ngos coalition for structural fundsce-re.ro/upload/raport_112_engleza.pdfthis report is part of the...

This report is part of the “Emergency Call for Structural Funds”, implemented by

the NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds: Resource Centre for Public

Participation (CeRe), Active Watch – Media Monitoring Agency (MMA), Pro

Democracy Association (PDA), Terra Millennium III (Terra III), Save the Danube

and Delta Association (SDD), Assistance Centre for Nongovernmental

Organisations (CENTRAS), National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaus

(NACAB). The project is financed by the Governments of Iceland, Liechtenstein

Principality and Norway through the Financial Mechanism of the European

Economic Area (EEA) and the Open Society Institute (OSI).

The content of this material does not necessarily represent the official position of

the EEA Financial Mechanism.

The Resource Centre for Public Participation – CeRe team wishes to thank

equally its partners – MMA, PDA, SDD, CENTRAS, TERRA IIII and NACAB,

as well as the NGOs network that helped implement the project at regional level:

PDA Ia!i, PDA Cluj, PDA Craiova, PDA Br"ila, PDA Bucharest, “Târgovi!te

towards Europe” Association, the Federation of Tenants’ Association from

Timi!oara (FALT), Focus Eco Centre.

The following persons authored this report: Lavinia Andrei (Terra Millennium

III), Mioara Chifu (NACAB), Ioan T"nase (NACAB), Viorel Micescu

(CENTRAS), Dan B"rbulescu (SDD), Septimius Pârvu (PDA), Paul Chioveanu

(MMA), Sînziana Dobre (CeRe), Oana Preda (CeRe), Raluca R"u#" (CeRe).

!

Emergency Call for Structural Funds - Report

Content

1. The NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds

2. Introduction

3. Methodology

4. Abbreviations

5. Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development

6. Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development

7. Sectoral Operational Programme Environment

8. Regional Operational Programme

9. National Rural Development Programme

10. Fisheries Operational Programme

11. Annexes

3

1. The NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds

As of 2006, the subject of structural funds got the attention of Romanian nongovernmental organisations.

During this period, the NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds was formed – a coalition that was to stay in

touch with the institutions drafting the programmatic documents for Structural Instruments and determine

them to organise public consultations on how these funds were to be used. The NGOs Coalition for

Structural Funds consists of the following organisations: Media Monitoring Agency, Roma Civic Alliance

of Romania, NACAB – the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaus, Pro Democracy Association,

CENTRAS – Assistance Centre for Nongovernmental Organisations, Resource Centre for Public

Participation – CeRe, Save the Children Organisation, Terra Millennium III and Save the Danube and

Delta Association.

During the programming period, the coalition’s efforts focused on the civil society organisations’ inclusion

in the preparation process of the operational programmes, the inclusion of NGOs among eligible

beneficiaries of the operational programmes and the inclusion of NGOs in the Monitoring Committee of

each operational programme.

This first initiative of the coalition registered positive results: the great majority of sectoral programmes

included NGOs among the eligible beneficiaries’ categories for accessing the funds; the comments and

recommendations proposed by the coalition on the programmes’ content were, more or less, taken into

consideration by almost all ministries; NGOs were included in the Monitoring Committees and there are

even measures designed to ease access to funds for NGOs and other categories of beneficiaries.

As Romania became a full member of the European Union, the NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds

became preoccupied with the transparency and implementation efficiency of operational programmes

financed from Structural Instruments and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, as well

as with the actual access of nongovernmental organisations to funds available post-accession.

For good funds absorption, the Government admits it needs many eligible and impact generating projects.

Without a thorough identification of problems in the field and without consultation of all social partners,

including NGOs, this goal remains unattainable. Two years and a half after accession to the European

Union, the NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds decided it is adequate to evaluate the way responsible

institutions function, especially from the perspective of transparency, communication and NGOs access to

operational programmes.


4

2. Introduction – Emergency Call for Structural

Funds

Romania’s accession to the European Union (EU) in 2007 represents, undoubtedly, the launch point of new

opportunities for Romania’s development once post-accession funds became available. In order to use

efficiently these funds, it is absolutely necessary to develop an integrated approach around the idea of

sustainable development, a functional discipline both for the state and the civil society and ensure the

involvement of all factors that can contribute to develop Romania in the long run.

Pre-accession European funding, up to 2007, represented a first test for public authorities that had to

manage and adapt it to the needs of institutions and society so that European money was adequately used.

A second test for Romania started in 2007 and was represented by the post-accession funds.

Almost 30 billion euro2 have been put at our disposal by the European Union for reducing disparities in

economic and social development between Romania and the average of other member states of the EU.

The period up to 2009 represents a first stage for Romania, an adaptation exercise to the mechanisms that

govern post-accession funds management.

We will know if we passed this second test only in 2013. Until then, we have only two possibilities: to

participate in this exercise with a pro-active attitude or to wait for 2013 in order to draw the conclusions,

from the position of someone who sat aside and observed the “game”.

For good funds absorption, the Government admits it needs many eligible and impact generating projects,

so that they contribute to the long term development of Romania. The debate around structural funds in

Romania occurs and takes place in a context full of institutional paradoxes – on one hand, the Romanian

state admits the necessity for funds absorption, and on the other hand, the government declines, in practice,

its ability to manage this type of funds (the limitative financial conditions being an eloquent example in

this sense). Also, the way this debate is led in Romania makes the administering capacity of Managing

Authorities become an insufficiently discussed subject. Moreover, the idea of more intense absorption of

post-accession funds became a function of the political discourse in general in Romania, formulated more

in terms of needs and less in terms of capacity and practical accession of these financing opportunities.


5

Starting from this rather limitative framework, the entire report focuses on the analysis of institutional

mechanisms and current practices that make possible the accession of structural funds by the

nongovernmental sector. The premise of this analysis is that, without a thorough identification of all

problems in the field and without consultation of all social partners (NGOs included), accessing structural

funds in Romania is on the verge of becoming a formal effort, without content, leading to the risk of the

Romanian state not being able to offer enough solutions for Romania’s development (through the projects’

implementation) and of Romania becoming a net contributor in the process of absorbing these funds. Two

years and a half after Romania joined the European Union, the NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds

decided it is the moment for an assessment of the way responsible institutions function, especially from the

perspective of transparency, communication and NGOs accession to operational programmes. The current

report thus intends to become a diagnosis of the way in which accessing structural funds involves NGOs –

the only entities in Romania holding relevant experience in using pre-accession funds, experience that can

be easily transformed into employing post-accession funds and which could constitute, in the long term,

the motor of European funds absorption.

The experience of states that became members of the European Union before Romania shows that weak

participation of NGOs in the European funds accession process leads to a general diminution of funds

absorption, according to a 2004 research3:

„European Union policies, procedures and protocols for consultation of the non-governmental sector have

been compromised. The absorption of the structural funds in many of the countries of the region may fall

far short of what is possible. The likelihood of the structural funds reaching their most needy beneficiaries

has been diminished. The ability of the European Union to achieve its horizontal objectives in such areas

as social policy, civil society, environmental protection, equality between men and women and the Lisbon

and Gothenburg agenda has been undermined because crucial actors to this process have been excluded.

This is hardly in the Union’s interest. The financial sustainability of the non-governmental sector in several

countries in the region is in doubt”.

The deficient involvement of NGOs was never exclusively linked to authorities and the system they

created. There is a series of factors that must not be ignored which are related only to the structure and

capacity of the civil society to get involved in the process of formulating the documentation that regulates

the financing process and also in the actual accession of non-reimbursable funds.

In the framework of this report, we tried to identify and analyse the problems existing at the level of

mechanisms governing accession of funds available after joining the EU, the particularities of the

relationship between NGOs and public institutions in the context of this funding and to assess the degree

of involvement of nongovernmental organisations in achieving operational programmes’ objectives.

In the completion of this report we focused on those structural funds financing opportunities that included

nongovernmental organisations among the eligible beneficiaries’ categories. In this sense, we monitored

the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD), Operational


6

Programme Administrative Capacity Development (OP ACD), Sectoral Operational Programme

Environment (SOP ENV), Regional Operational Programme (ROP). Besides the programmes financed

from Structural and Cohesion Funds, the research included two other programmes benefiting from

European financing: the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) financed from the European

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the Fisheries Operational Programme (FOP)

financed from the European Fishery Fund (EFF).

For each programme individually, we present the degree of adaptation to the particular financial conditions

of the associative milieu, the relationship between institutions and beneficiaries, the coherence and clarity

of programmatic documents, the channels institutions developed in order to communicate on European

programmes and the degree of adaptation function of the target groups. Even if, in the majority of cases,

we point our finger at problems, we would like our initiative to be perceived as a constructive one, as we

are willing to contribute with solutions for the fluidisation of the system. We want the dialogue between

authorities and nongovernmental organisations to become permanent and coherent, we want to see

authorities open to suggestions coming from the non-profit sector, but we also hold the hope that NGOs

will become aware of those problems pertaining exclusively to them and solve those problems.


7

3. Research Methodology

The main dimensions pursued in our research were:

! NGOs access to operational programmes from the point of view of their eligibility, but also of

financial or administrative conditions;

! the quality of communication and assistance offered by the responsible institutions, as well as the

institutions’ transparency degree;

! the coherence and clarity of documents and procedures governing the financing system in general,

for each programme analysed.

The work methodology intended, on one hand, to identify “vulnerable” areas of the system, both from the

perspective of the people holding management positions with the institutions and that of the beneficiaries.

On the other hand, the research aimed to identify possible recommendations to improve the system,

starting from the problems found by the two categories of stakeholders mentioned above.

It is worth mentioning that trade unions, inter-community development associations, local authorities’

associations and other NGOs created by governmental institutions don’t fall into the category of

nongovernmental organisations in the sense used by this report.

Monitored programmes: Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD),

Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development (OP ACD), Sectoral Operational

Programme Environment (SOP ENV), Regional Operational Programme (ROP), National Rural

Development Programme (NRDP) and the Fisheries Operational Programme (FOP).

The institutions on which the research focused were:

! the Managing Authorities of the 6 programmes - (The Ministry of Labour, Family and Social

Protection, the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing, the Ministry of Environment

and Sustainable Development, the Ministry of Interior and Administration, the Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Development),

! the 8 Regional Intermediate Bodies for the ROP (Regional Development Agencies),

! 7 Regional Intermediate Bodies for SOP HRD,

! 3 regional offices of the National Centre for Technical and Vocational Education Development,

! the National Centre for Technical and Vocational Education Development,

! the 8 Regional Intermediate Bodies for SOP ENV,

! 2 Regional Paying Centres for Rural Development and Fishery,


8

! the Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery,

! the Paying and Intervention Agency for Agriculture,

! 2 local offices of the National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture.

In order to identify all elements composing the picture of the whole process of accessing European

funds, for each Operational Programme, individually, the following have been involved in the research:

! representatives of nongovernmental organisations. The organisations have been grouped into three

categories: potential applicants, applicants and those in the contracting phase.

! NGOS representatives in the Monitoring Committees and in the Regional Committees for Strategic

Evaluation and Correlation,

! Representatives of public institutions responsible for funds management – Managing Authorities and

Intermediate Bodies.

The participants in the research, both institutions and NGOs, come from all eight development regions of

Romania.

In order to identify the potentially applicant NGOs, the authors of the research resorted to their local

partners in the NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds. The applicant NGOs and those in the contracting

phase were identified using the lists published by the Managing Authorities.

Research instruments used:

! Semi-structured interviews. 135 interviews were conducted for this research. 96 nongovernmental

organisations, 6 Managing Authorities and 33 Intermediate Bodies were interviewed.

! Interviews with representatives of NGOs that are members in the Monitoring Committees and the

Regional Strategic Evaluation and Correlation Committees,

! Interviews with project evaluators in the framework of some Operational Programmes,

! Interviews with financial managers of projects financed from structural funds,

! Analysis and evaluation of websites belonging to the Managing Authorities and Intermediate

Bodies,

! Sending out requests of public information, on the basis of Law 544/2001 regarding free access to

information of public interest,

! Documents’ study (operational programmes, framework documents for implementation, applicant’

guides, beneficiary’ manuals, promotional materials etc.),

! Telephone testing of help desk type services under the management of Intermediate Bodies and

Managing Authorities.


9

4. Abbreviations

AA Audit Authority

ACIS Authority for the Coordination of Structural Instruments

RDA Regional Development Agency

MA Managing Authority

CPA Certifying and Paying Authority

MA NRDP Managing Authority for the NRDP

MA OP ACD Managing Authority for the OP Administrative Capacity Development

MA ROP Managing Authority for the Regional OP

MA SOP HRD Managing Authority for the SOP Human Resources Development

MA SOP ENV Managing Authority for the SOP Environment

NAFA National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture, Managing Authority for the FOP

PA Priority Axis

PARDF Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery

PIAA Paying and Intervention Agency for Agriculture

REPA Regional Environmental Protection Agency

TA Technical Assistance

EC European Commission

MC Monitoring Committee

NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework

RCSEC Regional Committees for Strategic Evaluation and Correlation

DARD Directorate for Agriculture and Rural Development

FDI Framework Document for Implementation

GDRD General Directorate for Rural Development

KAI Key Area of Intervention

CF Cohesion Fund

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

EFF European Fishery Fund


10

RCGF Rural Credit Guarantee Fund

SF Structural Funds

ESF European Social Fund

LAG Local Action Group

EG Evaluation Group

SG Selection Group

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

MIA Ministry of Interior and Administration

MAFRD Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development

MRDH Ministry of Regional Development and Housing

MERI Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation

MPF Ministry of Public Finance

ME Ministry of Environment

MLFSP Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection

GO Government Ordinance

IB Intermediate Body

CPCRDF County Paying Centre for Rural Development and Fishery

NGO Nongovernmental Organisation

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

NDP National Development Plan

NRDP National Rural Development Programme

OP Operational Programme

OP ACD Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development

FOP Fisheries Operational Programme

ROP Regional Operational Programme

SOP ENV Sectoral Operational Programme Environment

SOP HRD Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

EU European Union


11

5. Sectoral Operational Programme Human

Resources Development (SOP HRD)

I. NGOs Access to the SOP HRD

From the perspective of its objectives and of its final beneficiaries, SOP HRD is the operational

programme that can benefit most from the NGOs contribution and expertise. Since the pre-accession

period, a significant number of nongovernmental organisations contributed greatly to the development of

human resources, the growth of social capital and the integration of persons coming from vulnerable

groups. By consequence, NGOs can still contribute substantially to the achievement of this programme’s

objectives. Their experience in implementing projects with pre-accession funding also represents a premise

for reaching a high degree of European funds absorption. NGOs, more than other categories, present a

combination of extensive expertise and capacity for successfully drafting and managing projects.

Already during the programming period, the Managing Authority for the SOP HRD recognised NGOs as

an important group of beneficiaries and tried to build a dialogue with the organisations that showed an

interest in the programmatic construction of the SOP HRD. As a result, as one can see from the list below,

nongovernmental organisations are eligible beneficiaries for many Key Areas of Intervention (KAI)

proposed by the SOP HRD.

Beyond the programming stage, at implementation level, the data confirm NGOs preference for this

programme. The representatives of the MA SOP HRD declared that during 2008, 2.842 project proposals

were received, out of which 26% belonged to nongovernmental organisations. Out of 747 projects tabled

by nongovernmental organisations, 32% were strategic projects, totalling 536,5 million euro, while

projects proposed for grant making totalled 165,2 million euro. In 2009, until the 31st of July, NGOs put

forward 60 project proposals, their total value amounting to 129.453.978 euro.

During the research, we tried to look beyond NGOs eligibility and assess the premises for real access to

funds: financial conditions (and not only) NGOs must comply with, the clarity and coherence of

procedures and documents and the way the system functions. It is noteworthy that NGOs represent an

exceptional category, determined by their system of functioning and funding, which imply, among others:

reliance on projects, reduced capacity to ensure a working capital fund, (due to strict obligations imposed


12

by donors), reduced number of staff etc. Interviewed NGOs were invited to point out the most problematic

aspects associated with the accession of the SOP HRD.

NGOs are considered eligible beneficiaries for five of the axes of the Operational Programme Human

Resources Development:

Priority Axis 1, Key Area of Intervention 1.1 “Access to quality education and vocational education and

training”

Priority Axis 2:

! KAI 2.1 “Transition from school to active life”

! KAI 2.2 “Preventing and correcting early school leaving”

! KAI 2.3 “Access and participation in Continuous Vocational Training”

Priority Axis 3:

! KAI 3.1 “Promoting entrepreneurial culture”

! KAI 3.2 “Training and support for enterprises and employees to promote adaptability”

! KAI 3.3 “Development of partnerships and encouraging initiatives for social partners and civil

society”

Priority Axis 5:

! KAI 5.1 “Developing and implementing Active Employment Measures”

! KAI 5.2 “Promoting long-term sustainability of rural areas in terms of human resources

development and employment”

Priority Axis 6:

! KAI 6.1 “Developing social economy”

! KAI 6.2 “Improving the access and participation for vulnerable groups on the labour market”

! KAI 6.3 “Promoting equal opportunities on the labour market”

! KAI 6.4 “Trans-national initiatives for an inclusive labour market”


13

II. Financial conditions, documents’ coherence, procedures

II.a. The extent to which financial conditions are adapted to the associative

sector

During the programming period, the Managing Authority and the Authority for the Coordination of

Structural Instruments (ACIS), together with nongovernmental organisations, consulted each other and

decided on mechanisms designed to ease access to funds: co-financing of only 2% and partial pre-

financing for projects. The frequent periods for reimbursement are another important opportunity that

eases the financial flow for the beneficiaries.

In spite of all these measures, both nongovernmental organisations, through their financial managers, and

representatives of the Managing Authority, highlight the incapacity of the beneficiaries, be they public or

private, to adapt to the specific rules and financial terms. The problems identified refer to the reduced

capacity of NGOs to ensure co-financing and the management of their financial flow so that they develop

the activities in the project in conformity with an initially agreed plan.

The own contribution must be ensured by beneficiaries, and although it is small in percentage terms (2%),

it amounts, in absolute value, to much higher amounts than those NGOs are used to and capable of

providing.

Pre-financing is also much lower, in percentages, in comparison with pre-accession funds (maximum 40%

compared to 80% for PHARE projects, for example). Therefore, as financial managers explained, pre-

financing is able to support activities in the project for the first six months, at most seven months a year,

and this is because pre-financing is not given once, at the beginning of project in an amount of 30% or

40% of the total budget but at beginning of each implementation year as 30-40% out of that year’s budget.

“All is in the cash flow! In practice, it is awfully difficult to ensure the cash flow because what you get

from the donor is insufficient, no matter what economic techniques you apply”. (financial manager)

Besides the small quota for pre-financing, in practice, the reimbursement periods do not actually happen

every 3 months, as it is agreed, because the deadlines are not observed by the Managing Authority,

explained to us a financial manager, and this leads to the freezing of the project and implicitly, of the

organisations’ activities.

Another aspect that nongovernmental organisations must weigh very well before handing in a financing

request from the SOP HRD is the VAT reclamation. The VAT issue was clarified only in September 2009

(once with the publication of GO 64/2009, more than two years and a half after accession to the EU).


14

According to financial managers, financial procedures oblige nongovernmental organisations to contribute

with more than the 2% co-financing for a project supported from non-reimbursable funds (even if,

theoretically, the 2% are recovered sooner or later). And this is because in practice, NGOs must ensure

also, in advance, besides the 2% and the VAT (19%), recoverable only at the time of the reimbursement, a

significant quota of the expenses.

