ausreichend informiert.

Antwort: Die Flexibilität sollte gesteigert werden. Es sollten Pauschalsätze und möglichst einfache Nachweise verwendet werden.

Antwort: EU-Projektanträge gelten tatsächlich für Unerfahrene als sehr aufwändig. Eine Zielorientierung wäre in jedem Fall begrüßenswert, wenn Risiken (z.B. bei Forschungsprojekten) richtig berücksichtigt werden. Jede Vereinfachung durch Pauschalnsätze etc. ist stark zu begrüßen.

Antwort: Auch hier sollten Pauschalansätze, Plausibilitätskontrollen und stichprobenartige Kontrollen ausreichen. Beispiele könnten in der Finanzverwaltung ESt-Ausgleich etc. gesehen werden (sicher nur bedingt vergleichbar).

Antwort: Angesichts des Verwaltungsaufwands könnten beide Grenzen verdoppelt werden.

Antwort: Die Maßnahmen sind nachvollziehbar, um reine Förderunternehmen, die ohne Hilfen nicht lebensfähig wären, zu vermeiden.

Antwort: Ist mir nicht bekannt.

25/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Es sollte ein Mittelabflussplan verlangt werden und bei mittelmäßigen Abweichungen von einer Anwendung der Rückerstattung abgesehen werden, da die Verhältnismässigkeit zwischen Kontrolle und Zinsaufwand unangemessen erscheint.

Antwort: Mittelabflussplan und Zielvereinbarungen sollten das Problem lösen können.

Antwort: Eine Erhöhung auf das Doppelte halte ich für sinnvoll, um den Verwaltungsaufwand zu reduzieren.

Antwort: Beide Ideen halte ich für gut, wenn die Chancengleichheit gerade für Erstantragsteller gewahrt bleibt und die Entscheidungszeit sich nicht verlängert. Ein gutes Beispiel für funktionierende E-Tools ist die Easy-Serie des BMBF.

26/27

Frage 1:

Frage 2:

Frage 3:

Frage 4:

Frage 5:

Frage 6:

Frage 7:

Antwort: nein, ein automatisierter elektronischer Hinweis wie bei der Agentur für Arbeit wäre hilfreich.

Antwort: Die Bestimmungen für die Ko-finanzierung sollten auf jeden Fall flexibler gehandhabt werden. Es könnten z.B. pauschalierte Beträge festgesetzt werden, die der jeweiligen Maßnahme oder Org. angemessen sind.

Antwort: siehe Frage 2 Einkommen der Grundsicherungsstellen ist zu gering, höhere Pauschalen wären sinnvoll.

Antwort: Die Bestimmung sollten sich an den Grundsätzen der Gemeinnützigkeit halten, allerdings haben auch gem. Org. Regiekosten und somit wäre ein Erhöhung der indirekten Kosten anzustreben.

Antwort: Fehlmeldung

Antwort: Fehlmeldung

Antwort: Im Bereich der Beantragung von ESF-BAMF Maßnahmen führt die Begrenzung dazu, dass Kurse häufig abgebrochen werden müssen.

27/27

Frage 8:

Frage 9:

Frage 10:

Frage 11:

Antwort: Fehlmeldung

Antwort: Fehlmeldung

Antwort: Fehlmeldung

Antwort: Insgesamt ist die Beantragung komplex und zeitaufwendig, auch wenn es sich um Projekte handelt, die eher überschaubar sind, wie z.B. „Stärken vor Ort“ oder Sprachmaßnahmen des BAMF.

P020 - 17.12.2009 Czech Trade inspection

CZ

Following a call from DG SANCO, I would like to make few comments on the Financial Regulation, in particular on our financial rules as a beneficiary of a grant provided by the Commission. From my point of view, the budget rules should be more flexible and simplified. It is clear there have to be strict rules on everything concerned with money and budget implementation, however, there should be also a space for either mutual trust or rather procedures, that could work even after the project implementation (like external audit, personal responsibility explicitly mentioned in the grant agreement etc.). I know this might be very difficult in larger and more costly projects but what I mean are projects like the grant agreement of the ECC-Net, where particularly in our case the yearly total budget is 140 000€. This amount includes salaries and all the mandatory costs, therefore the amount which is used on the implementation of the project itself is about half of this amount. In such a situation it would help a lot to have more flexibility in the budget implementation and budget adjustments as it might be very difficult to predict all the expenses more than a year before the end of the project. This is even more important for countries outside the euro zone (as is our case) as there might be different rate changes (applied after the project period what makes it even more difficult to predict). In this context even more important for me is quite a common rule on evaluating projects according to the rate of budget implementation. Except the issues mentioned above (which may affect budget implementation quite severely), I think the general performance of the project should be measured mostly on the basis of the real performance of the work programme and if on the budget implementation, only in the part which can effectively influence the project itself. This is important due to many issues, like internal conditions in member states etc. To put this statement more clear, I can use an example – as far as I know, at the end of a year quite a lot of public bodies intend to buy more expensive flight tickets than necessary just to use the rest of the money in the column “travels”. I think this is quite a sad way of spending money which could be used for much useful objectives, for instance in the next financial period. I hope these comments are going to be of any help to you. European Consumer Centre by the Czech Trade Inspection

P021 - 17.12.2009 Hanse-Office

DE

The Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg welcomes the opportunity to give its opinion in the framework of the public consultation on the review of the Financial Regulation. Please find attached our position paper including suggestions based on the practical experiences made in Hamburg.

Gemeinsame Vertretung der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg und des Landes Schleswig-Holstein bei der EU Joint Representation of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and the State of Schleswig-Holstein to the EU www.hanse-office.de

GEMEINSAME VERTRETUNG DER FREIEN UND HANSESTADT HAMBURG UND DES LANDES SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN

BEI DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION

17. Dezember 2009

Betr.: Öffentlichen Konsultation zur Überprüfung der EU-Haushaltsordnung Hier:

Stellungnahme der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg

Die Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg betrachtet die Nutzung von europäischen Förderprogrammen als einen wichtigen Motor für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Innovation. Insbesondere in der transnationalen Zusammenarbeit sieht sie einen bedeutenden europäischen Mehrwert. Für die Förderperiode 2007 bis 2013 stehen für Hamburg insgesamt 126 Millionen Euro aus den Strukturfonds zur Verfügung. Rund 25 Millionen Euro EU-Fördermittel werden zudem für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raumes bereitgehalten. Darüber hinaus werden Projekte mit Hamburger Beteiligung aus dem INTERREG-Programm gefördert. Eine Vielzahl von Projektträgern erhält ferner Fördermittel aus den Aktionsprogrammen der EU.

Für Hamburg ist eine möglichst anwenderfreundliche und unbürokratische Ausgestaltung der Verfahren bei Finanzhilfen daher von großer Bedeutung. Der Senat nimmt aus diesem Grunde im Rahmen der Öffentlichen Konsultation zur Überprüfung der EU-Haushaltsordnung Stellung zu den Fragen der EU-Kommission.

Die wichtigsten Punkte aus Hamburger Sicht:

Informationsfluss über Förderprogramme und Ausschreibungen weiter stärken Bestimmungen zur Ko-Finanzierung flexibler gestalten Pauschalen und ergebnisabhängige Kostenübernahmen ermöglichen, soweit die Planungssicherheit für Projektträger sichergestellt ist Flexiblere Lösungen für die Vorfinanzierung ermöglichen Verwaltungsaufwand für Antragsteller reduzieren Rechtzeitige Bereitstellung der bewilligten Mittel gewährleisten

2 Im

Einzelnen zu den Fragen der Kommission:

1. Finanzhilfen

1. Halten Sie sich für hinreichend und rechtzeitig informiert über kommende Ausschreibungen? Welche Verbesserungen würden Sie vorschlagen?

Ja. Neben den Informationsquellen im Internet sowie Newsletter der EU-Kommission erweisen sich insbesondere nationale Vermittlungs- und Kontaktagenturen als wertvolle Informationsquellen (z.B. im Kulturbereich der Cultural Contact Point). Diese Angebote sollen aufrechterhalten und weiter gestärkt werden. Im Hinblick auf die Ausschreibungen gilt es, den Zeitraum zwischen Veröffentlichung und Frist zur Einreichung von Anträgen so zu wählen, dass möglichen Antragstellern ausreichend Zeit zur Verfügung steht, um einen gut vorbereiteten Antrag zu stellen.

2. Sollten die Bestimmungen zur Ko-Finanzierung flexibler gestaltet werden, abhängig von der Art der Maßnahme und der das Vorhaben durchführenden Organisation? Wie könnte unter Beibehaltung des Grundsatzes der Gemeinnützigkeit mit Sachleistungen am besten umgegangen werden?

Ja. Die Anforderungen an die Ko-Finanzierung sollten flexibler gehandhabt werden. Eine solche Flexibilisierung käme insbesondere kleineren Trägern entgegen. Die Eigenbeteiligung der Antragssteller darf nicht zu hoch angesetzt sein und daher dazu führen, dass Träger von einer Antragstellung absehen. Hierzu kann Hamburg ein Beispiel aus dem Kulturbereich anführen: Die für Kultur zuständige Behörde erkennt bereits jetzt geldwerte bzw. nicht-monetäre Eigenleistungen der Zuwendungsempfänger bei Projektzuwendungen im Einzelfall als Eigenleistung an. Diese Leistungen sind außerhalb der Positionen des Kosten-/ Finanzierungsplanes konkret zu beschreiben und wertmäßig zu benennen. Von der zuständigen Behörde anerkannte geldwerte Eigenleistungen werden in den Zuwendungsbescheid mit aufgenommen und müssen vom Zuwendungsempfänger zusammen mit dem Verwendungsnachweis in geeigneter Form nachprüfbar belegt werden.

3. Sollte die Nutzung von Pauschalbeträgen und einer Finanzierung auf Grund- lage von Pauschaltarifen eher die Norm als die Ausnahme sein? Sollten die Bestimmungen es zulassen, Kosten in Abhängigkeit davon zu übernehmen, ob die vereinbarten Ergebnisse erzielt wurden? Wenn ja, können Sie konkrete Beispiele nennen?

Zur Verfahrensvereinfachung sind Pauschalen für die Abrechnung der Verwaltungsund Betriebskosten in geeigneten Fällen eine denkbare Lösung. Die Übernahme von Kosten an die Zielerreichung anzuknüpfen, kann unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen sinnvoll sein. Das geltende Hamburger Haushaltsrecht lässt dies bereits jetzt zu. So kann etwa die für Kultur zuständige Behörde ihre eigenen Projektförderungszuwendungen an die Durchführung einer bestimmten Anzahl von Aufführungen oder an die Realisierung von projektbezogenen Publikationen knüpfen. Allerdings ist darauf zu achten, dass die Planungssicherheit der Träger durch diese Anforderungen nicht gefährdet wird. Das gilt insbesondere für neue Projekte, die ihre Wirkungsmöglichkeiten noch nicht vollständig abschätzen können. Zudem müssen die zu erreichenden Ziele klar definierbar sein, um spätere Streitigkeiten zu vermei-

3

den. Die Anknüpfung an den Erfolg kann im Übrigen nicht den Nachweis der ordnungsgemäßen Verwendung der Zuwendung durch Sachbericht und zahlenmäßigen Nachweis ersetzen, sondern nur ergänzen.

4. Sollten die Bestimmungen sich strikt an den Grundsatz der Gemeinnützigkeit halten oder sollte es diesbezüglich eine gewisse Flexibilität geben? Können Sie Bei spiele für bewährte Praktiken anderer öffentlicher Stellen nennen?

An dem Grundsatz der Gemeinnützigkeit sollte grundsätzlich festgehalten werden. Auf lange Sicht würde die Gefahr bestehen, dass profitorientierte Organisationen gemeinnützige Träger verdrängen.

5. Welcher Wert wäre nach ihrer Auffassung für Finanzhilfen von geringem und sehr geringem Wert angemessen? -

6. Inwieweit und auf welche Weise könnten die Bestimmungen betreffend der als Betriebskostenzuschuss gewährten Finanzhilfen flexibler sein? Was ist Ihre Ansicht zur Dauer der Rahmenpartnerschaftsabkommen? -

7. Können Sie konkrete Beispiele und Arten von Maßnahmen nennen, bei denen die strikte Begrenzung betreffend „Finanzhilfen in Kaskaden“ dazu geführt hat, dass das Ziel einer Maßnahme nicht erreicht werden konnte? -

2. Die Abwicklung von Finanzierungsvorgängen durch die Kommission

8. Welche alternativen Lösungen könnten aufgrund Ihrer Erfahrung für die Vorfinanzierung vorgeschlagen werden, ohne dass die Kontrolle öffentlicher Gelder unterlaufen würde?

Die Möglichkeit von Ratenzahlungen, die nach einem frühzeitig abgestimmten Finanzierungsplan abläuft, sollte erwogen werden. Dadurch würden beim Empfänger wesentlich geringere Zinsen anfallen. Im Übrigen sollten kostenneutrale Umschichtungen innerhalb des bewilligten Gesamtbudgets unterjährig flexibler als bisher gestaltet werden. Das gilt auch für die Zeitspanne zwischen der Anfrage nach Umschichtung und der Bewilligung.

9. Welche anderen Mechanismen sind denkbar, die einen angemessenen Schutz der Gemeinschaftsmittel sicherstellen?

-

10. Glauben Sie aufgrund Ihrer Erfahrungen, dass die derzeitigen Schwellenwerte noch immer angemessen sind oder sollten diese erhöht werden? Wenn sie aus ihrer Sicht zu erhöhen sind, warum? -

11. Wie könnte das Antragsverfahren für Finanzhilfen und öffentliche Auftrags vergabe weiter verbessert werden?

Hamburg unterstützt die Bemühungen der Kommission, den Verwaltungsaufwand für Verwaltungsbehörden und Begünstigte zu reduzieren und damit die Motivation zur

Nutzung von Finanzhilfen zu verstärken. Im Vordergrund sollte dabei die Vereinfachung und Verschlankung der Berichts- und Verwendungsnachweispflichten sowohl für Verwaltungsbehörden als auch für Begünstigte stehen.

Erwogen werden sollte zudem, Antragsstellern, die in der Vergangenheit bereits erfolgreich ein Projekt durchgeführt haben, stärker zu ermöglichen, bei erneuter Antragstellung von der erneuten Vorlage aller Unterlagen für ein gleichartiges Projekt zu abzusehen. Eine denkbare Arbeitserleichterung in Bezug auf Aktionsprogramme wäre z.B. die Anlage von „Kundenakten“ auf einem Server der Kommission.

P022 - 17.12.2009 SMULL

DE

SACHSISCHES STAATSMINISTERIUMFÜR UMWELT UND LANDWIRTSCHAFTPostfach 1005 l0 01076Dresden

Europäische KommissionGeneraldirektion HaushaltEinheit D1 - FinanzregelungenBREY 12IO1OB-1049 BrüsselBelgien

Telefon 0351 564-0Hausadresse Archivstr.l

0'1097 Dresden

SACHSISCHESSTAATSMINISTERIUMFÜR UMWELTUND LANDWIRTSCHAFT

Dresden, 08.122009

Tel:0351 564-6893

E-Mail: Doreen.Lange@smul.sachsen de

Bearb: Frau Lange

Aktenzeichen: 23-8500 O0l 41 1 17

(Bitte bei Antwort angeben)

6

N

ææc.t+

öffentliche Konsuttation der Europäischen Kommission zur Überprüfung der Haushalts-

ordnung

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren

der Präsident des Europäischen Rechnungshofes, Herr Víctor Caldeira, schlug in seiner Rede

vom 02.12.2008 zur Vorstellung des Jahresberichtes 2007 vor dem Rat der Europäischen Union

vor, für künftige Maßnahmen folgende Grundsätze zu berücksichtigen:

o ,,Erstens - der Nutzen von Bemühungen zur Verringerung der Fehler ist gegen die Kosten

abzuwägen.

. Zweitens - ein gewisses Fehlerrisiko ist nicht zu vermeiden.

o Drittens - das geeignete (vertretbare) Risikoniveau muss auf politischer Ebene jeweils für die

ei nzel nen Haushaltsbereiche festgelegt werden.

o Viertens - eine Regelung, die nicht zu akzeptablen Kosten und mit einem vertretbaren Risiko

zufriedenstellend durchführbar ist, sollte überdacht werden.

. Und fünftens - die Frage der Vereinfachung muss - nicht zuletzt in Bereichen wie der Ent-

wicklung des ländlichen Raums und der Forschung - gebührend berücksichtigt werden, denn

gut konzipierte Rechtsvorschriften und Regelungen, die eindeutig auszulegen und einfach

anzuwenden sind, vermindern das Fehlerrisiko und ermöglichen gestrafüe wie auch kosten-

wirksame Kontrollvorkehrungen."

T€lefex 0351 564-2209 Gekennzeichnete P aùpläãe Straßenbahnl¡nien 3, 7, I(CarolaplaÞ)E-MailPoststelle@smul.sachsen.de Archivstr.l

lnternet www.smul.sachsen.deKein Zugang für elektronisch s¡gnierte sowie ft¡r ve¡schlüsselte elektronische Dokumente.

2

Diese Grundsätze sollten als Maßstab für die Reform des EU-Haushaltsrechts dienen.

Die aktuellen Bestrebungen der Europäischen Kommission, die Verfahren zur Ausreichung von

Finanzhilfen für die neue Förderperiode ab 2014 grundlegend zu vereinfachen und hierzu Vor-

schläge im Rahmen einer öffentlichen Konsultation einzuholen, sind deshalb sehr zu begrüßen

und sollen mit nachfolgend aufgeführten Vorschlägen unterstützt werden:

1. Rechtssicherheit

Wichtig für eine kontinuierliche, korrekte und nachvollziehbare Umsetzung der Förderprogram-

me ist, dass die einschlägigen Regelungen rechtzeitig vor Beginn der jeweiligen Förderperiode

vorliegen und sich auf das tatsächlich Notwendige beschränken. Missverständliche, komplizierte

und ri.¡ckwirkende Vorschriften erschweren zunehmend den Vollzug und wirken auch auf die

Empfänger der Finanzhilfen abschreckend. Kritisch ist insbesondere auch die Anwendung neuer

Regelungen auf mitunter Jahre zurückliegende Sachverhalte. Zunehmend werden interne Leitli-

nien der Europäischen Kommission rückwirkend zum Maßstab des Handelns für die Mitglied-

staaten gemacht. Alle für die Administration wesentlichen Regelungen sollten in den einschlägi-

gen EU-Verordnungen geregelt sein.

2. Genehmigungsverfahren

Für die Genehmigung von Programmen und deren Anderungen sollten klare Fristen festge-

schrieben werden. Ziel ist es, dass die Europäische Kommission in diesem Zeitraum eine Ent-

scheidung trifft, ohne den Fristlauf durch wiederholte Nachfragen oder Anderungswünsche

hemmen zu können.

3. Kontrolldichte

lm Bereich der EU-Förderung existiert ein sehr dichtes Kontrollnetz, wobei vor allem die Kontrol-

le der Kontrolle der Kontrolle gefordert wird. Hier wäre eine kritische Hinterfragung des gesam-

ten Prüfkonzepts wünschenswert,

Finanzkontrolle am Beispiel ELER

Förderfall / Zuwendungsempfänger

Bewilligungsbehörden

Zahlstelle / lnterne Revision

Zuständige Behörde

Bescheinigende Stelle (SMF, Ref. 17)

@

ooo

oo

Landesrechnungshof

Europäische Kommission

Europäischer Rechnungshof

OLAF

4. Abschaffung der Sanktionsregelung für investive ELER'Maßnahmen

Art. 3l VO (EG) Nr. 1975/2006

Mit der Förderperiode2007 -2013 wurde die bislang für Maßnahmen aus dem Bereich der Di-

rektzahlungen gültige Sanktionsregelung auch für investive Maßnahmen des ELER verpflichtend

vorgeschrieben.

Anders als bisher werden Zuwendungsempfänger dafür sanktioniert, wenn der Zuschuss, wel-

cher sich aus den ihrer Meinung nach förderfähigen Ausgaben ergibt, den von der Bewilligungs-

behörde ermittelten Auszahlungsbetrag um mehr als 3 % überschreitet. ln diesem Fall wird der

behördlich ermittelte Zuwendungsbetrag zusätzlich um den entstandenen Differenzbetrag ge-

kürzt.

Bei komplexen investiven Maßnahmen muss es möglich sein, dass die Zuwendungsempfänger

von den Behörden die Förderfähigkeit der ihnen entstandenen Ausgaben prüfen und feststellen

lassen, ohne Gefahr zu laufen, dafür sanktioniert zu werden. Die Prüfung darf nicht auf die Ebe-

ne des Zuwendungsempfängers verlagert werden, sondern muss da verbleiben, wo die entspre-

chende Sachkenntnis ist, bei der Bewilligungsbehörde.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

P023 - 17.12.2009 Barnsley Council

UK

Please find attached our response to the Consultation on the Review of the Financial Regulation. EU CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATION Overview of the Consultation Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council is a municipal authority at NUTS 3 level based in the North of England. We have approximately 220,000 inhabitants. The area’s traditional industries were coal, steel, glass and textiles. These industries have now declined and the area is reshaping its economy. In the last financial perspective the district was part of an Objective 1 area and considerable progress was made from 2000 – 2007 to reshape the sub-regional economy In developing our response we have consulted with other municipalities in the sub-region and the Sheffield City Region. RESPONSE The European Union faces huge multifaceted challenges over the next 10 to 20 years. The solutions to these in turn are multi-faceted and require an integrated response with actors working in partnership across sectors and at different levels of governance. Pressures on public sector budgets require that resources are spent efficiently and effectively. The EU Financial Regulation which shapes the day to day management of EU resources can be a help or a hindrance to delivering coherent responses to these challenges, and needs to be reformed to ensure that duplication and waste are removed from the system. Therefore, the EU Financial Regulation Consultation should take into account the wider discussions relating to Cohesion Policy and the EU budget. At present there are a plethora of different funds, many of which have complementary objectives. However the current process of managing the overall funding regime works against alignment funds, fragments efforts and creates a complex bureaucratic picture. A more coherent approach would enable a more concentrated impact in delivering EU priorities across the whole European Union. Funding should concentrate on the main challenges faced by the EU now and for the foreseeable future. These priorities are the challenge to the EU economy, climate change and adaptation, migration, demographic change and solidarity across member states and with the wider world. These challenges are multi-faceted and solutions will need to come from all levels of governance, local, sub-regional, regional, national and European. Effective solutions will also require the involvement of different social actors in order to provide integrated responses. The principle of co-financing is central to EU funding strategies and EU funds can proved a powerful tool and catalyst to focus domestic funding on shared priorities and promote integrated planning both horizontally and vertically. South Yorkshire’s Objective 1 programme integrated 3 funds which promoted coherent approaches to challenges whereby the ‘wiring’ was largely invisible to beneficiaries. The programme was able to utilise structural funds to influence the targeting of mainstream funding to create more sustainable outcomes, for example the restructure the 14 – 19 education system in the sub-region, which raised attainment not only for the duration of the programme, but subsequently. All funds with a spatial dimension should be delivered through an integrated geographically based framework with one set of regulations and administrative systems for managing these funds. Different rules only confuse projects and create extra bureaucracy, which in turn diverts resources from delivery.

