IT’S ALL ABOUT THINKING
POLICYNEWS
4th edition –
November 2012
Systemic problems of the Structural Fund management’s failure in Romania Normund Popens, Deputy Director, DG Regio: “Structural funds have represented a door to opportunities for creation of jobs and for economic growth and, yet, Romania missed it. I hope you have learned the necessary lessons [...]
Romania can hardly offer any examples of large scale projects that Preamble have benefited from European funding that have changed the course In summary, the recent argument between of the country’s development, and it is Prime Minister Victor Ponta and President even less credible that it can generate, Traian Băsescu related to Romania’s position under the current political context, in the negotiations conducted at the European new large‐scale modernization Council between 22 and 23 November projects from the resources of the referring to the financial allocation to be following financial reference period. received by Romania during the following 2014 – 2020 financial reference period By anticipating the criticisms of those who overlooks the following: believe that maintaining the CVM is a betrayal of national interests, the Institute for Public ‐ Romania cannot prove, based on the Policies (IPP) declares publicly that it supports current financial reference period, an accurate, realistic estimate of Romania’s that it has the institutional capacity to capacity to absorb European funds during the manage much larger money amounts, following financial reference period. The as presented in this report; experience of the current financial reference period, the most relevant aspects of which are ‐ Romania, caught between the summarized by this study, entitles us to provisions of the IMF Agreement, publicly ask the Romanian state’s authorities, does not have the capacity to change President Traian Băsescu, Prime Minister the rules in order to increase the Victor Ponta and Minister of European Affairs absorption rate by covering expenses Leonard Orban, who assumed this portfolio for European projects from the from which certain obligations arise, to National Budget first, and after this to publicly explain the priorities/projects and recover these from the amounts areas for which Romania so vehemently allocated by the Commission; requests a more consistent financial allocation for the 2014–2020 period ‐ After 5 years while European funds compared to that related to the current have been spent in Romania in the financial cycle. Eventually, it is not the current financial reference period, amount of money amount itself that is 1 important but the sustainable results that the attracted projects should produce, and the economic growth, this being a public message transmitted constantly by the IPP during the past two years. In Romania, there are no discussions about such large development projects, about integrated projects with a national impact, as our country is unable to prove that it has a medium‐ and long‐term development plan, which would bring national priorities in line with the major convergence goals of the European policies. Our institutional management model showed its limitations, while European funds did nothing but to uselessly increase (by comparison to the tangible results) the number of state employees, while consulting firms had developed efficient schemes for internal support, including from the political environment. Financial mechanisms that may become stuck because of the Government’s refusal to advance payments from the national budget and recover such payments afterwards from the Commission during general reimbursements, have proven to be completely uninspired and no one explains to what extent things will change during the new financial reference period from this perspective. Finally, in the center of the dysfunctions generated by nobody else but the Romanian Government itself (the governments that have succeeded each other) is the issue that, instead of investing in prevention, in order to avoid irregularities generated, obviously, by the interpretable legal framework (see public procurement), Romania has refined an army of controllers, whose sole purpose is to turn amounts as large as possible and at any cost back from projects already implemented, and all this in an chaotic effort, in our opinion – to have as much liquidity as possible in the state budget until new amounts consisting of reimbursements from the Commission are received. The decision to suspend applications to the Commission for reimbursements of funds until the verification of potential irregularities and even frauds has put the cherry on the cake of the already existing blockages. Consequently, only one year before the end of the current financial reference period, Romania is in the worst situation in terms of absorption of European funds among all European states. With an overall absorption rate1 of only 9.72% as of 31 October 20122, with pre‐suspended and possibly to be suspended for good operational programs and, therefore, liable to lose the money allocated for the 2007 – 2013 current financial reference period, with numerous allegations of fraud and financial corrections of hundreds of millions of Euros applied by the European Commission, Romania now has to take stock of this failure, also stated as such by European officials. If it had absorbed and properly used the European funds allocated for the 2007 – 2013 period, in an amount of EUR 19.7 billion, Romania could have had a yearly GDP increase of 0.7%. By comparison, Poland’s GDP per capita has increased from the European average of 56% in 2008 to 65% in 2011, while Romania’s average GDP per capita has remained 47% of the European average3 during the same time period. However, instead of such growth, the Government chose to borrow EUR 5 billion from the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, a loan that continues to generate austerity at the entire society’s level. Such decision was not correlated with the need to pre‐fund projects from European funds, so that Brussels still “awaits” 18 billion EUR to be reimbursed for projects that should have resulted in the development and modernization of the Romanian society. In the meantime, the Romanian state has a blockage 1
Absorption rate means the payments reimbursed by the European Commission. 2
According to the MEA’s website, http://www.maeur.ro/files/articles/Stadiul_absorb
tiei_la_31_octombrie_2012.pdf, latest visit: 5 November 2012. 3
http://www.zf.ro/analiza/daca‐zf‐a‐imaginat‐un‐ exercitiu‐in‐care‐in‐loc‐de‐1‐8‐mld‐euro‐am‐fi‐luat‐
10‐mld‐euro‐bani‐europeni‐10257897.
2 in advancing payments from its own budget for projects waiting for reimbursements for months, some of them even for more than one year. Moreover, due to the critical report on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism in Romania, released in September 2012, Germany has requested the Council grant no more European funding in the following financial period of reference to the states in respect of which there are suspicions of violations of the European values stipulated by Article 2 of the European Union Treaty, and Romania is the first on this black list, from the perspective of the December report. Many Member States are currently requesting, in the context of the negotiation of the following budgetary reference period of the European Union, a correlation between the current absorption rate and the future allocations for the cohesion policy, an aspect which would have a huge negative impact on Romania. Given these realities, this study is equally a review and a warning regarding the major risks Romania is taking if it does not urgently remedy those systemic issues that have led to the failure confirmed in respect of the absorption of structural funds from the perspective of the next 2014 – 2020 financial reference period. In this context, this report underlines / reiterates the main reasons why Romania has failed to use European funds for development/modernization. Even more serious is the fact that, in some instances, it has used them for objectives contrary to certain commitments undertaken under international treaties – such as the case of funding for social infrastructure projects that have perpetuated the social exclusion phenomenon by perpetuating institutionalization of disabled persons. The table below presents synthetically the most important quantitative results in the process of European fund absorption for the 2007 – 2012 time period. The aggregate financial allocation for the 2007 – 2013 time period: EUR 19.7 billion Funds reimbursed by the European Commission: EUR 1.867 billion, representing 9.72% of the aggregate financial allocation Estimated value of financial corrections applied to Romania: EUR 750 – 800 million The operational program with the highest absorption rate: the Regional Operational Program, 21.10% The operational program having the highest increase in the contracting rate compared to 2011: ACDOP, with an increase in the contracting rate of 45.6% The operational program with the lowest increase in the contracting rate compared to 2011: HRDSOP, only 2.64% The county that attracted the most European funds, irrespective of beneficiaries (public authorities, companies or NGOs), except for Bucharest (EUR 2.56 billion) is Iaşi County – EUR 524 million. The county that attracted the least European funds: Ialomiţa County – 35 EUR million The first 3 projects (budgets): Rehabilitation of the Brașov ‐ Simeria Railroad, a component of Pan‐European Corridor IV, beneficiary: CFR SA; project budget: EUR 543 million Construction of the Orăştie – Sibiu Highway, beneficiary: NHNRCR; project budget: EUR 512 million Rehabilitation of the Border ‐ Curtici ‐ Simeria Railroad, a component of Pan‐