II.b. Coherence, clarity and accessibility of documents

For the structural funds to achieve their objectives, their use should be regulated through very clear

mechanisms, explained in accessible and coherent documents. The main critique our interviewees made

was that year 2007 was supposed to begin with a whole legal pack in order to ensure the good functioning

of the system and that, not even nowadays the legal problems are entirely solved.

The lack of coherence and legal harmonisation and changing rules constantly lead to deadlocks or

ineligible expenses that won’t be reimbursed. The inflexible legal framework, insufficient and maladjusted

to practical needs, is one of the most often mentioned obstacles in the way of absorbing community funds.

Almost all interviewed organisations which made funding proposals or signed funding contracts, denounce

the inconsistence and lack of clarity of documents and procedures governing the SOP HRD. By far, the

main causes of dissatisfaction are:

! high level of interpretability of supporting documents (financing guides, procedures etc.);

! constant modification of the documents and rules;

! high number of corrigenda, which are not included in the updated guides, leading to a situation where

one must read about 10 documents in order to find out which one is the final official version;

! confusions with regard to direct and indirect expenses, personnel contracting.

All these aspects affect seriously the planning process of the projects, the application process and

especially the actual implementation of projects. Changing the rules while a call for projects is open has

major consequences. This practice makes the evaluation of the previous applications unclear, and can lead

to disadvantages in the contracting phase for the respective applicants, who will be forced to revamp

different project components during this stage.

When it comes to the process of sending financing requests, many organisations confess that the high

number of corrigenda, the lack of clear rules regarding eligible expenses, the fact that documentation is

abundant and complex, represent important burdens in the project planning and application process:

! “The applicant’s guidebook is dense, intricate and not very clear.” (applicant organisation)


15

! “Considering that after issuing a corrigendum, the financing guide is not updated, the organisation

must make a supplementary effort and in general the organisation doesn’t have the resources to verify

each piece of information and correlate all data.” (applicant organisation)

! “The problem is not the clarity of texts as such, but the corrigenda, which indeed – from a

quantitative point of view – may act as an incoherence sign, as long as modifications occur until the

last minute.” (potentially applicant organisation)

! “There are numerous corrections to the guide, so you have to follow the official web page all through

the planning process. The page is not structured, you can not tell which is the last post made or the

correct version, and sometimes you have the impression that information is hushed up.” (applicant

organisation)

! „The guides are badly made up. When you get to the specific conditions, the cleavage between the

general objective of the KAI and the specific one, on one hand, and the difference between eligible

activities, on the other hand, are huge.” (contractor)

Also with regards to the application procedures, several organisations made reference to the proposal’s

format, and especially to the space offered for drafting, showing that the space for strategic projects is the

same with the space allowed for grant projects, even if they present different degrees of complexity, both

in scale and number of actors involved. Only at the third round of calls for proposals, the space offered for

certain sections of strategic project proposals was increased.

When it comes to implementation, many organisations fear developing activities and operate expenses that

will not be covered, for different reasons, mainly related to the lack of clarity and the constant

transformation of the rules:

! “Nothing of what is happening with SOP HRD is well conceived. Everything is evasive, leaving

space for interpretability. For example, last year it wasn’t clear what would happen to the

administrative expenses. Initially, there was talk about a maximum of 15%, and afterwards, in the

contracting phase, we were imposed a compulsory fixed percentage of 15%. So, in the contract, we

had to get money from other budget lines for the sake of the administrative lines, and we don’t know

how to spend it now, because we don’t know what’s eligible anymore and what’s not…” (contracting

organisation)

! “Afterwards […] they changed through a corrigendum […] clarified the eligibility of an authorized

sole proprietor […] but by then we had already signed formal labour contracts with persons, persons

we had initially agreed with to hire as authorized sole proprietor.” (financial manager)

! “[…] concerning the implementation guide […] it would be ideal if these were available at the

beginning of the project, and not just before the project starts or even worse, after the reporting

period.” (potentially applicant organisation)

! „I didn’t stumble upon contradictory rules in the guide, but later on, in the

implementation.” (contractor)


16

Also regarding the implementation stage, there are procedures that appear futile or hard to explain:

! the formal notification of surpassing the deadline for concluding an activity, no matter how small this

is, and even if this doesn’t affect the results or other components of the project;

! the formal notification of implementing an activity in advance, even if this change does not bear

financial implications and does not affect the results (on the contrary, this change is supposed to

improve the chances for getting the expected results);

! the exclusion of the copy rights contract from the human resources chapter: “Practically, I don’t have

any copy right on that study if I made it in the framework of a civil convention.” (financial manager)

We could not end this chapter without mentioning some positive aspects:

! the fact that the MA SOP HRD tried permanently to rectify errors or malfunctions. The increasing

number of corrigenda (denounced by the beneficiaries) is, after all, evidence of this intention. There is

still, of course, the problem of coming up with a consolidated version of documents, and the fact that

the MA SOP HRD should have corrected the malfunctions by now;

! the beneficiary’s manual, published by MA SOP HRD after issuing the Government Ordinance

64/2009 regarding the financial management of structural instruments and their use for the

convergence objective is, also, an initiative very much appreciated by the beneficiaries. Another aspect

the beneficiaries appreciated was the fact that the manual was subject to consultations.

! the online financial reporting is seen as a step forward, but perfectible. It was mentioned the lack of the

possibility to temporarily save the report, thus allowing corrections, as well as the rules changing

during implementation, sometimes with very short notice before the reporting deadline.

II.c. Financing requests, evaluation and contracting procedures

Applying for financing

The main problem of the finance requests application and planning within SOP HRD is linked to the

interpretability of documents, the constant transformation of rules, the increasing number of corrigenda and

the lack of updated versions of the guides – problems that were detailed in chapter II b.

Another problem identified by the applicants is the permanent postponement of deadlines for filing

financing requests. Even if, most of the time, this is in favour of the applicant, used to finalise proposals at

the last minute, the postponement of deadlines is a practice generating a lot of suspicion.

The quality of assistance the MA and IB offer to beneficiaries – as we showed in the previous chapter –

influences at its turn the quality of the application for financing process.


17

Except the above, the application procedure is considered to be easy, compared to pre-accession funds

such as PHARE, when the file requested was quite substantial. In the case of the SOP HRD, the

application is filed online, through the programme ActionWeb. The budget has been simplified a lot,

composed mainly of 4 major lines: human resources, participants, other expenses, administrative expenses.

Another positive feature of the programme is the fact that original documents must be provided only after

the financial and technical evaluation of the project, and not at the time of the application.

Although the majority of applicants appreciate the simplicity of filing of finance request, some of them

draw the attention to the fact that it is not realistic for an evaluator to properly assess a multi-million euro

project in only a few pages (the applicants’ majority complained that the space offered for some project

sections is insufficient). Also concerning the dimension of the text, another aspect that showed up during

the research was that strategic projects and grant projects were offered the same amount of space, even if

they differ greatly in complexity. Only after the third round of calls, the space offered for some sections of

the strategic projects was increased.

Quantifying space limitations within a number of characters or words, and not in bits as it is now, would be

a welcome change for the applicants.

Evaluation

For SOP HRD, the evaluation process respects a few important rules in order to ensure the objectivity and

fairness of the process:

! applicant’s anonymity – the evaluators find out who the applicant is only in the last stage, when they

must verify applicant’s and partners’ eligibility;

! prevention of the conflict of interest. According to the interviewed evaluator, the evaluator does not

know who the applicant is, but if he/she still figures out who the applicant is and concludes he/she is

“in a relationship” with the applicant, the evaluator has the obligation of announcing the

incompatibility in writing and does not evaluate projects submitted in the framework of that

respective call.

! confidentiality;

! each project is analysed by two evaluators, and in case there is a high difference in the evaluation

score, a third evaluator steps in;

! externalisation of the evaluation process.

Other positive aspects associated with the evaluation process have been highlighted by the interviewees

during the research:


18


“They are in the guide and when we start drafting the proposal, we must take them into

account, because we also have our own internal calculations and we can then estimate if our

chances are real or not. And then, we must see how evaluation goes in real, how evaluators

apply this weighing in practice.” (applicant NGO)

“The Managing Authority was pretty harsh on the approval of evaluators. Moreover, they

rejected a whole lot of CVs, even if they were CVs from the Ministry’s database. They were

afraid of controls they were supposed to get from the Commission, of the audits they were

going to be submitted to, they were very careful about respecting all conditions, and they had

the pretension for the CV to show a consistent evaluation experience which should be also

linked to the domains in which the evaluator operated.” (evaluator)

! transparency of evaluation criteria. These are already introduced in the application guided, something

considered very useful by applicants as it helps them evaluate the real chances for success of the

projects they intend to submit.

! rigourousness in the selection of evaluators. The recruitment of evaluators is made on the basis of

their résumé, and the selection process was, in the view of the evaluator we interviewed, a fair one, a

process that didn’t leave space for interpretation or intervention.

Unfortunately, according to the MA, the evaluation field in Romania is insufficiently developed and it does

not offer enough evaluators with expertise and competences in the sectors aimed by the SOP HRD. Both

MA and evaluators, as well as the applicants, explain that the complexity degree of projects financed

through SOP HRD imposes competency requirements on evaluators that are hard to attain. The MA tries to

compensate for this lack through constant communication with the evaluators.

! “I mean, there are many conditions and subjects, there are new sectors such as social economy, and

the question is to what degree the evaluators have a background in this field, something that would

allow them to assess if certain things are relevant or not for the respective request.” (contracting

NGO)

! “Also, there are some KAI for which it is impossible to be an evaluator if you don’t have relevant

experience in the field. For example, the KAI 123 pertaining to professional training programmes, for

which you must know the rules for developing training programmes.” (evaluator)

It is worth mentioning also, that from one call to another, the MA SOP HRD strived to eliminate some of

the problems occured. The first evaluation period was extremely long. At present, there is a constant

19

preoccupation for making this process more efficient. Payment for evaluators is not done anymore

according to the units of time involved in their work, but function of the number of projects evaluated, the

retribution being also calculated in accordance with the duration of the evaluation process (for projects

evaluated “all the way through”, the retribution is different from the retribution in the case of projects

rejected as ineligible or not scoring enough for the “relevance” criterion).

Even if efforts for shortening the period between the moment of the application and the moment of the

official reception of the answer were made, the situation is still far from normal. For example, for

financing requests made on 10 August 2009, there is still no answer for the majority of them (currently mid

November 2009).

Moreover, there are additional problems requiring a solution, as the interviewees mentioned to us:

! the organisations sense a dose of subjectivism in the evaluation criteria;

! NGOs claim evaluators’ tendency towards the form, the way the project is written and not towards

the content, the problems the projects are trying to solve through European funds;

! the rejection decisions are insufficiently motivated – just communicating the evaluation grill, with the

registered score for each criterion, is considered by the participants in our research a useful measure

that could be adopted in order to ensure more transparency in the evaluation process as well as

increased quality for project proposals;

! even the evaluators admit more accuracy is needed in the description of indicators to be followed in

the evaluation, especially with regard to the project’s budget;

! the lack of transparency for evaluation deadlines is another element that disturbs the applicants,

something that could be easily improved. Communicating the deadlines for official answers would

help applicants to plan ahead their activities, both financially and technically.

Contracting

The majority of the interviewees claimed major delays in the signature of the contracts as well as deficient

communication with the MA during this time.

! “[…] it took a long time. We weren’t even announced that the contract had been signed. We were

called to take it days after its signature.” (contracting NGO)

! “There was no one specifically nominated to take care of the contract or to monitor the project, you

must call a central line.” (contracting NGO)


20

! “In the contracting stage, for one single question you are redirected to several departments, and it

comes to the situation when your answer comes from departments that have different attributions.

There is no coordination among the departments of public institutions.” (contracting NGO)

! “The demands were not necessarily unreasonable, but the period allowed for providing the

documents. It took them 6 months, during which they were constantly asking for additional

documents, instead of asking us everything they needed from the very beginning.” (contracting

NGO)

The MA considers that contracting deadlines are postponed because of both parties: the beneficiaries are

late in providing the solicited documents, and the MA does not have enough personnel to deal with the

peak periods. As you will see further in this section, the lack of personnel is a problem very often invoked

by the MA and the IBs.

III. Communication and quality of the assistance offered by the

institutions responsible with the management of SOP HRD

The MA SOP HRD drew up a Communication Plan for the entire duration of the programming period,

which sets up publicity and information activities and which should be implemented in order for the

information about available funds to reach the targeted groups. According to this strategy, the

communication activities for the SOP HRD must ensure general access to information for all potentially

interested actors, the informational support for beneficiaries in implementing their projects, inform on the

opportunities occurred, ensure transparent implementation of SOP HRD by offering clear and detailed

information about the programme.

The Communication Strategy is administered by the Managing Authority and the Intermediate Bodies that

contribute to the programme’s management.

$$$Although there is a Communication Strategy, as well as other internal procedures at the MA’s and IBs’

level, these do not seem to be known by the representatives of the IB we interviewed. An example is the

answer we received to the question “When a potential applicant is asking a question, is there a legal

deadline for delivering an answer?”. The representatives of some IBs say the legal deadline is the one set

in the law 544/2001 regarding free access to information of public interest (according to the law, 10 days

or 30 days for more complex information), while the representatives of other IBs say the term is 30 days

for answering questions of a general nature and 5 days for answering specific questions:


Emergency Call for Struc

tural Funds - Report


! “Yes, the deadline for answering to a potential applicant or to beneficiaries is 5 days. For requests

made on the basis of law 544 as well as for other requests made by citizens the term is 30 days.”

! “There is a deadline of 5 working days.”

! “In conformity with the internal procedure approved, for answering general questions the deadline is

30 days and for specific questions the deadline is set for 5 working days.”

The MA SOP HRD and the Intermediate Bodies designed several communication channels with their

beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries:

! information sessions, workshops, conferences, training sessions etc.;

! help-desks;

! telephone, fax and e-mail addresses;

! Internet pages.

The interviewed organisations within the research appreciate as positive the existing communication

channels, but consider they are insufficiently adapted to the target groups. Despite the creation of all these

means for communication, however, according to the interviewed organisations, the problems occur as a

consequence of the inadaptability of communication means. The representatives of NGOs we interviewed

said these channels are useful, especially for those in the urban areas, but communication is delayed and

has no added value in general, most of the information being already available on the Internet pages.

A very often encountered example is what is happening in the rural areas. The information gets here with

difficulties, is distorted and not adapted to the target group.

“The information is transmitted through all communication channels to the target public (written press,

radio, TV, Internet, different seminars and presentations). When it comes to dissemination of information

in the rural areas, this is deficient and we consider more local stakeholders should be involved, the

presentations organised inside Prefectures being insufficient, where you may have either a local mayor or a

person nominated by the mayor.” (potentially applicant organisation)

“Communication is made with big delays, especially the communication through information

sessions on the field. The information sessions don’t bring, generally, anything new compared to

what you can find on the Internet. New information can only be obtained following particular

questions.” (potential applicant organisation)

22


From all the communication methods used, the information sessions could be the most useful tool for

understanding the SOP HRD mechanisms and identifying the information necessary to file a project

proposal, but only if these were improved. Most of the participants in the research consider the MA and the

IBs made efforts to organise a lot of information sessions in different cities of Romania. In the quasi

majority of these sessions, the participants say the sessions lacked in quality. The information sessions

should, according to the Communication Strategy, bring a plus of information to the potential applicants

and beneficiaries, so that confusions are eliminated or diminished.

Of all the communication methods used, the information sessions fall certainly into the category of the

most useful methods to get in contact with beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. However, information

sessions are also difficult to organise because they require good knowledge of mechanisms governing

funds’ accession and the capacity to answer concretely questions formulated by interlocutors. Thus, the

extent to which the information sessions prove useful in this process is given, first and foremost, by the

quality of the information provided, otherwise the sessions remain inadequate for beneficiaries and

potential beneficiaries.

The majority of the interviewees considered the training sessions they took part in as unsatisfactory in the

sense that the information provided was taken exclusively from the guide book. Neither responsible

institutions’ representatives, nor the consultants hired, take responsibility for offering information that

supposes the interpretation of the guide or other documents. The interviewees would consider useful an

information session that was organised around the Q&A (question and answer) model, the latter being one

of the forms the SOP HRD communication should take, according to its own Communication Plan.

! “During an information session, a representative of the SOP HRD IB refused to offer supplementary

details motivating that the MA could always change the rules.” (applicant NGO)

! “They were not clear at all; they didn’t highlight the information worth highlighting. The answers

were vague, and they were professionals too, but the majority of sessions don’t make any sense

because of the people performing and whose training is not adequate.” (applicant NGO)

! “Usually, they don’t make any distinction between the information for consulting companies and

information for NGOs, but keep talking about opportunities as if things were very simple and

accessible. In reality, “the devil is in the details” and those who organise these sessions don’t have the

intention of disclosing them to us.” (applicant NGO)

“Our organisation has now a project whereby we monitor structural funds absorption in the

rural areas, where communication with the target public is considerably reduced; in the big

cities it is easier to access information, but in small cities and rural areas this is quite difficult.

There is also a lack of communication between the MA, the IB and the target

public.” (applicant NGO)

23


! “The information sessions were well organised. But they can be improved: longer sessions offering

the opportunity of real feedback.” (contracting NGO)

! “The organisation was ok, but the content was not very different from what was in the guide.

Regarding the quality of information… the institutions’ employees were not present, the information

being offered by trainers who couldn’t answer our questions.” (contracting NGO)

! “My opinion about these information sessions is, except the fact that they offer you the printed guide

book, which is going to change anyway, they don’t offer anything new.” (contracting NGO)

! “Yes, the organisation was not suitable for us; for example, you waste a lot of time with general

presentations. They don’t bring anything new but the information existing on the Internet. In some

cases, public institutions’ employees were surprised by our questions and couldn’t provide an

answer.” (potential applicant organisation)

! “Yes. They were useful, based on actual content.” (potential applicant organisation)

In the absence of clear guides and documents – as it comes out from the first part of our research – direct

communication with the MA and the IBs is the most important in the beneficiaries’ view. In order to

address this need, the MA is implementing help-desk type services. Beneficiaries or potential ones can call

directly in order to ask information or clarifications.

But this communication channel is not appreciated positively by the participants at the research either. It is

blamed for the following problems:

! general answers to specific inquiries and the repetition of already existing information in the guide,

without any supplementary clarifications.

“The communication was good at the launching phase, less so when it came to further clarifications. The

answers were standardised, they were not particular answers to particular questions.” (contracting NGO)

“There were questions that never got an answer. For example, what exchange rate we should use for

external payments. A standardised answer does not solve a specific problem.” (contracting NGO)

“The IBs and MA’s representatives’ attitude is polite, but the answers offered for the different questions are

evasive, unclear, lacking solutions for the problems you encounter.” (contracting NGO)

! sometimes the IBs don’t take responsibility for giving an answer to the applicants, “the questions

simply being forwarded to the MA for an answer.”

! sometimes the answers come in late and are confusing.

If many of the situations described above are understandable because of the lack of experience, the novelty

of the programme etc., during our interviews we encountered some “aberrational” situations in the

relationship with the institutions:

24


! “We asked a question by e-mail and we didn’t get any answer, we called and we were asked why do

you stress so much, there’s plenty of time until 2013, but eventually we had an answer.” (applicant

NGO)

! “We know there is a request for further clarification for SOP HRD sent a few months ago (3 persons

inside the MA confirming the reception of the request), without any answer to the present

day.” (applicant NGO)

! “Three or four weeks ago we sent an information request, the deadline for applications being near

and we still have no answer, I guess we will risk and go along with our own

interpretation…” (contracting NGO)

! “It happened that we didn’t receive any answer at all or that we got different answers, even

contradictory ones from different persons working with the same institution. The idea is it depends

whom you approach for asking questions, because there’s no coherence among the answers provided

even if they generate from the same institution.” (applicant NGO) In order to test the quality of the

assistance offered by the SOP HRD, a few trials were made with 4 of the Regional Intermediate

Bodies. Within the trial, we tried to evaluate the quality of the answers offered by the help-desk

employees, the attitude of the employee and the availability to offer complete information to the

inquirers. The respondents to the tests were, in their majority, very polite, but they offered

standardised answers and very little adapted, specific information.