For the EU to succeed with its objectives, notably those related to climate change and the economy, many solutions lie at local level, for example making changes in citizen’s behaviours, supporting local renewable heating schemes, promoting zero or low carbon housing and industry or adapting to increased flood risk. Market failure is evident in small and medium sized town or city neighbourhoods and social exclusion exists in pockets of deprivation and often requires a localised solution. Working up from local level, interventions can be built at the most appropriate spatial level and this approach would give greater visibility to EU investments and improve opportunities to engage citizens. In relation to the specific issues raised in the consultation key principles to embody are clarity and forecasting. In relation to question 6 and to some extent, questions 2 and 11, framework programmes, as introduced in this financial perspective, promote better partnership and planning as they offer a degree of predictability which enables project proposers to gather the most appropriate partners together and promotes greater integration of planning. For the EU to progress its aims greater integration will be increasingly required. The greater predictability and planning time also enables the development of stronger and more appropriate partnerships across the EU. The potential drawback of frameworks for programmes is if this leads to inflexibility and inability to respond to emerging needs and challenges. However frameworks can be designed with sufficient flexibility to respond to emerging threat and opportunities. In Yorkshire and Humber the ESF Framework was written in a buoyant economic environment and was then quickly overtaken by the economic crisis, but the framework was sufficiently adaptable to respond to the challenges this created. Under a 7 year programme it is possible to identify complementary priorities in later years or in different geographical areas as currently happens in the Lifelong Learning programme which can have both member state priorities and thematic priorities within its annual call for proposals. There are a number of reasons why potential beneficiaries are discouraged from applying for a grant and most of these relate to lack of clarity in one aspect or another. It has to be recognised that the current complex system requires potential beneficiaries to have a detailed knowledge of how the system works. The need to increase clarity relates to questions 1, 3 and 4. Specifically in relation to question 1, more could be done to publish calls for proposals and deadline dates in advance. Many grant programmes already utilise a system of alerts to alert interested parities about calls. This system should be developed for all funding, including that which is not managed centrally. Questions 3, 4 and 6 relate to the balance between simplification and the need to protect public investment and support the non-profit principle. Contributions in kind need to be approached carefully to avoid profit making. However the current systems which require small costs, such as catering or room hire for meetings to be traced back to the original invoices mean that not only is such useful match funding in kind impossible to use, but also many project sponsors find the cost of tracing back these costs too burdensome and either don’t include them in their claims or avoid using the premises of themselves or their partners. This is an area which could be simplified either by proving value for money with a comparator quote for services or use of unit costs and flat rates. Question 3 also asks if grants should have a greater focus on outputs. To improve value for money and to deliver concrete results, performance based grants should be utilised to a greater extent. However care needs to be given to ensure that this does not introduce a further degree or complexity in reporting and uncertainly for project managers. What can appear as a simplification can end up in practice as more onerous than the current system.

In response to question 7, limits on the ability to cascade grants or restrict levels of sub-contracting have damaged the ability grants to achieve the goals of both individual actions and the programme. Co-financing was introduced In the UK as a way to simplify access to ESF grants by small bodies and to simplify match funding. As these contracts are tendered over wide geographic areas and there are limits to levels of sub-contracting, the result has been to exclude small local organisations and niche providers. These are often the very organisations who work best with disadvantaged communities. Coupled with complex monitoring requirements and system of payment and claw back many third sector bodies in particular can no longer contemplate engaging with ESF. If consideration is being given to simplification and to an increase in output based projects across the EU as a whole, then the potential ramifications should be carefully assessed to avoid unwanted results and the exclusion of bodies who work closest to EU citizens. Any application for most EU funds is highly complex and time consuming, requiring a significant input of resources at the outset. Extending a system of pre-proposals would help to engage a wider range of actors, improve coherence as potential projects could be mapped against each other and linked at the outset. This system would also reduce the appraisal time as only strategically effective and high quality proposals would be invited through to the second stage. Timetables could be adjusted to take account of a two stage process. Audit rules should be clear at the outset. Project Managers often find themselves having to second guess how a future auditor will interpret a rule or adjusting and backtracking because of new requirements which have been introduced since the project was set up. To project managers it often seems the paper chase matters more than the project activity and the purpose of audit (which is to check that funds have been actually spent, on eligible expenditure and to deliver the appropriate outputs) is lost in the minutiae of evidence requirements. Increasing amounts of time and resource have to be spent just to monitor the project and this reduces funding to deliver the project results. Currently project managers may expect a range of audits from different levels of governance, and with different interpretations made by auditors, sometimes many years after the project has concluded. It should be possible at the outset of a programme to agree clear audit rules with member states audit bodies and delegate audit to these bodies having received confidence in their systems. This would also reduce the over long document retention period. In conclusion the management and delivery of EU funding does require a significant reappraisal. Funds should be focused on the challenges facing the European Union. A place based approach, coherent with EU high level strategic aims can deliver an integrated response to these challenges at all governmental levels, strengthen partnership across governmental levels, with stakeholders and EU citizens. This approach will make the EU contribution to tackling the challenges of the 21st century more explicit to citizens. Simplification of EU funding to focus on delivering the actions required, will release both the financial and human resources to deliver solutions rather than be taken up in complex bureaucratic processes.

P024 - 18.12.2009 Statistical Institutes

DE, ES, FR, IT, LV, LT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SK, SI, SE, FI

Project number:BPA number:

Date: 18 December 2009

Statistics NetherlandsPolicy StaffInternational Relations

CONTRIBUTION TO THE OPEN CONSULTATION ON THE REVISION

OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATION

This document summarises contributions from the national statistical

institutes of the following Member States; Austria, Finland, France, Germany,

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

the Netherlands and supported by Denmark concerning the public

consultation launched by the Budget Directorate General of the European

Commission on the proposed revision of the Financial Regulation.

1

�� �����������

���� ����� ��� �� ������ � ��� ������� �� ��� ��� ����� ��������

����� ������ ���� � ������� ��� ��� ���������� ������� �� ����� ���� ��

����������������������� �������� ����������� �� ����! ���� ��"#$�

% ���������������� ������ ���������� & ����� ������������ ������

���'�� ������������ ������ �'������������������(���������� �������

�������������������������������������� ����� �����������������������

������� �� ����� �� � ����� ������ ��� ������� ������ ������ �)$� *����� ���

���������� ��� � �)� � ��� � ���� ���� ��� �� ���� ��� �� �� ���������

�������� ��� ������ �� � �������� ��� ���� ������ �� ��� ���������� � &

����� ��� ��� � ���� �� � ��)�� � ����� ���� �� � ��� �� ��� � ���

���������� �� ����� ��� ��� ���� ��� ��� ��������� ������� ���� ����������

���������������� ������$���

��� � �������������������������������������

��������� & ����� �������������� �������������������������������

�� � & ����� �� ���� ���������� ������� ��� ������� �� ��� �� ���� �$�$�

��� ������'������� ������� ������� �������� ������������� ���� ��

�� ����$� � ���� �� �� � ������������ �(������ ��� ������� �+ ��!�� ' $�

,,-.,//0� ����� ����������$������ �)� ������������� ���������������

� �� ������������������������ ����� ����� ������������������&

1������ ������� �� ���� �� �� � � ����� �� �� ������� �� ���� �����������

��������1�������������� � ��� ����������������������� ��������$�

�

% �������� ��� ������������������������������������������������������

������ �)�����2��������� ������������������ ���� �����������������

��� ���$� 3�� ��� � ������� ��� ���������� ������ �)� �� ����� �� ��������

����� �������������� �� ���������������� ���� ���������������������

���� �� ������ �� ��� ��)���� � ���� � ��� ����� �� ���������� ��� ��

���������� ��������������������� ������� �$�

�

1Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European

statistics and repealing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1101/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transmission of data subject to statistical confidentiality to the Statistical Office of the European Communities, Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community Statistics, and Council Decision 89/382/EEC, Euratom establishing a Committee on the Statistical Programmes of the European Communities.

2

�������� ������������������������ ����'��������������������� �����

���� �� ����� ��������� ��� ���� � �������� ��� ��� ������� �� ����� � ��

����� ����������� ������� ���������������� ���(�����4�� ���$����������

��� ��� ���)� �� �(��������� ������ ��� ���� �� ��������� ��� '��$� ���� ���

������ �� ��� ,5� �6� '��� �� ����� � ���� 7(�� ��� ,//0$� � #���� ����

����������� ��� ��� ��� �� ��� ���������� �� ����� � �� ��7���� ��

��� ���� +8� �� ��� ��� �(��������� �� ��� ����� �����$� � *����� ���

����� ���� �� ��� ��� ���� ������ � �� ��� ��� �� ���� ���� ������ ���

������� �� ���� ��� ��� � ������ ������������ ������� ����

���� � �� ���� ���� ��� �� �� ����������� � ��������� �� ��� '��� ��� ����

�� ��$�

�'��� ��������������� ����� ������������������ �������������������� ��

� ���������������������������������������������������������� ����

���� �$�9�� ������ � ����� ����� � ���(������������'������� � ��������

������������� ��$��

�

6����� ��� ������� ���� � ��� �� ��� �� �)��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

! ���� �$� ������ �(������ ������� � �� �� ����� � � ���� ���&

���������� ���� ��� ��������� ��� �� ������ ��� � ���� ������� �� ���

������������$�

���� ��� ���� � �� ���� �� ������ �� � ��� �� ��� � �)�� �(������

������� ������ �� ����&)� ��� ������� � � ������� �� ��� ���

! ���� �4� �����$� ��� ��� ������� ���� ��� ��� ��� 2� ��� ���� ��

� ���������� ���������� � ��� )���� �� � ����� �� ���� ���������� ��� ��

����������������� ������������ �)�������������������������� �����

����������������� ������� ������$�

�

������ ������� ����� ����� ��� ��� ������� ����� �� �� ���������� ��

�����������)������������ ����������������������������������� ��������

���� & ����� ������������� ������� ��������������������������������

����������� �� ��� ����������������� ��� ������������������ � �����

������������������������� ���(�����4�� ���$������ �����������������

�)��� �� � ��� ��� ����� ����� ����� �� ������� ���������� �� � ��

� ���� ������ ��� �)� ������ ��� ���� � � ������� ���&����� ������ �� ��

��������� � �� � ���� ��� �� ������������ �(������ ��� ��� ������� �� ��

��� ��������������$�+:�$���

3

���� ���������� � ��� ������� � �� ����� ������ ��� ����� � ���� ����� ��� ���

��� ���� ���������� �;�

�+$ 9��������� �� ��� ���� ������� �� ���� ����)� �� ��������� � �� ���

�����������4������������ ��������� ��� ���� ���������)�����

�

,$ *�������������������� ��� ���������)������������ �������������

��� �������� ������������ �������������������� ����������� �����

������� �� ��$�

�

��������������������� �� ���� ������������� ����������������������

������������������� �������� & ����� ���������������� ��������$�

�

�(��������� ��� ��������� � ��� ���(����� ���� ���� �� � � ��� �(��� ���

������ �� �� ��� �������� �� ��� ������ ��� 5�� ������ �)� �� ������� ��

��� ��� ����� ! �������� ������ �������� ��� �� ������������� � �� ��

������� ��������� � � � ���� ��� ������ � ����� ��� ���� ��� ������

�������$��

�����������������������������������

�� ����������������������������������

��� �������� ������������� ���� ����������� ��� ����� �� �� ��� ����� ����� � ��

�� � ��� ��� �� ������ ������$� '��������� ������� ���� ������ ���� ���

����$������ �������������������� ������� �� ���������� ������ ���� �

� �$�#������������ ������������������1������ ����������������� ���

� ����� ��������� ��������������� ����$�$��������� �������� ��������

������ � � ����� ��� ������������ �������� ��� ���$� ���� � �� � � �����

����������� �������� ������������������������ ������� ��� ������

��� � .� � � � ����� �� ���������� ���� ���� � � �)� �� ��� ��������� ����

������������������ �$���������������� ������� �� ���������� ��� �������

�(������ ������� ��������������� ��$�

������������ ��� ��������������� ������� ���� � ���� �������������

������������������������ �������������$��������������������� ���� � ���

���������������������������� ������ ����������� ������ ������ �

�������������������������� ��� ������������������$��

4

������ ����9������+5,�� ������������������� ��� ������������9������++-�

���������������������� ��� ��������� ���� ��������������� �������

����� �� �� ����� ���� ��� ����� �� �� ��� ��� �� ����� ������ ���� ���

�������� �� �� ��� ����� ��� ������ ���� ���� ��� � ����� �� �� ��� �����

��������$�

<����� ��������������� ������������������������������� ���������

�&����$�

�

�� �!���������������������������

*������������� �� &��������������� ������ �����)�������������� �������

� ��� ���(����� �� � &���������� ��1�������$� *�� �� � �� ��� ���

���������� ��� &����������� ���������������������������������������������

������������ �������������� ����������������9������+=-� ������������

������������ �� ����� �)� �� ������������������������������ ������� �����

�������������������������������� ������$��������� �������������������� �

������������ ��� &���������������������������� ������������� ������(������

���������� ����������� �$��

���������� ������������� ������������������� ������ ���(������� ��

� ��������� ���� ������������(�����������������������$�> ��������

���� ��� �� �� ���������� ���������� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� ������

�(��������� ��������� �������&�����������������$���

�������� ��� ��� ����� ����� ��� ������ �� �� ����� ��������������� � ����

����� ����� �)� ��������������� ����� ������? �������?������������

��� ���������� � � ������ ���� � � ?��������?� ��� ��� ���� �� ��� ����������

������� �$�� ������(������� ������������ ����������� ��$��������� ����

��� �� � �� ��� &� ����� �� ��� ���� ��� ����� &� �� � ������ ��� ��� ������

���� ������� �������� ��� �� �������� �������$���

<��������� ������ ���(������������������� ������������� ������ �����

���� ������(������������������ ���� ����� �����������)$�

�

5

"� ����������!������������

���� �������� ����������� �� ��� ���������� � ������ �� �� ��� ! ���� ��

� ������������ ���������� ����������������������� ���� ��������

� �� ��� ���������� ��� ���� � �� ���� ����������� � ������ ���� ��� �����

� ����������� �������������������� ���������$�� ���(�����������������

��������������� �������! ���� ����������������� ������� ������

��������� ������������������� $�

9���� �� ����� �� �������������������������� ��������������������� ���

����� � ������� ������������ ������� � �� ��� ������������$� ��� ����� ���

���������� � ������ �� �� ��� ! ���� �� � ���� �� � ��� ����� �� ����$�

% ������ ��� � ���� � � ����� � ��� ��������� ���������� �� �� ��� ������

����� �� ��$� ���� ������ � ���� ������ �� ������ ��� ��� �� ��� ���

�(������� � �� ��������� �� ��� ������ �� ����� ���� ����� ���$� ��������� � �����

����� ������ ��������� ������������������� ����� ����� ���� ������

��� ��� ���� � ���� � �� � � ���� ��� ����� �������� � � ��������� ��� ���

������������

#� $��!����������%

#���� ���� � ������ ���� ��� ���������� �� � �&�� ��� ���. �� ��� � �&

�(������ ��� ���������������$�9��������� �� ����������� &���������� ��

��������� �� ������������������������ ��$�����������������������

������ ��� ����������� ������� ����� ���� ����� � �� �� � ��� � ��

�� �������� ������� � ����$� ��� ��� ������ ��� ����� �� @� �&�� ���

��)���A�� ����� ������ ������� ���$�'������������� ����� ���������

��������������������������������������������� �� ��������� ��������������

����������������������� ������$���

% ������� �� � � ����� �������� ���� ������� � ��� ������ �� �� ����

�� ��� ���. �� ���� ��� � � ����� ��� ���� ���� ��� � &����������

���������� � ���� ��� ���������� ��������$� ���� ��� �� � �� ��� �� ���

��� ���� ������� ������ ����� ���������� ��)�� �� ����� ��� �� � �����

�� ����������������������������������������� ���� ������������ ���

��������� ������������� ���������������������������������$�

B �� ����� ��� ! ���� �� � ���� � ������ ��� ���(������� � �� �����

� ��������������������������$�����(�������� ��������������������� �������

������ �������������(�� ����� �������������&�������������� ����� � &

?������?��(���������(������ ����������������� ���������� $��

6

���� ���� ��� ��� ����� � � �������� �(� � � ���� ������� � ���� ���� ���

��������(������ �� ����� ����������� � �� ����������� ��� �����

��������������������$��

<����� ��� ������������ � �� ���� � � �� ��������� ����� ���� �� ���

������� �� ��������������������$������ ��� �� ������������� � ��

��� � ��� � �)��$� ���� �� �� ����� ��� �� ���� � �� '���� �� ��� �������

! ���� ������������������ ���� ����������&������$���������������

��������@� �&�� ��������A���$�$����� ������������ ���� �)����� �������

� ����������� ����� �� ������������������ $���

�

&� ���������������������%�

���� �� ���� ��� � ������ ��� 1��� �� �� �� ������� ����� ������ � �� �����

������� ���������������������� ��������� ���� � �����������������

! ���� �$� 9��� ����� � ���� ����������� � �� �� ��� ���� ����� � �� ���

� ���� ��������������������������������������������������1�������$�

������������������������ ������������ ������� ��������������� �

� ���� ��������������������� ������������ ����������� ��$�

����������� ������ ������������������� ��������������������������

� �������� ������������������� �� ���������������$�9�� ������� ����� ��

�(���� ��� ��� ����� ��� ����� �� �� :/�///� ��� � � �� ,/+/� ���� ����� ���

������� � ������ � ,:�///� ��� � � �� ,/++$� ����� ����� ���� � ��������

�� ��������������������� ���������� ������������������������� ��������

��������� ���������� �������� �$����������������� ������ �� ��������

����������������������1�������� ���������� ��� ����������� �

���� ����� �������� �����$��

��������������� ���������������������������� ������ ��������� ��

������������������������������������)������� ��������� ��������� �

����������������������������������� �����������������! ���� �� ��

���������������$�

���� ���� ������ �� ��� � �� � �� ������ ����� � ���� ��� � �������� ��

� �� �C����� � �������������������������� ��������� ��:/$///���� � ����$�

������� ���� ��� ���� ��� � ���� ������ � ����� ������ ���� � � � ���

����������� ��� ������������������������$��������� ���� ���������� �

������������ ��������������+5:��� ���������� ��������������������$�

�

7

��� ����� ��� ��� � ������ ��� ������� ��� �� ��� ��� ������ ��� �����

� ���� ��� ������ ���� ��� ������ � ����� ������������ ��������

������������������������������� �� ����������������������� �� ��

���������� ���������� �� �� ��� � &����������� ������ � ���� �� ����� ��

� ������������� ����� ��� ������������������� ���$�

>��������1��� �������� ������������������������������� ��������

��� ����� ��� ��� ! ���� �� � ������ �� � ����� ������� ��� ���

��������������� �������$������������������ ������! ���� ��������

�������� ������ ����� ��� ���������������)��������� &������$��

��� ��� ! ���� �� � ���� ���� ��� � &������� �������� ������ �� ������ �����

�� �� ��� � ����� ���� ������ �� �������� �� ���� ��� � ����� ��� ���

� ���� �� ��� ��� ����� ������� � ����� ���� ��������� ��� ������ �)�� ����

�������� ����������������������� ��������$�

�

'� (������������)��������������������%

*�� �������� ��� � � ����� � ���� ��� ����� �� �� ������ �)� ���������

������������ �� ���� ��� ��������� ��������� &�������������������

� �� �� ��(����� �� � ��� ����$� ����� ������ �)� ��������� � ���� ���

��������� ��� ��� ������� ���� ��� ! ���� �4� ������&���� �������

�� ������$������� ����������� ;�

• B�)�� �� ������ ���� � ��� ��������� � ����� ��� �� ������ �������� ���������� �������� �������������� ��� ��� &�����������(�����C�

�• ������������������� ������� ���� ����������������� ������������

�������� �)���������C��• ������� �� ������ ��� ��� � ��� � ����� �� �� ���� ������ �)�

���������� ����� ����� � ���� � ����� ���� ��� ������ ���� �� ����$�3���� ���� � ���� � ��� �������� � ������ ��� ��1������ ����������������$�

�B �� ���� ��� ����� � ������ � ��� ���������� ������� � �� ������������� �� ��

��������� ��� ��� �������� �� ��������� � � �� ���� ���� ��� ������� +5,�� ��

��� ��� ��� �(�����$� � �� �(������� ������ � � ���� �������� � �� �� ���

����� ���� ��� � �������� �� �� ��� � � � �� ������������� ��� ������ �

����� ��� ���� ��� ������ ������� ��� ��� ���������� ��� �������� ��������

��� ���� ��� ����� ���������� ��� ��� � �������$� � 9� ��� ��� ���� �� ����

� ���������������� ������������������������������������� �������&

������$�

8

*� + ������+��������� �� ��������������%

>������ �� ��� ���������� �� ��� ��� ���� ������� ������ �'���� ����

���� ��� ���� ������� ��� ����� ��� ������ ��� ����� B������ ���� � ��

����� ������ �� ������� ���� ����������� ��� ����� ������ ��� �����

���������� ��� ��������� �� ��� ����� ��������� �� ���� ��� ���� �������

��� �������$�$������������������������� ������� �������� ���������

�����B����������� ������� �������� ������������������������� �����

������ ��������� ���$��

��� ����� ������� ����� ���� ��� ���� ������� ��� ����� � ���� ��� ����� �

��������������������������� ���� �������'��$�

�

���� ������� ����� ���� � ���� ���� ���� ���������� ������� ��� ���������

���������� �� �� ������� �������� ��� ��� '��� ��� ��� B������ ���$��

������� ���� ��� ������������������������������������������������

�������� �� ����� �� � ��)�� ������ ��� �� ��� ���������� �� ����� �� ��

���������� �� ���������� ������� ������� ����$�

�

9� ��� � ����� ����� ���� ������ ������� ��� �� ��$�$� � ��������

������� ������� ���� & ����� ������ ������� ���� ������� ��� �����

����������@����������A�������! ���� �$����������������� ��� ����

��� ��� ������ �� � ���� � � � ����� ��� � ����� � � ����� ������ �� ����

������� ����� ����� �� ��� ���� ��� ��� ������� �� ���� ��� ����

���������� ����$�

�,������������������������������ �������-����������

��������������

.� ���!���������)������������������%

*��� �������� ������������������������������ ��������������:��&�

��� �(���� �� ��� � � ������ ��� � ��� ����� � ��� � �������� ����

������� �������������������������&�����������������&� ���������������

������� �� � ���� ��� ��� ���$� ��� ����� ��� ���� ������� � ���&����������

��������� �����������������������$�B �� ���� �������� ���������������

���������������1��� ������������������������� �������� ���� ��� ��

���&����������� ������������� ������(����$���

9

/� ���!�����������������%

*���������� ����&������������������� ��� ��� ��������������� �� � ����

��� ����� ������� ������� ��� ����� ���� ������� ������� �$� � �� ���

������� ��� ������ ���� �� ��� '���� ��� �� � �� ��� ��� � ���� ���

�� ��� ��� �����&�������������������� ������������ ��������������������

� �������� �� ��� B������ ���� ��� ��� ���$� #����� ��� ��� '��� ����

���������������� ������������B�������������������������������

�����������������������! ���� �$�

��0� 1��������������������������� ������������%

��� �������� ��� ��������� ���� ��� � �� � �� ������ ����� � �� ������ � �����

���� � ��� ���1���$� % ������� �1���� ���� ��� ���� ������� �� � ��

������ ����� ���� � �� ������ ����� � �� ������ � ���� �� � ��� � �������$� 9�

��������� �� �� ����� � ���� ���������� �� � )�� ����� ���� ������������

�������� �����������������$��

�

��� ����������������������%

��� ����� ����� �������������������������� ���� �������� ����������������

��� ��� �� �& �� � ���� ��� � �������$� 9� � �� �(������ �� ��� �� ���

�� ��� 9�������� B�� � � ��� � �� ��� ����� <��)��� ������ �� �9B�<���

����������������5�������� �)�D� ������� �������� �����! ���� ���

��� ������ �(� ��� ���� ������� ������ ���������$� ��� ��� �� ����

��� ��������������� �����

B �� ����������� ���� �� ����?�����?�������������������&1��������� ���

� �������������� ���� ������� ��&������ ����� ���� ���� ������ ������

����� &� ������ �� ������ ������� � ������ �������� ��� � ���� �� � ���

���� ��$� � 9��� �������� ��� ���� �� ��$�$� � ��� �� ���� 9�� ���� ����� ��

D� �����������)��������� ��� � ����������������� � �� ������ ���� �

���������� �������� ������ ��������������������������1��������� ��

�� ������$� ���� �� ������� � ���� ��� � � ��;� �� ���� ���� ��&�����

��������������������� ������������(�������� ������������� ��� ��

����������������������� ��������� ����������������� ���� �� ������

�������� ��������������� ����������

�

10

�������� ����������� ��������������� ���� �����$�,���� ��9�$�+5,�� ��

�������������� ������������������������������������ ������� ������� ����

��������� ��������� ����� ������������@��������(�������������� �

������� �������������� �� ���� �������������������A$�

����1������� ��� ������� ��1�������� ���� ������� � ��� ����� �� ��

��� �������� �� ����� �������� ���� ��� �������� ����� ���� � ��� ���

���������� ����������� �� �������$� ���� ����� ���� ����� �� � ���

� �������� ��� ���� � ���� ��� � �������� �� ��������$� ���� � ���� �������

����������� �����������������$��

�

P025 - 18.12.2009 Highland Council

UK

REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATION Public consultation Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest? The Council supports the use of web based systems to publicise calls for proposals. Given the priority placed by many to seeking funding it would be helpful if funding calls were highlighted in the EUROPA homepage with hyperlinks to the relevant website where detailed information can be found. Advance warning of calls is key to allow for the development of proposals, especially if trans-national partnerships are involved. The Council appreciates that posting calls during the previous year would require a rescheduling of work plans but such a change would greatly assist potential applicants in developing proposals. Such provision is contained with Article 166 of the Implementing Regulation. Further and from a delivery perspective all forms and guidance, including, national rules should be finalised in advance of calls. Question 2: should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle? The Regulation should be amended to allow for the use of private sector monies in the match funding mix within the parameters set out in para. 2 of Article 109. The Highland Council is of the opinion that “In kind” contributions should be allowed in the provision of match funding. However clarity would be required as any limitations on amount or percentage of the funding package that “in-kind” contributions can make. Values also need to be assigned to “in-kind” personnel contributions. Such values were previously in existence in the delivery of Structural Fund and LEADER programmes in Scotland and could be used as benchmark in any debate. It is acknowledged that there are difficulties with profit generation from the perspectives of the attractiveness of grant to the recycling of funds which can create difficulties in meeting N+2 targets and in micro managing programme closure. The Council suggest the following:

• That provision be made to allow profits generated to be used to fund the ongoing delivery of the project or service. Clearly this will not apply to all projects. One of the major difficulties with any external funding stream is sourcing of monies to fund the project in the long term. Applicants should be encouraged to plan for the future via a fully funded exit strategy. Recycling of generated profits should be allowed in this schema.

• The recycling of profits by the applicant on works eligible under the funding programme. This is alluded to in Article 109 at present but should be clarified to stipulate that profits are recycled to programme specific eligible activities.

• Generated profits accruing to community groups or social enterprises should be used to fund further projects which are designed to benefits the community in question or the wider communities of the region.

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples? The Council remains to be convinced of the merits of moving to pre-arranged flat rates for work delivered. Whilst there may be administrative advantages, any flat rate schema would have to reflect the differing costs of service and activity delivery across the Union. This is particularly pertinent in remote rural regions where costs tend to higher. In setting flat rates the Commission would have to take account of the non-profit principle. Whatever system is used to fund activity a plea is made to reduce the administrative burden which is increasingly deterring applicants. The Council can see merit in exploring the idea of grant related to outcomes. However it remains to be convinced that this will not end up replacing the current system with one of equal complexity. The use of lump sums to front load project finances is welcomed. Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities? See Question 2 above. Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants? Minimum grant levels should be related to the burden and complexity of applying for and claiming the grant in question. Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements? See Question 2 above. Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action? No comment. Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for prefinancing payments while safeguarding tax payers' money? The Council has experience of this via its administration of the Highland LEADER Programme. Interest generated on monies advanced is calculated on periodic basis on the basis of average balances. The monies are accounted for as a separate cost centre within the General Council account. This model presents cost savings when compared the cost of administering a separate bank account. Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds? See Q8 above.

Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why? The Council would support raising thresholds, particularly for smaller amounts. Amounts accounted for via invoice should be raised from 500 to 1,000 Euros Accounted for via a single tender should be raised from 5,000 to 10,000Euros. Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved? The Council welcomes the proposals set regarding the simplification of the tendering process and the reduction of the audit burden. Regarding the application process fro grants and contracts the Highland Council proposes the following:

• The simplification of application forms and associated paperwork • Greater use of on-line applications but with the proviso that the electronic system

used has been fully developed and tested prior to it being used ‘live’. • That the rules governing the eligibility of expenditure and proof of expenditure be

standardised and finalised prior to programme/ call for proposals is launched, Further that no changes be undertaken unless at the direction of the Commission,

• That the information or data that may be requested as part of any audit procedures is established prior to programme/ call for proposals being launched. This provides for stability in project administration.

• The acceptance of scanned documents as evidence in audit. • A reduction in the length of time documents need to be retained post project closure.

The Highland Council Glenurquhart Road INVERNESS Scotland IV3 5NX www.highland.gov.uk

P026 - 18.12.2009 Academy of Science

CZ

The contribution to the public consultation on the financial rules for the programmes funded by the budget of the European Uni on (second review of the Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules) – from the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (ASCR) This opportunity to make a contribution to the public consultation is truly welcomed. Concerning to the EC intention to simplify and reshape its system for the award of grants, the following comments and recommendation should be taken into account in the reviewed Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rule. The simplification and reduction of excessive paper-work of the project beneficiaries have been promised and attempted several times in the past. Actually, these attempts have had limited success up to now. That is why it is necessary to tackle this problem effectively before the beginning of the Eighth Framework Programme. One of the prospective solutions is the ERC grant system, which shows a way to the reduction of this burden and to scientific excellence. Generally, the EU research funding system has reached such a level of complexity that EU project newcomers and potential coordinators are discouraged by the administrative burden of the funding programmes. The required scope of the proposal should be reduced. Excellent scientific ideas should not be hampered by the administrative barriers (as writing extremely long proposals). Due to current system participants have to increasingly rely on the EU expertise of the specialised consultants and consulting and proposal writing companies. The EC promised simplification should mean not only less rules, but also stability and unified interpretation of the valid rules, too. A better EC staff training, wording improvement of the rules or a special ombudsman for binding interpretation of the rules and for complaint handling could be a help. Generally, Calls for Proposals are well publicised on the web site and through the Official Journal but not always in a timely manner. The procedure from submission of proposals to signature of first grant agreements needs speeding up, especially setting up the shorter timeline and speeding the administrative procedures. The application procedure for grants needs to be further improved. It can be done for example by introduction of label system, effective use of electronic tools and simplification or standardization of administrative procedures. In particular, all unnecessary and hence purposeless changes (for example demanding replacement of proved terms and definitions used by the FP7) without adequate benefit should be avoided during preparation of the future Eighth Framework Programme. The evaluation criteria of the framework programmes need some improvement. For example, the implementation criteria should not be in same decisive line with scientific quality. It means not to attach same weight to the management and to the quality of objectives.

A research, in particular a strategic research, has its own special features, which should be respected. Some research projects do not always achieve its supposed results, but at the same time it is a valuable contribution to a human knowledge and helps other researchers to avoid the impasse. This fact should be taken into account in the financial rules for the programmes funded by the European Union budget. The communication of the responsible EC staff needs a great improvement to be really user-friendly. The present framework programme URF/PIC utility is the example of the inadequately communicated tool. More transparent approach is necessary – for example to attach the specified agenda to responsible officer of the EC DGs and to provide corresponding contact list of the officers. The rules should be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions. The use of lump sums or flat rates could considerably simplify procedures for beneficiaries as well as for the EC financial control staff.

P027 - 18.12.2009 IHK Oberfranken Bayreuth

DE

Öffentliche Konsultation der EU- Kommission zur Übe rprüfung der Haushaltsordnung Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, nachstehend finden Sie unsere Antworten und Anregungen zu dieser Konsultation. Einige Bemerkungen vorab: Wir begrüßen die Möglichkeit, unsere Antworten in deutscher Sprache einreichen zu können. Als hilfreich haben wir die angebotenen Hyperlinks zur HHO und DVO empfunden, die die Bearbeitung des Themas erleichtert hat. Wir regen an, zukünftig die Fragen in einem direkt ausfüllbaren Format zu stellen. Dadurch kann Zeit für umfangreiche Umformatierungen eingespart werden. Unsere Antworten beruhen auf langjährigen Erfahrungen, die wir bei der Durchführung von vielfältigen EU-kofinanzierten Projekten mit unterschiedlichen Generaldirektionen gewonnen haben. Allgemeine Bemerkungen: EU-Finanzhilfen sollten unter strenger Beachtung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips und vorrangig für innovative Projekte mit europaweiter Wirkung vergeben werden. Dabei sollte die Qualität der geförderten Vorhaben und erzielten Resultate Vorrang vor der Quantität haben. Im Interesse der Verwaltungsvereinfachung und des Abbaus von bürokratischen Regelungen sollte die EU-Kommission anstreben, einheitliche Durchführungsbestimmungen für EU-kofinanzierte Projekte zu entwickeln, die von allen Generaldirektionen und deren beauftragten Projektagenturen verbindlich anzuwenden sind und möglichst geringen Auslegungsspielraum haben. Das erleichtert sowohl für den Fördermittelgeber als auch für den Fördermittelempfänger die Prozesse der Beantragung, Abwicklung und Kontrolle erheblich. Das kann unserer Auffassung nach auch für national/regional verwaltete EU-Mittel (z.B. im Rahmen der Regionalförderung) zutreffend gestaltet werden. In diesem Zusammenhang sollte eine einheitliche Dauer der Rahmenabkommen angestrebt werden, die beispielsweise an die Dauer der Perioden der Strukturförderung gekoppelt werden könnten. Es sollte ebenfalls angestrebt werden, die förderfähigen Kostenarten zu vereinheitlichen. Ausschreibungen und Rahmenabkommen müssen im Inhalt und in den Durchführungs-bestimmungen übereinstimmen. Das ist bisher nicht in jedem Fall gegeben. Änderungen von Förderbestimmungen während der Laufzeit eines Rahmenabkommens sollten in Zukunft unzulässig sein. Sie führen zu großer Unsicherheit und hohem bürokratischen Aufwand für Änderungen in der Projektplanung, der Budgetierung und dem Projektmanagement insbesondere beim Fördermittelempfänger, aber auch beim Fördermittelgeber. 1 – FINANZHILFEN Hintergrund: Gemäß der Haushaltsordnung (Titel VI) sind Finanzhilfen transparent und fair, insbesondere durch öffentliche Ausschreibungen zu gewähren. Finanzhilfen können weder kumulativ noch rückwirkend gewährt werden. Sie erfordern Ko-finanzierung und dürfen keinen Gewinn für den Empfänger erzeugen. Darüber hinaus können sie nur zum Ersatz tatsächlich angefallener Kosten verwendet werden. Die Kommission hat sich entschlossen, ihr System für die Gewährung von Finanzhilfen zu vereinfachen und neu zu gestalten. Mit dieser Zielsetzung könnten die folgenden Fragen geklärt werden.

2

• Information über Finanzhilfen: Ausschreibungen werden bereits breitenwirksam veröffentlicht (Art. 110 HHO und Art. 166 DB), insbesondere im Internet. Frage 1: Halten Sie sich für hinreichend und rechtzeitig informiert über kommende Ausschreibungen? Welche Verbesserungen würden Sie vorschlagen? Antwort: Die Möglichkeiten zur Information über Aufrufe/Ausschreibungen haben sich verbessert, sind jedoch noch zu unübersichtlich. Außerdem sind die Fristen zwischen Veröffentlichung des Aufrufs und der Frist zur Abgabe der Anträge/Angebote zu kurz bemessen. Bei Ausschreibungen, die die Beteiligung von Konsortien oder mehreren multilateralen Partnern erfordern, sollte die Frist länger gesetzt werden als bei weniger aufwändigen Projekten. Bei der Festlegung der Fristen sollten die allgemeinen Feiertage und Haupturlaubszeiten berücksichtigt werden. Dieses Vorgehen setzt jedoch eine längerfristige strategische Planung und ein professionelles Management bei den jeweiligen Generaldirektionen voraus. Nützlich sind ebenfalls die Festlegung von übergreifenden Jahres- und Mehrjahresschwerpunkten durch die EU-Kommission, an denen sich alle Generaldirektionen bei geplanten Ausschreibungen orientieren sollten. Das erfordert jedoch ein grundlegendes Umdenken in der Arbeitsweise vieler Kommissionsdienststellen. • Ko-finanzierung und Sachleistungen: EU-Finanzhilfen sind ko-zufinanzieren und dies in manchmal erheblichem Umfang. Diese Verpflichtung bedeutet für Antragsteller häufig eine Herausforderung, insbesondere wenn es keine Möglichkeit gibt, den eigenen Beitrag in Form von Sachleistungen wie etwa Freiwilligenarbeit zu erbringen. Frage 2: Sollten die Bestimmungen zur Ko-finanzierung flexibler gestaltet werden, abhängig von der Art der Maßnahme und der das Vorhaben durchführenden Organisation? Wie könnte unter Beibehaltung des Grundsatzes der Gemeinnützigkeit mit Sachleistungen am besten umgegangen werden? Antwort: Die Bestimmungen sollten nach Status des Antragstellers, d.h. nach öffentlich-rechtlichen oder von öffentlich-rechtlichen Trägern beherrschten Einrichtungen, öffentlichen, gemeinnützigen (NGOs) und privatrechtlichen Trägern differenziert werden. Ebenso sollten die Bestimmungen nach Art und Größe der Projekte differenziert werden: In Artikel 55 der VO (EG) Nr. 1083/2006 des Rates vom 11. Juli 2006 (Strukturfonds-VO) ist der Umgang mit Einnahmen schaffenden Projekten geregelt. Dieser Artikel ist auf Investitionsprojekte größeren Umfangs ausgerichtet. Eine strikte Anwendung dieser Bestimmungen durch regionale Vergabebehörden hat dazu geführt, dass bei Projekten öffentlich-rechtlicher Träger mit einem Projektvolumen bis zu 1 Mio. EUR die erzielten Einnahmen (z.B. aus Teilnehmerbeträgen für Veranstaltungen) Gewinnen aus Investitionsprojekten gleichgesetzt wurden und zur Reduzierung von Fördermitteln geführt haben. Auf Grund von Interventionen betroffener öffentlich-rechtlicher Träger wurde dieser Artikel 55 inzwischen durch VO (EG) Nr. 1341/2008 des Rates vom 18. Dezember 2008 dahingehend geändert, dass diese Regelung nicht mehr für Projekte gilt, deren Gesamtkosten unter 1 Mio. EUR liegen. Diese Regelung sollte beibehalten werden. „In-kind“-Beiträge sollten zur Kofinanzierung bei allen, ausgenommen privatwirtschaftlichen, Trägern zugelassen werden. Sachleistungen könnten im Rahmen von üblichen Abschreibungsmodellen als Kofinanzierung akzeptiert werden.

3

Einnahmen, die aus direkt mit dem Projekt verbundenen Maßnahmen/Aktionen generiert werden sollten, so lange sie die Quote der Kofinanzierung nicht übersteigen, als Quelle der Kofinanzierung akzeptiert werden. (s.a. Absatz 2 dieser Antwort) Besteht nachweislich die Gefahr einer Gewinnerzielung sollten sie fördermindernde Wirkung haben. Die ansetzbaren Kosten sollten in allen EU-kofinanzierten Projekten gleich definiert und behandelt werden (s.a. „Allgemeine Bemerkungen“). • Leistungsbasierte Finanzhilfen (Art. 108a HHO und Art. 180a & 181 DB): Das derzeitige System zur Verwaltung der Finanzhilfen verpflichtet die Empfänger, eine große Zahl von Förderbedingungen zu erfüllen und erfordert vielmalige Kontrollen während der gesamten Dauer eines Projekts. Potenzielle Empfänger kann dies unter Umständen entmutigen überhaupt einen Antrag auf Erhalt einer solchen Finanzhilfe zu stellen. Die Verwaltung von Finanzhilfen könnte durch die Nutzung verschiedener Methoden weiter vereinfacht werden (wie zum Beispiel Pauschalbeträge, oder die Finanzierung auf der Grundlage von Pauschaltarifen) unter Vermeidung der derzeitigen aufwändigen Buchführung zur Erfassung von Kosten. Die Kommission könnte auch ein neues Verwaltungssystem schaffen, das die Übernahme von Kosten in erster Linie davon abhängig macht, welches der gesetzten Ziele erreicht wurde. Frage 3: Sollte die Nutzung von Pauschalbeträgen und einer Finanzierung auf Grundlage von Pauschaltarifen eher die Norm als die Ausnahme sein? Sollten die Bestimmungen es zulassen, Kosten in Abhängigkeit davon zu übernehmen, ob die vereinbarten Ergebnisse erzielt wurden? Wenn ja, können Sie konkrete Beispiele nennen? Antwort: Pauschalbeträge bei Lohn- und Sachkosten sollten eher die Regel, bei Reisekosten die Ausnahme sein. Insbesondere bei kleinen Projektvolumina bewähren sich Pauschbeträge. Lohnkosten-Pauschalen sollten von der EU-Kommission einheitlich anhand einer Formel ermittelt werden, die das unterschiedliche Lohn- und Arbeitszeitniveau in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten berücksichtigt. Durch Lohnkostenpauschalen können die in vielen EU-Mitgliedstaaten herrschenden strengen Bestimmungen des Datenschutzes und der Vertraulichkeit am ehesten berücksichtigt und Probleme bei den Fördermittelempfängern vermieden werden. Um Missbrauch zu verhindern sollte die Akzeptanz von Lohnkostenpauschalen bis zu einem bestimmten Prozentsatz der Fördersumme an Projektergebnisse gebunden werden. Dieser Prozentsatz sollte nach Art der Projekte differenziert werden. So erfordern beispielsweise Pilotprojekte (z.B. im Bereich F&E) eine längere Anlaufzeit, in der eher weniger abrechenbare Ergebnisse erzielt werden als Projekte, die über einen längeren Zeitraum laufen (z.B. Informations- und Beratungsnetzwerke oder ESF). So könnte z.B. bei Pilotprojekten die Lohnkostenpauschale in Höhe von bis zu 70% in Rahmen einer Vorfinanzierung gezahlt werden, 30% dann nach erfolgreichem Projektabschluss und Vorlage der entsprechenden Abschlussberichte. Bei anderen Projekten wäre eine 50%-50%-Regelung denkbar. Auf die Antwort zur Frage 8 wird verwiesen. Mit Personalkosten verbundene Sachkosten (Büromieten inkl. Energiekosten, Büromaterial, Kommunikationskosten usw.) sollten als Pauschalen gewährt werden. Nützlich wäre eine Vereinheitlichung der Prozentsätze, die derzeit zwischen 7% und 30% der förderfähigen Personalkosten liegen. Wir schlagen zwischen 10% bis max. 20% der förderfähigen Personalkosten vor. Diese Sachkostenpauschale sollte ohne Nachweispflicht gewährt werden.