European Corridor IV, beneficiary: CFR SA; project budget: EUR 245 million 3 Beneficiaries having contracted the most funds through projects: the local public administration – approximately EUR 3.5 billion (approximately 18% of the total allocation for the 2007 – 2013 time period) Funds invested in segregationist residential institutions for disabled persons, in spite of Romania’s social inclusion policy: approximately EUR 24 million Funds from Technical Assistance invested in MAs: over EUR 180 million. Romania, unable to absorb structural funds – main causes and effects: In the public space, there are constant discussions about inability, failure, and corruption in the area of structural fund management, but nobody has identified, in a structured manner, the causes for such situation, which has led to the current situation in which Romania is unable to recover money already spent from the beneficiaries’ „pockets” from the European Commission, and not even from the State Budget. Only one year before the end of the first financial cycle of European funds, a time interval while the Institute for Public Policies has closely monitored the absorption evolution at the level of each operational program, we believe that it is absolutely necessary for the Government, through the Ministry of European Affairs, and through the Ministries currently managing the operational programs, to adopt the required decisions, at least in order to avoid to repeat the current mistakes in the next 2014 – 2020 financial reference period. Following an inventory of the most frequent criticisms against the structural fund management and the absorption process in general during this entire period4, the IPP has identified 3 categories of major causes for the incapacity to absorb European funds: 1. Issues related to the initial design of operational programs This category comprises very diverse situations encountered almost with no exception for all operational programs. The first and most suggestive example in this sense is the lack of a medium‐ and long‐term development vision at a national level, with sector and regional development are priorities that should have been transposed into fundable objectives. Despite the European recommendations, structural funds have deepened the development disparities instead of reducing them. Even though during this time interval, the principle of sustainable and balanced development among regions has been invoked, in fact most of the money from European funds was allotted to projects coming from those regions/counties with an already high capacity, both financial and at the level of the beneficiaries’ profile and experience. This reality confirms the fact that European funds are not in fact accessible to everyone, but to those with financial possibilities, in the absence of qualification criteria that would give higher chances to vulnerable economic regions/sectors. Most of the funds in absolute value have been accessed, in order, by beneficiaries from: Bucharest – EUR 2.56 billion, Iaşi County – EUR 524 million, and Cluj County – EUR 480 million. The major difference between Bucharest and the next ranking counties is justified also by the fact that these amounts include also projects of central authorities having their headquarters in Bucharest (ministries, governmental agencies etc.). Unfortunately, Ialomiţa County (only EUR 35 million), Sălaj County (EUR 85 million), and The research has been conducted by using both quantitative methods (collection and processing of official information obtained from the Management Authorities under the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Interest) and qualitative methods (interviews with beneficiaries)
4
4 Vaslui County (EUR 109 million) are the counties that have attracted the least funds and, at the same time, have a high poverty rate. From the perspective of the largest projects (in terms of the budget) per each operational program accessed in different regions, the situation is not fundamentally different: the largest projects of the ROP were granted to beneficiaries of Iaşi, those from the HRDSOP were granted to beneficiaries of Bucharest, those from the POS Environment – to Braşov, those from the ACDOP were granted to Bucharest, and those from the POSCCE, to beneficiaries of Bucharest and Cluj. A complete situation of the accession of European funds from each operational program can be found in Appendix no. 1, a record of funding per counties – in Appendix no. 2,and the status of the largest projects approved per each operational program is presented in Appendix no. 3. The same category of issues related to the manner in which operational programs have been conceived also includes the fact that structural funds have failed to be attractive for the private environment. Practically, the POSCCE example – a project intended to company projects – is emblematic for the generalized incapacity to use European funds for an actual economic growth; the fact that the private environment, for whom a part of this program was intended, has renounced practically to use grants for the development of the business environment both due to the unattractiveness of the funding priorities set by the program and to deficient management reasons5 is, maybe, the most accurate barometer of the current status quo. With a contracting percentage of only 55% out of the total allocation to the program, and with a percentage of expense recovery from the Commission of only 6.7% for the POSCCE, the successive governments of this time period missed the opportunity to facilitate a revival of the business environment, seriously affected by the crisis. The Government, through the personnel and working practices of the Management Authorities turned its back on the business environment in this process, ignoring the fact that this was the main generator of revenue and jobs. Normally, the POSCCE should have been the first program to exhaust the financial allocation, because for the private environment an opportunity to obtain grants is a major chance for business development in various activity sectors; in spite of this, companies chose to no longer access European funds – you can see this from the fact that the POSCCE is the program with the lowest contracting rate. This way, the private environment has become less and less interested in attracting European funds: practically, the difference between the funds attracted by companies through operational programs (approximately EUR 1.6 billion6) and the funds attracted by NGOs (approximately EUR 1 billion) is unjustifiably small, under the circumstances where companies have a much higher financial capacity to support projects in case of payment delays. This situation is due in part also to the limited capacity of the private sector to intervene, through institutionalized means and in a systemic manner, in the negotiations related to the prioritization of funding objectives for the private sector for the 2007 – 2013 time interval. For all operational programs, with all particularities specific to each of them and proportionally to the eligibility level, most funds have been attracted by local public authorities and also by NGOs, which have more experience in the management of grant projects. 5
The audit by the Ministry of the Economy in July 2012 on the Program has revealed the fact that 4,534 projects were not assessed at the level of the Management Authority! http://fonduri‐
structurale.ro/detaliu.aspx?eID=11269&t=Stiri 6