Another means of communication at hand for the institutions and much used by the beneficiaries and

potential beneficiaries are the Internet pages created specificially for promoting the Sectoral Operational

Programme Human Resources Development. Following our analysis, we concluded that Internet pages

belonging to the Managing Authority and the Regional Intermediate Bodies contain programmatic

documents, legislation, the applicant’s guide and some useful links. Some of the Intermediate Bodies

posted on their Internet pages information about the absorption degree of structural funds at regional level

– lists of contracting projects, databases as well as studies and analysis of economic and social situations

and evolution of the region.

The Internet page of the Managing Authority offers information about the call for projects, the application

and implementation processes and the winning projects. Also, the page gives the possibility to inform

about irregularities, as well as registering oneself in the evaluators’ database.

The personnel of the MA and the IB

The quality of assistance offered to the beneficiaries, as well as the good functioning of the entire system,

depends greatly on the professional quality of those working with the Intermediate Bodies and the

Managing Authority. Personnel hiring is made in conformity with the law 188/1999 regarding the Civil

Servants’ Status. According to those we interviewed, the selection process is rigorous – those willing to

25


work with the Intermediate Bodies must hold a university degree, have knowledge of English, be computer

literate, be familiar with the legislation in the field etc.

At the MA level, there is a constant concern about the training, evaluation and motivation of the personnel.

The prevention of conflicts of interests and corruption cases are also a vital concern (see the Evaluation

section).

But even if there is the desire on behalf of the public institutions to make sure the staff is enough and well

trained, the personnel deficit constitues a serious problem the MA SOP HRD is facing, just like the other

MAs we approached.

Pursuant to the information provided by the MA, on the 1st of October 2009, there was a 31,82% personnel

deficit (28 vacancies) at the programme’s MA level. Pursuant from the same information, the deficit has

been increasing between 1st January 2009 and 1st October 2009. As such, on the 1st of January, 72 persons

were working for the MA SOP HRD, and on the 1st of October 2009 there were only 60 persons employed.

This deficit growth becomes even more serious in the context of an increasing number of contracts signed.

We may speculate that low revenue (net average income for the MA SOP HRD ranks 2200 RON/month4),

high workload as well as increased responsibilities make the MA SOP HRD not a very attractive working

place.

IV. Why aren’t NGOs rushing to apply for funds available through

ESF?

Even if the sums NGOs could access through SOP HRD are high in absolute numbers (see Chapter I),

these are however small sums compared to the programme’s dimension and NGOs experience in the field

of social inclusion and social capital improvement.

The nongovernmental organisations’ reluctance to access funds available through the Sectoral Operational

Programme Human Resources Development must be understood by relating it to two types of causes:

internal and systemic.

As for the internal factors, the organisations nominated two major problems. The first cause is the reduced

financial capacity, translated into difficulties in covering the co-financing, in the impossibility to contract a

bank loan and in deficiencies for managing efficiently the pre-financing. The second type of problem is

generated by the reduced administrative capacity that perpetrates the lack of confidence in the capacity of

managing a project of large dimensions.

Concerning the problems generated by the system, the main factor that has been pointed out is the

excessive bureaucracy, especially in the implementation and reporting phases – additional documents are

26


requested, clear procedures are lacking, useless procedures, and constant transformation of rules. Another

systemic factor is the legal incoherence.

The lack of transparency on the side of the institutions managing European funding, the lack of

information, politicising the institutions, the political factor, the low degree of professionalism of those

active in the system, are other factors that limit the degree of absorption of European money, according to

the questioned organisations.

In its turn, the Managing Authority remarks the high number of applicants that are not aware of the

particular mechanisms for each funding line – for example, more than 30% of the projects are rejected

because the applicant inserts their identification data in the description text of the project (whereas it is

clearly stated in the applicant’s guide that this is strictly forbidden because for the evaluators, the financing

request must be anonymous).

Regarding the bureaucratic load of the entire system, the MA representative emphasizes the fact that “the

number of institutions involved in the process is directly proportionate with the quantity of deadlocks to

show up”.

Nevertheless, the interviewees highlighted the fact that many of the persons in control positions don’t have

experience and knowledge of the European practice in the field, thus generating delays in the process by

their rigid approach. Sometimes the audit activities are replaced by mere control.

Conclusions

It is worth mentioning that the SOP HRD is the most advanced of all the operational programmes from the

point of view of contracts concluded and of projects currently being implemented. This and the complexity

and diversity of the programme explain, to a certain extent, the number of problems occured, apparently

higher than in the case of other programmes.

On the basis of what has been noticed and described in the previous chapters, the following conclusions

can be drawn:

! The current situation caracterising the Managing Authority is rooted in:

! the fluctuation and deficit of qualified personnel working with the MA and the IBs, which hinder

the well functioning of the system, the lack of specific competences leading to additional loads

on the beneficiaries;

! the high number of vacancies within the MA and the IBs, which are currently blocked (through

decisions made at Government level);

! the civil servant status of those employed by the MA and the IBs, which makes difficult any

attempt of embracing performance criteria in their professional evaluation.

27


! The Intermediate Bodies don’t take responsibility for offering official answers. This way, the entire

responsibility lies with the MA, despite the responsiblities’ delegation agreement that regulates the

relationship between the MA and the IBs.

! The staff of the Managing Authority are overwhelmed in the majority of cases, a situation that

translates into:

! considerable delays between the moment of the application and the moment of receiving an

official answer;

! the long duration of the contracting periods;

! long delays in offering feedback on reports and reimbursement (sometimes the maximum legal

duration is overdue, which is 45 days, in most of the cases).

! The legal framework is incomplete and does not provide for predictability; there is always the danger

of external bureaucratic intervention leading to institutional deadlocks and delays.

! Because of the deficiencies in planning and regulating, the problems occurred in the system are

corrected on the run, which generates additional stress and dissatisfaction both for applicants and

implementing institutions. Changing the rules of the game shouldn’t affect the ongoing processes.

! The financial conditions characterising the SOP HRD are not adjusted to the particular situation of

NGOs. In fact, the conditions are not adapted to any kind of applicant, and the financial crisis makes

it even more difficult to attract European funding;

! Ensuring co-financing is practically impossible if a nongovernmental organisation does not have

other projects under way, in a situation where access to bank loans is restricted by the lack of real

estate good to guarantee the loan.

! Communication with the institutions has a lot to improve on from the perspective of the quality of the

information offered to applicants. Three years almost since joining the European Union, half way to

the first interval of financial programming, and a few projects have been declared winners, those

interested found out their stories, but all questions aim at much more technical and specialised

information that authorities must provide.

! In the opinion of the interviewed NGOs, the information sessions don’t bring in the much needed

additional information. In order to bring in supplementary information, those that provide the training

sessions should be competent and willing to offer details and clarifications that go beyond what’s

presented in the guide books.

28


6. Operational Programme Administrative

Capacity Development (OP ACD)

I. NGOs Access to the OP ACD

During the pre-accession period, the nongovernmental sector has considerably improved in the area

related to increasing accountibility of public institutions, decisional transparency and improvement of the

decision-making process – many of which were going to become the objectives of the Operational

Programme Administrative Capacity Development (OP ACD). Both the PHARE funds and other active

non European (public or private) financing opportunities have contributed to the development of the

nongovernmental sector into these directions since 1990.

Given the above, the expectation of the NGO’s Coalition for Structural Funds was that the

nongovernmental sector would contribute substantially in reaching the objectives of the OP ACD and

that the MA of the OP ACD would recognise in the nongovernmental organisations an opportunity for

making administrative reforms. Therefore, in the programming period, the Coalition has fought for the

recognition of the NGO’s role in developing administrative capacity and reform. The result was the

inclusion of the nongovernmental organisations among the beneficiaries of many key areas of

intervention in the OP ACD.

However, on a planning level, the OP ACD could have, without doubt, included more measures designed

to develop the administrative capacity, so that the experience and expertise of NGOs in this area could be

transferred to the public authorities. Continuing on from this aspect, it is recommended that the MA OP

ACD organises extended consultations with the nongovernmental organisations, during which the MA

could identify the areas of expertise of the organisations, expertise that could be of benefit to achieving

the OP ACD objectives.

On an implementation level, although the nongovernmental organisations are eligible on many of the

planned operations of OP ACD, in reality, the access of NGOs is limited. According to the MA, 630

projects were submitted in October 2009 under OP ACD, 20 of which were proposed by NGOs (3%). Of

the 106 contracted projects, 4 were contracted by NGOs (4%). These percentages show that the skills

and capacity of NGOs are not sufficiently used in reaching the OP ACD objectives. The causes of this

situation can be identified on several levels:

29


! OP ACD does not include sufficient measures to intersect with the interests of nongovernmental

organisations - although they have extensive experience in the development of administrative

capacity;

! the funding opportunities are not publicised (also) through channels specific to NGOs (for example

the www.stiriong.ro website) and thus NGOs are not familiar with this programme and are not

encouraged to apply.

One important and more specific reason is that up until near the end of 2009, no call for proposals has

been open for the key area of intervention Strengthening the accountability framework, an area extremely

suitable for nongovernmental organisations.

Some NGOs also identify a barrier in the obligation of association with public authorities5. The

association is justified in many cases (e.g. local development strategies), but considered unnecessary and

even a hindrance in other cases (e.g. a project in which the beneficiary monitors the activity of a public

institution should not have the institution as a partner in the project). In addition, any partnership could

make the respective monitoring activity to be less than objective.

II. Financial conditions, documents’ coherence, procedures

II.a. The extent to which financial conditions are adapted to the associative

sector

Most of the organisations surveyed stated that they could cover a large part of the cost of co-financing

and pre-financing. Given that, unlike other programmes, smaller projects can be submitted to the OP

ACD, the co-financing amounting to 2% is being easily supported.

Pre-financing under OP ACD is 20%, conditioned by the existence of a contract with a public economic

agent. Even if projects under OP ACD can be small, the 20% pre-financing makes financial planning

quite difficult for applicants, be they public or private. For projects involving acquisitions to be made by

public tender6, conditionning the pre-financing with the existence of a contract for the supply of services

means that in practice, pre-financing can not be obtained at the beginning of the project.

A matter still unclear to the respondents, that can quite seriously affect the financial situation of

organisations (especially if they are partners), is related to the costs of training and other kinds of

expertise. In a project that involves training, for example, it is important for organisations to be able to

recruit people from their own organisation - which represents, mainly, the organisation’s added value in

the project and the expertise and experience which they bring to the project. From the OP ACD

documentation, one can, however, conclude that training and consulting services are subject to the public

30


procurement law, so trainers and consultants can not be integrated into the project team. The obligation

to contract training and consulting services was confirmed by the help-desk of the programme’s

Managing Authority.

II.b. Documents’ coherence

If in terms of content the OP ACD is not positively appreciated by NGOs, then things are slightly better

in the case of documents, procedures and financial conditions. However, there are still issues raised in

these cases.

Documents

The documents accompanying OP ACD are considered generally clear, but quite lengthy. NGO

representatives interviewed in this report consider that there are too many documents the applicant is

required to read, with very many references to laws, ministerial orders etc.

As with other programmes, there are many corrigenda and changes for OP ACD too and this very often

puts potential beneficiaries in difficulty.

“The documents are constantly reviewed and undergo changes all the time." (NGO representative)

However, a positive aspect related to the publication of so many corrigenda is that potential errors and

inaccuracies contained in the programme can be corrected so as to not significantly jeopardize the entire

funding programme. The effort of the MA to consolidate the guidelines, as the corrigenda show up, is

appreciated.

The application forms for financing, although more complicated than those which nongovernmental

organisations are used to, pose no particular problem for the NGO sector in Romania. Beyond the

apparent clarity of the documents, there are still discrepancies. An example is the value of pre-financing:

! in the funding guide, for one call for projects, the maximum amount for pre-financing is 20% of

the total eligible value of the agreement between the MA and the beneficiary;

! in the financing contract posted on the website of the MA, for the same call for proposals, the pre-

financing value does not exceed 15% of the total estimated eligible value of the project.

There were also cases of discrepancy between the Framework Document for Implementing (FDI) and

one of the grant guidelines (NGOs seemed eligible beneficiaries in the FDI, but not in the guide). After

the referral of a group of organisations, this discrepancy was corrected.

31


"There have been instances where NGOs got lost somewhere along the way, but in all cases we took

action. In fact, there was no need for letters of protest, it was enough to signpost and a corrigendum

would show up." (potential applicant organisation)

Although the documents are considered quite clear, and so is the application form for financing, the

Managing Authority shows us that there are organisations that “make childish mistakes”.

II.c. Financing requests, evaluation, contracting and implementation

procedures

Applying for financing

Application procedures are also relatively simple. The forms that applicants must complete pose no

major problems and the required documents, though numerous, are not a novelty to nongovernmental

organisations.

The existence of a project officer is appreciated. And so is the possibility of dialogue with the MA after

application for funding. Thus, if minor errors are identified (missing documents, formal errors etc...), the

Managing Authority requests the applicants to correct them.

Evaluation

Regarding the evaluation component, there are sufficient mechanisms to ensure the fairness of the

process:

! each project is evaluated by two external experts;

! the evaluators are not known;

! if between the evaluations of the two experts there is a high difference in score (20 points), the

project is re-evaluated by a new committee;

! the relationship between evaluator and applicant is not direct. If an evaluator requests clarifications,

he sends it to the MA’s project officer, and the officer, in turn, sends it to the applicant.

A weakness in the transparency of the evaluation process, holding the potential for generating suspicion,

is that the scores obtained by the project are not known to the applicant at the end of the evaluation

process. Also, those interviewed during the research pointed out that the deadline for reception of the

evaluation’s results was unknown.

32


Contracting and implementation

Concerning the degree of bureaucratisation of the contracting process, the representatives of the

Managing Authority considered that “it is not too difficult” and “much has been simplified”. In this

respect, “two simplification initiatives belonged to ACIS and one to the Ministry of Interior and

Administration. Greater simplification would not be possible.” (MA representative)

If the representative of the Managing Authority considers the process has been simplified enough, this is

not the opinion of contracting applicants:

Regarding implementation, NGO representatives interviewed in this report have not yet reached this

stage, so no concrete information could be obtained about how the MA procedures work at this level.

The beneficiaries’ fears are, however, related to possible changes that may occur along the way. In

addition, a further concern is the vagueness of some aspects of the financing programme - for example,

eligible expenses.

Quite unclear is the role of partnerships within the OP ACD. At least at first glance, the partner’s roles

are reduced. The MA OP ACD funding guide introduces a provision to prevent attempts by applicants to

circumvent the public procurement law, which can be extremely useful to ensure proper use of these

funds:

"Legalisation of documents is not needed any further. Also, all documents that had to be

submitted before evaluation, at the request of beneficiaries and at the directive of the Inter-

Ministerial Committee, are now moved forward and requested only prior to contract. So, the

evaluation can become a waste of time because there are institutions which cannot provide those

documents even in the contracting phase, but it was preferable this way because it is possible

some projects are rejected and there would be no need to submit explanatory documents for

legalisations and expenses.” (MA representative)

“The organisation is currently in the contracting phase, not knowing how long it is going to

take (maybe another 6 months), we are required to provide many documents, reports

etc…” (NGO representative)

”In the contracting phase we are required to submit many documents, but nowhere is it specified

what the forecasted terms are to begin implementation.” (NGO representative)

33


”The partners and their partnership relationship must not violate the provisions of Government

Emergency Ordinance 34/2006 concerning the award of public procurement, of public works concession

contracts and services concession contracts, with further modifications and additions, i.e. they should not

limit the competition on the goods or services market by entering into partnership with a potential

services provider and should not affect the efficient use of public funds, taking into account quality-cost

assessment. Therefore, the MA will consider ineligible a partnership between you and a potential

supplier of goods or services in order to bypass procurement procedures (when activities of the partner

are concerned).”

For example, in a project which, among other activities, also requires training, the sessions can not be

delivered by the project partners, but by another provider contracted under the public procurement law.

Under these circumstances, for the OP ACD beneficiaries, the partnership role is unclear. Typically,

partnerships add value to projects by the fact that the partners share their resources and expertise required

for the good implementation of activities. The provision above, although well intended, discourages

however the partnership and creates confusion about the role of partners. Given this issue, we recommend

the Managing Authority to review and/or clarify this procedure so that the financing programme respects,

on the one hand, the principle of spending money honestly and, on the other, the partnership principle in

implementing projects.

The Implementation Manual (October 2009 edition) is rigorously structured and offers beneficiaries the

opportunity to easily track the information included, with sections being structured in a Question &

Answer type model. The language of the manual is accessible and coherent in terms of the content

presented. In terms of integrating the Manual in the package of documents that state the rules of the

Programme, no procedures have been identified to cause problems or any that are in conflict with those

specified in the programme documentation

III. Communication

Communication with interested parties of the OP ACD is based on a Communication Plan. To implement

this plan a public auction had been organised, which has since been cancelled.

Accordingly, the representatives of the Managing Authority recognise that they apply “fragmentarily” the

communication plan developed. The lack of information and understanding of OP ACD seems to be,

moreover, a major cause why the access of NGOs (and even public authorities) to OP ACD is so low7.

As regards instruments used to make information public, opinion is fairly divided amongst respondents.

As is normal, given the OP ACD objectives, the MA focuses on communication channels easily

accessible to public institutions:

34


”The MA OP ACD uses channels through which the Ministry of Interior sends information to prefectures.

Data is easily sent about the opening calls and about who are the potential beneficiaries. Similarly, county

councils send it to the local councils.” (MA representative).

We cannot help, however, to notice that the MA is not using communication channels specific to

nongovernmental organisations (mailing lists, specific portals, e.g. www.stiriong.ro). Even if public

authorities are the major beneficiaries of OP ACD, as long as NGOs are eligible, it is necessary that the

Management Authority strives to attract this category of beneficiaries too. This is even more important as

spreading information through the above channels is a less expensive method and does not involve much

effort from the MA staff.

Moreover, according to the OP ACD Communication Plan, civil society representatives will be used as

“information multipliers”, and nongovernmental organisations are among the target groups of the

communication process on OP ACD. These provisions of the Communication Plan have not yet been put

into practice.

Quality of assistance

In terms of the quality of assistance that the MA is providing to the potential beneficiaries of the OP ACD,

respondents are dissatisfied mainly with the attitude of the MA OP ACD. The attitude of the Managing

Authority was considered to be, by a potential beneficiary, as hierarchical i.e. a superior - subordinate type

relationship. Another representative explained that “the civil servants of the institution explain and answer,

but discourage and do not provide solutions. The NGO does not intend to apply because of the informal

discouraging of the Managing Authority.”

”My impression is that authorities act like the pupil that is allowed to be teacher for a day and thus become

the worst type of teacher. Instead of going on the path of minimum resistance, they bring in all sorts of

obstacles.”(NGO representative).