4

Führt ein Begünstigter mehrere EU-kofinanzierte Projekte durch sollte hier eine Deckelung bei ca. 15% der personalbezogenen Sachkostenpauschale eingeführt werden, um Missbrauch zu verhindern. Das würde auch gemeinnützigen Organisationen die weitere Beteiligung an Förderprojekten ermöglichen, ohne eine Abhängigkeit von EU-Projekten zu erzeugen. Eine Doppelförderung sollte weiterhin unzulässig bleiben. Die EU-Kommission sollte eine Evaluierung der derzeit herrschenden Praxis in den unterschiedlichen Generaldirektionen vornehmen und einen Vergleich zu den tatsächlich anfallenden personalbezogenen Sachkosten vornehmen, ohne jedoch in die Förderbestimmungen der laufenden Projekte einzugreifen. Aus den Ergebnissen ließe sich ein Durchschnittswert ermitteln, der dann Anwendung für alle EU-Förderprogramme finden könnte. Für Sachkosten, die im Zusammenhang mit Maßnahmen/Aktionen des geförderten Projektes stehen, z.B. Veranstaltungen, sollten weiterhin im Interesse einer effektiven Verwendung der Mittel Einzelnachweise erforderlich sein. Für Reisekosten sollten keine Pauschalen zugelassen sondern Einzelnachweise gefordert werden. Dabei sollte die beim Begünstigten vorherrschende gängige Praxis akzeptiert werden. Das betrifft sowohl Reisekosten des Projektpersonals als auch von Referenten. In der heutigen Zeit gibt es sehr flexible Möglichkeiten, Reisen kostengünstig zu organisieren (Sonderrabatte im Internet z.B.). Die derzeit vor allem in den EU-Generaldirektionen vorherrschende Praxis der Pauschalierung bzw. Fremdorganisation durch Reiseveranstalter führt zu unnötig hohen Kosten, die vermeidbar wären. • Gemeinnützigkeit (Art. 109.2 HHO und Art. 165 DB): EU-Finanzhilfen dürfen keinen Gewinn für den Empfänger erzeugen, da sie keinen wirtschaftlichen Zweck verfolgen, sondern lediglich einen Anreiz zu Aktivitäten schaffen sollen. Dies führt häufig zu Missverständnissen zwischen der Kommission und den Mittelempfängern sowie zu einer übermäßigen Verwaltungslast. Frage 4: Sollten die Bestimmungen sich strikt an den Grundsatz der Gemeinnützigkeit halten oder sollte es diesbezüglich eine gewisse Flexibilität geben? Können Sie Beispiele für bewährte Praktiken anderer öffentlicher Stellen nennen? Antwort: Der Grundsatz der Gemeinnützigkeit sollte strikt eingehalten werden, um Wettbewerbsverzerrungen zu vermeiden. Im Interesse eines flexibleren Projektmanagements und in Abhängigkeit von der Laufzeit und dem Volumen eines Projektes (z.B. 3 Jahre) könnte die Möglichkeit diskutiert werden, eine Gewinnübertragung bis in Höhe einer Bagatellgrenze, z.B. 0,5% der förderfähigen Kosten, ins Folgejahr zu ermöglichen. Über diese Grenze hinaus erzielte Gewinne sollten weiterhin fördermindernde Wirkung haben. Für das Gesamtergebnis gilt jedoch o.a. Grundsatz. Die Begriffe „ Einnahmen“ und „Gewinne“ sind nicht gleichzusetzen und bedürfen einer exakten Definition. (s. auch Antwort zu Frage 2, 2. Absatz) • Obergrenzen für Finanzhilfen von geringem Wert: Die derzeitigen Bestimmungen zu Finanzhilfen müssen vor allem mit den Grundsätzen der Ko-finanzierung (Art. 172.1 DB), der Gleichbehandlung und des fairen Wettbewerbs (Art. 173 DB) übereinstimmen. Es besteht jedoch eine gewisse Flexibilität für Finanzhilfen von "geringem" Wert (< 25 000 EUR Art.

5

172.3 DB und Art. 173.2 DB) bzw. für Finanzhilfen von "sehr geringem" Wert (< 5 000 EUR Art. 114.3 HHO und Art. 175b DB). Frage 5: Welcher Wert wäre nach Ihrer Auffassung für Finanzhilfen von geringem und sehr geringem Wert angemessen? Antwort: Es sollte keine Differenzierung zwischen Finanzhilfen von „geringem“ und „sehr geringem“ Wert vorgenommen werden. Somit könnte eine Umgehung von Förderbestimmungen (z.B. durch Kumulierung von „sehr geringen“ Finanzhilfen) vermieden werden. Die Obergrenze für Finanzhilfen von geringem Wert sollte bei < 25.000 € bleiben. Bei Projekten von öffentlichen oder öffentlich-rechtlichen Einrichtungen sollte überlegt werden, diesen Schwellenwert auf ein Rahmenbudget von ca. 75.000€ bis 100.000 € anzuheben, um diesen zu ermöglichen, eine Art „Kleinprojekte“- oder „Feuerwehrfonds“ einzurichten, in dessen Rahmen sie kleinere Finanzhilfen ohne aufwändige Beantragungs- und Abrechnungsprozeduren im Rahmen der Gesamtzielstellung eines Projektes vergeben können. Letztendlich verantwortlich für die ordnungsgemäße Verwendung der Gelder bleibt der Erstbegünstigte, d.h. die öffentliche Einrichtung. Das würde ein flexibleres Reagieren auf lokale Problematiken ermöglichen. Dieses Verfahren hat sich beispielsweise bei den Kleinprojektefonds einiger Euregios und der Durchführung von kleineren Projekten öffentlich-rechtlicher Träger im Rahmen der Strukturförderung bereits bewährt. • Finanzielle Stabilität der Antragsteller von Fina nzhilfen: Die derzeitigen Bestimmungen sehen eine allmähliche Verringerung der als Betriebskostenzuschuss gewährten Finanzhilfen vor (Art. 113.2 HHO), insbesondere um die Empfänger dazu zu ermutigen, ihre Eigenmittel auf eine breite Basis zu stellen. Aus ähnlichen Gründen wird die Dauer von Rahmenpartnerschaftsabkommen (Art. 163 DB), die eine langfristige Form der Zusammenarbeit mit Mittelempfängern darstellen, begrenzt. Solche Bestimmungen könnten mit dem Ziel überprüft werden, die bestmögliche Balance zwischen dem Bedarf an finanzieller Stabilität und dem Risiko von einer zu großen Abhängigkeit von EU-Mittel zu finden. Frage 6 : Inwieweit und auf welche Weise könnten die Bestimmungen betreffend der als Betriebskostenzuschuss gewährten Finanzhilfen flexibler sein? Was ist Ihre Ansicht zur Dauer der Rahmenpartnerschaftsabkommen? Antwort: Betriebskostenzuschüsse sollten nur zeitlich begrenzt und projektgebunden vergeben werden und die Ausnahme bleiben, um eine Anhängigkeit der Begünstigten von EU-Mitteln möglichst zu vermeiden. Wir halten projektbezogene, ergebnisorientierte Finanzhilfen für effektiver und zeitgemäßer. Die Dauer der Rahmenpartnerschaftsabkommen sollte in allen Generaldirektionen vereinheitlicht und an die Periode der Strukturförderung angepasst werden. • 'Finanzhilfen in Kaskaden' ('cascading' grants) - unter Einbeziehung von Dritten: Die Möglichkeit für einen Empfänger, einen Teil seiner Finanzhilfe durch Finanzhilfen an Dritte

6

weiterzugeben, ist derzeit strikt begrenzt (Art. 120 HHO und Art. 184a DB), insbesondere um eine angemessene Überwachung und Kontrolle der öffentlichen Mittel durch die Kommission zu gewährleisten. Frage 7 : Können Sie konkrete Beispiele und Arten von Maßnahmen nennen, bei denen die strikte Begrenzung betreffend 'Finanzhilfen in Kaskaden' dazu geführt hat, dass das Ziel einer Maßnahme nicht erreicht werden konnte? Antwort: Im Interesse der Wahrung von Transparenz und Gemeinnützigkeit sollte diese Art von Finanzhilfen ausgeschlossen werden. Sie verursachen einen hohen bürokratischen Aufwand (Unterverträge, Controlling usw.) und könnten zum Verlust der Gemeinnützigkeit eines Projektes führen. Eine vorstellbare Ausnahme wären Kleinprojektefonds (s. Antwort auf Frage 5) Generell einer Regelung bedarf die Möglichkeit einer Aufnahme neuer Projektpartner während der Projektlaufzeit, z.B. bei Ausstieg eines Projektpartners, der dazu führen könnte, dass die erforderliche Mindestanzahl an Projektpartnern unterschritten und damit die Förderfähigkeit der Maßnahme gefährdet wird. 2 – DIE ABWICKLUNG VON FINANZIERUNGSVORGÄNGEN DURCH DIE KOMMISSION Hintergrund: Die Abwicklung öffentlicher Auftragsvergabe und Finanzhilfen durch die Kommission ist so gestaltet, dass sie Risiken für Fehler, Unregelmäßigkeiten und Betrug minimiert und eine strikte und angemessene Überwachung und Kontrolle der öffentlichen Mittel gewährleistet. In der Praxis können Regeln für übermäßige Bürokratie und Kontrollen verantwortlich sein. Die Kommission überprüft, ob und in welcher Weise solche Regeln angepasst werden können, um das richtige Gleichgewicht zwischen dem Interesse der öffentlichen Mittel und einer effektiven Projektverwaltung zu schaffen. • Vorfinanzierungen an die Mittelempfänger (Art. 5a HHO): Diese Zahlungen werden bis zur vollständigen Durchführung der Maßnahme als Eigentum der Gemeinschaften betrachtet. Demzufolge sind die aus diesen Zahlungen erwirtschafteten Zinsen dem EU-Haushalt rückzuerstatten. Dies sorgt für administrative und finanzielle Formalitäten (gesondertes Bankkonto, lückenlose Aufzeichnung der Abhebungen…) und Kontrollen. Frage 8 : Welche alternativen Lösungen könnten aufgrund Ihrer Erfahrung für die Vorfinanzierung vorgeschlagen werden, ohne dass die Kontrolle öffentlicher Gelder unterlaufen würde? Antwort: Generell begrüßen wir die Möglichkeit einer Vorfinanzierung durch Vorschüsse. Insbesondere Pilotprojekte oder innovative Projekte haben oft hohe Vorlaufkosten, die die Projektpartner nur mit großer Mühe vorfinanzieren können. Ebenfalls fällt es gemeinnützigen Organisationen oftmals schwer, die Mittel für Vorfinanzierungen aufzubringen. In diesen Fällen sind Vorschüsse sehr hilfreich. Jedoch birgt diese Möglichkeit auch erhebliche Gefahren des Missbrauchs. Denkbar ist deshalb auch eine Differenzierung nach Status der Projektträger:

7

Bei Insolvenzfähigkeit nur geringe bis keine Vorfinanzierung, bei nicht gegebener Insolvenzfähigkeit (z.B. öffentlich-rechtlichen Einrichtungen) Vorfinanzierung oder Kombinationsmodell wie nachfolgend beschrieben. Aus der Erfahrung verschiedener bereits praktizierter Finanzierungsmodelle bei EU-Projekten wäre für uns eine Kombination von Finanzierungsformen in Abhängigkeit von der Projektlaufzeit vorstellbar, z.B. jeweils eine regelmäßige Vorfinanzierung (Personal- und Sachkostenpauschale - s. Antwort zu Frage 3) mit zeitlicher Begrenzung (z.B. jeweils max. 4 Monate) und ein Mittelabruf für verausgabte förderfähige Kosten (z.B. Reisekosten, Veranstaltungen/Aktionen). Bei dieser Art der Finanzierung würde sich das Problem der auflaufenden Zinsen für den Begünstigten nicht stellen. Durch die Anwendung von Pauschalsätzen könnte der Verwaltungsaufwand relativ gering gehalten werden. Denkbar wäre auch eine Vorfinanzierung jeweils für die Hälfte des festgelegten Zeitraums eines Mittelabrufes und danach ein rückwirkender Mittelabruf. Beide Verfahren sind jedoch mit einem gewissen Verwaltungs- und Kontrollaufwand für beide Seiten verbunden, der jedoch im Interesse einer ordnungsgemäßen Verwendung der EU- Mittel, die öffentliche Gelder sind, unvermeidbar sein dürfte. Umgang mit Zinsen: Das Problem der Rückerstattung aufgelaufener Zinsen ließe sich mit oben beschriebenen Kombinationsmodellen lösen. Sollten Zinsen anfallen schlagen wir die Einführung einer Bagatellgrenze vor: Aufgelaufenen Zinsen bis zu einer Höhe von 1.000 € (alternativ: max. 0,5% vom Gesamtbudget eines Projektjahres) können vom Begünstigten dem Projektbudget zugeführt (und/oder aufs Folgejahr übertragen) und für Projektaktivitäten verwendet werden. (s.a. Antwort zu Frage 4) Übersteigt die Höhe der Zinsen die Bagatellgrenze wirken sie im Projektbudget fördermindernd. Dadurch könnte der Aufwand für eine Rückerstattung an die EU-Kommission wegfallen. • Vorfinanzierungs-Garantien (Art. 152 DB): Diese Garantien sind erforderlich, um das Risiko für den Verlust von EU-Mitteln zu verringern, falls der Empfänger – sollte er zur Rückzahlung der Vorfinanzierung verpflichtet sein – insolvent wird oder die Mittel aus anderen Gründen nicht zurückerstatten kann. In der Regel wird der vorfinanzierte Betrag jedoch durch die Bank blockiert, welche die Bürgschaft leistet und dadurch der Vorteil der Vorfinanzierung beseitigt. Frage 9 : Welche anderen Mechanismen sind denkbar, die einen angemessenen Schutz der Gemeinschaftsmittel sicherstellen? Antwort: Die Regelungen sollten nach dem Status des Begünstigten differenziert werden: Einrichtungen ohne Insolvenzfähigkeit (juristische Personen öffentlichen Rechts) sollten die Möglichkeit einer Vorfinanzierung ohne Garantien erhalten, Begünstigte mit Insolvenzfähigkeit die Möglichkeit einer Vorfinanzierung mit Garantien. Auf Antwort zu Frage 8 wird verwiesen. • Schwellenwerte für Aufträge von geringem Wert (Art. 129 DB): Unterhalb bestimmter

8

Schwellenwerte ist das Verfahren vereinfacht, so dass Aufträge auf der Grundlage eines einzelnen Angebots vergeben und Zahlungen in vereinfachter Weise gegen Rechnung vorgenommen werden können. Frage 10 : Glauben Sie aufgrund Ihrer Erfahrungen, dass die derzeitigen Schwellenwerte noch immer angemessen sind oder sollten diese erhöht werden? Wenn Sie aus Ihrer Sicht zu erhöhen sind, warum? Antwort: Ein vereinfachtes Verfahren ist sinnvoll, um eine flexible Projektdurchführung zu ermöglichen. Jedoch sind die Bestimmungen für die Vergabe öffentlicher Aufträge zu beachten. Nach unseren Erfahrungen wäre eine Erhöhung des Schwellenwertes für die Vergabe von Aufträgen mit Rechnung ohne Vergabeverfahren auf mindestens 1.000 €, besser 2.500 €, sinnvoll. Die Einholung von Angeboten ist zeitaufwändig und mit einem hohen Dokumentationsaufwand verbunden. Projektbezogene Aktivitäten erfordern jedoch oft flexibles Handeln. Die meisten unserer auf Projekte bezogenen Rechnungen liegen innerhalb der vorgeschlagenen Erhöhung des Schwellenwertes. Darüber sollte wie bisher verfahren werden. Ausnahmen für Aufträge bis zu einer Höhe von 25.000 € sollten mit Begründung zugelassen werden. Diese Regelungen sollten einheitlich für alle Projekte (auch aus dem EFRE) gelten. • Verwaltungsaufwand für die Antragsteller (vor allem Art. 143 DB, Art. 172c DB und Art. 138c DB): In der Regel werden Antragsteller für eine Finanzhilfe oder einen öffentlichen Auftrag dazu aufgefordert, detaillierte Information über ihre Organisation einzureichen sowie eine umfassende Beschreibung ihres Vorhabens/Angebots vorzulegen. Um die Erfüllung dieser Anforderungen zuerleichtern, sehen die derzeitigen Bestimmungen die mögliche Verwendung von 'e-tools' vor. Allerdings wird von diesen Möglichkeiten in der Praxis nur wenig Gebrauch gemacht und zwar aus technischen Gründen, die unter anderem mit der Authentifizierung von Dokumenten zusammenhängen. Im Bemühen den Verwaltungsaufwand zu reduzieren hat die Kommission auch die Möglichkeit geschaffen, das Verfahren zur Gewährung von Finanzhilfen in 2 Schritten durchzuführen (Art. 178 DB) und nur jene Antragsteller zur Einreichung aller Unterlagen aufzufordern, die mit ihrem Antrag am wahrscheinlichsten Erfolg haben werden. Diese Prozedur vermindert denVerwaltungsaufwand, verlängert aber auch das Auswahlverfahren erheblich. In Anbetracht dessen könnte eine Idee zur weiteren Reduzierung des Verwaltungsaufwands sein, eine besondere Kennzeichnung derjenigen Organisationen einzuführen, die bereits erfolgreich ein Projekt und/oder einen Auftrag durchgeführt haben, damit diese nur noch jene Unterlagen einzureichen haben, die für den neuen Antrag relevant sind. Frage 11 : Wie könnte das Antragsverfahren für Finanzhilfen und öffentliche Auftragsvergabe weiter verbessert werden? Antwort: Die Regelungen für Finanzierung, Abrechnung und Kontrolle sollten für alle EU-kofinanzierten Projekte vereinheitlicht und durch alle Generaldirektionen und Fördermittellverwalter (inkl. Projektagenturen und Vergabestellen für EFRE-Mittel) verbindlich angewandt werden. Es sollten förderfähige und nicht förderfähige Kosten und Regelungen für Verwendungsnachweise sowie weitere Nachweispflichten einheitlich definiert werden. Ebenso halten wir es für erforderlich, projektrelevante Begriffe wie z.B.

9

„Nachhaltigkeit“ bei innovativen Projekten, „Gewinn“ und Einnahmen“ eindeutig und praktikabel zu definieren. (s. dazu auch Antwort auf Frage 2) Überprüft werden sollten die Bestimmungen der Artikels 57 der Strukturfonds-VO (EG 1083/2006) zur „Dauerhaftigkeit des Vorhabens“. Unsere Erfahrungen zeigen, dass diese Bestimmungen bei nicht investitionsorientierten Projekten oft eine sehr hohe bis unüberwindbare Hürde für risikobehaftete innovative Vorhaben darstellen, da dadurch eine Rückzahlung von Fördermitteln droht, wenn das Projekt vor der festgelegten Nachhaltigkeits- Frist scheitert. Beispiel: Ein über ein Projekt eines öffentlich-rechtlichen Trägers initiiertes und mit Strukturfondsmitteln kofinanziertes Unternehmer-Netzwerk soll von den beteiligten Unternehmen über 5 Jahre selbständig fortgeführt werden, wobei mit Projektende der Projektträger ausscheidet. Gelingt das nicht sind dem Projektträger Rückzahlungsforderungen von Fördermitteln angedroht. Es dürfte sich kaum ein Projektträger finden, der solche Projekte initiieren und die Verantwortung für die Nachhaltigkeit über die Dauer von 3-5 Jahren übernehmen kann. Die Anwendung der zur Verfügung stehenden e-tools und deren Kompatibilität mit der gängigen Software sollte durch alle Kommissionsdienststellen verbessert werden. Dabei sind jedoch die unterschiedlichen technischen Niveaus zu beachten und technische Mindestanforderungen zu berücksichtigen. (Es nützt die beste Software nichts wenn sie durch die potenziellen Antragsteller bzw. Fördermittelempfänger wegen mangelnder Kompatibilität nicht nutzbar ist. Das verursacht bei diesen hohe Kosten für Neuanschaffungen und Training, die meist nicht förderfähig sind.) Die digitale Signatur sollte wie in der DVO vorgesehen Standard bei der Einreichung von Projektunterlagen (inkl. Abrechnung) werden. Es sollte eine durch alle Generaldirektionen/Kommissionsdienststellen nutzbare Datenbank geschaffen werden, in die die zur Beantragung von Projekten benötigten Standardunterlagen (Gründungsurkunden, Statuten, Organigramme, Registrierungen usw.) eingepflegt werden. Antragsteller erhalten eine Registriernummer und können dann bei erneuter Antragstellung auf die hinterlegten Unterlagen verweisen und müssen diese nicht noch einmal in einem aufwändigen Verfahren in x-facher Ausführung einreichen. Zugang zu den Informationen erhalten nur die mit der Prüfung/Evaluierung der Anträge beauftragten Personen der Kommissionsdienststellen, die zur Einhaltung der Datenschutzregelungen verpflichtet werden. Änderungen sind dem für die Datenbank Verantwortlichen unaufgefordert mitzuteilen oder passwortgeschützt selbständig einzupflegen. Bilanzen/GuV usw. müssen auf dem aktuellsten Stand sein. Bei Unklarheiten können Dokumente zusätzlich angefordert werden. Es sollte bei den einzureichenden Standardunterlagen ebenso wie bei den Finanzierungen unterschieden werden nach rechtlichem Statuts des Antragstellers/Begünstigten. Dazu verweisen wir auf unsere Antworten zu den vorhergehenden Fragen. Denkbar ist auch eine Differenzierung nach Zuverlässigkeit der Antragsteller. Sind beim betroffenen Antragsteller oder Land (insbesondere bei Strukturförderung) Betrugsfälle oder Verdachtsfälle anhängig sollten strengere Regeln gelten als für die „zuverlässigen“. Bei Projektträgern sollten in der oben vorgeschlagenen Datenbank entsprechende Bemerkungen möglich und für die Kommissionsdienststellen recherchierbar sein. Privatrechtliche Antragsteller sollten bei einer Mitarbeiterzahl bis zu 20 im Zuge des Abbaus von Verwaltungslasten (Entbürokratisierung der Informationspflichten) von der Pflicht zur Vorlage einer Bilanz bzw. GuV befreit werden. Die Vorlage der Ehrenerklärung sollte ausreichend sein. Eine Angleichung an die entsprechenden Rechtsgrundlagen der EU, die sich gegenwärtig in der Diskussion befinden, sollte erfolgen.