The total amounts in projects won under the Environment SOP by regional operators that cannot be included in the category of companies have been eliminated. 5 There is an unbalanced ratio also in respect of the central public administration, which was favored through the eligibility criteria under some operational programs/priority axes (e.g., HRDSOP). A complete situation of European fund accessing per categories of beneficiaries is presented in Appendix no. 4. Also at the drafting stage, because of a lack of coordination between the Ministry of Labor, Social Solidarity and Family, at that time, and the Ministry of Regional Development, we have not only missed the chance of reform/modernization in the area of social service infrastructure with European funds, but have funded objectives running counter to international treaties to which Romania was to become a party during this financial reference period. Also in this time interval, Romania has allotted a budget of over EUR 24 million for the continuation of institutionalization and segregation of disabled persons in large capacity residential centers, the Government protecting through this policy employees within the system (over 47,000), even though, upon ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons, in 2010, Romania undertook the obligation to observe the right to community life of such persons7. A right assumed only on paper, because, as from the convention ratification and until now, a number of 30 projects (practically 60% of the projects intended to disabled persons) that continue to target institutionalization of disabled persons have been approved under the Regional Operational Program – DMI 3.2 Rehabilitation/modernization/development and equipment of the social service infrastructure. Currently, from a total allocation of over EUR 84 million under this priority axis, over EUR 81 million have been already contracted, and, practically, there are no more funds for a redirecting to investments that would have resulted in the development of community services. In Appendix no. 5, there is a full list of projects 7
Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons funded under the ROP that have contributed to a segregation of disabled persons outside communities. The Human Resource Development Sector Operational Program (HRDSOP) had seriously to suffer because of the issues related to the development of project assessment mechanisms: the already famous first come – first served principle proved to be a catastrophic solution, because it led to a selection of winning projects that are not sustainable or, even worse, of projects in which major implementation problems have been identified subsequently. This is the situation, in particular, of non‐governmental organizations created especially in the 2006 – 2009 time period for attracting European funds, many of these being connected to politicians/parties that were proven subsequently to have earned consistent amounts from such projects. According to the statements of the current Manager of MAHRDSOP8, approximately 30% of the projects funded from HRDSOP are deemed as being "in distress,” while a horizontal correction of 25% is applied to the Program by the European Commission. Last but not least, the program indicators set for many priority axes of the operational programs have been unrealistic/improperly drafted. There are many examples in this case (examples: for ACDOP – the own revenue collection level – 95% in 2015, under the circumstances where an analysis of the dynamics of such indicators in the past years shows that the collection level does not exceed 60 – 65% at a national or HRDSOP level – the number of participants in continuous professional training programs, without an analysis of their integration in the labor market or a correlation of such programs with the market needs). The issue of attaining program indicators is an extremely important one, which announces a new wave of controls from the Commission, with results even more 8
Source: Mediafax, 5 November 2012. http://www.mediafax.ro/social/director‐in‐ce‐
speram‐in‐rezultate‐pozitive‐la‐auditul‐din‐
noiembrie‐si‐la‐reluarea‐platilor‐POSDRU‐
10265708 6 ROP Environment SOP Transport SOP HRDSOP CCE SOP ACDOP Allotted funds (Euro) for which contracts have been signed(Euro
Payments made to beneficiarie
s reimbursed by the European Commissio
lacks the capacity to adapt to the blockage situation. The Transport Sector Operational Program is in the worst situation, as the least payments have been made to beneficiaries – however, we can speak here also about o low implementation capacity, with major delays at the beneficiaries’ level. The fact that no Government has so far adopted a strategic decision on appointing a competent person as head of the Management Authority of the Transport SOP, including for the management of the main beneficiaries – NHNRCR (the National Highway and National Road Company of Romania) and CFR (the National Railroad Company). However, in the other cases, as an average, payments of only 20% of the value of signed contracts have been made to beneficiaries that submitted projects, and the value of funds recovered from the European Commission is at a half (below 10%), means that the Management Authorities, namely the Certification and Payment Authority, have not fulfilled their duties properly and have made this process more difficult. The table below presents a synthetic situation per each operational program, with data valid as of 31 October 2012. The Operational Program drastic than the current financial corrections applied for irregularities in the funding procedures for projects under implementation, in the event of blatantly forged reports. 2. Management issues at the level of Management Authorities Based on all the arguments mentioned below, the IPP believes that the main responsibility for the incapacity to absorb European funds belongs first of all to the central authorities in charge of structural fund management/use control. The poor quality of the personnel employed with the Management Authorities, an excessive politicization and fragmentation of the structural fund management system among ministries, without a real individual institutional coordination/responsibility, are all explanations for the current collapse. Salary raises granted to employees of the Management Authorities for the management of European funds did nothing else but to distort the public sector and are not justified given the extremely low performance in accessing funds. The main argument in this sense is represented by the too high differences between the contracting rate – practically, the funds committed in writing through contracts signed with beneficiaries, and the effective payments reimbursed by the European Commission per each operational program. Presuming that the contracted projects have been already subject to an assessment through multiple filters attesting the capacity of beneficiaries to implement such projects (except for HRDSOP, which we mentioned above), we can only conclude that we have a management/control system that moves slowly, does not make payments to beneficiaries on time, and is not expediting and efficient in requesting reimbursements from the European Commission for the money spent by each operational program, in order to have resources for the beneficiaries’ requests. And this happens under the circumstances where the Ministry of Finance 3.7 bil. 4.5 bil. 4.5 bil. 3.4 bil. 2.5 bil. 208 mill. 3.6 bil. 1.45 bil. 786 mill. 4.3 bil. 831 mill. 277 mill. 2.89 bil. 443 mill. 2.9 bil. 1.2 bil. 1.5 bil. 621 mill. 230 mil 52 mill. 295.18 mill. 268.84 mill. 172.91 mill. 38.74 mill. As of 31 October 2012, the MAACDOP states that it has contracted projects in an amount 7 exceeding the funds allotted under the program9. Regarding the beneficiaries of structural funds, the fact that they have submitted and won projects up to a level exceeding 85% in the most operational programs means that there has been an obvious interest from various categories of eligible beneficiaries, but the central administration has not been able to respond appropriately to such interest; as far as the implementation capacity is concerned, cash flow blockages due to payment delays made it impossible for beneficiaries to continue the initiated projects and sometimes even to enter insolvency. The fact that there have been situations where contracts have been signed with beneficiaries that lacked the capacity to implement projects is related also to the low capacity of the Management Authorities, which should have identified these situations ever since the assessment process and should have not approved those projects, but also to the drafting of eligibility criteria mentioned above. Unfortunately, the checks and balances mechanisms under the form of operational program monitoring committees have been quasi‐dysfunctional during this period. Having a purely formal activity, to “check”, such committees have been unable to correct the major management deficiencies during this financial reference period, largely due to their composition and operation manner: the meetings of such committees have been headed precisely by the heads of Management Authorities – a forbidden interference from the executive, while in the composition of such structures, real beneficiaries of the programs have never been a qualified majority, able to propose substantive changes, which would have been afterwards approved by vote. The second major issue from the perspective of the implementation management/control of the projects that benefit from structural fund is that of a lack of support for 9
http://www.maeur.ro/files/articles/Stadiul_absor