Another complaint is related to the accuracy of responses and the (in)ability of the help-desk staff to

clarify confusion contained in various programme documents. When talking about incorrect responses

“OP ACD related information is accessible if you know how to look for it. The time of publication

is not transparent. It is necessary to log on to the website very often but even when news is posted,

you can not tell when the change has been made. If there is a corrigendum there is no information

when it was published, neither is the text document dated.” (NGO representative)

”Information can be better found on private websites. You must have knowledge and patience to

retrieve documents and instruments.” (NGO representative)

35


received by telephone or e-mail, examples such as beneficiaries’ eligibility or the amount of pre-

financing were among the most mentioned.

In turn, the MA representatives admit that “the beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries have no way to be

happy with how the communication takes place.”

Lack of staff and lack of funds are the two reasons that the MA representatives invoke:

”The workload is huge, and human resources are minimal. [...] There are two direct telephone lines, one

of which was obtained with difficulty, and is ringing nonstop. [...] Compared with other programs, the

OP ACD is the smallest.” (MA OP ACD representative)

”The MA is at fault. [...] The Control Directorate is currently made up of five people. There are 400

projects and one monitoring visit at least is required for each project. The problems were mentioned

before, and they can be found also in the report of the Audit Authority. The problems are known, but there

are no solutions. Vacancies can not be filled, so right now there is no chance of hiring more staff.” (MA

representative)

”The communication sessions are organised with financial difficulty because the MA OP ACD is at the

mercy of the Ministry of Interior’s budget.” (MA representative)

”The website didn’t exist at the beginning due to lack of funds. All other MAs have websites built on

PHARE projects. The MA OP ACD has not received any such funds and had to use funds from its own

budget.” (MA representative)

Regarding these reasons, it should be noted that, as revealed in the response of the MA to a request for

information of public interest, the shortage of staff in the MA OP ACD consists currently of only two

people. Starting from the premise of the lack of personnel claimed by the representatives of the MA,

coupled with the scarcity of as it was officially reported, we can state that the personnel plan provided is

insufficient and should be reconsidered.

Regarding the lack of funds for communication activities, it is recommended that the MA uses effective

communication channels which are less costly and a more accurate prioritisation of communication costs.

For example, training sessions and development of explanatory material appear to be more urgent and

important than the production of promotional materials.

The lack of an Intermediate Body

”The lack of an IB makes the activity even harder. The Information Centers are generous ideas which are

very difficult to implement. There should be a contact person but in all probability such a person would

be likely to already have too many tasks.” (MA representative)

36


The lack of seriousness of beneficiaries

”Some received phone calls are ludicrous because people do not correctly inform themselves in

advance.” (MA representative)

”The beneficiaries should educate themselves more in advance, to understand what is written there, [...]

to write a letter and request a written response, if they consider that to be more conducive.” (MA

representative)

”You can not exceed certain limits. If something is written in a law, this must also be explained. You

attempt to detail and to explain, but you cannot educate everyone in the administrative-territorial units of

Romania, universities and NGOs.” (MA representative)

IV. Why aren’t NGOs rushing to apply for funds available through

OP ACD?

Lack of information about how NGOs can contribute to the achievement of OP ACD objectives seems to

be the main factor determining the poor involvement of NGOs in the process of accessing funds

available through this programme.

Moreover, some potential users find that they feel discouraged both by the attitude the MA, and the lack of

certainty and predictability in the funding system itself: the rules are not clear, changes are made

continuously and the bureaucracy is high. All these aspects contribute to the poor involvement of NGOs in

accessing funds available through this programme. Currently, accessing funds from OP ACD seems, for

many organisations, a risk.

In addition, the obligation to apply public procurement procedures for contracting training or consulting

services is also a measure that discourages nongovernmental organisations, bearing in mind that in this

area the contribution and added value of NGOs is greatly made up of their specialised human resources.

Conclusions

For the next programming period, it is advisable to better value the experience and skills of the NGO

sector in regards to administrative capacity development.

The lack of personnel as well as the lack of local intermediate bodies are factors that may explain the

slowness with which certain activities regarding information and communication are implemented.

37


The partnership relationships lose some of the value which they should bring to the quality of the

projects’ results implemented through this programme.

Communication efforts should be tailored for each category of beneficiaries. Communication with

beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries is not without problems: the answers are vague, information

sessions, where they exist, are of poor quality - these are the main complaints made by the beneficiaries.

38


7. Sectoral Operational Programme

Environment (SOP ENV)

I. NGOs Access to the SOP ENV

Biodiversity conservation and protection of natural areas are two major directions for Romanian

environmental NGOs. Environmental NGOs have a tradition of approximately 20 years in these fields,

being among the first nongovernmental organisations created after 1989. Many of them run activities in

areas benefiting of acquafaunistic protection and in natural protected areas. Consequently,

nongovernmental organisations preoccupied by this aspect decided to form a coalition called Coalition

Nature 2000 in order to become more efficient in their activities, as an integral part of the European

ecological network NATURA 2000.This coalition counts at present 53 organisations with considerable

expertise in the field. Also, Coalition Nature 2000 was and still is very active in the process of accessing

funds under the Axis 4 of the SOP ENV and made tremendous efforts to remedy some inadvertencies of

the programme that prevented NGOs to access these funds.

Just as in the field of rural development, environmental NGOs can be split into two categories: the first

category includes big organisations that run projects at county, regional or national level and have

experience in attracting and managing funds (including European ones). The second category is formed by

organisations of smaller dimensions, which develop mainly local projects. These organisations have the

capacity to better mobilise local resources and implement small projects.

Nongovernmental organisations can be eligible applicants for the Sectoral Operational Programme

Environment under Priority Axis 4 “Implementation of Adequate Management Systems for Nature

Protection”. This axis has as specific objective “Protection and improvement of the biodiversity and

natural patrimony through the support of protected areas, including the implementation of the network

Nature 2000” and benefits of a financial allocation of 215 million euro, out of which 172 million euro are

the European Union’s contribution.

In order to be eligible, nongovernmental organisations must have mentioned, in their constitutional

documents, environment/nature protection activities. This is a partially irrelevant element, considering

that, according to the law of associations and foundations creation, the constitutive act must include

necessarily only the goal of the organisation, the details about objectives and activities being left for the

statutory documents.

39


In addition, they must comply with these specific conditions:

! In case the applicant is a different entity than the administrator/custodion of the protected area

subject of the project proposal, the applicant is eligible if one of the conditions below is observed:

1. there is written approval from the administrator/custodion;

2. the administrator or the custodian is a partner in the project.

! In case a protected area doesn’t have an administration system, the applicant is eligible only if one

the conditions below is respected:

1. there is written approval from the competent environment authority for the realisation of the

project;

2. the competent environment authority is a partner in the project.

Exception: In the case of national projects, only the agreement of the Ministery of Environment is

necessary (with the exception of projects submitted by the Ministry itself).

Considering the specific eligibility criteria an applicant must comply with, especially the one referring to

the necessity of being the administrator or the custodian of a natural area, very few NGOs can be eligible

applicants under SOP ENV in practice. Most of the times, the NGOs chose to be partners. The partner

status in the project does not offer NGOs many possibilities to implement projects because they become

partial contributors to the achievement of the programme’s objectives, the partner status acting as a

limitation to the organisations’ potential. Until now, it is still unclear if the partner has the capacity to

implement activities within the project. In conformity with the current regulations, the partner can only run

management activities in the project. Any other specialised service – training, mapping or any other things

environmental NGOs specialised in - must be sub-contracted. Under these circumstances, NGOs expertise

and experience are minimised and marginalised.

According to the data provided by the Managing Authority of the SOP ENV, on 29.07.2009, for the first

call open under this Axis, 48 projects had been submitted, only 25% of them belonging to

nongovernmental organisations. Out of 16 projects approved under this Axis, only 2 belonged to NGOs,

one of them having signed the financing contract before the moment we finalised this research.

II. The extent to which financial conditions are adapted

to the associative sector

Accessing funds available post-accession forced nongovernmental organisations to devise rigorous

financial strategies before submitting project proposals, the financial conditions being one of the greatest

limitations in accessing these funds.

40


Regarding the financial conditions, SOP ENV is characterised by the following:

1. 0% co-financing

According to the financing guide, co-financing of eligible expenses in the case of projects submitted

under Axis 4 is 0% (80% of the eligible value is supported by the EU and 20% by the state budget). The

beneficiaries must prove they have the necessary funds to cover ineligible expenses.

2. The possibility of reclaiming VAT

As is the case with all Operational Programmes, the VAT is an ineligible expense, but may be reclaimed

from the state budget. Unlike other operational programmes, where projects have considerable budgets,

VAT becomes an important element in ensuring the cash flow.

3. 30% of the eligible value as pre-financing

The pre-financing that a contractor may receive is a maximum of 30% from the eligible value of the

project. In exchange, receiving the pre-financing is conditioned by the existence of a public contract for

goods or services concluded in accordance with the public procurement law. This means that in reality

the potential beneficiaries don’t receive the pre-financing at the beginning of the project, but only after

the completion of procurement procedures which may last a few months.

Given the above, the nongovernmental organisations believe that, considering the amplitude of projects

that are to be submitted under this programme, problems generated by cash flow constitute a serious

burden in accessing these funds. Another element that must be taken into consideration is that it is very

difficult nowadays for NGOs to create an emergency fund that would allow supporting the activities until

reimbursement.

“The projects show that they were conceived as big projects, maybe in order to have a greater

impact, but you also need increased financial security.” (potential applicant nongovernmental

organisation)

“For an NGO that has a project and could have another one in the framework of the same

financing system, this could be very difficult, meaning especially now; considering the

economic crisis, access to funding is diminished for NGOs. I don’t think there’s any

organisation that is able to say: I can carry on very well two projects!” (potential applicant

nongovernmental organisation)

41


Only one organisation declared having the capacity to engage a short term loan.

As a solution for the impossibility to contract a loan that would support project’s activities until

reimbursement, nongovernmental organisations consider it would be useful to create a special fund for

NGOs, just like the fund for SMEs.

Other problems that were faced by applicants and potential applicants under SOP ENV Axis 4 are related

to the eligibility of expenses. The interviewed organisations within this research explained that, for

example, under the first call for proposals, salaries’ expenses were not eligible, which made practically

impossible the implementation of projects by the nongovernmental organisations. Moreover, one of the

winning organisations dropped the signing of the contract. Later on, the regulation has been modified, so

that under the second call for proposals under SOP ENV Axis 4, salaries expenses became eligible.

III. Documents and procedures coherence.

Bureaucracy of the programme

With regards to the documentation which must accompany a project, a lot of the interviewees consider it

labyrinthine and think the requests are not written in an accessible language.

Accepting documents’ complexity as a necessity with a view to the big sums to be given to the potential

beneficiaries, the requests should however remain reasonable. An example is offered by a potential

beneficiary; he was asked to provide detailed maps and constitutional documents of the area aimed at by

the project, even if the park was created by a government’s decision.

Organisations interviewed with the project “Emergency Call for Structural Funds”, especially those that

initiated the application process or having already applied for financing, said that the Applicant’s Guide

is nowhere near “clear enough”. Some of the respondents confessed this was one of the reasons they

gave up filing an application.

“They are labyrinthine, but considering the value of the projects this seems somehow normal.

Indeed, you can waste a lot of time trying to obtain all the documents, especially when you

have a lot of partners. For example, we are partners of the park’s administration. They have a

hierarchical structure, and we take it step by step, but [procedures] could be simplified. Some

documents they ask are totally useless, they hold no relevance for the project.” (applicant

organisation)

42


A frequent element that showed up in the respondents’ answers is linked to the lack of clarity regarding the

chapter describing how the money can be used:

! hired staff expenses;

! expenses that don’t fall under any line of the budget form;

! equipment expenses (the guide doesn’t specify clearly what kind of equipment may be purchased);

! it is not clear to what extent the applicant (and especially the partners) may implement activities on

their own, without having to sub-contract.

Another problem signalled to us is the faulty translation of some terms and the use, in some situations, of

English terms.

Many of the respondents qualify the programme’s bureaucracy as “high”. The demands coming from the

public institutions are exaggerated and hard to comply with: “[…] on 6th of January (a Friday) we were

asked to hand in 11 formal documents within the next 3 days, among which the constitutional act of the

park. You get this after having worked so hard for a project…” (applicant NGO)

The representatives of the Managing Authority admit the guidebook is loaded, but they mention changes

have been made in an attempt to maintain a balance between the content of the guide, the annexes and

other relevant documents. Also, the MA staff mentions legislation problems: “The parks’ administrations

obtained their legal status this very year. They could not sign projects financed under the first call, and they

can not do it now either because the legislation is being modified again. So we will wait until the new

legislation comes into force in the sense that the park’s management is able to sign the contracts”.

According to the information offered by the MA representatives, a lot of effort has been put in simplifying

the application and implementation procedures. Therefore, the deadline for providing some documents has

been delayed until the contracting phase and the guides have been reviewed. No further simplification is

now possible with regard to the documents demanded, because spending European money is something

that needs solid justifications, say the MA representatives.

However, the only possible changes are, according to the employees of the institutions managing the SOP

ENV, those related to the reduction of the duration for providing answers to the beneficiaries. In the

framework of the interview with the officials of the South-East IB, they said the system “should be

improved, put in line with Romanian reality and necessities. It wouldn’t be bad if it was simplified, by

easing and clarifying the procurement rules under GO 34, and maybe create some black lists with those

that took part in public auctions and didn’t deliver as required in the contracts signed.”

“Bureaucracy is pretty high, but sometimes this is necessary in order to have a discipline and clear image

of the funds and it is imposed by the European Commission.” (Timi!oara IB representative)

“The conditions for accessing structural funds may seem excessive, but this is also due to the conditions

imposed by the EC Regulations currently in force, in order to avoid certain irregularities.” (Pite!ti IB

representative)

43


“The process is pretty bureaucratic, but it is governed by the European Commission’s

Regulations.” (Bucure!ti IB representative)

“The bureaucracy degree is normal, considering the high sums of money and the projects’ complexity. We

cannot say it is excessive, as we must have in mind that it is a composed bureaucracy: Romanian

bureaucracy doubled by the bureaucracy imposed by European Regulations. There are five stages of

checking compliance, and for each of them you need to verify: transparency, equality of chances

etc.” (South-East IB representative)

“The process is normal from a bureaucratic point of view.” (Cluj IB representative)

The MA representatives had a meeting with the members of the Coalition Nature 2000, before the closing

of the second call for projects and they discussed “the problems related to the funds’ absorption and the

possibility for NGOs to access this type of funds”. The NGOs interviewed highlight the fact that proposals

made by Coalition Nature 2000 within the consultations were not taken into consideration in the creation

of the guide book for the third round of financing.

IV. Projects’ evaluation under Axis 4 SOP ENV

Under Axis 4 “Nature Protection”, the project’s evaluation is made by the IBs, using internal evaluators.

Evaluation Groups (EG) are organised at the level of Intermediate Bodies. The activity of the Evaluation

Groups can be performed also by experts in the field of nature protection, who can have either a

consultative role or the right to vote. If, following evaluation, the projects get at least 6 points, the

Evaluation Groups may propose their revision. This procedure seems to be welcome.

After this evaluation, the Intermediate Bodies send to the Managing Authority (at the attention of the

Projects’ Selection Committee) the lists of projects proposed for financing and the list of rejected projects.

This Committee is responsible with checking the reports formulated by the Evaluation Group and

validating the scores proposed.

In case, the applicants consider the project’s evaluation was not correct, they can dispute the process. The

disputes are settled at the level of Intermediate Bodies.

According to the information provided by the institutions included in this research, there has been a

number of disputes, the majority concerning rejected proposals. Also, the persons we interviewed

explained that up to date, no dispute has been legally accepted. At their turn, the NGOs are dissastified

with the fact that authorities don’t communicate the score awarded to the proposals. No doubt, if the the

evaluation results were clearer (communicated to the applicants together with the number of points

obtained for each evaluation criterium), the applicants would be more realistic in disputing the evaluation

and could improve future project proposals.

44


For SOP ENV, the evaluation deadlines are transparent. Thus, the potential applicant knows from the very

beginning that, under this axis, he will receive a notification informing about the results of the evaluation

process within the next 4 months.

V. Communication

a) Communication with beneficiaries

The National Communication Plan 2007 – 2013 was devised in order to promote the Sectoral Operational

Programme Environment. This communication strategy functions at the level of the Managing Authority

and the Intermediate Bodies. An implementation plan for the communication strategy is formulated

annually, mentioning specific activities for each region. The nongovernmental organisations are among the

target groups of the communication strategy.

Concerning the communication channels, the strategy proposes information sessions/seminars, help-desk

services, information through websites and mass media.

In general, the communication channels used by institutions are considered inappropriate for the target

groups aimed for, said the NGOs interviewed. They motivated their answer both from the perspective of

the gathering information process (using the Internet in areas where there is no GSM signal even), as well

as that of the content provided (inaccessible language). Actually, this is a problem common to all

programmes.

For NGOs just as well as for other potential beneficiaries, the most used and an important channel is direct

communication – when beneficiaries are supposed to get the assistance they need for specific problems.

The IBs keep in contact with potential applicants and beneficiaries, a person being designated responsible

with ensuring the help-desk type services (8h/day). Beneficiaries can ask for information by phone or in

writing and can even demand the organisation of meetings for further clarification. The IB representatives

told us that, from their point of view, the beneficiaries don’t exploit enough this instrument that would help

them better understand some inconclusive aspects from the operational programmes.

In order to test the quality of the assistance offered, three tests were realised on the help-desks of the IBs of

SOP ENV. The purpose of the tests was to evaluate the quality of the answers given by the employee of the

help-desk, his attitude and the availability to offer complete information to those requesting it. The tests

revealed that employees were generally polite and try to support the efforts of those interested in SOP

ENV. The answers provided, however, don’t offer many details. The staff is offering the same information

as in the applicant’s guide. One of the employees involved in our research admitted he didn’t know what

information to provide because the guide was not very clear.

45


Also the interviewees consider that many times the answers received look like “it’s been copied/pasted

from the financing guide” (ad literam quotations from the documents already available to the potential

applicants). There were also situations when the answers received from the IB and the MA didn’t coincide

for the same interrogation or when the institutions didn’t answer at all the enquiries received.

Most of the times, the NGOs found answers simply by communicating among themselves and

reconstituting the information from the fragments at hand.

With regards to the deadlines for the solution of interrogations, most institutions’ representatives said that

requests made to them get an answer within the timeframe set by the Law 544/2001 on free access to

information of public interest and the Government Decision 878/2005 regarding public access to

environmental information. There is also the Ordinance 27/30.01.2002 regulating the solution of petitions

(Pite!ti IB). The IBs from Timi!oara and Centre say there are no particular deadlines set. We conclude

there is a confusion among the servants with regard to the deadline by which they must answer an inquiry,

mainly because of the lack of coherent procedures at the level of SOP ENV.

Another important communication instrument for beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of the SOP

ENV are the websites of responsible institutions. Right from the first click on the web page of SOP ENV,

the site is not a friendly vision. In total contradiction with the webpage of the Ministry of Environment, the

webpage of the Managing Authority displays a hostile blue-greenish colour. The feel of the webpage is that

the information in there is old. However, we kept using the website and checked the Press Information

page. Despite the old look, the information there was up to date.

The site looks unfriendly not only because of the graphics, but also because of the presentation of the

information and compared to other similar websites, it lacks information on: the role and organisation of

the Authority, functions for ensuring the transparency of the process or data linked to advertising the

programme. Here are a few examples of missing data:

! the contact details for the institution’s management,

! the functioning hours,

! the organisation and functioning regulation,

! data on the existence of an Information Point,

! the online application and selection procedures,

! information sessions for the beneficiaries,

! links to webpages of the IBs,

! frequent questions and answers.