10

Wir begrüßen die Einführung des bewährten zweistufigen Antragsverfahrens auch bei anderen EU-Programmen außerhalb des 7. Forschungsrahmenprogramms. Geeignete Projektträger (öffentlich-rechtlich) sollten mehr Verantwortung für die eigenständige Verwaltung, den flexiblen bedarfsgerechten Einsatz und die Kontrolle der EU-Fördermittel erhalten („Kleinprojektefonds“). Ausschreibungen und Rahmenabkommen müssen im Inhalt und in den Durchführungsbestimmungen übereinstimmen Änderungen an Förderkriterien während der Laufzeit von Rahmenverträgen sollten unzulässig sein. Die Vorlaufzeiten für Informationen zu Ausschreibungen für Projekte sollten ebenso verlängert werden wie die Fristen zwischen Veröffentlichung der Ausschreibung und der Abgabe. Es kann differenziert werden zwischen „einfachen“ Projekten mit 2-3 Beteiligten und größeren Projekten (Konsortien) (s. Antwort auf Frage 1). Das Vergabeprocedere sowie die Information der Antragsteller über die Resultate dauern noch zu lange. Insbesondere bei innovativen Vorhaben kann durch einen langwierigen Entscheidungsprozess ein Projekt bereits vor Beginn scheitern, wenn dadurch der Lebenszyklus einer Erfindung/Entwicklung/Dienstleistung bzw. eines Produktes überschritten wird. Vorfinanzierungen mittels Vorschüssen sollten möglich bleiben (s. Antwort auf Frage 8) Eine Verschiebung innerhalb von Kostenkategorien eines Projektes („budget shifting“) sollte ohne vorherige Genehmigung bis zur einer Höhe von 30% möglich sein, wenn sich daraus keine Veränderungen im Gesamtbudget und bei der Förderquote ergeben. Das erhöht die Eigenverantwortung und Flexibilität des Begünstigten, das Projekt an die jeweiligen Bedingungen anzupassen, ohne erst einen aufwändigen Informations- und Genehmigungs-prozess durchlaufen zu müssen. Laufzeiten der Rahmenverträge sollten an die Förderperiode der Strukturfonds angepasst werden. Die Anzahl der Zwischenberichte sollte auf das notwendige Mindestmaß (z.B. kurze Jahresberichte in Tabellenform, elektronisch einreichbar) beschränkt werden. Einzureichende Anlagen zu inhaltlichen Abschlussberichten sollten ebenfalls auf ein Mindestmaß beschränkt werden. (Bei Rückfragen besteht die Möglichkeit zur Einsichtnahme in die Originalunterlagen am Ort des Projektträgers.) Wir hoffen mit unseren Vorschlägen zu einer Vereinfachung der Vergabe von EU-Finanzhilfen beitragen zu können. IHK für Oberfranken Bayreuth Partner im Enterprise Europe Network (DE 150241-08) D-95440 Bayreuth Tel.: +49 921 886 152 E-Mail: enterprise-europe-network@bayreuth.ihk.de www.bayreuth.ihk.de

P028 - 18.12.2009 Gelderland, Overijssel en Zeeland

NL

1

House of the Dutch Provinces T +32 2 737 99 56

Aduatukersstraat 71-75 W www.nl-prov.eu

B 1040 Brussel E ruiter@nl-prov.eu

België

Response to the public consultation on the review of the

Financial Regulation

The Dutch Provinces of Gelderland, Overijssel and Zeeland welcome the opportunity to

contribute to this public consultation, and appreciates the efforts of the European

Commission to simplify their rules governing the implementation of programmes funded

by the European Union.

In our reply, we answer the questions from the perspective of our specific situation.

Question 1; are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a

timely manner? What improvements would you suggest?

• The websites listing the EU grants could be more developed. Finding funding according to the “theme” of the project would help. Information about the various

programmes should be presented in a uniform and standard way, allowing for a

familiarity to develop with the way the various programmes operate.

• In addition to the currently available information about EU funding possibilities,

an added value would be created by providing a tailor-made news service one

could subscribe to.

• Multiple standard deadlines throughout the year, would allow for more stability,

as people would be more aware of the deadline, and you do not have to wait a

whole year if your project has not matured when a deadline passes.

2

Question 2; should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking

into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind

contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle?

• Rules should indeed be made more flexible, in particular when the beneficiary is

required to finance a substantial part of the project. In that case, it can be assumed

that the beneficiary will see to it that the funds are implemented in an effective

and appropriate manner in order to control the total cost incurred.

• A solution to the question how to deal with in-kind contributions could be to offer

the beneficiary the choice between counting the gross wage expenditure or a pre-

defined hour rate.

• Certain limitations are necessary. For example, projects under 250.000 euro and

with a maximum EU contribution of 15% should be dealt with only by an

application and final account statement. At random, these projects can be tested

by the Management Authorities. For projects between 250.000 and 1.000.000

euro with a maximum EU contribution of 15% should undergo a more thorough

supervision. Projects with over 15% EU contribution need to be fully supervised.

• More flexibility is especially required to allow for innovative, pioneering projects

to be financed. Contributions in kind, are a good way to stimulate the

development of innovative projects, and circumvent the avoidance of taking risks.

Question 3; should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the

exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected

outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples?

• In order to lower the administrative burden we would like to see flat rates for

overhead cost. These flat rates should not entail new reporting mechanisms. An

important question remains how these lump sums and flat rates are defined and

controlled.

• Outcome-based contracts between the European Commission, the Management

Authorities and the implementing bodies would shift the focus from outcome-

based to more performance-based reporting.

Question 4; should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should

there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good

practices from other public authorities?

• For projects to attract the stakeholders from the private sectors, more flexibility in

the rules is required, allowing for certain components of the project to be revenue-

making, while respecting other EU legislation, and upholding the general

objective of the project. The EU funded project Biobase Europe, uses a financial

construction where separation is made between owners of the infrastructure

3

(partly funded by the EU) of the project and users of this infrastructure.

Subsequently, a division is made between the revenue-making part of the project

and the non-revenue making. This method is called the funding gap method. The

funding gap method is applicable to ERFD projects worth more than 1 million.

The funding gap method allows for a revenue-making project while respecting all

financial regulations.

Question 5; what, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very

low value grants?

• In our opinion, low value grants constitute sums of ≤ € 50.000 and sums of ≤ €

10.000 would be considered very low value grants, in case the amount of

cofinancing is substantial. The administrative burden, endured by the beneficiary

and the Managing Authorities must be in right proportion to the value grant.

Question 6; how could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which

way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements?

• In our view, the duration of framework partnership agreements should remain

short, as grants have a temporary stimulatory effect on certain activities or

developments.

Question 8; from your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for

pre-financing payments while safeguarding tax payers’ money?

• A solution could be to have the beneficiary sign an agreement that the pre-

financed payments remain property of the Community until the project is fully

executed. In case the intended results are not realised, the pre-financed payments

will be reclaimed.

Question 9; what mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored

while ensuring adequate protection of community funds?

• The Managing Authorities should be given a larger role in the pre-financing

payments and risk coverage. This does require however that the Managing

Authority remains independent and free from political ties.

Question 10; based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still

adequate or should they be increased, and why?

• The current thresholds need to be increased. Even when following a European

public procurement procedure acquiring the best applicant cannot be guaranteed.

Moreover, the procedure involves administrative costs, for all parties, that will not

be recovered in case of projects of low value. Lastly, increasing the threshold

seems logic as the costs of expertise/ personnel and materials have also increased

over the years.

4

• Thresholds are mostly designed to stimulate an open market. However, it is

questionable if only financial aspects should be taken into account. Other

elements could be relevant, such as legal provisions or language barriers, that

withhold companies of acting abroad.

Question 11; how could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be

further improved?

• The persons dealing with the different EU programmes often have to deal with

more than one programme. Having as much as possible the same procedures for

more programmes would greatly help. This could for example be the same

reporting forms, but also the same method to calculate personal costs.

• Our recommendation would be to reduce the number of years the documents have

to be stored from 10 to 3 years. Moreover, the administrative process should be

further digitalised.

• Dividing the application procedure into two selection rounds would constitute a

major improvement. Subsequently, only the applicants selected for the second

round would have to provide elaborate applications. Moreover, the introduction of

the label system would already be an improvement, as long as it does not

prematurely exclude applicants who do not have such a label or imply more

paperwork.

P029 - 18.12.2009 Barcelona Provincial Council

ES

1

Consulta Pública sobre las Reglas financieras de loss programas financiados por la UE

1 – GRANTS

Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest?

Existe mucha información sobre las convocatorias europeas, pero esta información se halla de forma dispersa y heterogénea. Por ejemplo, la página “Grants” http://europa.eu/policies-activities/funding-grants/index_es.htm de la UE redirecciona a los apartados “Grants” de cada una de las Direcciones Generales, donde cada una de ellas presenta la información en un formato y grado de detalle diferente.

Este problema se agrava a la hora de buscar información sobre los fondos europeos que gestionan las autoridades estatales, regionales u otras autoridades de gestión, ya que cada una de éstas emplea un sistema diferente.

Sería recomendable la creación de un registro y una página web única, por lo menos de los fondos que gestiona la propia Comisión Europea, con un sistema de búsqueda apropiado. Se conocen experiencias interesantes en este sentido como la del modelo de EuropeAid http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/funding/index_en.htm .

Question 2: should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle?

La posibilidad de justificar aportaciones en especie tendría que extenderse de forma más generalizada al ámbito de gestión de los recursos humanos de las acciones.

Uno de los problemas de financiación, quizás el mayor, que presentan las entidades locales es la aportación de la parte de cofinanciación que reclaman los programas europeos. Se debería tener en cuenta que en el caso de las administraciones públicas, la gestión de proyectos en programas financiados por la UE requieren de la participación de personal directamente implicado en la acción, pero también la imputación de otras figuras profesionales o personal funcionario, tales como interventores, personal administrativo, etc. En la actualidad varios programas permiten la inclusión de un 7% de gastos indirectos, pero en muchas ocasiones no es suficiente. Este hecho se debería contemplar en los gastos elegibles de los proyectos.

2

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples?

Los gastos a tanto alzado son útiles en proyectos de poca cuantía y consideramos que simplifican la gestión, sobretodo en proyectos de movilidad, redes o intercambios de experiencias. No son tan aplicables en proyectos intensivos en personal o de inversión en infraestructuras. Podrían por tanto generalizarse en el primer tipo de proyectos.

Las cuantidades calculadas a “tanto alzado” o “lump sum” son muy útiles para hacer cálculos estimativos y previsiones, pero después las reglas financieras deberían ser lo suficientemente flexibles como para poder adaptarse al coste real ejecutado. Ya es factible en algunos programes comunitarios, como Grundtvig, Juventud con Europa, Europe-Aid…, la adjudicación de un montante económico determinado, en el que no se solicitan justificaciones de facturas sino la justificación de resultados y la presentación de los productos planteados. Estos resultados deben respetar siempre las reglas financieras de transparencia, eficiencia y eficacia marcadas por la Comisión, y por lo tanto, se asegura el buen funcionamiento financiero de los proyectos.

Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities?

Los programas promueven el principio de partenariado multiactor, sin embargo, la participación de asociados privados presenta múltiples dificultades. Se da una contradicción manifiesta cuando se solicita la colaboración público/privada, pero a la vez no se pueden obtener beneficios en el marco de las acciones financiadas, o si se obtienen, la justificación administrativa puede ser muy complicada. Por lo tanto, en ocasiones no resulta fácil mantener este principio de colaboración público y privada. Además, se debería replantear cómo se pueden adecuar procesos de gestión y justificación adecuados a esta participación multiactor.

Otro elemento a considerar para facilitar la implicación de agentes privados sería el establecimiento de los procedimientos necesarios para clarificar los aspectos relativos a la propiedad intelectual y la comercialización de los productos resultantes, al igual que sucede en programas como los de RDT.

Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants?

En principio, los valores de los contratos de poca cuantía parecen adecuados.

Una de las dificultades identificada es que, en algunos casos, las cuantías mínimas que determinan diferentes procedimientos de contratación especificadas en los contratos (p.ej. Europeaid) difieren de las contempladas en las normativas públicas de contratación nacionales. En el caso de los contratos, se deberían respetar las normas nacionales.

3

Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements?

Las ayudas para gastos de funcionamento no son aplicables directament para los proyectos de las administraciones locales, pero si pueden ser de interés para potenciar las redes de ámbito europeo donde participan. En este sentido, creemos que se tendrían que incrementar los gatos para este tipo de redes, siempre condicionado a la elaboración de productos/proyectos comunes de valor añadido europeo entre los socios miembros. La duración de estas ayudas tendría que ser de un mínimo de 3 años.

Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action?

La posibilidad de desarrollar instrumentos innovadores que implican subvenciones a terceros como capital riesgo, microcréditos, premios, becas, etc. es limitada en algunos casos. Sería conveniente que se contemplasen estos instrumentos para el desarrollo de proyectos innovadores.

2 - THE COMMISSION'S HANDLING OF FINANCIAL FILES

Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for prefinancing payments while safeguarding tax payers' money?

El sistema de prefinanciación y informes intermedios es imprescindible, ya que permite iniciar el proyecto en mejores condiciones. En algunos casos sería recomendable también incluir gastos de preparación de los proyectos.

En cuanto a los intereses, es difícil y complejo identificar los intereses generados a los largo de la vida del proyecto. En caso de que se aplique también se debería tener en cuenta que el pago final se reliza cuando el proyecto ya esta finalizado y los intereses de demora no se consideran elegibles.

Hay que remarcar igualmente que la mayoría de los Fondos estructurales no funcionan con sistemas de prefinanciación, y por lo tanto, los promotores deben soportar con financiación propia, muchas veces incluso hasta una vez finalizado el proyecto. La tardanza de pago por parte de las autoridades de gestión es una de las principales dificultades financieras.

Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds?

Ser entidad pública, en el caso de las entidades locales públicas, debería ser garantía suficiente para poder considerar que no existe la posibilidad de quiebra. Los estatutos de constitución y la normativa de aplicación de los propios mecanismos internos de la entidad (que ya están bajo control de las autoridades pertinentes) deberían ser garantía suficiente.

4

Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why?

Los límites señalados parecen adecuados y respetuosos a la propia normativa interna, es decir, en este caso, al de la normativa de contratación española.

Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved?

La idea de poseer un registro de demandantes, y que no se tenga que volver a enviar toda la documentación referente a la entidad que se presenta a una convocatoria, es una idea que facilitaría bastante el proceso de gestión y preparación de propuestas. En este sentido, se quiere remarcar la existencia de experiencias como el PADOR de EuropeAid que podrían generalizarse.

Por otra parte, la posibilidad de presentar proyectos en dos fases es muy interesante pero se deberían establecer mecanismos para acelerar los procesos de decisión de forma que la resolución de los proyectos se realizase más rápidamente. En algunos casos, los plazos de resolución se alargan durante un año. Un ejemplo positivo es el aplicado en el programa URBACT, por su rapidez de resolución y porqué la segunda fase de presentación ya contempla ciertos gastos elegibles para la preparación de la propuesta completa.

En cuanto a la presentación electrónica, su generalización presenta múltiples ventajas pero se tendrían que homogeneizar los formatos.

Por otra parte, se tendrían que garantizar que todas las convocatorias describen de forma detallada cuáles son los criterios de selección.

Por último, otro problema en la gestión de los proyectos es la superposición de procedimientos de control y auditoría, sobretodo en los proyectos financiados por programas gestionados por autoridades estatales o regionales.

Cap de l'Oficina de Cooperació Europea Direcció de Relacions Internacionals Diputació de Barcelona www.diba.cat

P030 - 18.12.2009 POM West-Vlaanderen

BE

Public consultation on the review of the Financial Regulation Our remarks concerning the administrative and financial regulations and the procedure for obtaining European grants and implementing projects granted with EU-funds are the following:

A. General remarks:

1. Identification as applying organisation: We suggest to implement ONE UNIQUE REGISTRATION PROCEDURE for all possible applyers of EU-funds (all programmes of all DG). Now, applyers have to submit several identification data (name, address, financial data, structure, representation,….) when applying for any project granted with EU-funds. This is every time the same work in a different application form, with different data. With a unique registration procedure and, as a consequence, a unique database of ‘identified’ project applicants (with a unique number), this repetitive workload would be avoided and the Commission would have a correct an updated view of all organisations beneficing EU-grants.

2. Application procedure for EU-grants: once identified as described under nr. 1, it would be more simple if there is a unique electronic webtool for applying for projects/EU grants. Now, the application procedure is too different under the different DG’s and programme secretariats. A unique website or (electronic) newsletter where all calls for EU-funded projects are published would also be an improvement.

3. As beneficiary of European funds, we deal – on project level - with different financial and administrative (project)regulations (e.g. calculation of staff costs, overhead, - documents which serve as proof for eligible costs,…), although these regulations are based on the same European Commission regulations. This is generally due to a different interpretation or implementation of these European Commission regulations by the programme secretariats. We suggest to develop a unique financial and administrative handbook for EU-granted projects which has the approval of all audit authorities (First and second level controll, European controlling authorities). Nowadays there is always a risk that an audit authority rejects eligible costs due to a different interpretation of the European Commission regulations between the programme secretariats and the auditor.

4. In general, we feel that the audit of EU-granted projects focuses on the eligibility of costs (financial and administrative (project)regulations) rather than on the way of implementing and the results of the projects.

5. We suggest auditing authorities to controll projects on a sample basis, rather than controlling every single document of each individual eligible cost.

B. Remarks regarding the questions: Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest? See A1 and A2.

Question 2: should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle?

No comment.

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples? We think that output-driven grants should be possible (i.e. with a lower focus on real costs and higher focus on output results), but that should only be a possibility of financing under certain conditions (such as clear and easily measurable outputs) and this should not become the general rule. In this case one can speak of a ‘goal-contract’ between EU and beneficiary. The financial consequence for the beneficiary should be CLEAR ( If the beneficiary doesn’t reach the benchmark, what will be the ‘penalty’, if the beneficiary’s output is higher than the benchmark, what is the grant-bonus ?). For cost-driven granting, one can speak of an ‘effort-contract’, where the beneficiary commits to do all possible efforts to reach the goals. In this case we suggest that the evaluation of the project should focus more on the efforts the beneficiary can proove to reach the goal, rather than only on the costs. Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities? First of all, there should be a distinction between profit (companies) and not-profit beneficiaries (e.g. NGO, public authorithies) In our opinion, for non-profit organisations, the Commission should allow a limited revenue on (some) projects (e.g. maximum of x% of the costs) and should be flexible with revenues on investment projects upon condition that the finality/destination of the investment doesn’t change. Second, there should be a relation between income on the project and co-financing budgets. The commission should allow that project beneficiaries lower the co-financing of the budget if there is revenue on the project. Nowadays, there is no motivation for beneficiaries to look for extra revenue on project activities, as their eligible costs (and their final) grants are deducted by the project revenues, whileas extra revenues on projects (e.g. sponsoring by private companies) can sometimes result in a better marketing/communication in and involvement for the project. Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants?

No comment.

Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements?

No comment.

Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action?

No comment.

Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for prefinancing payments while safeguarding tax payers' money? As beneficiaries (registrated in a unique database – see A1), we want an atmosphere of confidence with EU. We insist on a quick payment of declarations and a possibility of prefinanced payments. Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds? We suggest to implement an ‘insurance’ or ‘solidarity’ system on programme level, where a certain percentage of the EU-funds on programme level is allocated to a ‘risk insurance’ deposit. If on the end of the programme this sum was not needed, all beneficiaries should have paid back their part of the contribution. Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why? The member states have the responsability to define the thresholds on public tendering procedures. In programmes with several member states (interregional, transnational), the rule of the member states of each beneficiary has to be followed. Programme secretariats should not define their own thresholds. Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved? See A.1. and A.2. above

On behalf of POM West-Vlaanderen

www.pomwvl.be

Hoofd Centrale Diensten Provinciehuis Olympia Koning Leopold III-laan 66 8200 Sint-Andries/Brugge BELGIUM

P031 - 18.12.2009 Ministry of Finances

EE

P032 - 18.12.2009 Communauté d'Agglomération Plaine Commune

FR

La Communauté d’Agglomération Plaine Commune souhaiterait soumettre la contribution suivante : Question 1 : Êtes-vous suffisamment informés des prochains appels à propositions en temps utile? Quelles améliorations proposeriez-vous? Les délais sont parfois un peu court pour répondre et cela est d’autant plus le cas pendant la période estivale où le personnel n’est pas toujours suffisant. Il conviendrait alors de décaler ces appels à propositions ou de donner un peu plus de temps pour réagir. Question 3 : Le recours aux montants/taux forfaitaires doit-il devenir une norme plutôt qu’une exception ? Oui. Les règles doivent-elles permettre de couvrir les coûts sur la base des résultats escomptés ? Si oui, pouvez-vous fournir des exemples concrets ? Oui. Une différence doit être faite entre les organisations ayant une capacité financière importante et les autres. Il semble que si les structures, portant des projets européens, sont remboursées en fonction des résultats, c’est la porte ouverte à une baisse des financements. Le réalisé peut être différent du prévu, pour autant, ces structures doivent continuer à être financé, tant que le travail est justifié. Question 4 : Les règles doivent-elles rigoureusement respecter le principe de non-profit ou faire place à plus de souplesse à cet égard ? Avez-vous des exemples de bonnes pratiques adoptées par d'autres pouvoirs publics ? La Région Ile de France est plus souple. Elle favorise l’accompagnement du développement éco de filière d’activité ou la participation d’acteurs éco à des salons, à vocation commerciale. Le commerce est important et la commission peut paraître parfois un peu trop restrictive. Il ne s’agit pas de vendre avec des fonds européens mais d’accompagner des actions marketing ou commerciales. Question 6 : Comment les règles sur les subventions de fonctionnement peuvent-elles être assouplies ? De quelle façon ? Quelle est votre opinion quant à la durée des accords cadre de partenariat ? La durée des accords cadre a baissé. Les projets se déroulent sur 1 an, cela laisse peu de temps pour travailler, prendre du recul et expérimenter. Cela incite à faire toujours la même chose et à utiliser ces fonds comme des fonds de « fonctionnement », sans innovation. Question 7 : Pouvez-vous citer des exemples et des types d'actions concrets où la limitation stricte appliquée aux subventions en cascade est devenue un obstacle dans la réalisation de l'objectif de votre action ? Le PLIE communautaire de Plaine Commune (93). Mission Equal Patrimoine de Plaine Commune : Le principe de partenariat de développement de l’ancien programme Equal était très pertinent, il permettait des montages financiers liés à des logiques de projets partagés avec des conventions d’objectifs. Dans les nouveaux programmes, à moins d’être un organisme intermédiaire, pour des projets de très grande envergure, tout doit passer par les marchés publics et les appels d’offres. Cela casse les logiques partenariales et de développement local.