btiei_la_31_octombrie_2012.pdf beneficiaries from the Management Authorities/Intermediary Bodies, this entire optics being wrong, as I will show below. Even though we have benefited from substantial funds for Technical Assistance, both through a dedicated program (TAOP) and through the technical assistance axes of each operational program – funds from which, so far, over EUR 180 million have been allotted for projects – we continue to have major difficulties and to lose money through the financial corrections recently notified to Romania by the European Commission. The main cause for such corrections10 consists of irregularities identified in the public procurement process, most of them being possible to avoided if there had been a coordination among the national authorities having control prerogatives (the Audit Authority, Management Authorities, the Public Procurement Regulatory and Monitoring National Authority, the central Unit for Public Procurement Verification), namely if the process of authorizing the reimbursement of applications transmitted to the European Commission had been verified thoroughly. Instead of this approach, employees of MAs are very proud of finding irregularities at beneficiaries, at any cost (in cases of local public authorities, these may be subject to 4 – 5 controls on the same topic for a single project, many of these controls being finalized by contradictory opinions issued by different control bodies). This is the reason why currently, Minister Leonard Orban has announced publicly the request of the Commission to apply financial corrections to Romania in an amount of approximately EUR 800 million, while Management Authorities have spent over EUR 180 de million from Technical Assistance for 10
You can find more details in the IPP’s study Causes of blockages in the implementation of European projects at the level of the local public administration. Case study : public procurement and financial corrections, available at http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/Propunericorectiifin
anciare.pdf 8 anything11 (e. g., project assessments, salary raises to employees, program advertising) but for training/technical assistance to beneficiaries in correcting their project implementation, in order to avoid the application of such financial corrections as much as possible. 3. Strategic budgetary planning issues at a national level By analyzing the experience of the first financial reference period for those 10 countries that acceded to the EU in 2004, specialists12 were warning ever since 2006 on some structural problems faced by the absorption of pre‐accession funds, on which Romania should have reflected at the moment of its accession to the European Union, all the more that it benefitted from the experience of its neighboring countries. The most important such problem flagged by analysts was that of an incomplete integration of structural funds in the national public finance systems, in particular in terms of public investment funding (the „single box” budgetary model) and of public procurement. Even though was flagged six years ago, the issue is highly topical at present also for Romania, and its effects are some of the most harmful: ‐ A lack of provisions/funding mechanisms, which would support/fund projects from the state budget, and, afterwards would settle such reimbursements with the European Commission, after a prior verification of the manner in which funds were spent, has led to the current situation, where the value of ‐
reimbursements from the Commission is below 10%, while many beneficiaries have entered insolvency/payment incapacity; A lack of flexibility in funding with European funds the objectives set initially/inertial funding that did not take into account objective factors (the economic crisis, lack of jobs etc.); ‐
An unclear legislation in the public procurement area, which left room for interpretations/exceptions, encouraged in some cases precisely by the institutions having duties and prerogatives in this area (e.g., the Public Procurement Regulatory and Monitoring National Authority) and overlaps/parallelisms in the institutional system in charge of control have led to a situation where procurements that have been approved initially proved afterwards to represent violations of EU principles, transposed in the Romanian legislation only much later13 and, implicitly, resulted in financial corrections. ‐
The fact that some large sectors with genuine financing needs have not been covered (entirely or partially) – the main examples are those in the area of health, justice and also other areas such as the energetic one, where funding policies/national objectives have not been correlated with those of the operational programs, as indicated also on the occasion of the previous reports. Instead, specific operational programs – and we refer to the HRDSOP in particular – have invested huge 11
A complete list of the amounts spent for Technical Assistance per each operational program is presented in Appendix no. 6
12
Vasil Marinov, Hachemi Bahloul, Ben Slay, 2006: http://europeandcis.undp.org/uploads/public1/file
s/vulnerability/Senior%20Economist%20Web%20si
te/Publications/Marinov,_Bahloul,_and_Slay,_Abs
orbing_Structural_Funds.pdf 13
Through GEO no. 66/2011 on the Prevention, Ascertaining and Sanctioning of Irregularities Occurred in the Absorption and Use of European Funds and/or of National Public Funds Related to These, and Order no. 509/2011 of the ANRMAP President on the Drafting of Qualification and Selection Criteria.
9 ‐
amounts in the training of human resources in professions in respect of which there is no information about an actual need in the labor market. A lack of timing between structural funds and other budgetary resources – an issue visible in particular in the social area where, as we mentioned above, Romania has funded both from European funds (through the ROP) and through National Interest Programs objectives contrary to the social service reform, continuing to develop segregationist residential institutions for disabled persons, to the detriment of the creation of community services, this being an indication that there has not been an integrated vision for this purpose at the level of the Ministry of Labor, Family and Social Protection. In addition to this, the funding with structural funds in parallel with the Agreement with the International Monetary Fund, and a lack of correlation between the two, both in terms of the objectives and of the set targets (e.g., annual budgetary deficit targets would not have allowed for an implication of the state budget in the funding of projects in advance and/or in providing co‐funding) has also represented a major obstacle in the acceleration of the absorption rate, with real effects on the Romanian economy. A lack of transparency in the management of European funds – a second major problem after the absorption capacity Given the extremely poor performance in accessing European funds presented above, a lack of transparency of the Management Authorities was predictable. After five years of implementation of European funds in Romania, public institutions in charge have not assimilated a constant communication with all external stakeholders, whether project beneficiaries or not, as an internal working practice. And the most simple communication method is that of publishing or transmitting, upon request, all public information referring to the manner in which public funds are managed. Even though a series of steps have been taken in order to increase transparency of activities of Management Authorities – including due to the actions in court introduced by the IPP and other entities against these 14 ‐ the process is still at an incipient stage and disorganized. In the past two years, the Institute has been one of the few organizations that have constantly placed pressures on Management Authorities in order for these to transmit, upon request, detailed information regarding the projects approved for funding, including copies of technical assistance contracts signed by MAs with third parties. Following a series of requests of public information and of public positions on this topic, MAs representatives accepted the need to publish information on the manner in which structural funds are spent, including contributions from the state budget, on one hand, but, on the other hand, a lack of data organization and aggregation has become obvious, which leads to a deficient management of public communication. In general, Management Authorities have learned to respond to requests of information of public interest, but obvious flaws continue to remain in observing the response legal deadlines – the case of the HRDSOP, sued by the IPP in court shortly before it has transmitted the information regarding the projects contracted under DMI 6.1 Social economy development. Also, problems continue to exist in terms of transmission of information in a satisfying/complete format, according to the submitted request. Even though there has been some progress, the HRDSOP remains, according to the IPP's experience, the most opaque institution in managing structural funds, irrespective of the 14