In conclusion, if we were to give a grade for the graphics and content of the website, on a scale from 1 to 5

(where 1 is the minimum and 5 the maximum), the SOP ENV MA’s website would receive a mere 2.

Information sessions. According to the communication strategy, the MA (through the IBs) is organising, on

a regular basis, information sessions. As such, every time projects are launched, the IBs organise meetings

46


with the potential beneficiaries in order to present the respective financing line. The nongovernmental

organisations’ representatives said that usually these sessions are organised in the big cities and as a

consequence, the information doesn’t reach all areas of interest, considering that natural protected areas are

not situated in urban regions. Nevertheless, more than half of the organisations interviewed claimed having

participated in the information sessions organised by the IBs and described them as useful and mobilising.

b) Inter-institutional communication

The Managing Authority appreciates that its relationship with the IBs is very important, as the latter is in

direct contact with the potential applicants and applicants. The relationship between the MA and the IBs is

regulated by an agreement of delegating functions and internal working procedures.

Both the Intermediate Bodies and the Managing Authority have strict working procedures that set the

communication channels, the documents’ flow, the terms and responsibilities for each institution. The

Intermediate Bodies send periodic reports to the MA detailing the activities being implemented, the

situation on training the staff (the term used is training-map); the trimester reports show the progress on

implementing the recommendations of the evaluation/audit missions, monitoring reports etc. The

Managing Authority sends out also periodically information regarding new documents. There are

consultations, working meetings, and the questions/answers from/for beneficiaries circulate among

institutions.

Another important institution from the communication point of view is the Managing Authority for the

National Rural Development Programme (NRDP). According to the MA SOP ENV, the responsible

institutions of the two programmes try to develop a common strategy that would allow them to direct

potential beneficiaries to the most suitable financing source. From the MA’s perspective, the lack of such

an integrated approach for the two programmes would lead to a waste of important financial resources,

because the applicants would most likely come up with individual projects (instead of integrated ones). For

such a complementarity, it is necessary to have a clear vision on the projects already financed.

c) The personnel of the MA and the IB

Besides the clarity of procedures and associated documents, the civil servants’ professionalism is the factor

that determines the quality of the assistance offered to the beneficiaries of the SOP ENV. Starting from this

premise, our research tried to found out:

! the way authorities evaluate their own human resources;

! the NGOs perception on the quality of the assistance received.

Both the Managing Authority and the IBs claim problems linked to personnel deficit. The Authority’s

representatives consider that for providing services at reasonable standards, the number of employees

should double.

47


130 people work within the Managing Authority according to the data communicated by this institution.

The personnel deficit is explained partly by the fact that, in the Programming Directorate (where the

Service of Coordination-Preparation of Projects functions), the workload is tremendous, as the Directorate

is implementing currently 10 technical assistance contracts, two of which preparing 7 counties to

implement waste management projects. Also, when it comes to the evaluation of projects, theoretically 20

people have this responsibility, but for different reasons (resignations, impossibility of hiring new

personnel or the use of this staff by other compartments), there are actually only 15 people working.

Another important element is the personnel exodus, many of the institutions’ employees leaving to work in

the private sector.

The representatives of the MA indicate that problems generated by personnel deficit start to occur at the

implementation level too, where 11 projects are running currently, totalling over 1 billion euro.

From the data we received, it appears that the hiring regulations are set by the Ministry of Environment,

through the Human Resources Directorate, following consultations with the Managing Authority and the

Intermediate Bodies.

Concerning the continuous training and professional improvement, the interviewed institutional actors

admit that the Managing Authority is organising training sessions once or twice a year. The IB personnel

participate in periodic training, function of their position; also some of the training is aimed only at IB

employees, other require the participation of both the MA and the IBs employees. In the last years, the

civil servants working in the Managing Authority and the Intermediate Bodies benefited from numerous

training sessions delivered by Romanian and foreign experts. In the view of those we interrogated, these

sessions are very useful for the improvement of the cooperation among institutions and the communication

with beneficiaries. The Bac"u IB, for instance, is training its staff periodically through workshops or

training sessions organised at the work place. Subjects linked to their current activities are the themes of

the training sessions.

The civil servants evaluation is done at the end of the year. Moreover, the MA is conducting an annual

evaluation on the IBs activity. The IBs run regular evaluations for all employees, according to a National

Plan for Intermediate Bodies approved by the MA.

The IBs describe their own staff in positive terms:

“The implementation level started to be assailed; if we don’t find a solution

regarding the shortage of hired staff, we’ll get in a jam.” (MA representative)

48


So we may conclude that the institutions responsible with the management of the SOP ENV consider their

own human resources as insufficient, but well prepared.

Regarding the authorities’ attitude towards NGOs, the latter said that with a few exceptions, the attitude

was in general an open one. “From this point of view, we have nothing to reproach because we can see that

they’re struggling to fulfil a plan. At a certain point, they started to call us for the second call of

proposals.”

There are also situations when the assistance offered is not at its best. For example, an element invoked by

many of the beneficiaries is linked to the competence of some of the employees in these institutions. The

lack of expertise in the field of biodiversity conservation of the employees working for some of the IBs is

one example: “[…] I discuss in vain about biodiversity conservation and fundamental research in a

National Park with someone who sees everything from an economical or accounting perspective.”

V. Why aren’t NGOs rushing to apply for funds available through SOP ENV?

In the view of the Managing Authority and the Intermediate Bodies, the main limitations to NGOs

accession of funds through SOP ENV are the following:

! the lack of experience of beneficiaries (sometimes, even the consultants they use lack this

experience) in drafting project proposals, but especially in implementing them. According to the

questioned IBs, the factor determining most of the proposals’ rejection is the quality of the financing

“Our employees are well prepared and devoted. The working atmosphere is very good and

there are good working relationships among the employees.” (Timi!oara IB representative)

“Yes, they are professionals, considering the numerous training sessions they benefited

of.” (Bucure!ti IB representative)

“We can not give our point of view on other institutions empowered with the management of

structural funds. In particular, we consider that within the Pite!ti IB for SOP ENV, there is a

professional group of people, very well prepared, showing team spirit.” (Pite!ti IB

representative)

“I can say about the Sibiu IB team that it’s professional and continuously improving. Yes, I

believe the team is very professional, I even think it’s an elite corps of civil servants.” (Sibiu

IB representative)

49


requests (budget errors, ineligible activities, lack of correlation between the proposed activities and

the problem identified);

! the diminished capacity to ensure funds until the reimbursement as well as the high value of

ineligible expenses in the project;

! the applicant can not always prove its institutional and financial capacity to implement the respective

project.

The same reasons are invoked by the nongovernmental organisations we interrogated. They also added:

! not taking into consideration the particular rules of financial management for NGOs, because it is

way more difficult for NGOs to ensure the necessary cash flow, compared to public institutions;

! the excessive bureaucracy and changing the rules of the game while “playing”;

! the lack of vision for the role of NGOs in the context of structural funds;

! the competence of the MA and IBs personnel, who, on one hand, lack the experience in

implementing and monitoring projects, and on the other hand, do not hold specific knowledge on the

domains covered by the financing programme.

Conclusions

Based on our experience and the data gathered within this research, we can draw the conclusion that the

experience of the pre-accession programmes (such as PHARE) was not transferred in the structural funds

management, as it would have been normal, and we consider that the main cause for the malfunctions in

the system is the lack of experienced human resources in the MA and the IBs.

Accessing funds under SOP ENV is a bureaucratic activity, something accepted to a big extent by the

institutions that manage these funds and the beneficiaries, considering the financial value of the projects

and the restrictions imposed by the European Commission.

But the bureaucracy is not accompanied by clarity and coherence (if the road is difficult, at least it should

be accordingly signalled). There are no clear terms and procedures. Very frequently, the information

offered by the IBs representatives on the procedures employed is contradictory; this is either because the

procedures are not well known or because they are not sufficiently set in internal regulations. A direct

effect of this situation is the potential applicants’ discouragement, delays in signing the contracts and

launching the projects.

We noticed a certain degree of acceptance on the beneficiaries’ part with regard to the long delays for the

proposals’ evaluation during the first two calls for projects, as they consider these delays are part of the

learning process. However, the persons we interviewed expressed their hope that this will improve, and

shorter deadlines will apply in the next stages.

50


The legal inconsistencies concerning the National Agency for Protected Areas (NAPA) and its attributions

hinder the custodians’ authorisations in the protected areas, and implicitly it impedes on the signing of

projects already approved.

On top of the problems generated by the system for releasing the funds, the NGO sector is confronted by

its own internal problems in accessing funds under SOP ENV: reduced capacity for management, lack of

specialists in the public procurement or legal fields, compulsory in implementing this type of projects.

Other causes are related to the general precarious financial situation of the sector.

From a progression point of view, there are some improvements, even if slow and gradual. As a result of

the first two sessions, and of the environmental NGOs pressure, the authorities modified the legislation

regarding eligible expenses and included among them expenses related to the project management

personnel.

Reducing to zero the co-financing required from NGOs (just as in the case of public institutions) and

ensuring pre-financing are the two most appreciated things by the beneficiaries.

The communication with the beneficiaries improved after the first two financing rounds, when it proved to

be faulty; NGOs show that its quality increased in the case of the third round. Also, the IBs civil servants

behaved in a pro-active fashion, as they called and insisted that NGOs with a proven record of biodiversity

conservation activities make proposals under this call.

51


8. Regional Operational Programme (ROP)

I. NGOs Access to ROP

Given the specificity of the Regional Operational Programme and the objectives which it proposes,

nongovernmental organisations can not make a major contribution in implementing this programme. Areas

where NGOs can still contribute can be found in two axes, which are presented below.

Priority Axis 3 “Improvement of social infrastructure”

1. Key Area of Intervention (KAI) 3.2. “Rehabilitation, modernization, development and

equipping of social services infrastructure”, co-financing being 2% of the total eligible

expenses.

Priority Axis 5 “Sustainable development and promotion of tourism”

1. KAI 5.1. “Restoration and sustainable valorisation of cultural heritage and setting up/

modernisation of related infrastructure”

Co-financing: Minimum 2% of eligible expenses

2. KAI 5.2. “Creation, development, modernisation of the tourism infrastructure for sustainable

valorisation of natural resources and for increasing the quality of tourism services”

Co-financing: Minimum 50% except for the Bucharest-Ilfov regions where the contribution

must be at least 60% of eligible expenses.

2. KAI 5.3 “Promoting the tourism potential and setting-up the needed infrastructure in order to

increase Romania’s attractivity as tourism destination. Operation b - Development and

consolidation of domestic tourism by supporting tourism promotion of specific products and

specific marketing activities”, co-financing of 2% of the total eligible costs.

Practically, under Axis 3, the organisations administering social infrastructure can implement projects and

under Axis 5, the organisations active in heritage tourism development may apply.

Regarding the eligibility of organisations administering social infrastructure, it should be mentioned that in

Romania, there are many NGOs providing social services. The expectation of the NGOs Coalition for

Structural Funds was that a lot of these organisations would be on the list of beneficiaries of ROP, but this

expectation was not confirmed. According to the information published by the Managing Authority of the

52


ROP on the www.inforegio.ro website (which is the only source of official information from the MA of

POR) the number of NGOs that have received funding through ROP stands at 3, namely:

! The Humanitarian Foundation Geana which was funded from the funds allocated to the key area of

intervention 3.2 with the amount of 2.881.323 lei, the total project’s value being 3.498.749,94 lei.

! Dr. Carl Wolff Association of the Protestant Church which was financed from funds allocated to the

key area of intervention 3.2 to the amount of 657.744,2 lei, the total project’s value being

798.689,34 lei.

! Rosenau Tourism Association is another NGO financed from funds allocated to the key area of

intervention 5.3, as partner of the Râ!nov Local Council. The total project value is 999,971.02 lei,

but we could not determine the exact amount going to the nongovernmental organisation

mentioned above.

Added to this are inter-community associations and other municipalities’ associations which, however, do

not figure in our research.

In addressing the provision of social services, for example, although almost in all counties of Romania

there are NGOs operating social infrastructure (therefore they are potential beneficiaries of ROP),

however, on the list of beneficiaries there are only two organisations financed under the respective area of

intervention. The Ministry of Health database indicates 1160 nongovernmental organisations accredited as

providers of social services. The same source shows that of all the institutions that provide social services,

half of them are NGOs. With regards to social infrastructure, we can give as an example the homes for the

elderly – out of a total of 150, 42 are funded by NGOs.

The small number of organisations must, however, be looked at, as shown earlier in this chapter, in the

light of the specificity and objectives of the ROP, which is investments in infrastructure (an atypical

intervention for NGOs up until now).

II. Financial conditions, documents’ coherence, bureaucracy of the

programme

II.a. The extent to which financial conditions are adapted to the associative sector

The leading causes of poor accessibility to the Regional Operational Programme by NGOs are clearly the

financial conditions of the programme:

! To access funds available through Axis 3 and Axis 5, KAI 5.1, KAI 5.3 of the ROP, co-financing is

2% of eligible expenses and for KAI 5.2 the co-financing is at least 50% except for the Bucharest-

Ilfov regions where the contribution must be at least 60% of the eligible expenses.


! Pre-financing is maximum 15% of the project eligible value.

! VAT is an ineligible expense, but can be recovered from the state budget.

With regards to financial difficulties, applicant NGOs or potential applicants for ROP funding encounter

the problem of financial turnover and identifying resources to cover upfront the costs necessary to

implement the project. Even the co-financing, although representing a small amount in percentage terms,

can amount to large sums for projects involving rehabilitation or modernisation of infrastructure.

Beneficiaries are also concerned that a too big period of time may elapse between contracting and

receiving pre-financing. Pre-financing is subject to agreement of a public contract for the supply of goods,

services or public works. The public procurement procedures can take months. This means that pre-

funding isn’t actually received at the beginning of the project. The failure in timely reimbursement is

another concern that NGOs have.

“The ongoing implementation of such a project is impossible, not necessarily because of the mandatory

contribution but because of the ineligible expenditures (VAT) and other expenses, only subsequently

measured, reported and not accepted as eligible.” (potential applicant NGO)

To conclude, in terms of financial conditions, NGOs consider that they are not adapted to their capacity: at

least half of the NGOs surveyed mentioned their reduced financial capacity or low administrative capacity

as an impediment in accessing such funding opportunities.

II.b. Documents’ coherence and clarity, programme’s bureaucracy

Documents’ coherence and clarity

NGOs, beneficiary or potential beneficiary, have not been struck by uncertainties or inconsistencies in the

documents regulating the ROP. Following the analysis performed on these documents, but also from

interviews with representatives of the MA and IBs, it appears that in the MA there is the ongoing concern

for updating applicant’s guidelines for each area of intervention and to consult the potential beneficiaries

regarding the changes brought to the guidelines by posting the guides on the website of the ROP’s

Managing Authority. However, given the fact that IBs have a more direct and deeper connection with the

beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of the ROP, they have often sent the MA a number of proposals to

improve the guidelines or the efficiency of the implementation of contracted projects, and this is extremely

useful both for beneficiaries and for the authorities involved in the management of the ROP.

Although, in general, documents in the ROP are received positively, there still are minor points of

difficulty. For example, there are process changes that put applicants in difficulty – “In the assessment

phase we were asked to conduct an energetic audit after we had submitted our application, which was

requested due to subsequent changes in the guide. This audit was not planned for in our project’s budget

and thus we had to try to identify other financial sources to cover this expense.“ (contracting NGO)

54


It would be worth clarifying the horizontal objectives, explains an evaluator interviewed – “there are

specific projects where there’s nothing to write about sustainable development and equal opportunities, as

they are not applicable. I give you one example: someone was building a road, he was rehabilitating the

county road X, on a portion of several kilometres and he had to write about equal opportunities. [...] So he

wrote that after the project ends, he will appeal to women, the elderly and children in the community to

sweep and clean up the grass along the roadside”.

NGOs add questions about eligible/ineligible costs on the list of queries that should be passed through a

rigourous process of clarification regarding this operational programme.

Programme’s bureaucracy

One of the most common problems perceived by the applicant NGOs and potential applicants requesting

funding from the ROP is bureaucracy. An NGO representative tells how he decided to apply for funding

from ROP only in conjunction with a consulting firm: “the information received from other applicants

made me understand that the documents are so complicated, it is better to work with a specialised

company, though until now, all our projects had been written by the employees of the Foundation.”

There are also concerns about the frequent changes of conditions for conducting such projects, even during

the implementation period.

In the MA but also in the IBs, exists the certainty that the proposed project file can not be simplified more

than that. Otherwise, the representatives of institutions responsible for administering the operational

programme say it may lead to inefficient usage of money in some cases. Also, institutions justify the

current level of bureaucracy by the need to apply EU rules and to use the same mechanisms as in other EU

Member States. Although institutions that manage the Regional Operational Programme say that

bureaucracy is not excessive and does not affect absorption8, however, most IB representatives interviewed

identified individual cases in which the procedures could be simplified.

III. Communication

The communication strategy of ROP is stated by the Communication Plan of ROP that sets out the

programme’s policy for information and publicity measures by which ROP MA sends information about

this programme to target groups / potential beneficiaries.

The Communication Plan is well structured, but not sufficiently clear in terms of the communication

channels used for each category of potential beneficiaries. Given that ROP has a wide range of

beneficiaries (county, local and municipal councils, SMEs, religious institutions, NGOs providing social

services etc.) the communication channels should be adapted to each group. For example, information

55


campaigns conducted through the Internet will negatively impact potential beneficiaries in rural areas

where Internet access is limited.

Given that the indicative financial allocation for activities for the goal of informing is presented year by

year, and taking into account that the Communication Plan is evaluated annually (the Annual Report on the

ROP’s implementation having a section dedicated to this subject), it is necessary that the values of

indicators used in the evaluation are presented separately and for each year individually, thus contributing

to accurately assessing the impact of those activities.

From discussions with representatives of the Intermediate Bodies, we understand that each region must

have and implement a communication plan specific to the region, but should be within the strategic

guidelines of the plan developed by the MA. It should be noted that the decentralization efforts that are

being made in the ROP are appreciated.

An important component of the communication between institutions and beneficiaries is the electronic

communication and information on the websites of those institutions.

Regarding the MA of the ROP, their website is a valuable tool for users at any stage of the process.

Information not presented on the website which could also be useful includes the MA’s establishment

hierarchy, the list of responsible departments of the MA and how to contact them.

There are websites for each IB, but they are concentrated mainly on providing the necessary documents of

application for funding, without being an avenue of communication with potential beneficiaries. The

websites of many IBs are lacking information about the operating schedule of the institution, departments

and their responsibilities, general information and how to contact them.

With regards to the information material produced and disseminated by the MA ROP, it should be noted

that they are quite clear and accessible to the general public, using simple language without too many

technical terms. Two of the publications produced by MA ROP are dedicated to specific categories of

beneficiaries (universities and business), but, unfortunately, NGOs are not included among them.

ROP’s Information Offices are set up at the level of the Intermediate Bodies, and they serve to facilitate

direct phone or Internet access for potential beneficiaries and beneficiaries to information sources about

accessing funding through the ROP and as a guide for potential beneficiaries to help in preparing the

application for funding. From interviews with representatives of NGOs, but also through direct testing (by

phone) of some IB's, the findings are that employees of information offices are generally friendly to those

seeking information on funding programmes and the information is provided in an accurate and timely

manner.