Question 9 : Quel mécanisme, autre que la garantie de préfinancement, pourrait être envisagé, tout en assurant une protection appropriée des fonds communautaires ? Il serait plus judicieux de donner davantage de moyens aux Etats et aux services régionaux pour qu’ils instruisent correctement les dossiers, dans les temps. Question 10 : D’après votre expérience, pensez-vous que les seuils actuels sont encore appropriés ou qu’ils doivent être augmentés, et pourquoi ? La durée des conventions doit augmenter conduisant de ce fait à une augmentation des montants. Si vous souhaitez intervenir sur d’autres sujets, cela est également possible. La règle de la preuve des cofinancements européens est contraignante. Aujourd’hui à la demande du solde, on exige du bénéficiaire d’attester du versement effectif des autres co-financements. Or les notifications de subvention des autres co-financeurs pourraient suffire, d’autant que le solde est généralement demandé en même temps aux différents co-financeurs. Au moins pour les budgets prévisionnels. Certaines collectivités ont du mal à rédiger une simple lettre d’intention. Nous vous remercions de cette démarche. Communauté d’Agglomération Plaine Commune www.plainecommune.fr

P033 - 18.12.2009 Environment Agency for England & Wales

UK

Please find below the Environment Agency for England and Wales' response to the consultation on the EU Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules. - Having to keep the pre-financing in an interest bearing account makes keeping track of interest earned (and then paying it back) very difficult. - There is a need for clearly defined terminology and transparent consistently interpreted rules across all programmes and processes. - The Commission consider should the costs and benefits relating to issues concerning relatively small amounts of money, but potentially large administrative burdens, such as the reporting of interest on pre-financing, and VAT related issues. - Financial rules need to be applied consistently across all projects and sections of FP7. - A move toward lump sums and flat rates would be positive as long as there is a reduction in the administrative burden that goes with it, i.e. a simplified, less time consuming audit process. - Electronic systems should be better integrated across all programmes and new systems should be properly tested and piloted before widespread launch. I hope these comments are useful. External Funding EU and International Team Strategy and Reporting Group (SRG) Evidence Directorate Environment Agency for England and Wales Block 1, Government Buildings, Burghill Road, Westbury-on-Trym Bristol, BS10 6BF, United Kingdom www.environment-agency.gov.uk

P034 - 18.12.2009 Brighton Hove City Council

UK

EC Consultation on the Review of the Financial Regulation Contribution from Brighton & Hove City Council (UK) Question 1: Information about Grant Opportunities There is a lot of information available on EU grant opportunities. However, some programmes are much better publicised than others. For example, the Lifelong Learning Programmes are very well publicised, whereas programmes such as PROGRESS seem to have a lower profile. In general, programmes with national ‘managing agents’, such as Lifelong Learning Programmes, Life + and Culture, are more successful at promoting bidding opportunities. It would be very helpful to have a central website resource that can signpost to particular programmes. The Grants pages on Europa website is quite useful, but this could be made more user-friendly and it needs regular maintenance to ensure that links continue to work. Some regional EU funding opportunities are not necessarily made visible to a wide audience. For example, information on ESF should be made more widely available to ensure that tenders and grants can be awarded in an open and transparent manner. Furthermore, subcontracting should be undertaken in an open and transparent way. Lead Bodies should be well placed to raise the profile of the programme with target bidding organisations: whilst information on the Lead Body’s website is one method, a more comprehensive approach is required. It is important to work with the Local Authorities in the eligible area when promoting a regionally-administered EU funding programme, as these organisations have considerable experience of promoting such opportunities locally and are well-placed in terms of communicating information to the key local players in a particular thematic area e.g. social enterprise. Interreg IVa funding provides an important funding opportunity for organisations in the Channel and North Sea areas. However, the two cross-border programmes have now been running for almost two years and technical assistance has yet to be made available for UK applicants. This has a real impact on the level of information on grant opportunities provided to UK bidding organisations. Technical Assistance is in place for French, Belgian and Dutch organisations. On the whole, information about upcoming calls for proposals is provided in a timely way. Usually there is prior notice to the launch or calls follow an annual pre-announced timetable. There are still

occasions where only 6-8 weeks notice is given: this is not usually sufficient to develop a quality bid. Question 2: Co-financing and contributions in kind (Art. 109 FR and Art. 172 IR) During the preparation for the Structural Funds programmes 2007-13 there was much discussion about funding projects up to 75% or even 100%. In reality, programmes such as cross-border Interreg programmes have continued to require match funding at 50% as a rule. This means that there is a real focus on identifying match funding as opposed to focusing all efforts on developing a quality bid. In particular, match funding requirements often deter third sector organisations from participating in EU projects, as their match funding is often sourced from national grants operating under a completely different bidding timetable. Furthermore, current restrictions on local authority budgets make it increasingly difficult to identify match funding for European projects. Some programmes have developed tools to facilitate participation from the third sector e.g. the France (Channel) – England Interreg IVA programme operates a micro-project facility which funds third sector projects up to 75% and operates a fast-track appraisal and approval process. Other programmes could learn from this approach. Rules on in-kind contributions differ from programme to programme, making the application process more onerous for bidding organisations. Even within the four Interreg programmes that cover our geographic area there are four different sets of rules on co-financing and contributions in kind. It would be helpful if these rules could be uniform. Similarly, it would be very helpful if rules on eligibility of staffing costs could be made more uniform across programmes. Finally, it would be useful if Member States could operate a uniform approach to provision of national level match funding for transnational / interregional funding programmes. Question 3: Performance-based grants (Art. 108a FR and Art. 180a & 181 IR) Lump-sum funding based on reporting performance against an agreed set of results (rather than extremely detailed reporting on a number of different expenditure lines) would be a more practical approach, potentially cutting out much bureaucracy. Question 4: Non profit rule (Art. 109 FR and Art. 165 IR) There should be increased flexibility in the application of the non-profit principle. Local Authority grant programmes often promote the principle of third sector organisations diversifying and developing

alternative sources of income, with the aim of the organisations becoming more self-financing and less dependant on grant income. A sophisticated approach would need to be developed for relevant EU funding programmes, as the term ‘third sector’ covers a wide range of organisations including organisations operating in a ‘very commercial way’, and state aid rules would need to be applied. Question 5: Ceilings for small grants Whilst the micro project facility of the Interreg IVA France (Channel) Programme is welcomed by third sector organisations. The ceiling is too low (in practice, it is a maximum threshold of €22,500 for per cross-border partner, assuming two partners and an equal split). It is quite a challenge to develop a quality cross-border implementation project with this level of finance, considering project management, monitoring and reporting requirements. Question 11: Paperwork for applicants (notably Art. 143 IR, Art.172c IR and Art. 138a IR) Reducing paperwork would be a welcome approach. It would be helpful if on-line application procedures could be just that i.e. they do not require an additional hard copy to be sent in the post. More use could be made of centralized application systems and application forms. Brighton & Hove City Council Website: http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/international

P035 - 18.12.2009 INSEE

FR

18 bd Adolphe Pinard - 75675 PARIS CEDEX 14 - FRANCE - www.insee.fr Tél. standard : + 33.(0)1.41.17.50.50 - N° SIRET : 120 027 016 00019 - Code APE : 84.11Z - Service Insee Contact : + 33 (0) 825 889 452 - (0,15 euro/mn)

RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE

Paris, the 18th of December, 2009

Open consultation on the revision of the financial regulation Answer from the French Institute for Statistics

Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upc oming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements wou ld you suggest?

Given the yearly programme of grants we receive at the beginning of each year, we consider ourselves as well informed about upcoming calls for proposals

On the other hand, delays for submissions are often too short. Indeed, applications for grants are generally requested to be submitted within 1 month from the date of their publication, that is when Eurostat signs its official letter, not when the tenderers receive the bid. Applicants don't have enough time to study the file within their organisation, to discuss internally the go/no go decision and then to elaborate the technical and financial application. The delay should be extended at least to 1,5 month.

Question 2: should the rules be more flexible on co -financing requirements taking into account the type of action s and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be d ealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle?

In order to perform the action on time, the beneficiary of grants often needs to start working on the agreed action before its "official" start date, thus incurring costs which are not "eligible" in the sense of the financial regulation. Some flexibility on this matter would be welcome.

Etab=MK1, Timbre= , TimbreDansAdresse= , Version=W2000/Charte7, VersionTravail=W2000/Charte7

Réf. : Page 2 / 3

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow f or costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, c an you provide concrete examples?

We express our view that flat rates should become the norm for personnel expenses, in order to simplify the procedures and the administrative burden for beneficiaries of grants. It is also important that these flat rates are not detrimental to beneficiaries of grant, in the sense that they should be based on an average unit cost within each category of employees (and not on the minimum cost of each category).

The use of lump sums may also be considered if it allows for a sufficient coverage of expenses calculated prior to the contract being signed.

Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this m atter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public author ities?

The Commission should consider some flexibility for each contract within a certain range.

In our opinion, flexibility for each singular grant would be the allowance that the ex post rate of refund may within certain limits "slightly" exceed the ex ante contractual rate based on estimated costs. The fact that the real costs measured ex post are a little lower than the estimated ex ante costs should not reduce proportionally the amount of the effective grant payment.

Question 5: What, in your view, would be the approp riate amount for low and very low value grants?

We feel the appropriate value for low grants is 50 000 € and furthermore that this threshold should apply on each grant, and not on the cumulated amount of grants signed during a year.

Increasing the amount for low grants would encourage potential beneficiaries to apply for grants, since the administrative burden of current regulation is often too important. Project managers and employees should be able to focus more on the output of the action and less on the administrative process.

Beside this question, and considering the administrative burden of grants, we suggest the Commission considers a possible change in the management rules of ESSnets. In the current situation the Commission relies entirely on the coordinator for administrative tasks with the co-partners. If the Commission could pay the co-partners directly (after a green light is given by the coordinator), instead of transiting through the coordinator, this would avoid the latter having to deal with different accounting tasks, and bearing some related financial responsibilities.

Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration o f framework partnership agreements?

The French National Institute for Statistics has no remark on this point.

Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and type s of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action?

The French National Institute for Statistics has no remark on this point.

Réf. : Page 3 / 3

Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for pre-financing payments while safeguard ing tax payers' money?

The French National Institute for Statistics has no remark on this point.

Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financi ng guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protectio n of community funds?

The French National Institute for Statistics has no remark on this point.

Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why?

The threshold for low value contracts, apart from its actual level (see question 5), should be considered for every single contract, and not for the cumulated amount of the contracts within a year.

Question 11: How could the application procedure fo r both grants and contracts be further improved?

A kind of label system, whereby a prequalification would be granted to an organization - based on information provided once a year - instead of being attached to every application would be welcome. All structural information devoted to the tenderer, thus not depending on each contract, should be dealt with this prequalification procedure. This procedure could be twofold : an in depth assessment once and for all, and a yearly light update exercise (confirming that no major event has changed the situation, and providing updated information on unit of scale costs and flat rates for instance)

P036 - 18.12.2009 Romanian Municipalities Association

RO

The Romanian Municipalities Association - AMR is a representative structure of the local public

authorities from Romania which acts in the name of its members and militates for their

interests at the national and European level. Presently AMR reunites 101 municipalities and the

six districts of Bucharest Municipality, counting over 10 million Romanian citizens.

The Romanian Municipalities Association – AMR welcomes the public consultation on the

review of the financial regulations in view of simplifying the implementation mechanism of the

EU funds to promote more user friendly practices, less administrative burden while providing a

sound financial management of public funding.

Local and regional authorities are among the main beneficiaries of the EU funds and implement

projects financed by the EC, especially the cohesion and structural funds but also from EU

programs and community initiatives like Interreg IVC, Urbact II, Civitas, Concerto, Culture 2000,

Intelligent Energy Europe, FP7, Life Long Learning, Europe for Citizens, Progress, Youth in Action

etc.

Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely

manner? What improvements would you suggest?

AMR members indicated among the most effective information tools for the call for projects

the internet and electronic newsletters. Language might be a barrier for the access to

information mostly for the EC initiatives where the calls for projects are in English language.

AMR considers that even though the access of information has been improved over the years

there is still room for improvements in order to develop more effective communication tools

related to the EU funding, especially ICT tools.

BUCUREŞTI: Str. Academiei Nr.3-5, Etaj 1, Sector 3, 030011 – ROMÂNIA

Tel/Fax: +4 021 311 34 91; 021 312 36 75; 021 312 24 76 | +4 031 102 35 72 | amr@amr.ro Cod fiscal: 11036662 | IBAN RO56RNCB0081010417290001 | B.C.R. – Suc. IZVOR

BRUXELLES: Square de Meeûs 1, B-1000 - KINGDOM OF BELGIUM

Tel: +32 (0)2 213 82 30 | Fax: +32 (0)2 213 82 39 | calin.chira@amr-bruxelles.eu

The Romanian Municipalities Association response to the European Commission public consultation on the review of the financial regulation

As regards the timing, our members feel that there should be more time foreseen for the

preparation of the projects. The potential beneficiaries would prefer to be pre-noticed early in

advance about the intentions of the European Commission to open calls for projects rather

than finding out about the possibility to submit projects with the occasion of the publication of

the call. An annual schedule indicating the dates foreseen for the publication of calls for

projects by the EC could be a very useful instrument for the beneficiaries to plan their activities

related to the preparation of the projects.

Question 2: Should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account

the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with,

while adhering to the non-profit principle?

The in-kind contribution rules should be more flexible and accepted for all types of funds and

community programs and initiatives. Because there is lot of room for interpretation of the in-

kind contribution by the budgeting authorities, in practice, this option is not sufficiently

exploited by the beneficiaries; it’s rather used at small scale, the main reason for this is the

difficulty to quantify and justify it.

AMR members agree that the co-financing rules should be more flexible in order to adapt them

to the specificity of the main activity of the beneficiaries. An in-kind contribution in our view

could be any cost that is possible to be quantified and justified according the accounting

systems in the Member States that contributes to the achievement of the project results and

should not exceed a certain percentage of the budget that is fixed by the managing authority.

Our members suggested that the in-kind contribution could go up to 25% of the value of the

project. This rule should apply also for projects that fall under the state aid rules.

Co-financing from own beneficiaries budgets represents a variable that is very carefully

analysed in order to assess the participation of the municipalities in different projects.

Obviously a bigger share of the in-kind contribution from the total budget of the project could

allow more projects to be implemented.

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the

exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If

yes, can you provide concrete examples?

We support the idea of using lump sums and flat rates for certain categories of costs especially

administrative and management costs if these measures are aimed to decrease the

administrative burden and ease the projects implementation mechanism. However this was not

experienced yet by our members so some of the municipalities remain cautious about the

implementation of this type of measures. Such measures should not generate limitations in

terms of expenses that could affect negatively the results of the projects.

It should be noted also that the inflation and currency exchange rates are costs that affect the

project outputs directly and currently there are no solutions foreseen to prevent or reduce this

type of risks.

Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room

for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public

authorities?

AMR members underlined the necessity to create flexible rules in order to allow the financing

of public-private partnerships. The current situation does not encourage the set-up of public

private partnerships for EU projects in order to combine public and private interventions.

AMR is aware of the need of such rules in order to decrease the risks of misuse of the

taxpayers’ money and avoid the unfair competition. However the administrative efforts should

be quantified with the risks of breaking this rule; the control mechanism should be applied

according to the level of the financial intervention. For the time being the non-profit rule

hampers the PPP in projects and is a considerable burden for the project managers.

Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value

grants?

AMR members consider that the amount corresponding to low and very low value grants

should be 50,000 EUR and respectively 25,000 EUR.

Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are

your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements?

AMR members have not experienced operating grants under framework partnership

agreements with the EC. However we feel that this sort of agreements should be limited in time

and performance driving and it should not encourage rent-seeking.

Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on

cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action?

AMR members have not experienced cascading grants.

Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for pre-

financing payments while safeguarding tax payers' money?

For the public authorities in Romania the administrative checks concerning pre-financing

payments are unfunded because local authorities are obliged by the national law to carry out

project financial operations using accounts open at the Treasury of the State and not to

Commercial banks and those accounts are not generating any interest.

AMR members feel that the pre-financing percentage should be more flexible according to the

type of the projects. For projects with higher degree of complexity in the implementation, the

pre-financing percentage should be higher if this could help to speed-up the implementation of

the project or to prevent delays in the implementation.

Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while

ensuring adequate protection of community funds?

A possible protection measure for the pre-financing guarantee is to include conditionality

measures for instance to allow the money to be used only if at least one procurement contract

has been signed, while respecting the public procurement rules.

Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or

should they be increased, and why?

In Romania the thresholds for different public procurement categories have been modified in

the national legislation in 2009 therefore AMR members believe that the current thresholds are

adequate.

Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further

improved?

AMR members believe that submission of pre-proposals to verify the eligibility of the applicant

plus a summary of the project including the project relevance in relation to the work

programme, key interventions and expected results could improve considerably the application

procedure. Furthermore our members feel that the recommendations given by projects officers

from the managing authorities before submitting the applications are extremely useful. They

also support the idea of having more recommendations from the evaluation committee on how

the project application can be improved in case of a decision for a resubmission.

AMR members believe that in order to make the application procedure more effective time

schedules for the evaluation of the projects and contracting must be agreed and respected by

the parties.

The Managing Authorities should use more the ICT based applications for the submission of the

projects. Proposers that have submitted already applications in the past under the same

programme shall not be obliged to re-submit all the administrative documents. One of our

members suggested the introduction of an EU label for “good applicants”.

****

P037 - 18.12.2009 Ministry of Finances

NL

Dutch contribution to the public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation

This memorandum contains the Netherlands’ response to the public consultation launched by the European Commission on the revision of the Financial Regulation. The Dutch Government welcomes the consultation as it serves as a useful starting point for the revision of the important rules for the establishment and implementation of the general budget of the European Communities. This becomes even more important with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. The Treaty provides several changes in the budgetary procedures which need to be addressed in the Financial Regulation. Simultaneously the opportunity presented by the revision to agree simple, transparent and effective arrangements on the implementation and supervision of and accountability for EU programmes must be taken. In our opinion special attention needs to be given to identifying opportunities to materialize clear progress concerning the effectiveness and efficiency of EU programmes, focusing among others on common terminology and guidelines, involvement of all stakeholders and identifying best practices. In this memorandum specific attention is therefore paid to the two major topics as identified by the Commission in its consultation paper: - The award of grants; - The Commission's handling of financial files. Furthermore, input relating to other topics covered by the Financial Regulation is provided for as well.

1. Dutch input on easier access to EU grants Proposal Forms of grants The European Commission is requested to look into possibilities to vary more between available forms of grants in the 7th Framework Programme (FP7), and combine these forms of grants in one project, especially in FP7 ‘Cooperation’ projects (which are by far the largest part of FP7). By combining forms of grants like reimbursement of declared costs, flat rate financing and lump-sum financing in one project, European Commission can be more flexible in financing projects and avoid micro management where unnecessary. Participants should be able to choose between forms of grants, and combinations of forms of grants resulting in grants being better adapted to the accounting systems of specific organisations like SME’s and universities. Introducing a scale of unit costs for salary costs in ‘Cooperation’ projects could also avoid much administrative burden for participants. Dutch input to the questions raised by EC relating to grants

1. Information about grant opportunities The working programmes give a good indication of up-coming calls; however it is hard to keep track of all the relevant ones. Commercial services (such as “Welcome Europe”) fill this information gap, which in our opinion should preferably be facilitated by the European Commission. The general internet page for funding is currently however quite poor and not user friendly. At the moment it is only possible to be really up to date if you look into all the different web pages of the European Commission on a daily basis. Moreover it is hard to understand which projects have already received funding and under which programme, but also how the different Directorates-General of the European Commission are interconnected. Adding to this, it is rather unclear what the exact outcomes of the different projects are. In our opinion more emphasis should therefore be put on making the outcomes visible, thereby possibly attracting more co-financing opportunities and at the same time preventing simultaneously financing comparable projects. 2. Co-financing and contributions in-kind The Dutch Government agrees that part of the co-financing could be done by in-kind contributions. However the different programmes, schemes and Directorates-General of the European Commission apply various (informal) rules with regard to (non)payment of salaries. It is proposed that European Commission looks into possibilities to streamline the different rules. 3. Performance-based grants In general, the Dutch Government is an advocate of proportional lump sum and flat rate financing. However, given to different standards in the EU-27, the Dutch Government does not advocate reimbursement of accommodation and travel expenses on the basis of lump sum or flat rate. In this case the European Commission should preferably reimburse on the basis of actual costs. Furthermore the Dutch Government is of the opinion that there is a real need for more flexibility in handling cash flows within a project. This flexibility is especially important for a project when adapting to new developments in FP 7. 4. Non-profit rule The Dutch Government would prefer to retain the non-profit rule of which the first objective is to bring the whole EU at the same level. The primary goal is therefore not to make a direct profit. The use of the non-profit principle concerning concrete products could however be limited in time after which access to the commercial market is granted. 5. Ceilings for small grants The Dutch Government favours (further) introduction of minimum thresholds. Request for EU subsidies, including all administrative procedures and costs, should apply only to projects of a certain (financial) size. For instance the European Commission could harmonize the different thresholds for all the different funding schemes in the EU, with minimum thresholds (see further 3.1.1).