The IPP won in court cases introduced against the MAHRDSOP and MA Environment SOP for information referring to the composition of project assessment committees, project objectives etc. 10 reasons that led to such situation (changes in the management, irregularities identified by the European Commission, blockage of funds for reimbursements etc.) If, until this year, copies of technical assistance contracts have represented the sore spot of the MAs' transparency, in 2012, the IPP received all these contracts, even though in some cases IPP representatives had to scan them for several days, at their offices. Unfortunately, the multiple data reporting and aggregating support formats/instruments at the level of MAs, and at the level of the ACIS, affect their transparency degree. Information such as the list of beneficiaries and the value of their related projects is posted in general on the Management Authorities’ websites, but their display format is different from one authority to another. Even this may seem a minor issue, in the sense that one could argue that the information display format does not matter, it is only important for this to be made public, and interested persons can process the information as they please, from the IPP's experience, it has resulted that MAs themselves have made serious information aggregation errors, precisely because of the inexistence of a data reporting standard format. Therefore, we believe that a consistent organization of the data available at MAs level regarding the management of structural funds, simultaneously with a detailed aggregation of the results of projects already implemented or under implementation by a single institution – namely the Ministry of European Affairs, is necessary. As a result, we believe that a consistent organization of Formal is needed; this happens also currently, through the ACIS, but, after a more thorough analysis, it becomes obvious that no one in this institution filters the data reported by MAs and that the reporting format is changed from one year to another. The Ministry of European Affairs has not shown more transparency in providing information regarding the absorption of structural funds either: according to the response of Minister Leonard Orban to an open letter of the Coalition of NGOs for Structural Funds, „the European Commission missions’ audit reports are not public15”. A coherent assessment of the impact of European funds in Romania has to start from the envisaged results, and the obtained ones, respectively, and from the perspective of the preparation of the next 2014 – 2020 financial reference period, the availability of such information is critical for avoiding to repeat the current failure. Unfortunately, on the MAs' websites, there is no information about the results of finalized projects, in order to enable us to establish to what extent Romania has succeeded or not to attain the program indicators. An update of the data available on the MAs’ websites represents an important aspect related to their transparency and credibility as managers of European funds. Therefore, in the table below, we have included those categories of information available and updated on the websites of MAs of the six operational programs. Last but not least, we draw attention on a lack of determination at the level of the European Commission, despite repeated requests, to impose more transparency in the communication of information on the Romanian structures: not once, Management Authorities have invoked narrowly interpreted provisions of the European Regulations in order to block access to public interest information on funded projects, claiming that they could not provide such information (e. g., consent of beneficiaries for providing information on contracts funded from European funds). The Commission itself, through its specialized structures at the level of GDs, does not always provide public interest information requested by interested entities of Romania16 15
Response of MEA dated 24 October 2012 to the open letter of the Coalition transmitted on 15 October 2012. 16
The IPP sent a series of requests to which the responses given by the Commission indicate that 11 the requested information has to communicated by Management Authorities. be 12 Categories of information available on the websites of Management Authorities17 ACDOP Information is Information is On the Information is provided upon provided upon Unavailable website, not provided upon request updated request request On the website Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable On the website Unavailable On the website Unavailable On the website Unavailable HRDSOP Unavailable On the website, updated POS Environm
ent Unavailable On the website, updated POST Unavailable On the website, updated POS CCE Transparency degree On the website On the website, about the implemente
d projects On the website, not aggregated Unavailable for all axes, and not updated Payments made Information is Information is Information is provided upon provided upon provided upon request request request Project objectives Project results Beneficiaries and titles of approved projects On the website, updated List of technical assistance acquisitions List of submitted projects ROP Unavailable
, providing denied Technical assistance contracts and annexes OP On the Information is website, not provided upon Unavailable aggregated for request each project Information is Information is provided upon provided upon On the request website request Information is Information is On the provided upon provided upon website request request Unavailable On the Information is website, not provided upon aggregated for request each project 17
The last date when this information was accessed: 6 November 2012
13 Recommendations Only one year before a new financial reference period, which is under a programming process, Romania has to solve major issues related both to the current financial reference period and to the (still unclear) perspectives for the 2014 – 2020 budget. The Institute for Public Policies (IPP) has constantly shown a strategic interest in the systemic monitoring of the process of absorption of structural funds and has adopted public positions any time it has found irregularities in the European fund management area, by criticizing, based on objective and indisputable arguments, and by proposing solutions for the improvement of this situation, which, unfortunately, places us (once again) on the last position in Europe in the use area corresponding to European funds. The series of IPP Reports on the monitoring of structural fund absorption includes: ‐ Structural Funds: From Development Opportunities to Pray Budget, available at: http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/ippstud
iufs.pdf ‐ Survey among Beneficiaries of Projects Funded from Structural Funds, available at: http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/sondaj.
pdf ‐ Public Administration’s Capacity and Involvement in a Sustainable Absorption of European Funds, available at: http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/Bilantfo
nduristructuraleapl.pdf ‐ European Funds, Opportunity or Obstacle against the Social Inclusion of Mentally Disabled Persons of Romania, available at: http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/banieur
openi.pdf ‐ Status of Allocation of Structural Funds Intended to Increasing Life Quality and Social Inclusion of Disabled Persons of Romania, available at: http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/IPPanal
izafspcd.pdf ‐ Assessment of the Institutional Framework Regarding NGOs and the Management of Operational Programs and Recommendations for the 2014 – 2020 Financial Reference Period, available at: http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/comitet
emonitorizare.pdf ‐ Causes of Blockages in the Implementation of European Projects at the Level of the Local Public Administration. Case Study: Public Procurement and Financial Corrections, available at: http://www.ipp.ro/library/fse/Propun