Direct Communication between the Intermediate Bodies (IBs) and the Managing Authority (MA) with

beneficiaries is governed by a set of specific procedures for each stage of the process of accessing ROP

funding (application, evaluation-contracting and implementation). They allocate a certain time for the

completion of each phase, but also for providing a response to a request received from the ROP’s

56


beneficiaries. Although the internal procedures manual could not be consulted, we can say, based on

interviews in this research, that ROP beneficiaries receive the information requested in good time.

According to information provided by NGO representatives interviewed about the information sessions

conducted by the IBs, it can be stated that “it is necessary to conduct separate information sessions for

potential beneficiaries for each category of applicants. It can however be positively appreciated that within

the programme, organisations or institutions that obtain financing receive an early instructional training

provided by the IB. Thus, ROP’s beneficiaries can more easily implement the project and minimise

possible risks in implementation.

In conclusion, NGOs staffs, who are either currently recipients or potential recipients of funds, are on the

whole satisfied with the communication with the institutions responsible for the ROP. However, some

further points should be mentioned:

! information sessions are often too general and do not provide extra information in addition to the

presentation documents of the programme;

! potential beneficiaries in rural areas are disadvantaged by the fact that the most important

information about ROP is provided via the Internet: “In rural areas these funding programmes are

largely not known about, except for a few, and with regards to those few it is not known what areas

and activities can be funded”, said an NGO representative from a county capital city office;

! responses to specific questions are often limited to references to specific official documents, to the

legislation governing the programme, without directly addressing the specific cases enquired about.

Inter-institutional communication

Relations between the MA and the IBs take the form of a partnership which is governed by an agreement –

the Framework Agreement for the Implementation of the Programme REGIO.

However, the relationship between these two bodies is governed by a procedure manual that requires,

according to interviews with representatives of the IBs, the submission of periodic reports to the MA.

Thus, the MA may have a clear picture over the implementation of the ROP in all developing regions of

Romania.

Interviews with representatives of the IBs and the MA have not revealed major failures of communication

between institutions. However, inside the MA it is accepted that there is a need for more frequent meetings

with the representatives of the IBs, to help with the faster resolution of day to day issues.

In the interviews, a single IB mentioned that there are differences of opinion between the IBs and the MA.

Currently there are no formal procedures to help conciliate the two divergent institutional structures, but

the requests from the IBs to the MA always receive a response. IBs do not appeal, currently, to the

57


Authority for the Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) when there are differences or

misunderstandings between the two kinds of bodies.

The personnel of the MA and the IB

From the outset it should be noted that according to respondents, the delays in the implementation and

evaluations are caused by a shortage of employees. According to an MA representative, “to function

properly and to meet short term deadlines, there is probably a need for an extra 30-40 people”.

From interviews with representatives of the MA and IBs it has emerged that the process of employment in

these institutions is done professionally with several tests, employees are evaluated regularly and benefit

from training programmes. However, some IB representatives consider that there have been certain periods

when the number of contracts being signed was too great and staff was not sufficiently large so as to

achieve rapid completion of contracts and the duration of the approval for a project has been extended due

to a lack of evaluators.

IV. NGOs Representation in the Monitoring Committees of ROP and in the

Regional Committees for Strategic Evaluation and Correlation

As regards to the representation of NGOs in the ROP Monitoring Committee (except for the associative

structures created by government bodies such as the Towns’ Association and the Municipalities’

Association of Romania), it should be noted that in this structure there is a single NGO, as an observer, and

this is the Romanian Center for Economic Policies.

It should also be noted that two other NGOs - TERRA Millennium III Foundation and the National

Association of Citizens Advice Bureaus - participated in meetings of the Monitoring Committee until its

formal composition was regulated. With this formalisation, the two bodies were removed from the

committee, without prior notice. After pressure from the NGOs Coalition for Structural Funds on the

Managing Authority the two organisations have been readmitted in the ROP’s Monitoring Committee

(MC) with the status of “permanent guest”.

In the present, the ROP’s MC activity is transparent to both MC’s members and the general public, with

MC documents meetings (minutes of the meetings, decisions of the MC etc.) being posted on the website

of the Managing Authority.

According to the rules of organisation and operating framework of the ROP’s MC, ordinary meetings are

held every six months and are convened by the President of the MC. Analysing the activity of the ROP’s

MC, it is appreciated that the Committee meetings are being held regularly.

Regional Committees for Strategic Evaluation and Correlation (RCSEC) are currently acting as an

advisory body with a consultative role established in each development region. From interviews held with

58


NGOs representatives (7 interviews) it is apparent that in almost all regions the formation of these

committees was done transparently. The work of NGO representatives in RCSEC is not remunerated, and

costs of participating in meetings of the RCSEC are borne by the participants. RCSEC members are

required to maintain the confidentiality of discussions in meetings; they can consult colleagues in the

nonprofit sector on topics which are not confidential.

The powers of RCSEC were amended significantly in 2008, when they lost the powers which they

possessed in the evaluation of projects. NGO representatives were divided in their opinions on the

usefulness and effectiveness of such changes. Thus, some of them believe that the “assessment must be

conducted by experts”, others say the disappearance of this power was caused by political factors, whilst

another part considers that at this point the RCSEC is no longer fulfilling any function.

V. Why aren’t NGOs rushing to apply for funds available through the

ROP?

The MA explains that the number of NGOs applying for funding from the ROP is very low, due to the

specificity of the programme - under the ROP, mainly infrastructure investments are being financed. In the

IB, the factors perceived as having a negative impact on the allocations are the lack of ability to implement

projects (consultants write the projects, but recipients can not implement them), and combining the

political messages with the technical messages by leaders of opinion (which causes errors in the perception

of potential beneficiaries, despite the procedures being clear, public and transparent).

Organisations too have identified specific obstacles. Bureaucracy has proven to be the most difficult

obstacle. There are also concerns about the frequent changes of criteria for conducting projects, even

during the implementation period. Another obstacle is clearly shown by the terms and level of pre-funding

that do not meet the capacity of the associative sector.

In this respect, the solutions agreed by the beneficiary NGOs and potential beneficiaries requesting

funding are primarily financial. Thus, the idea of a credit guarantee fund especially created for non-

governmental organisations is strongly supported, as it’s proven to work in the SMEs sector. Secondly, on

the level of technical assistance, the number of associative applicants would increase given a more specific

communication on how NGOs could contribute to the achievement of the ROP’s objectives.!

Conclusions

In general, the institutions and bodies involved in the management of ROP are transparent in their

activities. Given the fact that the management of structural funds is new in Romania, it can be observed

that the institutions managing the ROP improved their activity during the programme, practically learning

on the fly, reviewing regulations and provisions of the financing guide that were not applicable to the

context. Unlike other operational programmes, the ROP had the advantage of building on an existing

structure, with the Regional Development Agencies having experience in managing pre-accession funds.

59


The number of NGOs applying for funding from the ROP is relatively low, due to the specificity of the

programme (investments in infrastructure). However, NGOs can be a major player in the modernisation of

certain types of infrastructure (particularly with reference to social services infrastructure). However, this

will not happen, until there are suitable financial conditions and communication processes specific to the

sector.

60


9. National Rural Development Programme

(NRDP)

I. NGOs Access to the NRDP

In the last 10 years rural development has become a major concern for NGOs in Romania. Community

development9 has been the most common form of intervention in the rural development projects that have

been coordinated by NGOs over the years. In addition other projects that have been initiated focused

primarily on providing social, cultural and other community services, promoting certain areas, education,

information, and environmental protection. More lately active NGOs have been increasing their interest in

social economy in rural areas10.

Active organisations in rural development can be divided into two categories: large organisations that

develop projects at county, regional or national level and have experience in attracting and managing funds

(including EU funds), the second category consisting of smaller organisations, performing special projects

in the local area where they operate. They have a better capacity to mobilise local resources and

developing small projects.

In our research we started from the premise that these two types of organisations have the potential to

contribute to reaching the objectives of the National Rural Development Programme. Their experience

could be an important resource in implementing NRDP.

For this report’s section, 58 NGOs were identified as potential applicants under NRDP - from both

categories mentioned above. Of these, only 4 have accepted to be part of the “potential applicants under

NRDP” category. This shows that NGOs are not attracted to funds available through NRDP. One of the

reasons is the lack of clarity of the activities that NGOs can develop to attract funding from the EAFRD.

Another cause is that in the planning period, the capacity and the experience of NGOs was not considered

a resource for the rural development process, and thus, not many areas of intervention in which NGOs

could have contributed have been integrated in the NRDP.

The above points are partially confirmed by the fact that until now, according to the evaluation lists

published on the website of the Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery, there is no NGO that

has been funded by NRDP.

61


The Axes which provide most opportunities for NGOs in the NRDP are: Axis III through measures

dedicated to tourism development and integrated projects and Axis IV through the LEADER Programme -

forming local action groups and preparation of local development strategies.

A favorable situation for the participation of organisations was launching the calls for projects under

Measure 322 “Village renewal and development, improvement of basic services for the economy and rural

population and upgrading the rural heritage”.

The integrated approach advocated by the programme provides rural NGOs with the opportunity to

participate in calls for projects under the broad partnerships for development and renovation of villages

with local governments and other actors in rural areas. Moreover, the existence of nongovernmental

organisations in this partnership means a plus when assessing applications for funding.

This measure has encouraged the participation of NGOs in rural areas in the call for projects, but has also

generated unusual circumstances. Thus, applicants who were part of the Intercomunitary Development

Associations or Local Councils found themselves in a position to fund their own NGOs in order to

participate formally in the call for projects. The situation is unusual because many NGOs were established

in rural areas with the sole interest of participation in these local partnerships without having to fulfill an

actual mission: “I took two girls from the Town Hall and we have established an organisation.” - says a

mayor.

Another general problematic situation in this attempt to encourage partnership with NGOs is the lack of

experience of local authorities in developing sustainable partnerships based on sound principles and the

misunderstanding of the benefits of partnership. The lack of experience of the local public administration

was accompanied by the habit of community organisations not to collaborate with the administration. The

situations to which we refer are partnerships concluded in haste, without the participation of all parties in

planning the project and without even a minimal knowledge of the roles in the project. In a bid to win

some points in the evaluation, local government authorities in localities where there are no NGOs have

appealed to different organisations and acquaintances even from other counties, sometimes very distant.

So, instead of the actual involvement of NGOs in projects, we are dealing with a number of formal

partnerships begun only to obtain additional points for evaluation. Obviously this will have significant

effects on the quality of the partnership during project implementation.

The MA’s attempt to promote partnership with rural nongovernmental organisations (Measure 322, Axis

III “Villages Development”) is welcome. We believe that community organisations can have a major role

in integrated projects developed by the administration, particularly in cultural or social areas. At the same

time, we think that the MA needs to ensure that partnerships do not remain formal. We recommend, for

example, the monitoring and evaluation of actual involvement of NGOs in the approved projects, and for

the future funding opportunities, the construction of partnerships assessment instruments right from the

application phase.

62


II. Financial conditions, documents’ coherence and bureaucracy of the

programme

II.a. The extent to which financial conditions are adapted to the associative sector The main problem reported by potential beneficiaries of NRDP in the associative sector is related to

budget management and, generally, to the cash flow necessary for the proper implementation of the

project. The fact that rural development funds reach the beneficiaries through a reimbursement procedure

is a clear disadvantage especially for small organisations.

Under the NRDP, unlike other operational programmes, the NGOs do not receive any pre-financing and

the entire amount must be advanced by the beneficiary. Although there are measures under the NRDP to

enable the beneficiaries to receive the funding in advance, its reception is conditional on the existence of a

bank guarantee to cover 110% of the advance.

The need for investment budgets before the project begins dissuades NGOs, especially those of small and

medium dimensions, to start the application process. The only existing possibilities are partnerships with

public authorities or private companies, although there is a risk of imbalances.

One solution could be the existence of a guarantee fund specially created for nongovernmental

organisations to provide them with guaranteed loans. Alternatively, another solution discussed was

changing the procedures as for pre-accession funds or for other operational programmes. Giving an upfront

payment to a beneficiary at the start of the projects can also be an incentive to increase the number of

applicants.

In regards to the measures taken to stimulate interest in NRDP, we can nominate the eligibility of

consultancy costs. NGOs in rural areas have reduced access to information and training sessions. This is

useful because it allows compensation for lack of experience in writing grant applications by using the

services of specialised companies. The MA representatives have stated that there are abusive situations in

“Financial conditions are very harsh! As I said, there are programmes that do not

grant any advance / pre-financing (such as the NRDP), which greatly restricts the

access of NGOs or forces them into partnerships that are unfavorable or

unbalanced.” (potential applicant organisation)

“A better solution that I see would be to work in the same system as for pre-accession

programmes and to provide an advance. If this is not possible, probably a guarantee

fund would help, because otherwise many NGOs don’t have the means to guarantee

loans to banks.” (representative of a potentially applicant NGO)

63


which beneficiaries were advised by the staff of institutions responsible for NRDP to choose the services

of some specific consulting firms, otherwise risking their project not to be approved. The recommendation

or imposition of a certain consulting firm - a situation encountered in the local public administration - is a

practice which is increasingly more noticed throughout the country. Worse, if possible, the firms

sometimes recommended are often small companies with limited ability (“4 people were working in a 1-

bedroom apartment, drafting about 20 projects for local public administrations” - a mayor tells us).

II.b. Documents’ clarityThe potential beneficiaries of the non-profit sector said NRDP documents are clear, but incomplete.

Problems have been reported especially under Axis 4 “LEADER Programme”, where applicants are faced

with lack of information and actual explanations.

A point raised by potential beneficiaries of the programme is the difficulty of programming documents that

are not coupled with explicit guidelines. Existing information is not suitable to the beneficiaries, who often

have difficulties when trying to decrypt guides. In this case, any explanation asked of the MA officials has

been useless, because they often repeat information straight from the guides.

The inadequacy of documents is even more serious as most NRDP beneficiaries are institutions active in

rural areas and thus, the programme will not achieve its objectives.

II.c. Programme’s bureaucracy

Representatives of the Managing Authority, and also those of the Regional Centres consider the existing

bureaucracy within NRDP to be a real problem, though to the Managing Authority the SAPARD

programme was a good lesson to circumvent redundant procedures.

“Our association is very familiar with its field of work and is initiating various

activities using its own resources (organising national conferences, exhibitions of

animals etc.) and sponsorships. We don’t have the ability to develop such an

application and the documentation necessary for accessing these funds. We tried, but

we got stuck in the budget forecasting, because some requirements are not clearly

explained. We asked for clarification (in a more understandable way), but we were

provided with the same information in the guide or official documents.” (potential

applicant NGO)

64


There is also the view that things are being complicated mainly by the Romanian authorities, with

excessive rules to be respected that were not necessarily imposed by the European Union.

III. Communication and the quality of the assistance offered to the

beneficiaries of NRDP

Communication with beneficiariesAt this time there is no communication strategy for the National Rural Development Programme. It was

only in July 2009 that the purchasing procedures were started to obtain a services package to begin the

development of a communication strategy.

Without a strategy, communicating with potential beneficiaries is done depending on the release of funding

only (call for projects). The main channels used for communication and informing the beneficiaries in the

NRDP are direct meetings in the regional information sessions, phone or e-mail, websites or the monthly

newsletter InfoAPDRP. There is also a telephone hotline where complaints can be made on programme

issues.

Informing beneficiaries is done by: publication on the website of the Paying Agency for Rural

Development and Fishery (www.apdrp.ro), advertising the opening of new sessions of financing or various

amendments and extensions of deadlines, distributing a monthly newsletter InfoAPDRP, information

sessions, phone or e-mail.

“We have simplified the procedure because we had experience with the SAPARD

programme and we reduced the necessary documents for drawing up the dossier,

many notifications and all kinds of other documents were removed, we tried to

ease the accession procedures, because everyone was scared of it. But you can not

eliminate all requirements because they are general requirements that apply to all

EU Member States and follow the same rules and operate under the same

regulations. When the money comes from the EU, they tell us what and where to

use them. We only set priorities.” (MA Representative)

“It is a bureaucratic process, because we like to complicate things more than

necessary. Many of the rules to be respected are not required by the EU, but we

propose them and that is why everything becomes more complicated.” (IB

representative)

65


InfoAPDRP is a monthly publication containing information on accessing European funding. It is

distributed freely and the language is understandable. Here are some of the articles contained: successful

projects in Romania and the European Union, information about the launch of financing opportunities,

project ideas, legislative changes, contact details of the Agency’s subsidiaries in the country and frequently

asked questions.

The website of the Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery is generally accessible and contains

useful information related to open call for applications. In an evaluation which measured the speed of

information retrieval, accessibility and availability of information and public services, relevant

information, structuring of information, the Agency’s website received a score of 3.5 on a scale of 1 to 5.

With regard to direct communication, the majority of respondents from institutions with responsibilities in

the management of NRDP stated that responses to requests received from beneficiaries are sent relatively

quickly (several days), the staff using especially the email or the phone.

To test the quality of assistance provided to them by the National Rural Development Programme, tests

were made with 2 of the 8 regional centers. We attempted to evaluate the quality of responses provided,

employee attitude and willingness to provide comprehensive information to applicants.

Two questions were chosen to conduct the tests:

1. I would like to ask you what are the current funding opportunities from NRDP for NGOs and how can

one learn more about them.

! Call duration: 1.25 minutes

! The employee communicated their official position and the name: No

! Employee Courtesy: friendly

! Quality of information: The information provided was not useful

! Was the information the employee communicated correct: incorrect

2. I would like to know if an NGO based in Bucharest can take the initiative of forming a Local Action

Group, on the LEADER Axis. If not, in what circumstances can this be done?

! Call duration: 4.25 minutes

! The employee communicated their official position and the name: No

! Employee Courtesy: friendly

! Quality of information: The applicant was citing information from the guide, but additional

information was also given.

! Was the information the employee communicated correct: correct

66


In the tests, but also in interviews, it appears that employees are generally friendly, but the information

offered to applicants is not necessarily useful. In most cases the information they provide does not exceed

the existing general level in the funding guidelines.

Failure of communication and lack of specificity are the main criticisms that are made to institutions

responsible. Adaptation is even important in this case as NRDP addresses the rural environment. Thus, the

main source of information about NRDP is the Internet – whilst Internet connections in the rural

communities are, according to the National Institute of Statistics, only at 8%11.

A special problem of communication appeared regarding the LEADER Axis. The need for better

communication in the LEADER programme is essential given the novelty of this intervention (promoting

partnership, the development approach is bottom-up) in rural areas in Romania.

The problem is created by circumvention of the logical steps necessary to implement the LEADER Axis

within NRDP (431.1). Initially this stage involves informing potential beneficiaries, their preparation and

then selecting Local Action Groups (LAGs).

Due to general delays in the programme, the Management Authority has released all three phases at the

same time, which is contrary to how the activities were intended to be implemented by the LEADER Axis.

“Structural Funds are complicated issues, very, very difficult to understand for ordinary

people. Very few beneficiaries can access those funds without using a consulting firm.

This in itself isn’t bad, just that these funds will be diverted to those who already have

money and information, without in any way changing the socio-economic disparities at

the local level.” (a potential applicant NGO)

“We noticed differences between how the measures were planned and their

implementation. For example under NRDP Axis 4 LEADER, measure 431,

Submeasure-1 was planned as 3 phases designed to run in sequences i.e. - inform

potential beneficiaries, their training, and selection of potential local action groups

which will receive funding for implementation of local development strategies. The

responsible Ministry and Agency had delayed so much the launching of these measures,

for which the contracting deadline is the end of year 2009. So the 3 measures were

launched in parallel, the activities will take place also in parallel, which contradicts the

way in which the activities were designed,” explained the representative of one of the

organisations surveyed.