7. ‘Cascading’ grants involving third parties At this point, the Dutch Government feels that there is no immediate cause to disperse direct EU subsidies on a national level. However, as stated by the European Commission, it is important to ensure that financing schemes are clear and transparent. In this light sub-contracting should ensure enough possibilities for the recipient of EU subsidies to hire third parties to execute all the different tasks which cannot be properly handled by the recipient itself.

2. Dutch input on better handling of contracts and grants Proposals Preparation of the ‘Grant Agreement’ and responsibility of EC officers European Commission officers who are connected to FP7 projects have a high degree of personal responsibility (even financially) for the correct execution of the projects by their participants. This personal responsibility has a high impact on the way officers deal with legal and financial aspects of a project: their approach is based on ‘zero risk’, where a more ‘high trust risk approach’ is deemed necessary by the FP7 stakeholders. A key element of “high trust” is that responsibility is transferred to the recipient. The recipient has to deliver correct information and has a duty to notify the European Commission if he deviates from the agreement. If a recipient doesn’t comply, sanctions will follow. European Commission is requested to reduce this personal responsibility and to streamline the procedures for preparation of Grant Agreements of projects. This would considerably reduce delays in start-ups of programmes, which are currently causing serious problems for participants and which may result in project partners quitting the project. Adding to this, also during the execution stage of a project, the aforementioned personal responsibility again, has a negative impact on periodic reporting. The ‘Grant Agreement’ For substantial changes in a project during its execution, an official amendment is necessary, requiring a mandatory procedure. This procedure is time consuming, and often causes delay in the project itself. Many partners and European Commission officers try therefore to avoid this procedure, making necessary changes in a project less discussable. In our opinion an adapted procedure for amending the ‘Grant Agreement’ by making the procedure simpler to access and quicker to follow-through, has a clear added value. European Commission is therefore requested to pursue possibilities for an adapted procedure, with the aim to make projects more flexible to deal with unavoidable changes during its execution. Also for participants it should easier to leave a project before its ending (and to agree on this on beforehand), and it should be easier for them to access an already started project. ‘Certification on the Methodology’ and project audits The ‘Certification on the Methodology’, which is introduced in FP7, should assure the European Commission that an accounting system of an organisation is ‘Brussels proof’. For certified organisations, less project audits are therefore necessary, and if a project is audited, these audits will be less detailed. European Commission is requested to review and adjust the requirements for the ‘Certification on the Methodology’ of calculating direct and indirect project costs. The requirements should be less detailed, more rationalized and better connected to the various existing cost accounting systems. Next to that, the European Commission should be more service oriented towards participants who are willing to improve or ‘upgrade’ their accounting systems, even if they do not opt for (non-mandatory) certification. Finally, European Commission should perform more audits during project execution, in stead of focusing on ex-post auditing. The positive side effect of an early audit is the ‘learning effect’ for the audited, who can directly implement the outcome in their project execution (an early audit is an example of implementation of high trust).

Dutch input to the questions raised by EC relating to EC’s handling of financial files

11. Paperwork for applicants In the Netherlands there is a real need for standardised (internet) tools, which are similar for all funding schemes in the different European Commission’s Directorates-General. The information meetings held by the European Commission are of a rather general nature, dealing predominantly with opportunities for subsidies and the manner of which to apply for these subsidies. It is suggested that the European Commission also provides for extra training and information meetings concerning administrative procedures and the proper way of handling these procedures (see also 3.1.1).

3. Dutch input relating to other topics covered by the Financial Regulation 3.1 Financial Management 3.1.1 Proportional accountability requirements for small government grants Under the current practice the accountability requirements for all grants are the same, regardless of the amount involved. Especially for smaller beneficiaries these requirements, even though the risk involved is lower, excessively raise administrative costs making them reluctant to apply for these grants (example of high trust). Recent studies have shown that by allowing lump sum payments as proposed, the administrative costs could be reduced up to 30% and the compliance costs up to 20% of the grant. In the opinion of the Dutch Government the FR should include the possibility for Member States to disperse small grants (of up to € 50,000) on a lump sum basis instead of on the basis of real costs and with explicit reference to non-interference with the internal market (i.e. state aid). This would imply that expenditure is dispersed on the basis of a budget approved by an institution issuing the funding. Afterwards no financial accountability from beneficiaries is required. Instead, performance-based sample checks (on the basis of risk analyses) are carried out so as to control whether funded activities are in fact accomplished. 3.1.2 Partial closure of EU projects/programmes As stated in the current FR, any provision concerning the implementation of the revenue and expenditure of the budget, contained in another legislative act, must comply with the budgetary principles set out in the FR. One of these principles is the principle of annuality to which currently numerous derogations (carryovers, assigned revenue, N+2 etc.) have been made. Although most of these derogations seem justifiable, they do constitute a need for possibilities to facilitate more and better use of annual (or partial) closure. European Commission is requested to insert the idea of annual and/or partial closure of projects and programmes for all areas of the budget in the FR focussing especially on their swift execution. This could identify irregularities and necessary corrective actions on a regular (possibly annual) and timely basis, considerably reducing the financial risk for the whole financial period and opening up possibilities for improved financial management by member states and supervision by the European Commission. Risk of errors and administrative burdens would also be diminished, since all documentation for closed projects does not have to be actively kept and stored anymore. 3.1.3 Annual Summaries Annual Summaries have their direct legal roots in the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Budgetary Discipline and Sound Financial Management (IIA). It was introduced in the FR that Member States shall produce an AS at the appropriate national level of the available audits and declarations. However in the FR (as in the Implementing Rules) the phrasing is lacking reference to any form of assessment or assurance. This could be perceived as a step back to the wording of the IIA, as a result of which the Annual Summary is not used to its full possible extent. The Dutch Government suggest that the European Commission reinterprets the wording of the IIA with the aim of possibly inserting the current voluntary elements (i.e. overall analysis, overall assurance) of the Annual Summary as mandatory elements in the FR. For reasons of transparency, the EC is also requested to include public publication of the Annual Summary.

3.2 Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) In FP7, new public-private partnerships are introduced: the JTI’s. The JTI’s are funded by both EC and industry (and in some cases Member States). Currently, EC regulations have a high impact on the private parties in these public-private partnerships (‘Joint undertakings’). This substantially limits the possibilities of private parties and partnerships to achieve the goals of the JTI’s. European Commission is requested to find possibilities for deregulating EC regulation on JTI’s decreasing the limitations which JTI’s are currently faced with. 3.3 External Aid With regard to external aid, European Commission is advised to focus on facilitating cooperation between the EU / Commission and other donors, and enable the European Commission to implement the international and EU commitments on aid effectiveness. In our view this would constitute more flexible rules regarding the instruments of delegated cooperation, the creation of trust funds, use of reflows and assigned revenues with regard to development aid. In line with the overall Dutch stand on the FR revision, European Commission is advised to focus on simplifying management mode requirements including the reliance on assessment of third parties, more use of lump sums, easier rules for small grants and procurements.

P038 - 18.12.2009 Council for Civil Society Development

HR

Proposal on improving financial rules of the European Commission and local agencies for financing and contracting in regard to European pre-accession and structural funding On the basis of complaints and proposals of civil society organizations grant beneficiaries of the European Commission through Croatian Central Financing and Contracting Agency, on behalf of the Council for Civil Society Development to the Government of the Republic of Croatia, I would like to recommend improvement of the rules regarding exemption of payment of state taxes considering expenses of state-owned enterprises. Our proposal is based on the Framework Agreement between European Commission and Government of the Republic of Croatia. As for tax exemption for grant beneficiaries, we would like to stress out complex problems for grant beneficiaries that can not get exemption due to strict rules of state enterprises such as railways or utility expenses providers. Their expenses have already calculated taxes within the services and tax exemption is not regular practice performed. This practice forces grant beneficiaries to cover cost differences by themselves because those can not clearly be covered by EC. State enterprises would not respect this particular tax exemption EC rule. We believe grant beneficiaries should not be challenged with particular negotiating with state enterprises. We believe that government agencies such as CFCA ought to be ones agreeing upon model that would enable tax exemption to grant beneficiaries by state enterprises. We strongly recommend that European Commission and Croatian Central Financing and Contracting Agency create a model of tax exemption with proper informing and agreement with state enterprises and service providers on this important provision in order to avoid problems in project implementation and budget spending according to the grant agreements. Council for Civil Society Development to the Government of the Republic of Croatia Mrea mladih Hrvatske Croatian Youth Network Trg rtava faizma 13 10 000 Zagreb www.mmh.hr, info@mmh.hr

P039 - 18.12.2009 Enterprise Europe Vlaanderen

BE

Roundtable conference

Public consultation on the Financial Regulation– Inputs from Flemish stakeholders

10/12/2009 10.00 – 13.30

Moderator: Lutgart Spaepen (coordinator of Enterprise Europe Flanders) Location: VLEVA (Vlaams-Europees Verbindingsagentschap) Kortenberglaan 71, 1000 Brussels

Participants: Name Company/Organisation Vicky Ackx VUB Antoine Begasse DeDhaem Federale Overheid Christian Boone Private consultant Carla Brion Vlaamse Milieu Maatschappij Jan Buysse Vleva Ellen Cardoen Provincie West-Vlaanderen Inge Cornillie VUB Donaat Cosaert Vlaams Parlement Davy De Dobbeleer Vlaams Geïntegreerd Plattelandsbeleid Stijn Delaure KUL Geert Eggermont UNIZO Anneliese Hendrix Kind en Gezin Bart Laethem Federale Overheid Hanne Witters Provincie Antwerpen Heidi Minner Agentschap Ondernemen Wouter Nachtergaele Internationaal Vlaanderen Ann Plas Stad Gent Frank Schoenmakers Provincie Vlaams-Brabant Koen Schreurweg VSKO Jos Sleurs VITO Lutgart Spaepen Enterprise Europe Vlaanderen Kathleen Tavernier Stad Gent Heidi Tency Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen An Van Goey Private consultant Christine Vanhoutte Enterprise Europe Vlaanderen Karine Van Thienen VSKO Annelies Vercruysse Provincie West-Vlaanderen Jens Vermeersch GO! Onderwijs van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap Louis Vervloet ESF Vlaanderen

Written contributions:

Name Company/Organisation Myriam Colle Stad Mechelen Paul Hegge VOKA Ann Overmeire Provincie West-Vlaanderen

1. Introduction

The roundtable conference started with a presentation of the organizing organisations, viz. Enterprise Europe Flanders and VLEVA, followed by an introduction on the objective of this public consultation on the Financial Regulation of European programmes. After this introduction an open discussion between the participants ensued, which is summarized below. The discussion was based on the questions put forward in the document accompanying the public consultation. 2. Discussion Q1. Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest? • The general conclusion on this question is no. • Several comments were made on this issue:

o The informal network is more important than the formal calls because preparation needs to start well in advance, i.e. before official calls are published, in order to get ready on time. Thus, the periods between the opening and closing of a call are too short as writing down a project properly takes easily up to 12 months. Recommendation: The period between opening and closing of a call should be at least 6 months.

o Another recommendation was made on the way information on calls is presented. The participants suggest to put all information on running and upcoming calls on one single website, where the calls could be organized by theme. Also, a weekly newsflash could be sent to subscribers listing all upcoming calls.

o Large differences exist between calls on e.g. infrastructure and education. o Some question the calls with closing dates in July or August. These closing dates are

considered inconvenient because most people are on holiday during these months. o The participants observe that because of the late announcement of some calls, projects are

provisionally prepared on old layout/formats. When the call is eventually published, adjustments then need to be made to adapt the documents to this new format. Recommendation: one format that doesn’t change all the time would be easier. Also, there are differences in format between different programmes. Since some organizations are involved in multiple programmes, different formats impede an efficient management.

o Someone remarked that DG Research puts in great efforts to streamline all programmes according to one format and one path. This is considered to be a good practice. Since some organizations are involved in different programmes from different DGs, applying the same format to all calls across DGs would constitute a great help.

o Also, some difficulties have been experienced with online application tools. Given the increased importance of electronic data transmission, these systems should work optimally at all times.

Q2. Should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle? • The fact that the rules are tailored to public bodies and not to private bodies is considered an

impediment. Public bodies work with subsidies and financing flows while private bodies use double-

entry bookkeeping. The participants experience large problems in the financial management of the programme when consortia are mixed (public and private) given divergent accounting principles. Recommendation: co-financing should be considered at the level of the organization and not at the level of the project.

• Participants note that the European Commission asks for too much detail in the final reporting on projects. This undoes all flexibility.

• In-kind: o the problem with in-kind is that definitions are not univocal which leads to confusion and

mistakes. Recommendation: there should be a clear definition of what in-kind stands for. At the moment, interpretation is too much contingent on the person dealing with the management of the project.

o The concept of in-kind is sometimes difficult to fit into a non-profit context. • The co-financing principle is difficult when a project partner is a private organization. Co-financing of

personnel costs is not always possible. Also, problems are encountered where the centralized resources are managed by the private partner.

• Participants further note that in some programmes the rules differ across states, regions, and even provinces. They conclude that there are too many differences in the applicable rules.

Q3. Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples? • The participants pointed out that rules (on flat rates) differ across DGs. • The feeling prevails that the workload and hence overhead costs on projects is out of proportion in

relation to the money spent on the actual project. Participants note that the Commission expresses the will to simplify but at the same time still applies plenty of rules. Results are not given sufficient emphasis, only procedures count. The consequence is that this administrative burden is passed on to the projects.

• Someone remarked that the former city development funds used a very simple structure. At the moment, procedures are being evaluated and changed within ESF, where a flat fee is given for each participant reached.

• The observation was made that European programmes should also allow for experimentation. One should not only look at the results. What is a result anyway? Is it a new product or building? Within research, outcomes are never certain. If projects are judged only on results and a particular project achieves 30 of the 40 objectives, subsidies are cut proportionally. Yet, efforts made should also be taken into account. Recommendation: perhaps we can think of a bonus for good project promoters.

• Using lump sums would simplify things. However, a distinction should be made between simplification and uniformity. Since each programme has specific requirements, not all rules can be the same.

• The observation was made that most projects go for flat rate and only a few go for real cost. Q4. Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities? • It was stated that the interpretation of revenues is too strict. This hampers participation of private

partners in projects. E.g. When consultants advise SMEs, the efforts made by the SMEs are considered as revenue. As a consultant, you will not participate because you will not invest your own resources.

this is not a business principle and leads to loops. This reasoning is not workable because one only focuses on flows of money. Once the projects starts to generate revenue, the percentage of support may decrease. In case of universities, for instance, the rule is that profit must be reinvested.

• In the new programme period, the principle of the funding gap will be used. Only that part of the expenses that is not covered by revenues will be financed this does not work.

• Participants wonder why profit would be harmful? This is good for sustainability. The Commission undermines the principle of sustainability by adhering to the non-profit principle. Projects should be able to guarantee continuation when subsidizing ends.

• These problems occur when one looks at rules and not results. • A final remark was made on the necessity to include entrepreneurs in pioneering projects. Problems

have been encountered with the ‘de minimis’-regulation.

Q5. What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants? • Amounts are considered appropriate and are adjusted on a yearly basis. For example, within LLL small

subsidies are awarded to projects on adult education, job shadowing, … Q6. How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements? • A participant noted that working together with non-profit organizations substantially alters a project.

In some cases, overheads may be substantially lower as a result of which funding may decrease with 40 to 50 %.

• With respect to the flexibility of the rules, the IWT (the Flemish Institute for Innovation by Science and Technology) provides a cascade system which is considered an elegant way to cut back participation to a project.

• The optimal duration of framework partnership agreements depends on the goals to be achieved. A good practice would be to evaluate the project regularly and to allow for addition or removal of partners.

• A framework is generally considered good because it provides continuity. Q7. Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action? • Within a university environment, it would be useful to be able to sub-contract to colleges. For the

moment, it is difficult to add new partners when they are not registered as partners from the outset of the project, while sometimes only after some time additional partners might be necessary.

• A good practice would be to opt for multi-beneficiary contracts. This is a practice currently employed within DG Research. This system is however not so favourable for universities.

Q8. From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for pre-financing payments while safeguarding tax payers’ money? • Recommendation: make one portal for partners containing the financial records and bank

guarantees of every partner. • Bank guarantees are expensive, especially for SMEs.

o A solution would be to allocate the financial management of a project to a public office that operates as a financial coordinator. A drawback of this system is that it creates dependence. Someone argues that the bankruptcy of a coordinating company would be worse.

o Upon bankruptcy, recourse to a guarantee fund should be possible, like it is in FP7.

• Pre-financing payments are considered indispensable, especially when dealing with companies. Sometimes the pre-financing period lasts up to 12 months.

o It was noted that if the payment process would be smoother, costs could be submitted quarterly and then there wouldn’t be any financing problem.

o The current pre-financing system is based on quarterly reporting, which again demands a lot of work.

• Are there alternatives? No, but there is a lot of administrative work. Q9. What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds? • Recommendation: Europe could take an insurance against failure of projects. Perhaps the EIB can

play a role here. DG Research already uses a similar system for FP7, viz. 5 % is deducted from every project funding which is deposited after positive evaluation of the project. The interests accumulated on these deductions are used to compensate for failed projects.

• Recommendation: Everybody is asking for pre-financing schemes, yet, the process should be improved.

• Recommendation: A central database should be set up to centralize the financial details of all project partners

Q10. Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why? • European member states apply different rules. Mostly, it is required to apply the strictest rules in a

project. Participants find this unacceptable there should be one rule per programme. • 1.000 EUR is a very low threshold which requires a lot of administration. • The general conclusion is that there are too many rules!! Moreover, these have too much

ascendancy over the result. • Another possibility is to apply national (rather than European) rules to minor local (i.e. not

transnational) programmes (programmes of in total less than 500 million euro), in this way minor programmes are controlled by national authorities and rules are simplified because they are known.

Q11. How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved? • In the 7th framework programme, participants receive a unique code. There should be a unique

registration facility for all European projects. • A general observation is that the storage period for documents is too long This puts pressure on

administrations but also negates the impact of digitalization.

3. Main conclusions This roundtable discussion yielded interesting insights and viewpoints on the financial rules applicable to programmes funded by the EU. These insights can be taken into consideration by the European Commission when reviewing the Financial Regulations. Below we summarize the most important insights. With regard to the announcement of upcoming calls for proposals, the period between opening and closing of a call should be at least 6 months. Moreover, the format for applications should be made uniform across all EU programmes.

When looking into the rules for co-financing, it is suggested that co-financing should be considered at organization level and not at project level. Rules should also be simplified to reduce administrative burden. Given the current confusion on the definition of in-kind contributions, univocality should be aimed for. The general feeling about performance-based grants is that projects should indeed be judged on their results. Yet, the efforts made by the participants should also be taken into account when evaluating projects. Instead of punishing participants by cutting subsidies, bonuses could be awarded to good project promoters. The non-profit principle is not viewed positively since it is not in accordance with general business principles. The principle also undermines the sustainability of projects. In making the rules more flexible, the Commission could opt for multi-beneficiary contracts. Other suggestions for improvement are to make one portal for partners containing the financial records and bank guarantees of every partner or to take an insurance against failure of projects. As a general conclusion, it can be stated that there are too many rules. Programme makers should not be guided by fear but instead should have trust. More money should go to the actual project and output should be considered first when evaluating a project.

P040 - 18.12.2009 Ministry of Industry and Trade

CZ

I am writing to you in respect to the invitation to contribute to a public consultation on the financial rules for the programmes funded by the budget of the European Union. We discussed the questions and we would like to submit to you our answers: Question 1: The standard of informing about upcoming calls for proposals is without any serious problems. Therefore we have no suggestions how to improve it. Question 2: The current system can be considered as very reasonable. Therefore we have no suggestions. Question 3: At the moment, flat rates are used for example for administration expenditures. Flat rates can be effectively used in cases of consultancy. In such case the beneficiaries may not be motivated to have larger number of clients because the amount awarded stays the same and it does not correspond to the number of clients. Therefore, the awarded amount of money should be partially dependent on the number of cases. The system should respect the increase or decrease of number of cases on a yearly basis. On the other hand, the activity of beneficiaries is usually not directly proportional to number of clients so more criteria than just number of cases should apply (e.g. quality of handling). In addition, certain types of outputs cannot be me measurable. Question 4: We recommend retaining the non-profit principle. At the same time this should not preclude an economic activity on the part of the beneficiary, for example the publication and sale of their own magazine. If the grants were to be awarded to for-profit beneficiaries, this would constitute a violation of competition principles. Question 5 We would prefer to keep the current system. Question 7 Cascading grants were largely used during the accession period of the Czech Republic to the European Union. Recently we have no experience and therefore we cannot give you any recommendation. Question 8 Pre-financing grants are indispensible. We would prefer a kind of interest free loan. Rather than to be charged with administrative burden we suggest to send the amount awarded in several steps according to the type of the grant and the planed costs (for example 30% of the awarded amount in the beginning, another 20% after 3 months and the rest at the end of the project). Currently the administrative burden is already on the edge or even too heavy. Question 9 Pre-financing guarantees are in many cases too difficult to obtain for consumer organisations. The higher the amount the heavier is the administrative burden. Question 11 From our point of view, we are not completely confident that the hardcopy version really ensures the authentication of the future beneficiary. Instead of using hardcopy documentation it would be better to use a system of electronic signature that is already established in certain countries or another electronic verification system. All the grants require the same types of information but they are structured differently. It would help the transparency and cut the administrative burden if either one general form is created for all the grants or if a new database is built where all the general information are publically accessible. Such form or database should cover only the pieces of information required in every grant procedure.

P041 - 18.12.2009 British Government

UK

Public consultation on the review of the financial regulation HMG response

Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest?

From the perspective of the Freedom, Security and Justice policy area, while calls for proposals are published on the website, there is in fact little accurate advance warning. The only indicative time schedule is in the Annual Work Programme. However, these indicative time schedules are ultimately almost never adhered to, so the Annual Work Programme is of limited value in this regard. Moreover, there are major differences between and within programmes which make it impossible for applicants to predict the publication of a call. It would be better if timetables could be streamlined, also between programmes as far as possible. Most calls of JLS programmes could then be published in month x with a deadline of month y. The Commission could decide to choose specific timings for action grants, action grants for FPs and operating grants.