ericorectiifinanciare.pdf. We use the opportunity offered by this report to request decision makers to take urgent steps that can still be implemented in the short remaining time period, many of these being already stated by the IPP in the public space and partially taken over also by the authorities having duties and prerogatives in the area. The proposed solutions correspond to the main categories of causes/issues identified in respect of the absorption incapacity, presented in the previous chapter. 1. Solutions for improving the content of operational programs ¾ A rethinking of the funding priorities for those lines not yet launched under the current financial reference period, in such a way to increase their attractiveness for companies; ¾ A reallocation of amounts remained unspent under various Priority Axes for national interest programs, based on prior consultations (following the thermal rehabilitation program model); ¾ A rethinking of priorities related to the reform of social services – the infrastructure component, from the 14 Monitoring National Authority (PPRMNA), or of a section on the website of PPRMNA/MAs with the most frequently asked questions/answers given by the authorities; perspective of the commitments undertaken by Romania under the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons, which would include objective indicators for measuring the improvement of life conditions for disabled persons. ¾ Imposition of transparency on Management Authorities through a firm decision of the Ministry of European Affairs for this purpose, which would no longer allow for different interpretation and superficial reporting, as it happens currently, by acknowledging the principle according to which European funds are public money; 2. Solutions for the improvement of structural fund management ¾ A new European fund management system for Romania for the 2014 – 2020 time period, by externalizing this to private implementation units, acknowledged at a European level, and a single command/coordination center for structural funds (the Ministry of European Affairs). ¾ Recruitment of qualified personnel at the level of Management Authorities/Intermediary Bodies, and changing their status into contractual personnel, with salary schemes based on individual performance; ¾ Clarification of the status of financial corrections in the case of each operational program, by individualizing issues per each project and by rejecting the application of lump/horizontal corrections, which means automatically a label of guilt/corruption applied to all beneficiaries. Adoption by the Government of a decision regarding the payment source of financial corrections in the shortest time possible; ¾ Use of funds from technical assistance for the effective support of project beneficiaries in correcting their implementation – particularly in the public procurement area where the most irregularities have been identified, simultaneously with the drafting of a Guide of Good Practices by the Management Authorities in collaboration with the Public Procurement Regulatory and ¾ A real involvement of the structures/representatives of all beneficiaries in the current programming process and an accurate information of the public regarding Romania’s priorities in the next financial reference period. At the moment, consultations are only formal, conducted in a hurry, and we express our concern that we risk to repeat many mistakes made during this time period, because the authorities in charge do not pay attention to the lessons learned. 3. Solutions for the integration of structural funds in the national public finance systems ¾ Programming of the budget for the next financial reference period based on priority projects, which would be supported/funded from a single source – the state budget (which includes also structural funds), irrespective of the blockages that may occur at a given time in the absorption process between the national level and the Commission; ¾ Harmonization of the national legislation in the public procurement 15 area with the European norms, which are currently being subject to an amendment process; ¾ Harmonization of the objectives of future loan agreements with the fundable objectives of the operational programs, in order to avoid potential divergences; ¾ Harmonization of the sector development plans /national interest investment objectives, in order to avoid overlaps/parallelisms or a total lack of funding for certain areas. *** We believe that the public appearances of Minister Leonard Orban, in his capacity as person in charge of coordinating the process of accessing European funds, should not be only an opportunity for an analysis of issues but also for presenting solutions//decisions adopted for their solution. We request both the current and the new Government to be composed after elections to make the programming of the next financial reference period a 0 priority, because only this way, Romania will be able to really use the opportunity offered by European funds for economic growth, and not in a clientelist and opportunistic way, as it did during this financial reference period. This study has been prepared with the support of the Open Society Foundations – Mental Health Initiative and Accountability and Monitoring in Health Initiative, and is part of the series of IPP's structural fund monitoring reports. IPP is an organization that is a member of the Coalition of NGOs for Structural Funds. IPP would like to thank its collaborators – Ms. Cerasela Porumb, ProAct Director, for the useful observations offered in the context of the review on the use of European funds for social infrastructure, and Mr. Marius Bostan, Senior Partener, VMB Partners, for his comments related to the accessing of structural funds by the private environment. For further information, please contact Ms. Elena Iorga, IPP Program Director, at phone number: 021 212 3126, mobile phone: 0722 166 888, e‐mail: elena@ipp.ro. 16 Appendix no. 1: Romania's evolution regarding its capacity to absorb structural funds (2007 – July 2012) OP ROP ACDOP HRDSOP Environ
ment SOP CCE SOP T SOP 31 July 2011
Financi
Value of al contracte
Number allocati
d projects of on – – EU contracte
EU contributi
d contrib
on projects ution (ERURO 18) (EURO) 3.72 bil.21 208 mil22 3.476 bil.23 2.45 bil. 1855 100.8 mil 315 2.871 bil. 2116 4.512 bil.24 3.228 bil. 208 1.086 bil. 1859 882.4 mil 46 2.554 bil.25 4.565 bil.26 Contracti
ng percenta
ge out of the 2007 – 2013 financial allocatio
n 65.8%
Payment
s – EU contribu
tion compare
d to the allocatio
n (%) 22.64%
Value of contracte
d projects – EU contributi
on (EURO19) 31 July 2012 Contracti
ng percenta
Number ge out of of the 2007 contracte
– 2013 d financial projects allocatio
n Intermedi
ary payments to the European Commissi
on20 (%) 3.44 bil. 3085 92% 21.10% 195 mil 371 94% 15.36% 2.96 bil. 2461 85.34% 7.73% 10.45% 4.2 bil. 322 93% 6.14% 13.07% 1.4 bil. 2347 55% 6.77% 2.87% 2.69 bil. 78 59% 6.46% 48.4%
8.12%
82.7%
21.04%
71.3%
42.5%
19.3%
18
The exchange rate used represented the average Inforeuro exchange rate for the period of reference, namely: 1 EURO=4.2 RON
19
The exchange rate used represented the average Inforeuro exchange rate for the period of reference, namely: 1 EURO= 4.25 RON
20
According to http://www.maeur.ro/articol/stadiul‐absorbtiei‐fondurilor‐structurale‐si‐de‐coeziune‐31‐July‐
2012
21
According to the ROP Programming Document, available at http://www.inforegio.ro/node/10
22
According to the Implementation Framework Document, available at http://www.fonduriadministratie.ro/pictures/DCIv4AMACDOP(1).pdf
23
According to the Implementation Framework Document, available at http://www.fseromania.ro/images/downdocs/dci_16072010.pdf 24
According to the Implementation Framework Document, available at http://www.posmediu.ro/upload/pages/Document%20Cadru%20de%20Implementare%20POS%20Mediu.pdf
25
According to the Implementation Framework Document, available at http://amposcce.minind.ro/pdf2/DCI_POS_CCE_150211.pdf
26
According to the Implementation Framework Document, available at http://www.ampost.ro/file/DCI%20‐
%20POST%2030%20ianuarie%202012%20_3_%20FINAL.pdf
17 Appendix no. 2: List of counties that have accessed projects funded through structural funds (as of 31 July 2012) County27 Alba Arad Argeş Bacău Bihor Bistriţa Năsăud Botoşani Braşov Brăila Bucharest Buzău Caraş Severin Călăraşi Cluj Constanţa Covasna Dâmboviţa Dolj Galaţi Giurgiu Gorj Harghita Hunedoara Ialomiţa Iaşi Ilfov Maramureş Mehedinţi Mureş Neamţ Olt Prahova Satu Mare Sălaj Sibiu Suceava Teleorman Total value of EU funds accessed through projects, per all funding axes (mill. RON)
POS ROP HRDSOP ACDOP POS CCE Environment 315.9 314.6 22.97 504.8 110.6 403.6 60.0
1.86
535.1 46.7
452.6 106.3
2.31
386.8 260.4
281.8 66.2 9.17 639.8 67.7 324.9 127.2
2.51
422.8 70.8
241.6 40.7
1.26
392.8 24.5
325.1 48.6
4.68
527.2 21.3
256.6 217.5
6.32
618.1 165.1
371.6 111.8
1.50
323.9 16.6
864.1 7170.9
677.88
395.3 1798.5
202.2 26.8
0.22
328.6 50.7
265.3 92.1
1.61
129.6 16.3
168.3 36.3
0.94
406.1 50.3
413.1 794.3
2.69
464.5 366.0
419.4 157.4
8.44
116.1 154.3
182.7 10.5
0.98
359.8 21.7
520.6 249.1
2.96
495.9 162.3
810.4 271.2
1.94
498.7 239.4
257.5 137.3
3.40
424.8 33.2
136.5 5.1
2.27
304.4 34.7
271.3 32.8
3.69
267.8 18.8
213.8 48.4
2.49
258.1 66.3
568.1 200.7
1.12
143.2 24.3
127.9 11.2
2.71
NA28 8.2
879.8 609.2
5.09
560.8 250.2
408.6 110.3
1.31
238.8 67.8
283.6 137.8
18.80
413.0 61.4
327.2 35.0
0.28
257.8 10.5
328.0 123.6
2.68
577.0 93.8
388.7 79.9
0.72
469.6 169.7
270.5 106.5
0.51
342.2 58.7
357.4 183.4
4.59
486.6 180.7
205.7 37.2
2.78
343.4 44.9
242.6 20.7
0.00
81.2 18.3
253.4 93.2
4.32
342.2 197.8
387.6 84.1
1.94
536.3 70.2
273.3 115.8
2.09
350.0 3.0
27
Refers to all categories of project beneficiaries of each county, per all priority axes and majority intervention areas of each program.
28
This table does not include a series of projects of several counties, and the allotted amount cannot be broken down per each of these, as follows: • Cluj and Sălaj – a project for the rehabilitation and extension of the water and sewage network – RON 541. 969. 415 (EU funds); • Constanţa and Ialomiţa ‐ a project for the rehabilitation and extension of the water and sewage network – RON 617.442.277 (EU funds) • Sibiu and Braşov ‐ a project for the extension of the water supply and waste water infrastructure – RON 322.483.325 (EU funds).