67


Inter-institutional communicationRepresentatives of the institutions contacted reported no major disruptions in the communication. In

general, the most used communication channels between institutions responsible for the NRDP are,

according to their representatives, phone and e-mail. The only problem reported by a representative of the

Agency was the slightly superior attitude of the representatives of institutions from the “center”.

MA’s and local institutions’ personnel Representatives of institutions describe the deficiency in communication and also other management

problems of NRDP as exacerbated by the lack of staff. Institutions, regardless if it is the MA or the local

bodies, face a chronic lack of personnel, which considerably complicates the implementation mechanism.

Lack of staff and its turnover (leaving for the private system after a short period of time) prevent the

system from working optimally.

IV. Why aren’t NGOs rushing to apply for funds available through NRDP?

As noted at the beginning of this section, until October 2009 no NGO has obtained funding through NRDP.

For now, as explained in the same chapter, the level of involvement of organisations is reduced to a sum of

partnerships concluded by local authorities to achieve a better score in the evaluation.

The first reason showing up from our research is that interventions the organisations can make to achieve

the NRDP’s objectives were not sufficiently considered when designing this programme. Thus, there is no

axis or measure to illustrate the experience and skills of NGOs.

We recommend for the next programming period, the organisation of extensive consultation with active

organisations in rural development, in order to include the contribution that NGOs can make to the

development of rural areas in the measures of NRDP.

“Communication is ongoing, but the attitude of the MA employees is that of a

superior, in general. Answers, even if clear, are not always satisfactory and the final

decision is the MAs, regardless of recommendations.” (agency representative)

“It is very difficult, but that’s the way it is! You are being told that you have to provide

for so many positions, and you have to mobilise them all, especially in the times when

the selection committee has to be involved. People have worked until midnight because

of this! So this affects the staff with tiredness, but not the work.” (MA representative)

68


Financial conditions are also restrictive for NGOs. Local authorities or companies can resort to loans or

guarantees provided by the Rural Credit Guarantee Fund, but there are no such financial instruments for

NGOs. Pre-financing with no guarantees, especially in social and cultural projects for which the risk is low

and investments are lower, is also a recommended solution. In this respect, the SOP HRD can be a source

of experience and information.

Lack of information about this programme is another reason that contributes decisively to the

inaccessibility of NRDP.

Conclusions

Financial terms constitute the main problem NGOs are facing when trying to access funds available under

NRDP. The need to ensure financial cash flow under a system of reimbursement of expenses dissuades

potential beneficiaries. NGOs would welcome establishing a guarantee fund similar to the Loan Guarantee

Fund for SMEs.

Communication channels are not suited to the target audience. Those interested in accessing funds under

NRDP say that lack of information makes it difficult to draw up the application. In many cases the staff of

the institutions responsible for the programme is unable to explain key aspects required of beneficiaries.

Procedures and documentation necessary to draw up requests for funding are serious obstacles in the way

of potential beneficiaries of the funding available through NRDP.

The inclusion of consultancy costs among the eligible expenditure is a measure designed to encourage

NGOs to access funding, but in the absence of proper regulation, this measure can lead to abuses.

Staff shortages in the institutions responsible for NRDP delay the application procedures and make proper

working of the system difficult. At the same time, migration of staff to the private sector prevents the

accumulation of experience and professionalism in the system.

69


10. Fisheries Operational Programme (FOP)

I. NGOs Access to the FOP

There are major delays in implementing the Fisheries Operational Programme. The programme was

approved by the European Commission at the end of 2007, and the first calls for proposals were launched

in May 2009. Until the moment of drafting this report, no project was being implemented under the FOP.

The National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture (NAFA), acting as Managing Authority of FOP, is

facing tremendous difficulties in the process of accreditation by the European Commission. Because of the

major delays in the implementation of the programme, Romania will have to give back the sums advanced

in 2007 and 2008 by the European Union.

Theoretically, nongovernmental organisations may apply for funding under all axes of the Fisheries

Operational Programme. As in the case of the National Rural Development Programme (NRDP), the axis

offering most opportunities for NGOs is Priority Axis IV “Sustainable development of fishing areas”.

Under this axis, NGOs may initiate partnerships with public institutions or private companies in order to

draw up local development strategies for fishing areas. Organisations may also make interventions that

contribute to the growth of social capital. Actually, our interest in assessing this programme lies in the

characteristics of many Romanian fishing areas: isolation, people’s apathy, lack of initiative or

coordination from the local actors. Conclusive evidence is the situation of some rural areas in the Danube

Delta and the South of the country. In this context, we thought FOP could be an opportunity for NGOs

interventions that could contribute in the solution of some of the mentioned problems.

The first conclusion we draw from our attempt to assess the transparency of the FOP management and

NGOs access to this programme is that there is an absolute lack of information. The NGOs we contacted

within our research refused to be part of it motivating they have absolutely no information about this

operational programme. We can then estimate that the same reason lies in the low interest of NGOs for the

FOP.

The total absence of information may be explained by the inexistence of a communication strategy for the

FOP. At local level, communication with potential beneficiaries is made exclusively by phone. The section

dedicated to the FOP on the website of the National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture is incomplete, the

only information available about the programme being the document about the FOP itself, the applicant’s

guide and the calls for projects opened so far.

70


In addition, for the few NGOs that are up to date with the opportunities offered by FOP, the huge delays in

the implementation of the programme generated mistrust and suspicion. Potential applicants moved to

other funding sources, available under other programmes such as the NRDP and SOP HRD.

Despite the lack of functionality, we tried to apply the same evaluation procedures to this programme too.

The seriousness of the situation in the management of the FOP was confirmed by our attempt to approach

the responsible institutions.

The attitude of the NAFA’s (MA) officials is proof for the collapse of the programme. We must note that

NAFA is the only Managing Authority that didn’t answer our information requests made on the basis of

Law 544/2001 demanding data about the information points for the FOP and number of applicants for the

programme.

II. Conclusions

No payment has been made under the Fisheries Operational Programme. There is no beneficiary, and the

Programme was approved by the European Commission in December 2007. Romania risks losing the

existing funding through this programme. There are still problems related to the programme’s management

in Romania. The NAFA, the programm’s Managing Authority, doesn’t comply yet with all the

requirements of the European Commission.

There is low interest from the nongovernmental organisations in accessing funds under the FOP, even if

many of the activities characteristic for NGOs could contribute in solving some of the problems addressed

by the Fisheries Operational Programme. This situation is due to the lack of information about the

programme and the delays registered in its implementation.

There is no communication strategy for the promotion of the Fisheries Operational Programme. There is a

serious deficit of information about funding under FOP, the level of information of the FOP potential

beneficiaries from the non-profit sector being very low.

71


11. Conclusions “Emergency Call for

Structural Funds”

The low level of absorption of European funds in the first years after accession is common for every new

member state, this being motivated by the novelty of the process – although apparently similar, there are

instrumental differences in the management of pre-accession and post-accession funds. Nevertheless,

Romania risks a negative record in this sense, mainly generated by the management of the funds.

Absorption of structural funds should be a national priority, assumed by all institutions involved in the

process. Moreover, it is necessary for the debate around structural funds to surpass the stage of

opportunistic speeches and move into the area of technical capacity development for absorbing the funds.

The present study looked at the implementation mechanisms for structural funds and focused on the

institutions managing them. We started from the premise that for a high degree of absorption, the political

will (there is general consensus on the importance of these funds) must translate into a genuine support for

consolidating the capacity of absorption.

The gap between talk and reality is reflected in the critical aspects of the system: 3 years after accession,

the Managing Authority for the Fisheries Operational Programme is still not accredited, some regulations

regarding the implementation of projects were only adopted in the autumn of 2009, although their

necessity was anticipated since Romania’s accession to the EU (for example, the provisions regarding the

recovery of VAT), and because of the delays, some programmes launched simultaneous calls for proposals

even if they should have launched them consecutively (see Axis 431.1 LEADER under NRDP).

The present study dedicated a special section to each operational programme considered relevant for

NGOs, and the main general conclusions are the following:

! The role of NGOs in achieving the development objectives proposed for the structural funds is

not clearly defined.

In the case of some of the operational programmes (OP ACD, NRDP, SOP ENV), the way documents set

the rules for projects’ implementation shows that NGOs capacity to contribute to achieving the objectives

is not recognised.

In many cases where NGOs are eligible as partners, their role is limited to the co-management of the

project. The organisations’ expertise – translated into specialised human resources – can not be used

because training, consulting or mapping services must be sub-contracted. Usually, partnerships bring

72


added value to the projects by the common pool of expertise created by the partners in the

implementation of activities. This legal provision, even if well intended, creates confusions as to the roles

of the partners and marginalises the added value NGOs can bring in a project.

! The financial rules imposed by the management of structural funds is not realistic from the

point of view of NGOs possibility to ensure the cash flow

Financial rules force nongovernmental organisations to contribute with much more than the 2% co-

financing for sustaining a non-refundable financing project. And this is because, practically, NGOs must

cover the cash flow in its totality, besides the 2% (which is a big sum in absolute value), the VAT to be

recovered at reimbursement (19%) and the payment upfront for a big slice of the expenses. Tthis would

be done in a situation when reimbursement conditions are not even respected.

If local authorities and commercial companies can resort to loans or guarantees offered by the Rural

Credit Guarantee Fund or the National Credit Guarantee Fund for SMEs, there are no such financial

instruments for NGOs. Ensuring co-financing is practically impossible if the organisation is not

implementing other projects at the same time, considering that NGOs access to bank loans is limited by

the lack of assets necessary to guarantee the loan.

! The communication strategy used by the Managing Authorities – where it exists – is positively

appreciated, but the communication channels and the language used are not often adapted to

the target public

Using predominantly electronic communication channels and a technical language is a disadvantage for

the potential beneficiaries in the rural areas, protected areas with reduced access to telecommunication

technologies and disadvantaged communities. The information sessions are of poor quality, offering the

same information as the Internet pages, without adapting it to the needs and expectations of the public.

The lack of adjustment of the language and documents is even more serious in the case of the

programmes such as the NRDP that have the majority of their potential beneficiaries in rural areas.

! Once determined to apply for funding, the potential beneficiary is confronted with a

bureaucratic system, lacking predictability, clarity and consistency

The legal framework governing the financial management of structural funds is rigid and does not

correspond to the actual needs in the implementation of the projects. Excessive bureaucracy leads to

73


deadlocks and delays impossible to catch up with. Among the most frequent problems encountered there

are:

! lack of consistency and consolidation of the legislation;

! constant modification of the documents and rules, even during the implementation period;

! increased number of corrigenda documents that are not included in consolidated guide books;

! high level of interpretability of the supporting documents (applicant’s guide, procedures etc.);

! poor communication with beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries in offering the information they

need;

! delayed responses and many times, inadequate to the beneficiaries’ inquiries; in the majority of the

cases, no supplementary information is offered compared to that provided in the guide books;

! long waiting periods (between application and reception of an answer, between notification of

selection and the signature of the contract, and especially, between reporting and reimbursement).

The most feared consequences of these problems are linked to delays that lead to financial jams and

engaging expenses that won’t be reimbursed, both situations leading to the “bankrupcy” of the

organisations.

By consequence, applying for financing through structural funds is perceived as being rather a risk

than an opportunity.

! Based on our experience and the information gathered through the present research, we may say the

experience of pre-accession programmes (such as PHARE) was not transferred to the

management of structural funds, as it would have been normal, and we consider that the main

cause for the disfunctionnalities of the system is the lack of experienced human resources in

the MAs and the IBs, added to the disproportionate lack of personnel.

The modest wages compared to the level of expertise required, and especially the huge workload and

level of responsibility, determined many of the employees in the Managing Authorities to leave for the

better working places in the last year, and the subsequent vacancies can not be filled, but on the contrary,

they’re maintained because of the decisions made at superior hierarchical levels.

Another profound cause is related to the legal framework, still incomplete and uncertain, there being

always the danger of bureaucratic interventions from the outside, leading to institutional jams and delays.

The general atmosphere is one of avoiding responsibilities; when rules are not clear, no one is willing

to take the risk of making a mistake. By consequence, for example in the case of Intermediate Bodies, no

one takes responsibility for offering additional information. The entire responsibility lies with the

Managing Authority, despite the responsibilities’ delegation agreement governing the relationship

between the Managing Authorities and the Intermediate Bodies.

74


! In Romania, beneficiaries and public authorities are many times in a conflictual situation and don’t

work together as they should. From this perspective, the current report highlights the fundamental

lack of mutual trust, situation that could be improved through better communication; the risk in

failing to manage these financing opportunities could be diminished by an improved

communication between the responsible institutions and the potential beneficiaries.

! The present report includes numerous recommendations adapted for each Operational Programme.

The following general recommendations can also be made:

! Revision/clarification of the procedures defining partnership, so that the financing programme

respects on the one hand the principle of honest expenditure of money, and on the other hand,

the principle of authentic partnership in projects’ implementation.

! Improving the communication strategies, both on the level of the information offered on the

funding opportunities and on the assistance provided by the institutions. Clarification of the

ways in which NGOs could contribute in the programmes would increase the number of

applicants.

! The efforts of the Managing Authorities to improve accession mechanisms to community

funding are welcome, but the intention to modify the rules should be made public in a

transparent manner, offering the beneficiaries the possibility of expressing their point of view.

If a certain degree of bureaucratisation is acceptable to all parties because of the large sums

involved and the European regulations, the complexity should be matched by clarity and

coherence.

! The systems may be further simplified, especially in those areas where decisions are made at

national levels. The more institutions on the project’s flow, the higher the risk of jamming.

! Improving the capacity to offer assistance and solving the personnel problems.

! The idea of creating a fund to guarantee loans for NGOs just as in the case of SMEs is

strongly and broadly embraced. Also with regards to the rules linked to financial

management, the possibility of giving up the rule of presenting a guarantee for an upfront

payment and the rule for the necessity of public procurement contracts should be considered.

! We recommend, for the next programming period, extensive consultations with NGOs be

organised, with the view to include more details about the NGOs contribution in the

Operational Programmes measures for the national development objectives.

European funds available after EU accession represent a development opportunity. The actors in this

process come from all sectors, be it public, private or nongovernmental. For the efficient management of

this opportunity, it is crucial that all these actors cooperate and recognise each other’s role in the process.

75


12. Annexes

Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development

The Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOP HRD) is financed through

the European Social Fund and it represents an important tool in the implementation of national strategies

and policies for developing human resources.

It must be mentioned that the European Social Fund supports two of the operational programmes, SOP

HRD and the Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development. For the Operational

Programme Human Resources Development, the financial allocation under the European Social Fund for

the period 2007 – 2013 is 3.476 million euro, which represents 85% of the total value of the programme,

and the national contribution is estimated at 613 million euro.

1.1. The Objectives of the SOP HRD

The strategic objective of the programme is the development of human capital and increasing

competitiveness, by linking education and lifelong learning with the labour market and ensuring

increased opportunities for future participation on a modern, flexible and inclusive labour market for

1,650,000 people.

Through its specific objectives, the SOP HRD promotes continuous education and training, promotes

entrepreneurial culture and improvement of the quality and productivity at work, facilitates the young

people’s insertion in the labour market, aims at developing a modern, flexible, inclusive labour market,

promotes (re)insertion in the labour market of inactive people, including in rural areas, improvement of

public employment services, facilitating access to education and to the labour market of the vulnerable

groups.

76


1.2. Axes and Financial Allocation

In order to achieve its general and specific objectives, the SOP HRD was conceived to operate in the

following strategic areas:

! Priority Axis 1 “Education and training in support for growth and development of knowledge based

society”

! Priority Axis 2 “Linking life long learning and labour market”

! Priority Axis 3 “Increasing adaptability of workers and enterprises”

! Priority Axis 4 “Modernisation of Public Employment Service”

! Priority Axis 5 “Promoting active employment measures”

! Priority Axis 6 “Promoting social inclusion”

! Priority Axis 7 “Technical Assistance”

Function of their analysis, the responsible authorities established allocations for each of the strategic

directions to be followed in the achivement of the SOP HRD objectives. Therefore, for Priority Axes 2

and 3 regarding the promotion of life long learning and adaptability of workers and enterprises, the

authorities dedicated the highest percentages of all structural funds - 38,37%. Priority Axes 4, 5 and 6,

which promote active employment measures for inactive populations, especially for those living in

subsistance agriculture, young unemployed and long term unemployed people, as well as the integration

on the labour market of vulnerable groups, obtained 34,21% of the funds. Education and training in

support for growth and development of knowledge based economy (Priority Axis 1) receive only 23,55%

of the funds.

1.3 Documents Regulating Access to Funding under SOP HRD

For regulating the access to money available under the Sectoral Operational Programme Human

Resources Development, the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection and other responsible

institutions with the management of these funds, devised a series of documents to regulate access to the

ESF money. Those interested in accessing funding should familiarize themselves with the following

documents:

1. The Programming Document for the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources

Development was created in the framework of the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and sets the

priority axes and the major intervention areas of Romania in the human resources field in order to

implement the EU financial assistance through the European Social Fund, within the framework of the

“Convergence” objective, for the programming period 2007- 2013.

77


2. The Framework Document for Implementing the Sectoral Operational Programme Human

Resources Development 2007 – 2013, comprises a detailed description, for each Priority Axis, of

eligible activities and expenses and general provisions regarding the eligibility and selection criteria of

projects and beneficiaries, target groups, monitoring and evaluation indicators, horizontal themes.

3. The Annual Working Programme, which comprises the estimated dates for launching calls for

projects.

4. The Communication Plan sets the strategic lines for increasing the information and awareness degree

regarding the opportunities, benefits and results of the ESF for developing human resources in Romania,

highlighting the role and added value of the European Community’s assistance at national, regional and

local level, as well as in the promotion and facilitation of quality projects’ application, according to the

implementation objectives of the SOP HRD.

5. The Multi-Annual Evaluation Plan, a document presenting the evaluation strategy for SOP HRD

2007 – 2013 in Romania. The Strategy has been discussed with the Authority for the Coordination of

Structural Instruments (ACIS) and the Monitoring Committee of SOP HRD.

6. The Applicant’s Guide and the funding request which must be filled in online, using the application

ActionWeb.

7. Other documents of legal nature.

1.4 Responsible institutions for the SOP HRD

The good functioning of SOP HRD depends largely on the way the responsible institutions for the

management of these funds work.

A Managing Authority is responsible for the management and implementation of the SOP HRD,

constituted at the level of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection. In addition, the

programme is managed at regional level by 8 Regional Intermediate Bodies and at national level by 5

Intermediate Bodies: the Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation, the National Centre for

Technical and Vocational Education Development, the National Agency for Employment, 2 Intermediate

Bodies designated following a public international call.

The following institutions are also involved in the management of the SOP HRD:

! The Monitoring Committee SOP HRD, a body without legal status, but with decisional and

strategic roles.

! The Certifying and Paying Authority, an institution responsible with the certification of

expenses, as well as elaboration and communication to the European Commission of the

expenditures certificates and payment requests in electronic format, receiving payments from the

European Commission; transferring the funds from the European Social Fund to the Payment Unit

within the MA of the SOP HRD for projects financed under SOP HRD.

78


! The Audit Authority, a body responsible with the audit system, checks made on the basis of

samples and final audit; checks and external audits for structural funds; annual checks for of the

management and control systems; checking the declared eligible expenses using representative

samples; making the appropriate controls in order to issue the closing declarations at the end of

measures and programmes; checking the existance and fairness of national co-financing.

! The Authority for the Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) plays the role of national

coordinator of the financial assistance in the relationship with the EU. In this quality of national

coordinator of the non-refundable assistance offered by the European Union, ACIS had attributions

and responsibilities also in the pre-accession area, these having now translated in the field of the

coordination of the management of structural and cohesion funds.

Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development

Operational Programme Administrative Capacity Development aims at improving the decision making

process, more efficient enforcement of legislation, improving the decision making process for the public

administration, accompanied by ensuring quality and efficiency in the delivery of public services.

One of the main directions is based on decentralisation and systematisation in a functional and efficient

manner of services in four essential sectors: public administration, health, education and social

assistance.

OP ACD is financed from the European Community’s contribution in a proportion of 85%, through the

European Social Fund and from the national contribution in a percentage of 13%. The last 2% is ensured

by the beneficiaries of the programme, as financial contribution and not in kind.

1.1 The Objectives of the OP ACD

The general objective of OP ACD is to “contribute to the a creation of a more efficient public

administration, to the socio-economic benefit of the Romanian society.”

The specific objectives can be found in two of the three axes of the Programme. The first is “structural

and process improvements of the public policy management cycle” and the second is “improved quality

and efficiency of the delivery of public services on a decentralised basis.”

79


1.2 Axes and Financial Allocation

Priority Axis 1: Structural and process improvements of the public policy management cycle -

137.037.022 lei

Priority Axis 2: Improved quality and efficiency of the delivery of public services on a decentralised

basis - 97.883.587 lei

Priority Axis 3: Technical Assistance - 11.093.472 lei

1.3 Documents that regulate access to funds under OP ACD

In order to understand the mechanisms regulating access to funds available under OP ACD, potential

applicants should become familiar with the following documents:

1) Programmatic Document of the Operational Programme12, containing a series of general

information, a SWOT analysis on the local public administration, as well as the implementation strategy.

Other points touched upon in the document are: the financial plan, the implementation and the

partnership.

2) Supplementary detailes are offered in the Framework Document of Implementation13, which details

the eligibile activities, eligible categories of expenses, the dimension of the financing, the target groups

and evaluation criteria for each key area of intervention.

3) The Common Order of Eligible Expenses14 is the document that enumerates and details the

expenses’ categories that can be made by the beneficiaries.

4) The Implementation Manual15 is a key document, which presents the application methodology. The

last version was published in September 2009 and offers information on eligible procurement in the

framework of the project, the financial management, monitoring of implementation, modifications to

contracts and anti-fraud measures.

5) The Communication Plan16 sets the information dissemination techniques and collaboration with the

mass-media, as well as with potential beneficiaries. The strategy has not been implemented following the

annulment of public procurement procedures. However, fragments of the strategy have been

implemented through the efforts of the MA of the OP ACD.

6) The Applicant’s Guide and the Financing Request.

1.4 Institution involved in the implementation of the Programme

! The Ministry of Administration and Interior through the Managing Authority of OP ACD;

! The Ministry of Public Finances through the Certifying and Paying Authority;

80


! The Romanian Court of Accounts through the Audit Authority;

! The Ministry of Public Finances through the Authority for the Coordination of Structural

Instruments (ACIS).

Sectoral Operational Programme EnvironmentThe Sectoral Operational Programme Environment (SOP ENV) aims at improving the environment

infrastructure and the setting up of efficient management structures for the delivery of relevant services

for environmental protection.

This programme was created by the Ministry of Environement and Sustainable Development (currently

the Ministry of Environment), as Managing Authority for this programme and under the coordination of

the Ministry of Economy and Finances, currently the Ministry of Public Finances, in its quality of

coordinator of the Romanian preparation process to access Structural and Cohesion Funds during 2007 –

2013.

The programme is financed from two sources, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and

the Cohesion Fund (CF), with a total value of 4,5 billion euro, to which national co-financing is added

with a value of 1,1 billion euro.

The general objective of the SOP ENV is to protect and improve the environment and living standards in

Romania, focusing in particular on meeting the environmental acquis.

1.1 The specific objectives of the SOP ENV are:

1. Improve the quality and access to water and wastewater infrastructure, by providing water supply and

waste water services in most urban areas by 2015 and by setting efficient regional water and wastewater

management structures.

2. Development of sustainable waste management systems, by improving waste management and

reducing the number of historically contaminated sites in minimum 30 counties by 2015.

3. Reduction of negative environmental impact and mitigation of climate change caused by urban heating

plants in most polluted localities by 2015.

4. Protection and improvement of biodiversity and natural heritage by supporting the protected areas

management, including NATURA 2000 implementation.

5. Reduction of the incidence of natural disasters affecting the population, by implementing preventive

measures in most vulnerable areas by 2015.

81



The following types of intervention are financed under the Sectoral Operational Programme

Environment:

Priority Axis 1 “Extension and modernization of water and wastewater systems” – financial allocation

of 3,27 billion euro, out of which the EU grant is 2,78 billion euro

Priority Axis 2 “Development of integrated waste management systems and rehabilitation of historically

contaminated sites” – financial allocation 1,17 billion euro, out of which the EU grant is 0,93 billion euro

Priority Axis 3 “Reduction of pollution and mitigation of climate change by restructuring and renovating

urban heating systems towards energy efficiency targets in the identified local environmental hotspots” –

financial allocation 458 million euro, out of which the EU Grant is 229 million euro

Priority Axis 4 “Implementation of adequate management systems for nature protection” – financial

allocation 215 million euro, out of which the EU grant is 172 million euro

Priority Axis 5 “Implementation of adequate infrastructure of natural risk prevention in most vulnerable

areas” – financial allocation 329 million euro, out of which the EU grant is 270 million euro

Priority Axis 6 “Technical Assistance” – financial allocation is 174 million euro, out of which the EU

grant is 130 million euro.

1.3 The documents regulating the Sectoral Operational Programme Environment

The main documents are:

! The Framework Document for Implementing the Sectoral Operational Programme

Environment, setting the priority axes and the key areas of intervention in Romania in the

environmental sector.

! The preparation and evaluation guide for projects, presenting the main demands that a potential

beneficiary must address in preparing environment infrastructure projects, and also the

implementation and financing mechanisms, the evaluation and selection criteria and procedures for

projects.

! The Communication Plan, defining a set of objectives, target groups, information and publicity

measures, responsible administrative institutions and departments, communication tools, necessary

estimated budget for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the measures set in the plan.

! The Environment Report (The SEA Report)

! The Applicant’s Guide and the Financing Request

82


1.4 Insitutions involved in the implementation of the Sectoral Operational

Programme Environment

For the development and implementation of projects financed under SOP ENV, the following

institutional framework has been set:

The Managing Authority (MA) for the SOP ENV is the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable

Development. The MA is organised as a General Directorate – The General Directorate for the

Management of Structural Instruments – according to the Government Decision 368/2007 with further

modifications and completions. The MA is coordinating and ensuring the general management of SOP

ENV, drafts the implementation procedures, selects projects, signs the financing contracts, ensures the

publicity and information measures for the programme, reports about the implementation stage to the

European Commission etc.

The Authority for the Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) is the institution responsible

with the coordination of the management and implementation of Structural Instruments in Romania.

ACIS works within the Ministry of Finances, and its main responsibility is to coordinate the

programming, development and implementation of the Operational Programmes within the National

Strategic Reference Framework, in order to ensure coordination and coherence among programmes, and

also their consistency with the Rural Development Programme and the Fisheries Operational

Programme.

Intermediate Bodies (IB) have been created in each of the 8 development regions of Romania (NUTS

II). They play a major role in the implementation of the SOP ENV at regional level, acting as interface

between beneficiaries and the MA. The MA delegated to the IBs responsibilities regarding

programming, monitoring, control and reporting activities for projects running in a respective region.

The Monitoring Committee for the SOP ENV has as major responsibility the monitoring of the

project’s implementation. Members of the Committee come from ministries with managing roles, trade

unions and professional associations relevant for the areas financed by SOP ENV, civil society and

NGOs active in the environmental field, the European Commission and international financial

institutions.

The Certifying and Paying Authority (CPA) is established inside the Ministry of Finances, organised

as a general directorate. Within the CPA, there are two separate units, the Certification Unit and the

Payment Unit, each of them under the coordination of a Deputy General Director. The body responsible

for receiving payments from the European Commisson for the SOP ENV is the Certifying and Paying

Authority, through the Payment Unit. The body responsible for making payments to the SOP ENV

beneficiaries is the CPA – The Payment Unit.

The Audit Authority, which functions with the Court of Accounts, as well as the internal audit unit that

functions inside the Ministry of Environment, are expected to ensure the audit system for the SOP ENV.

83


The National Authority for Regulating and Monitoring of Public Procurement (NARMPP) is an independent institution with the role of checking the conformity of the public procurement process after it has been implemented by the beneficiary (ex-post control).

The Unit for Coordination and Verification of Public Procurement (UCVPP) within the Ministry of Economy and Finance has been appointed as the body responsible for ensuring ex-ante verification of public procurement procedures.

Regional Operational ProgrammeThe Regional Operational Programme (ROP) is financed through the European Regional Development

Fund (ERDF), and constitutes an important instrument in the implementation of the national strategies

and policies for regional development.

In order to achieve the objectives of the ROP, a total budget of 4,4 billion euro has been awarded to

Romania for the first 7 years following accession (2007 – 2013). The grant from the EU represents

approximately 84% of the ROP’s budget. The rest of the budget comes from national funds, public co-

financing (14%) and private co-financing (2%).

1.1 Objectives

As shown in the programmatic documents, the purpose of ROP is to support economic growth,

balanced from a social point of view and sustainable in all regions of Romania, according to their

specific resources and needs, by focusing on growth urban poles, improving business conditions and

infrastructure, in order to turn the least developed regions of Romania into attractive places to live in,

visit, invest in and work in.

The following specific objectives have been set for the ROP:

! increasing the economic and social role of urban poles, through a polycentric approach, in order

to stimulate a more balanced development of the regions;

! improving accessibility to the regions, especially accessibility of urban centres and their

connections with the surrounding areas;

! increasing the quality of regions’ social infrastructure;

! increasing the regions’ competitiveness as business locations;

! increasing tourism’s contribution to the development of the regions.

84



The Regional Operational Programme comprises 6 axes:

Priority Axis 1: Support to sustainable development of urban growth poles – financial allocation of

30% of the programme’s budget

Priority Axis 2: Improvement of regional and local transport infrastructure – financial allocation of

20,35% of the programme’s budget

Priority Axis 3: Improvement of social infrastructure – financial allocation of 15% of the budget

Priority Axis 4: Strengthening the regional and local business environment – financial allocation of

17% of the programme’s budget

Priority Axis 5: Sustainable development and promotion of tourism – financial allocation of 15% of the

programme’s budget

Priority Axis 6: Technical Assistance – financial allocation of 2,65% of the budget

1.3 Documents regulating the Regional Operational Programme

The ROP is regulated by a set of documents, as follows:

1. The Programming Document for the Regional Operational Programme which describes the

context, the objectives, the structure, the funds allocations for each priority axis, the relevant bodies and

the internal procedures for the ROP;

2. The Framework Document for Implementing the ROP includes all relevant details for the key

areas of intervention of the ROP, as well as sums allocated to projects, eligibility criteries for financing

requests, eligible projects etc.;

3. The Communication Plan for the Regional Operational Programme sets the strategic lines for

publicity and information measures, that can ensure good knowledge, among the target groups, about

the ROP and the EU’s contribution to Romania’s development;

4. The financing request and the Applicant’s Guide where potential applicants can find details about

each particular area of intervention;

5. Other documents of legal nature – government’s decisions that approve the list of eligible expenses

and other ministerial orders or decisions adopted by other relevant institutions for the ROP.

85


1.4 Institutions involved in the implementation of the Regional Operational

Programme

Just as in the case of the other operational programmes, a Managing Authority ensures management

and implementation of the programme together with Intermediate Bodies acting as implementation

units at regional level (there are 8 of them, one for each development region).

These Intermediate Bodies are practically the former Regional Development Agencies; they have direct

contact with the applicants and collaborate with the Managing Authority on the basis of an agreement.

The agencies are legally acting as nongovernmental organisations.

Also acting as Intermediate Body there is the Ministry of Tourism, managing the Key Area of

Intervention 5.3 ”Promoting the tourism potential and setting-up the needed infrastructure in order to

increase Romania’s attractivity as tourism destination”.

The following institutions are involved as well in the management of the programme:

! The Monitoring Committee for the Regional Operational Programme (MC ROP) is a

national structure of the partnership type, having the role to ensure efficiency and quality in the

implementation of ROP. This committee has no legal status, but plays a decisive and strategic

role in the implementation of the ROP.

! The Audit Authority which functions independently from the Managing Authority and is

responsible with the verification of the efficient functioning of the management and control

systems.

! The Certifying and Paying Authority is the structure inside the Ministry of Finance

responsible for the certification of sums declared in the documents sent to the European

Commission and for the reception of funds transferred to Romania through the European

Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and ensures

their transfeir to beneficiaries, as well as pre-financing and co-financing sums allocated from the

state budget.

! The Regional Committees for Strategic Evaluation and Correlation (RCSEC) are

consultative bodies constituted at the level of each development region. These committees

discuss and analyse public investment priorities at regional level from Community funds or local

budgets, made in order to achieve the objectives of the strategy for regional development

! The Ministry of Regional Development and Housing is the line ministry designated to this

programme; inside the ministry there is the Managing Authority.

! The Authority for the Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) is created inside the

Ministry of Public Finance and plays the role of coordinator of assistance in the relationship

with the EU, having attributions and responsibilities regarding the coordination, preparation and

functioning of the legal, institutional and procedural frameworks; ACIS is also programming,

coordinating, monitoring and evaluating the use of the non-refundable financial assistance.

86


National Rural Development Programme

The National Rural Development Programme 2007 – 2013 (NRDP) has the aim of improving life

quality and diversification of rural economy. The programme is financed from the European

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the total value of the programme for the first 7

years (2007 – 2013) is 8,022 billion euro, 7,522 billion euro representing the EU’s contribution (80% of

the total value), Romania having to bring in 500 million euro.

1.1 Objectives

The general objective is the development of the rural Romanian space, the National Rural Development

Programme having the role of reducing disparities in socio-economical development.

The specific objectives of the programme aim to ease the transformation and modernisation of the

forestry and agricultural domains, related processing industries, maintaining and improving

environment quality in rural areas by promoting sustainable management, managing and facilitating the

transition of labour from the agricultural sector to other sectors.

1.2 Axes and financial allocation

The development directions mentioned below are followed by the National Rural Development

Programme:

Axis I “Increasing competitiveness of agriculture and forestry sectors”, representing 45% of the

programme’s total, finances measures aimed to improve knowledge and consolidate human potential in

the rural areas, to restructure physical potential and promote innovation and transitional measures.

Axis II “Improving the environment in rural areas” represents 25% of the programme and finances

those measures for the sustainable use of agricultural and forestry lands.

Axis III “Quality of life and diversification of rural economy” represents 30% of the programme’s total

and finances those measures destined to diversify rural economy and improve life in rural areas.

Axis IV “LEADER” receives 2,5% of the sums allocated to the other domains (local development

strategies, formation of Local Action Groups, transnational and inter-territorial cooperation).

87


1.3 Documents regulating access to funds under the National Rural Development

Programme

1. The National Rural Development Programme, programmatic document comprising the measures

to be implemented between 2007 and 2013

2. The National Strategic Programme for Rural Development (NSP) is a document setting the

priorities and national development direction for 2007 – 2013 in fields such as agriculture, forestry, as

well as those linked to infrastructure investments, development and renovation of Romanian villages, in

close relationship with Community priorities.

3. The Applicant’s Guide and the Financing Request

1.4 Institutions responsible for the NRDP

The implementation system of the NRDP is ensured by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development through its Managing Authority – the General Directorate for Rural Development

(GDRD).

The payment function belongs to the Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery, the former

SAPARD Agency. The agency receives financing requests, through the County Offices (CO), selects,

approves, monitors and evaluates the projects within all measures, with the exception of those designed

for less favoures areas and agro-environmental schemes.

Other institutions playing roles in the implementation of the NRDP are:

! The National Paying and Intervention Agency in Agriculture (PIAA), the paying body for

agro-environment schemes and those inside the disadvantaged areas. This institution has also the

responsibility to control agricultural and ecological conditions (GAEC) and measuring surfaces

for silvicultura on Axis 2.

! The Directorate General for Forestry Development and Property Consolidation (DGFDPC)

evaluating the requests forms and ensures controls in the field for projects submitted under Axis

II for forestry.

88


Fisheries Operational Programme

The Fisheries Operational Programme (FOP) 2007 – 2013 is financed by the European Fisheries Fund

(EFF).

The total value of the programme for Romania for the first 7 years (2007 – 2013) has been set to 307,6

million euro, out of which 230,7 million euro represent the European Union’s contribution, and

approximately 76,9 million euro represent Romania’s contribution. Together with Spain and Poland,

Romania has for the fisheries programme, the biggest budget in the European Union.

1.1 Objectives

According to the National Strategic Plan for Fisheries, the objective of the programme is to create a

competitive, modern and dynamic fish farming sector, based on durable fishing and aquaculture

activities that take into consideration environment protection, social development and economic growth.

The specific objectives of the programme are:

a) To develop the competitiveness and the sustainability of the fisheries sector;

b) To develop the market for products of the fisheries sector;

c) To support the sustainable development of fisheries areas and to improve the quality of life in those

areas;

d) To support the proper delivery of the OP in the framework of the Common Fishery Policy.


Thus, in view of the objectives above, 5 areas of intervention were created:

Axis I “Adjustement measures for the community fishing fleet”, financial allocation 13 million euro

Through this axis, the following measures are financed: adjusting the fishing fleet to resources available

and accessible in the Black Sea, as well as adjusting the fishing effort to the provision of the Common

Fishery Policy, maintaining the competitiveness of the Romanian fleet, supporting fishermen affected

by the economic evolutions of the fishing sector.

Axis II “Aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing of fishing and aquaculture products”,

financial allocation 140 million euro

Through this axis, the programme finances measures aiming at: modernisation of the aquaculture sector

and adapting the sector to market demands, maintaining a sustainable level of inland fishing, improving

the products of the fishing sector.

89


Axis III “Common interest measures”, financial allocation of 40 million euro

Measures aiming at the following are funded under this axis: consolidating the fishing infrastructure,

supporting professional skills in the fishing and aquaculture sectors, supporting common actions for

developing a sustainable fishing sector.

Axis IV “Sustainable development of fishery areas”, financial allocation of 100 million euro

The measures financed through this axis are: creation of local groups, local development strategies, and

supporting local development projects

Axis V “Technical assistance”, financial allocation of 14 million euro

1.3 Documents regulating access to funds under the Fisheries Operational

Programme

In order to benefit from funding under the FOP, the applicants should go through:

1. The Framework Document of the Fisheries Operational Programme, setting the strategic

measures to be implemented for improving the situation of the aquaculture sector.

2. The National Strategic Plan for Fisheries, it represents the development strategy of the sector, its

objectives having to be achieved through the implementation of the FOP;

3. The SEA Report – the Environment Report was based on evaluating the key areas of interventions

and was used for improving the FOP.

1.4 Institutions responsible for the implementation of the Fisheries Operational

Programme

The implementation system of the FOP is ensured by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development through the National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture, nominated as Managing

Authority for this programme.

The National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture (NAFA) works with 10 regional branches: Ia!i,

Gala#i, Tulcea, Constan#a, C"l"ra!i, Mehedin#i, Ilfov, Bra!ov, Timi! and Cluj.

The paying function lies with the Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery.

The Audit Authority is with the Court of Accounts.

The Monitoring Committee (MC) is the main body for coordination and decision making for the FOP.

The MC is responsible for the quality and efficiency of the programme’s implementation.