By contrast, from the perspective of the research programmes, the timing of most calls for proposals at the same time, to coincide with publication of the annual work programmes, places a heavy burden on the support services as well as on those entities whose research capacity and focus equips them to make numerous applications to different parts of the Framework programme. It would be better to stagger the calls throughout the year and to publish a timetable looking 6-12 months ahead, perhaps updated quarterly.

With regard to both areas of policy, it would be helpful if there were more time to respond to calls. Many organisations have a highly bureaucratic governance process which requires a minimum of 10 weeks between call and submission deadline. Short deadlines inevitably affect the quality of the applications and longer timescales would surely benefit all parties. Sufficient time is needed for the forming of partnerships and the preparation of high-quality applications.

The Commission could also provide a subscriber alert service for interested organisations – for example those running projects or who have submitted bids.

On the research side, there should be one source of information for all calls, including those for the Joint Technology Initiatives, Article 169 consortia and ERA-NETs. Too many people who need to know are currently unsure where to find this information when it is not published in the Official Journal.

Question 2: Should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle?

There should be clearer, simpler and more flexible rules on co-financing, and these should be consistently interpreted across all EU programmes. In particular, there should be absolute clarity as to whether an applicant's existing budget could be used to represent their contribution to a project or whether they are expected to find 'real' additional funds?

There needs to be a better balance between risk and control, and with this balance being appropriate to the size of grant involved and the work being done.

It is always difficult to quantify ‘contribution in kind’, so a set of rules would need to be developed to enable a monetary value to be calculated. This would then help to determine

1

that there was no breach of the non-profit principle. But there needs to be sufficient flexibility in these rules to take into account genuine and desirable in-kind contributions. In-kind contributions could be any assets or staff an organisation puts at disposal of a project, including volunteer time, based on standard rates.

There should be greater acceptance of national accounting practices and procedures. All too often, the imposition of FP7 requirements over those of normal national practice is seen to lack any valid justification, which makes the burden introduced by the FP requirements doubly hard to accept.

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples?

The Commission should communicate a clear policy direction on funding ahead of FP8; lump sum funding (in the way the Commission has implemented it) and sustainable funding are contradictory concepts.

There needs to be more consistent use of the terms ‘flat rate’, ‘lump sum’ etc, which are often used interchangeably. The term ‘outputs’ should be more clearly defined, and should not be limited to evidence of success, which would deter many from entering into high risk activities.

Grants should be based on ‘real costs’ as a default, with lump sums and flat rates used only when clearly justified. For example, there may be a case for flat rates for some smaller projects, particularly involving SMEs, to reduce the burden faced in preparing applications and managing projects.

There should be greater application of FP rules to novel instruments, such as the JTIs and art 169s. The 20% indirect cost rate that some of the JTIs are operating too is prohibitively low for many universities, particularly those operating to full economic costing who are able to identify that they are (or would be) participating ‘at a loss’. The JTI flat rate should be at the normal FP7 rate of 60%.

Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities?

While it is appropriate that grants should not, in themselves, generate a profit, flexibility around the non-profit principle allows the development of social enterprises or co-operatives. Such projects must necessarily make a profit to pay staff salaries, even though surpluses are reinvested in the enterprise.

Lump sums and flat rates, where provided, should be adjustable so as not to disadvantage participants from more expensive (full economic cost) countries, and should be calculated as a proxy of the real costs.

In the research area, while agreeing to the non-profit principle, there is perhaps greater scope for considering the exploitation of the results of the research.

Question 5: What, in you view, would be the appropriate amount of low and very low financial grants?

Whatever the amount, there is a need to balance the cost of administration of these grants. It is not worth having low grants if it costs 2-3 times the amount to administer them. In the

2

JLS policy area, we suggest four times the current low and very low values would be appropriate (i.e. €100k and €20k).

Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements?

Eligibility criteria for operating grants are so restrictive that only a handful of organisations can meet them. This means that it is more difficult to achieve full spend, and the same organisations keep on benefiting, which does not encourages diversification and innovation. Either the requirements should be softened, or we should look to move away from this system of operating grants.

As to Framework Partnership agreements, the Commission should consider a reduction or extension of the length of agreements, dependant upon the amount of activity of each partner (applications and actual projects entered into). Thus, partners who have not bid for funding, or failed to have had successful applications after 2-3 years, should have their agreement terminated early. At the other end of the scale, those involved in successful projects could have the length of the agreement extended without the need to reapply.

Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action?

Cascading grants to third parties is particularly useful if specific expertise is needed to achieve the objectives and/or to respond to emerging issues. We understand that from 2010 the Commission’s intention will be to identify audit partners as well as lead agencies in projects. As these may well be small NGOs better guidance and possible project finance officer briefings would be welcomed. We also feel that that project partner finance training and capacity building could be part of each bid.

HANDLING OF FINANCIAL FILES

General comment:

It would be helpful if the system of final payments could run more smoothly and quicker. Delays in final payments, even after all paperwork has been submitted and approved, are unacceptable.

Also, we would welcome a more convenient way of approving EU papers rather than signing every page of every document.

Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for pre-financing payments while safeguarding tax payers’ money?

Many organisations do not separately record any interest earned on grants so would be unable to easily identify a return, unless separate bank accounts were set up for each project. This would be costly, time consuming and not particularly efficient. If recipients are required to automatically generate interest on grants, we suggest a standard formula is first calculated by the Commission and applied to all grants - in effect recipients would then know how much extra contribution they would need to make to cover the interest that they are expected to make on the grant.

Regular (auditable) payments based on cost could be preferable to pre-financing, provided this did not introduce extra difficulty as a result of late payment. Alternatively, a lower level of

3

initial pre-financing, with the simple means to draw down pre-agreed sums at various stages of the work, would also be preferable.

The requirement for a separate bank account to be opened for each project is unreasonably burdensome on large multi-project participants, particularly where use of interest-bearing bank accounts is not part of their normal operating practice. An institution’s normal accounting practices should be taken into account more.

Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think concrete thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why?

There should be a value for money study looking at the cost of the various processes against the values of contracts to find the break points at which it costs more to set up and administer the contract than the contract itself.

Any budget limit set should be appropriate and fully justified. Whilst these limits may allow funding of more projects, and can act as a useful programme management tool, they can also greatly disadvantage countries where research is more expensive, and/or those that operate full economic costing systems. There is a risk of consortia choosing the cheapest partners rather than the best.

Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved?

Procedures could be further improved by increasing consistency across all programmes, and within programmes. Applicants to JTIs or PPPs face different application and participation rules compared to what they would face participating in mainstream FP – even the rules across JTIs are different.

There is a need for a single guidance document that covers in a clear manner the process and rules at each stage. This information is currently spread over several documents. Interpretations need to be consistent across the DGs (and within DGs).

The Commission should investigate, through stakeholder consultation, the case for making more use of the two-stage application process as a means of reducing the burden on applicants with no hope of success.

Applicants need to be kept regularly informed of their progress in the application process. They should also receive at the same time both the Evaluation Summary Report and an indication of whether they are to be invited to negotiation so as to avoid confusion.

However, it might be difficult to change the process significantly without disadvantaging smaller applicants who may not have the necessary support mechanisms in place. The overall process could be improved by shortening the time taken to assess applications but that may not be practical given limited resources at the Commission.

There needs to be a greater regulatory imperative to keep ‘time to grant’ within certain bounds. Current internal Commission initiatives suggest it should be possible to reduce the current average of around 320-340 days significantly.

The label system is also a good idea. All established partners should be able to submit a simplified proposal, leaving out the administrative requirements. For others, certified copies should only be requested if the applicant is successful. Getting signed copies from all partners has also proved to be difficult and we suggest that the lead applicant acts as

4

guarantor for the other partners so that only the lead applicant is required to submit certified copies.

General comments

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: The reporting requirements are too onerous. Evaluation of projects should be on the basis of deliverables. The emphasis should be on ‘end of project’ reporting. Project funding and reporting needs to allow more opportunity for research to change direction mid-project as the science evolves, particularly in fast moving areas such as bioscience.

Financial checks should be light touch, with more of these based on sampling rather than detailed review of project finances, as long as this secures the objective of sound financial management.

The Commission should engage with other public funding organisations in Europe and internationally to consider how these organisations obtain assurance that public funds are spent appropriately without the labour-intensive requirements currently being used under FP7.

Robust rules should be developed on the basis of a coherent rationale, and these rules should be clearly communicated and consistently interpreted.

There is a need for better training of project officers, as well as provision of clear information notes for participants to explain how and why the rules vary between funding schemes (if they must).

There should be a central point of arbitration to rule on interpretations and disagreements, which should not be subsequently overruled by the Commission.

Home Office: Geographical limitations on expenditure should be lifted. The guidelines do not currently allow EU partners to deliver projects outside of the EU border with Commission finance. UK finds this restrictive in the area of law enforcement when we are seeking to finance the setting up of platforms of European Officers in West Africa or other operational work in key countries outside the EU which cause harm to EU Member States including the UK. This has been specifically noted with regards to the setting up of law enforcement 'platforms' and capital spend, and specifically referred to in the evaluation report, Shared Parameters on Intelligence Sharing and Capacity building on Drug Trafficking - West Africa. Ideally, we should be able to rely on a stable funding mechanism that will enable EU Member States to support EU Justice and Home Affairs activities external to EU borders.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA): A fundamental review of the controls framework is required, focusing particularly on the "legality and regularity" aspects, i.e. scheme compliance and disallowance (as opposed to the financial controls). This should seek to ensure that the framework provides suitable protection to the fund whilst also ensuring that it is proportionate, with the benefits of the controls exceeding the costs, and consistent with the wider CAP simplification agenda and better regulation.

There are concerns that scheme compliance controls are not always applied in a proportionate manner and that there is scope for more proportionate controls which would still fit within the overall requirement to protect the fund. Paying Agencies are overwhelmed by the number of audits, often looking at the same area, conducted by different audit bodies.

There are also indications that the Commission has difficulties with the current system, as evidenced by new proposals for individual improvements in specific areas. Just this week

5

the Agricultural Funds Committee is considering two new Commission proposals: using financial corrections to improve deficiencies in paying agencies (through the accreditation criteria), and seeking to significantly extend the scope of the annual Certification Audit so that it becomes a 'legality and regularity' compliance audit as well as a financial audit (which they have not been designed to provide). While we understand the motivations to improve the protection of the fund, piecemeal attempts risk bring greater costs than benefits.

Department for International Development (DfID): Moves towards allowing the EC to set up multi donor trust funds, with some limitations to the extent that EC contributes to other multilateral trust funds, would be welcomed. In addition, contributions should be made to beneficiary country-managed funds (i.e. money through beneficiary systems, providing these are robust enough) as well as to Member States-managed funds.

Shortening the contacting deadline in the Financial Regulation from three years to two years would help speed up implementation.

Rural Payment Agencies (RPA): The financial correction mechanism (Article 53b(4) of Reg 1605/2002) should be specifically linked to the risk to EU funds.

The Commission should be required to place reliance where possible on national audits and declarations and to reduce their own audit work accordingly. At present NAO conducts four sets of audit (Exchequer, Certification, VFM and Consolidated Statement), but the Commission believes it cannot place any reliance on these when assessing the legality and regularity of payments to beneficiaries.

6

P042 - 18.12.2009 NKTH

HU

1/2

On behalf of the National Office for Research and Technology we submit the remarks to the Financial Regulation 2009 below – following the numbers of the questions posed. Question 1: Are you sufficiently informed about upcoming calls for proposals in a timely manner? What improvements would you suggest? In our opinion it would be important to have a detailed view on the financial structure of the calls – meaning it would be useful for the applicants to see how much of the budget is allocated on the different sub topics of the calls. This detailed allocation should be prepared already in the beginning of the funding period so that the applicants can prepare. Question 2: should the rules be more flexible on co-financing requirements taking into account the type of actions and project managers? How could in-kind contributions best be dealt with, while adhering to the non-profit principle? We believe that co-financing has a crucial role in making the beneficiaries taking real ownership of their own projects’ preparation and implementation. Thus, we think it would be useful to keep the co-financing on a critical level- for instance according to the size of the project.

Question 3: Should the use of lump sums, flat rates become the norm rather than the exception? Should the rules allow for costs to be covered on the basis of expected outputs? If yes, can you provide concrete examples? We propose to apply lump sums and flat rates with a wider focus, since these need less administration. Parallel to this, we propose to strengthen the output based follow up and monitoring of the projects since this assures the efficient and effective use of the grants. Question 4: Should the rules strictly adhere to the non-profit principle or should there be room for some flexibility in this matter? Do you have examples of good practices from other public authorities? The non profit rule should be flexible enough as to the organisation can use the generated profits for the sustenance/upkeep and development of the granted project. This can be essential for instance in the case of major research infrastructures. Question 5: What, in your view, would be the appropriate amount for low and very low value grants? In our view on European level grants should be focused on bigger size projects. Low value grants are more effective to be given on national level where they can be better targeted. Question 6: How could the rules on operating grants be more flexible? In which way? What are your views on the duration of framework partnership agreements? The appropriate financial and scientific stability of the applicants should be kept up and developed through different financing mechanisms. Beyond a certain project size grants should be applied together with loans and credits so that the applicants use the available money efficiently, creating the best value added from the given project. The long term framework partnerships should be revised from the aspects of European competition rules as it is expected that there should be an excellence based selection system. Long term dependency on grants should be avoided by all means. Question 7: Can you give concrete examples and types of actions where the strict limitation on cascading grants became an obstacle for achieving the goal of your action? Throughout the project selection excellence is one of the major factors. Too much freedom in involving subcontractors and third parties can affect excellence. To avoid this it is important that giving more freedom in cascading is parallel with monitoring and follow up mechanisms that assure continuous excellence in the implementation of the project.

2/2

Question 8: From your experience, what alternative solutions could be proposed for pre-financing payments while safeguarding tax payers' money? We propose that the beneficiary obliged to the payment of interests submits with its application for the grant a declaration towards the account keeping bank that it is entitled to give data and information related to this issue if requested by the Commission. Thus, the appropriate payment of interests would be easier to control and follow up. Question 9: What mechanism, other than pre-financing guarantee, could be explored while ensuring adequate protection of community funds? According to the example of the Framework Programme, we propose to create a Guarantee Fund in that all beneficiaries have to pay in a separate amount according to the size of the granted project. Question 10: Based on your experience, do you think current thresholds are still adequate or should they be increased, and why? We think the current thresholds are adequate. Question 11: How could the application procedure for both grants and contracts be further improved? Based on the example of the Framework Programme we propose to create a common electronic database system where the papers should be sent only once for validation. After this, the electronic registration number could be used in all applications, submissions. The system could be extended to contracting in a way that a certain person named by the applicant would take personal responsibility as legal representative for the adequacy and timeliness of the data that are uploaded in the electronic validation system. Nemzeti Kutatási és Technológiai Hivatal - National Office for Research and Technology EU és Multilaterális Kapcsolatok Főosztálya - Department for EU and Multilateral Affairs 1117 Budapest, Neumann János utca 1/C www.nkth.gov.hu

P043 - 18.12.2009 PNEDC

DE-FR-NL-AT-FI-UK

December 2009

Revision of the EC financial regulations

Remarks and proposals by the Practitioners’ Network for European Development Cooperation

The Practitioners' Network for European Development Cooperation is an open-platform for exchange, coordination and harmonisation between European practitioners in the field of Development Cooperation. It is open to all European Agencies and Administrations involved in the implementation of ODA. The Members of the Practitioners’ Network are committed to the principles of aid effectiveness set out in the Paris declaration, the Accra Agenda for Action and the European code of conduct on Division of Labour. In this spirit, they have already accomplished significant steps and are working for still more coordination, exchange of information and good practice, co-financing and delegated cooperation. The modifications to the financial regulations adopted in 2007 opened the way to delegated cooperation between the Commission and the Member States or their agencies. The regulation of the 10th EDF was also designed accordingly. This enables the Commission and a Member State or bilateral agency involved in a particular project or programme to designate one leading institution according to its comparative advantages (in-country presence and staffing, sector experience etc.). Thanks to these new rules and to the Commission’s current financial instruments, bilateral donors and agencies and the Commission have been developing the co-financed schemes, both under delegated cooperation and through other facilities. This also enables us now to draw some lessons from the experience gathered so far and to identify desirable improvements. In this paper, a group of bilateral donors and agencies members or participants of the Practitioners’ Network1, with the explicit support of many others, set out a number of domains where improvements are needed. This paper is our joint proposal to the Commission, notwithstanding the fact that some issues may not have the same relevance for all of us. Where a provision of the Financial Regulations or of its Implementing Rules has been clearly identified as dealing with the relevant issue, we make a corresponding modification proposal. In other cases, we have pointed out problems or needs but we feel that the Commission and the Member States will be best suited to identify the appropriate way to take them into account. All the proposals below relate to the area of development cooperation in a broad sense i.e. irrespective of the region (Neighbourhood, pre-accession, Latin America, Asia) and should be ultimately translated into the EDF for application to ACP countries. 1. General issues

1.1. It should be made clear that the provisions concerning delegated cooperation and other modes of collaboration with Member States and bilateral public entities are guided by the need to ensure donor coordination, aid effectiveness and the decrease of transaction costs.

This principle might be recalled in the text of the Financial Regulations, e.g. as a general provision concerning the methods of implementation (Title IV, Chapter 2).

Implementation through Member States or their agencies should much more look like implementation through international organisations

1 ADA, AFD, DFID, GTZ, KfW, Minbuza.

2

To this end, the levels of implementing modes could be simplified. The only effective distinction is in fact direct implementation (which can be centralised or decentralised) and indirect implementation (through another, bilateral or international, public organisation).

It should also clearly be stated as a general provision that for each project or programme, the choice of the method of implementation should be guided by the principle of efficiency and by the willingness to ensure donor coordination, starting from the European level. This might be appropriate in one of the first paragraphs of Art. 39 IR.

1.2. A more flexible time frame could be provided for development projects than for the general budget. Especially the (n+1) rule for contracting, but also the (n+3) rule for disbursements are often seen by Practitioners as an obstacle to joint operations, e.g. with regard to partners’ time frames or in the case of sector programs. However rapidity of implementation and disbursements should always be monitored and insured.

1.3. Taxes such as VAT related to the Commission’s programmes implemented by another organisation should be covered by the Commission budget in the cases where the implementing agency could not recover them from the partner country. This is in fact provided for in article 15 of the IR, but the formulation leaves room for interpretation and in reality, it is very difficult to have this provision apply. A more clear statement in the FR or in the IR would be necessary.

1.4. In contracts, Art. 130. 4. c) of the IR provides that community law applies and is complemented if necessary by any national law. In practice, the Commission often imposes Belgian law. To clarify the rules, we propose to provide that as a general rule, the law of the implementing agent will be chosen to complement community law (Belgian law if the Commission is the implementing agent and the relevant European national law if the implementing agent is a Member State or a public agency)

1.5. All improvements to the FR of the Commission’s budget relating to development cooperation should also be translated into the Financial Regulations of the 10th EDF. We strongly recommend a subsequent revision of the EDF Financial Regulations.

2. Issues specific to delegated cooperation and grants

2.1. Conditions of the institutional assessment referred to in Art 56.1 FR should be clarified : duration, notification of material changes etc. Contents of the assessment should be in-depth and accurate enough, so that the conditions of delegated cooperation could be simplified for a quick implementation in each particular case.

2.2. In particular, template agreements (general conditions) for delegation from the Commission to from MS and their agencies should be substantially simplified.

2.3. So far, agreements have to be completely re-negotiated for each operation on the basis of general templates. Modalities can vary depending on the source of funds and the interlocutors in the Commission. The Commission should be given the possibility to capitalise on the work already done and to validate new templates with reasonable flexibility.

2.4. Co-financing of a project/programme by the donor to whom the Commission wishes to delegate funds may be a decision criterion, but it should not be a fixed rule. Delegations should be able to decide upon efficiency and effectiveness criteria and comparative advantages. Clarification of this issue would be useful (e.g. in Art. 39 IR).

Subsequently, the Commission should be entitled to finance an external action in full (delete – or soften - conditions in Art. 169 FR; Art. 253 IR)

2.5. Rules defined for delegated cooperation, incl. use of partner systems, should apply to grant allocations.

3

Add “grants” in the last paragraph of Art. 56 FR which would now read “The Commission may accept that the audit, accounting, grant award and procurement systems of the entities referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 are equivalent to its own…”

2.6. The ceiling of 7% to cover administrative costs, which applies to grants (Art. 181 (3) IR), may be to low in the case of small projects or TA projects. Most of the Member States agencies are implementing bodies, i.e. they do not externalise but incur the costs of implementation themselves, which is often more cost effective. We recommend either a flexible approach with regard to the 7% ceiling rule or its non-application to the bodies listed in Art. 54 (2) (c) FR. The (enhanced if needed) institutional assessment referred to in Art 56.1 FR provides the necessary basis of mutual understanding and confidence.

2.7. The rule of using separate bank accounts for each project (Art. 41 (2) (f) IR) appears cumbersome in the case of a great number of small amounts and in the case in which the Delegatee body applies a transparent internal accounting system, through which it handles a large number of projects. A well developed internal accounting system according to international accepted standards provides more accountability than a separate bank account. Therefore, that requirement could be left to the appreciation of the Commission in the case of delegation to a Member State or its agency, given that, in that case as well, the institutional assessment provides the basis for confidence about the quality of internal accounts.

3. Issues specific to facilities and other co-financing modes

3.1. The Commission should be given the possibility to launch or participate with a greater flexibility to mechanisms aimed at pooling instruments and coordinating European actions in the field of development cooperation.

3.2. However the use of trust funds, as they are managed by the World Bank or the UN agencies, has a number of drawbacks (lack of transparency, lack of legal structure, diffuse responsibilities…). Moreover, a situation where the multiplication of trust funds is such that amounts processed through these parallel channels are comparable to the amounts managed through the regular budgetary channel should be avoided. For those reasons, we consider that trust funds could be used as a financial vehicle but should be strictly limited (e.g. to responses to crisis and post-crisis situations).

3.3. Notwithstanding the issue of governance of European trust funds or facilities, the financial management should be insured by specialised institutions, with due consideration to the technical expertise and existing capacities.