18 27
County Timiş Tulcea Vaslui Vâlcea Vrancea Total value of EU funds accessed through projects, per all funding axes (mill. RON)
POS ROP HRDSOP ACDOP POS CCE Environment 483.1 318.4
2.49
622.2 296.9
242.8 45.4
2.79
430.9 15.0
331.8 19.1
2.98
98.9 13.5
362.4 115.5
3.25
451.2 65.3
203.9 36.8
6.37
532.0 84.1
Legend: The highest amounts of OP The lowest amounts of OP 19 Appendix no. 3: The largest projects, as an absolute value, per each operational program (as of 31 July 2012) Operational Program ROP HRDSOP Project title
Rehabilitation of a county road (CR) 606 Km 55+086 (at the border of Dolj County) – 119+795 (intersection with CR 566), Mehedinţi County Rehabilitation of CR 151 km 45+810‐126+712 at the border of Mureş County ‐ Bistriţa Năsăud County Rehabilitation of CR 701, at the border of Dâmboviţa County – Gratia ‐ Poieni – Siliştea – Scurtu Mare – Slăveşti – Ciolăneşti – Zâmbreasca ‐ Dobroteşti, km 44+240‐104+890 (55.450 km) Master Program Integrated System in the area of sound engineering, photography and multimedia applications Quality assurance in the internationalized master education: development of the national framework for making it compatible to the European Area of Academic Education Social economy – a solution for the environment ACDOP POS Environment Management of intervention and contingency plans for the critical infrastructure at a regional level, by means of risk management and assessment computerized systems, for improving the decision making process at the level of public authorities Increasing efficiency of the application of competition policies by correlation with sector policies Improvement of the public administration’s capacity to measure administrative performance –databases methodologies, instruments for the modernization and standardization of statistical reporting techniques and for the description of the administration’s performance Rehabilitation and modernization of the water supply and sewage system in the Constanţa – Ialomiţa region Extension and rehabilitation of water supply and sewage systems of Braşov County Rehabilitation and extension of the water supply and sewage system in Cluj‐Sălaj Counties 20 Value of EU funds (RON) 96,285,310
Mehedinţi County Council
90,514,863
Bistriţa Năsăud County Council 85,494,724
Teleorman County Council 20,323,492
Bucharest Polytechnic University 20,082,929
Babeş – Bolyai University
20,174,569
The Salvaţi Dunărea şi Delta (Save the Danube and the Delta) Association The Prefect's Institution ‐ Alba County 16,999,941
Beneficiary
16,952,055
The Government’s General Secretariat 16,579,250
The National Statistics Institute
617,442,277
S.C. RAJA S.A Constanţa
607,350,974
COMPANIA APA BRAŞOV SA
541,969,415
SC Compania de Apa Someş S.A.
POS CCE POS T Internet in your school. Connection of schools of rural and small urban areas to internet broadband Integrated computerized system for electronic health files Joint installation for the desulphurization of burning gas, blocks 1 and 2, SE CRAIOVA II Rehabilitation of the Brașov ‐ Simeria railroad, a component of the Pan ‐ European Corridor IV, for the traffic of high speed trains having a maximum speed of 160 km/h, Coșlariu ‐ Simeria section Construction of the Orăştie – Sibiu highway Rehabilitation of the Border ‐ Curtici ‐ Simeria railroad, a component of the Pan ‐ European Corridor IV, for the traffic of high speed trains having a maximum speed of 160 km/h, section 1: Curtici Customs ‐ Arad – km 614 21 110,517,345
The Ministry of Education, Research and Youth 108,151,133
The National Health Security Fund S.C. COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC CRAIOVA S.A. 93,180,968
2,308,919,506
Compania Națională de Căi Ferate CFR SA (the National Railroad Company) 2,179,068,541
The Highway and National Road National Company of Romania Compania Națională de Căi Ferate CFR SA (the National Railroad Company) 1,044,060,454
Appendix no. 4: Value of funds attracted based on the beneficiaries’ profile (as of 31 July 2012) County Alba Arad Argeş Bacău Bihor Bistriţa Năsăud Botoşani Braşov Brăila Bucharest Buzău Caraş Severin Călăraşi Cluj Constanţa Covasna Dâmboviţa Dolj Galaţi Giurgiu Value EU of funds attracted by COMPANIES (mill. RON) ROP HRDSOP CCE SOP Environm ACD
ent SOP OP 16.4 76.7 110.9 25.4 71.2 58.2 3.6 7.6 21.7 10.8 94.8 35.9 204.8 62.1 56.1 341.6 441.7 324.7 388.5 260.7 8.2 1.1 20.2 265.0 12.9 72.5 42.9 207.7 29.9 5.2 63.3 57.9 905 15 18.5 105.3 14.2 575.3 45.4 343.6 607.4 315.5 1 326.8 12.4 12.8 16.3 0 15.9 62.9 110 19.5 32.5 111 17.5 28.1 5.6 32.7 10.7 7.9 23 44.5 17.2 0.1 47.7 239.5 150.8 21.7 117.2 187.4 31 34.7 302.9 237 95.8 282.5 448.3 493.7 421.9 215.1 Value EU funds attracted by APL (mill. RON) Value EU funds attracted by NGOs29 (mill. RON) ACDO
P 0 0.2 0 0.08 0.09 Enviro
nment SOP 3.9 0.7 0.8 2.8 1.8 26.1 0 3.9 0 0.6 6.4 1.6 13 7 0.5 32.4 14.2 2412.4 4.5 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.07 0 5.6 0 42.6 0 0 0 0 4.6 0 0.9 0.7 2.9 0 0 0 0.9 1.3 7.6 1 3 0 1.3 2.3 4.9 1.9 3.1 0.8 5.8 36.1 3.4 2.7 7.9 164.3 77.2 1.2 95.7 83.7 21.3 1.8 0 0.2 0 0 0.05 0.04 0.1 0 0 0.6 19.9 2.3 0 5 2.4 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCE Environ
SOP ment SOP 11.3 159.3 5.6 90.3 48.2 61.3 1.6 247.8 12.1 158.7 ACD
OP ROP HRDSOP
CCE SOP 5.2 1.9 1.3 8.9 1.9 4.4 32.3 10.1 2.3 10.1 157.5 20 73.7 8.8 20.9 0 2.9 122.7 1.3 3.4 311.7 174.5 302 266.1 165.4 0 0 5.2 58.2 0 0 11.1 2.4 3 2.4 183.6 0 0 0 1.8 1.5 6.3 1.2 9.2 0.2 250.2 9.6 0 128.6 119.3 271.8 269 162.3 482.3 568.4 226.5 105.8 0 15.2 5.4 0 2.5 1.8 0 0 0 4.5 1.6 0 3.3 0 0 0 103.2 225.7 0 75.1 35.2 0 0.6 87.9 ROP HRDS
OP 0 0 0 0 0 0 272.6 257.7 301.6 254.1 243.6 15.1 0 2.3 4.5 1.2 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
Including professional or religious associations, trade unions, or employers’ associations, as well as other foundations and associations
22 0 0 0 0 0 County Gorj Harghita Hunedoara Ialomiţa Iaşi Ilfov Maramureş Mehedinţi Mureş Neamţ Olt Prahova Satu Mare Sălaj Sibiu Suceava Teleorman Timiş Tulcea Vaslui Vâlcea Vrancea TOTAL Value EU of funds attracted by COMPANIES (mill. RON) ROP HRDSOP CCE SOP Environm ACD
ent SOP OP 14.9 12.3 36 32.9 189 13.2 14.6 8.8 39.3 55.4 8.9 55.5 41.1 15.4 54.8 31.9 14.5 76.8 38.5 5.3 75.5 20.3 1.939.
