ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ABSORPTION OF THE EU FUNDS IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA IN 2010 MONIKA PANAYOTOVA, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE EUROPEAN FUNDS

2 CONTENT Financial implementation of the Operational programs - Leaders Progress achieved / delay observed Recommendations and vision regarding the oversight of the EU funds

3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OPT – Operational program “Transport” OPE – Operational program “Environment” OPRD – Operational program “Regional development” OPHRD – Operational program “Human Resources Development” OPC – Operational program “Competitiveness” OPAC – Operational program “Administrative Capacity” OPTA – Operational program “Technical Assistance” UMIS – Unified Management Information System

4 SCOPE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR EU-funded Programs, incl.: 7 Operational Programs under the Objective 1 ”Convergence” 5 Cross-Border Cooperation Operational Programs under the Objective 3 “European Territorial Cooperation” 2 Programs under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund The Schengen Facility, the Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area, the Norwegian Cooperation Program and the Transition Facility 3 Pre-accession Programs (Phare, ISPA and SAPARD)

5 CHRONOLOGY OF THE CONTRACTING UNDER THE SCHENGEN FACILITY INDICATOR I-VIII 2009IX-XII SHARE 0 %1,43 %26 %35,57 %37 % CUMULATIVE SHARE 0 %1,43 %27,43 %63 %100 % VALUE 0 €1,84 M €31 M €48 M €48,8 M € CUMULATIVE VALUE 0 €1,84 M €32,84 M €80,48 M €129,64 M €

6 FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS UNDER THE OBJECTIVE 1 “CONVERGENCE” IN 2010 OPPayments Growth in 2010 (times) Paid at г. (EURO) Paid at г. (EURO) OPT2, (2,11%) (5,62%) ОPE2, (2,74%) (6,96%) ОPRD5, (1,94%) (11,58%) ОPHRD2, (3,28%) (8,91%) ОPC48, (0,40%) (19,44%) ОPAC1, (20,94%) (25,13%) ОPTA2, (4,84%) (11%) TOTAL3, (2,59%) (10,01%)

7 PeriodLeaders in contractingLeaders in payment At 31 December 2009 OPAC OPCOPTA OPRDOPHRD At 30 June 2010 OPHRDOPAC OPRDOPC OPACOPHRD At 31 December 2010 OPRD (1,8 times growth in 2010) OPAC (1,2 times growth in 2010) OPHRD (2,2 times growth in 2010) OPC (49 times growth in 2010) OPAC (1,2 times growth in 2010) OPRD (6 times growth in 2010) LEADING OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES IN TERMS OF CONTRACTING AND PAYMENT AT 31 DECEMBER 2010

8 Performance in 2010Operational Programme Excellent achievement of the objectives related to contracting and payment in 2010 Probably remaining leaders again in 2011 OPRD OPAC Good performance in 2010 in contracting, but not so good in payment in comparison to the leaders OPHRD Low contracting rate, but good financial management of already contracted projects OPT OPTA Weakest performance in 2010 Accumulated delay, but measures for compensating in 2011 undertaken OPC (not taking into account JEREMIE progress) OPE COMPARING OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES ON THE EXTENT OF LOTHAR 2010 FORECASTS IMPLEMENTATION

9 STATUS OF THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES UNDER THE OBJECTIVE 1 “CONVERGENCE” - AT 31 DECEMBER 2010

10 PROGRESS ACHIEVED IN THE EU FUNDS MANAGEMENT IN 2010  Positive Compliance Assessment of the management and control systems by the European Commission and the opportunity for making interim payments related to it;  In 2010 a significant growth has been achieved in the payments under the Operational Programs ( 289,1% in the period г г. or new 601,1 MEUR have reached the Bulgarian beneficiaries) and in the contracting (over 55% or more than 1 Billion Euro) compared to 2009;  Building a stable system for good coordination and control in the EU funds management via institutional, legislative and administrative measures;  Improved communication and cooperation with our partners in Brussels and the International Financial Institutions and creation of opportunities for access to expertise in specific sectors;  Increasing transparency in the process of the EU funds management and a better dialogue between the state administration and the groups of beneficiaries in the country – monthly meetings with the National Association of the Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria;  Improvement of the legislation, related to the Public Procurement and less administrative burden - changes in the Public Procurement Law in 2010.

11 RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (1) Unification of the project application and reporting documents Less administrative burden in project reporting. Introduction of on-line project application and progress reporting More focus on the implementation of the project activities, rather than on the forms for project reporting Synchronization of the financial information, generated by different sources (UMIS, Certifying Authority, OP Management Authority) Further enhancement of the administrative capacity and limiting qualified staff turn-over within the OP Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies on central and local level Overcoming the delay in the OP implementation, generated by the requirements of the Public Procurement Law – measures undertaken Further improvement of the regulatory framework for the EU Funds management – opportunities for unification

12 RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (2) Why do we need a Law on the EU Funds management?  Need for sustainable regulation of this specific area and greater legal stability for both – administration and beneficiaries  A new institutional framework could be better introduced only with a single legal act  Clear national vision for the EU Funds management in the next programming period in line with the new trends in the planning of the future Cohesion Policy, as well as in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy  Maximum unification and simplification of the current procedures (incl. introduction of template documents)  More effective inter-relation with other laws, such as - the Public Procurement Law, the Law on investments, the Administrative Procedural Code  Such practice exists in some of the other EU Member-States

13 RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (3) Law on the EU Funds management – experience in the EU Member-States  Member-States with a Law on the EU Funds management - Greece, Denmark, some of the new Member-States – Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia  Scope of the Law: Overall institutional framework for management, monitoring and control of the EU Funds (Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia) Along with the funds available under the Structural instruments of the EU, the law regulates also the financial allocations from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund (Greece, Slovakia) Project selection procedures Appeal Procedures

14 RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (4) Need for additionality in the implementation of the Operational Programs and synergy effect generation Debate on the new Cohesion Policy – challenges of the country

15 RECCOMENDATIONS AND VISION (5) Challenges of the country in the light of the Future Cohesion Policy after 2013 Concentration of the European and national resources on few key priorities which correspond to the specific needs of the country and are in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy, thus achieving a stronger impact For each chosen key priority the country should set clear and measureable targets and indicators in the beginning of the programming period which will enable the evaluation of the progress achieved Guaranteeing a stable macroeconomic environment and strong institutional framework, which are an essential prerequisite for receiving EU Structural Funds support Targeting the Structural Funds assistance at achieving visible results changing citizens’ life Active participation in the debates concerning the introduction of conditionalities in allocation of the Structural Funds assistance

16 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! MONIKA PANAYOTOVA, CHAIRWOMAN COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE EUROPEAN FUNDS Tel.: (+359 2) Fax: (+359 2)