1 Value EU funds attracted by APL (mill. RON) ROP HRDS
OP 5.4 6.8 46.5 0 37.2 44.1 10.4 1.6 20.8 36.3 5.5 35.7 0.1 0 24.4 0.5 0.5 28.1 7.4 10.2 16.8 8.2 18.8 60.1 24.3 8.2 101 56 61.2 10.5 88.6 75.7 58.6 118.5 43.1 18.3 184.4 65.6 3 130.6 10.5 13.5 16.3 84.0 264.4 246.1 143.2 0 432.3 237.8 403.3 247.7 356.0 359 245.2 475.6 340.3 0 261.7 378.5 350 376.7 336.5 0 324.4 341.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254.1 198.2 522.9 94.4 522.2 389.5 266.4 316.5 239.3 288.2 261.6 278.2 159 224.6 174 319.5 223.1 382.6 200.4 319 284.9 181.1 0 0 0 1.2 18.4 1.1 9.2 0 0 0 1 10.5 0 0 0 0.9 1.7 1.7 0 2.7 7.5 1.7 CCE Environ
SOP ment SOP 0 0 4.4 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 126.6 4.4 0 0 8 0 1.3 2.2 219 93.6 108.8 0 97 34.2 8.2 1.8 0 0 80.5 1.4 66.4 1.3 150.7 0 0 1.2 240.8 4.4 49.9 0 98.1 0 122.3 0 188.5 1.650.3 3.329.5 12.234.2 0 11.334.8 178.6 259 23 3.249.7 Value EU funds attracted by NGOs29 (mill. RON) ACDO
P 0 0.2 0.06 0.0 0.1 0. 0.08 0 0.1 0.08 0.05 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.1 0 0 0.07 Enviro
nment SOP 0 3.2 0 0 1.8 1 0 1.2 1.9 0 0 0.7 3.2 0 14.2 4.1 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.5 2.46 125 5.5 ACD
OP ROP HRDSOP
CCE SOP 3.2 1.7 1.1 2.2 1.5 1.3 2.7 0.3 2.7 0 0.5 3.6 2.4 0 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 4.9 2.4 3.3 5.8 0.6 66.4 5.9 2.6 0.7 5 11.1 0 23.7 5.7 2.6 24 36.2 0.0 2.5 3.9 7.6 2.0 2.5 7.1 5.4 91.5 2.8 115.5 14.5 94.8 12.2 37.7 23.3 30.8 66.1 19.5 5.4 0 31.4 48.5 89.1 13.6 2.5 39.8 14.9 99 365.2 3.993.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 Appendix no. 5: List of projects funded through ROP, DMI 3.2 – social infrastructure projects Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Social and Educational Center for Disabled Persons – Iaşi Iaşi County Council 3,498,348 2,216,384 338,976 52,150 890,837 Integrated Services for Persons with Special Needs ‐ Alba Alba County Council 3,484,434 2,413,156 369,071 56,780 645,427 Gospodina (CRRN Sasca) Suceava County 2,230,120 1,480,472 226,425 34,835 488,389 Modernization and extension of the Cehu Silvaniei Community Service Complex, through the creation of vocational workshops for young people removed from the residential system Sălaj County Council 3,499,442 2,406,783 368,096 56,630 667,933 A normal life in a center –a door opened to the society (CRRN Sasca) Suceava County 3,499,674 2,331,568 356,593 54,860 756,653 Modernization of the Cezieni Recovery Center for Disabled Persons Olt County Council 3,440,288 2,348,890 345,425 69,085 676,888 Modernization of the Slatina Care and Assistance Center Olt County Council 2,238,644 1,529,302 233,893 35,984 439,465 Modernization and extension of Center no.1 for the Recovery and Rehabilitation of Adult Disabled Persons (former Placement Center no. 1) Galaţi County Council 2,855,224 1,459,162 223,166 34,333 1,138,563 24 Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Rehabilitation and modernization of Păstrăveni Center for the Recovery and Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Neamţ County 3,216,284 2,296,324 351,203 54,031 514,726 Modernization of the accommodation pavilions and the heating plant of the Târgu Neamţ Care and Assistance Center Neamţ County 3,454,675 2,458,365 375,985 58,165 562,160 2,734,305 1,953,753 298,809 45,971 435,771 3,417,199 2,441,535 373,411 57,448 544,805 Neamţ County Rehabilitation and modernization of the Oşlobeni Care and Assistance Center Neamţ County Rehabilitation, modernization and extension of the Războieni Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center Extension and equipment of the Brâncoveneşti Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center DGASPC Mureş 3,399,603 2,412,568 368,981 56,766 561,288 Rehabilitation, modernization and extension of the Roman Care and Assistance Center Neamţ County 3,282,543 2,345,352 358,701 55,185 523,305 Galata Residential Social Center, Iaşi DGASPC Iaşi 3,474,954 2,353,248 356,838 58,441 706,426 25 Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Capacity extension, through the fitting out and modernization of the 3rd floor of the "Bilteni" Adult Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center ‐ Gorj County Gorj County Council 972,931 609,729 93,253 14,347 255,603 Extension and equipment of the Dobriţa Care and Assistance Center, Gorj County Gorj County Council 3,494,886 2,306,208 352,714 54,264 781,701 Rehabilitation and extension of the Pecica Care and Assistance Center DGASPC Arad 3,627,953 2,498,368 370,935 69,953 688,697 Ambulatory Center of Neurolocomotive Recovery ‐ Drăgăşani Drăgăşani Municipality 3,216,479 2,163,481 330,885 50,905 671,207 Rehabilitation of the Oraviţa Center for Disabled Persons Caraş Severin County Council 3,626,558 2,314,256 353,414 54,984 903,904 Rehabilitation and fitting out of the of the Adăşeni Care and Assistance Center, Botoşani County DGASPC Botoşani 3,562,172 2,429,885 371,629 57,174 703,484 Rehabilitation, modernization and equipment of the "Tântava Center for Integration through Occupational Therapy" Giurgiu County Council 3,636,282 2,245,412 343,416 52,833 994,621 26 Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Rehabilitation, modernization and equipment of the Techirghiol Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center ‐ Building C, for the creation of a care and assistance center in Techirghiol ‐ Romania Constanţa County Council 3,075,542 2,091,012 319,802 49,200 615,528 Rehabilitation of the Şopârliţa Care and Assistance Center Olt County Council 2,888,235 1,782,203 272,572 41,934 791,526 Rehabilitation, modernization and equipment of the Techirghiol Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center ‐ Building A Constanţa County Council 3,108,638 2,105,632 322,038 49,544 631,424 Christian Day Center – assistance to young and adult disabled persons Târgu Jiu Town 3,373,723 2,248,381 343,870 52,903 728,569 Rehabilitation, modernization, and extension of the Oradea Day Center for Persons Suffering from Multiple Sclerosis Oradea Municipality, Bihor Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, and Romanian Multiple Sclerosis Society 2,451,387 2,083,679 318,680 49,028 0 27 Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Rehabilitation of the Pogoanele Medical and Social Assistance Center Buzău County Council 3,989,660 2,353,783 359,990 55,383 1,220,504 Extension and re‐fitting out of the Gheorgheni Care and Assistance Center, and providing of the necessary equipment DGASPC Harghita 3,510,046 2,361,318 361,143 55,561 732,025 Extension and re‐fitting out of the Tulgheş Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center, and providing of the necessary equipment DGASPC Harghita 1,732,632 1,151,003 176,036 27,082 378,511 Re‐fitting out of the accommodation and administrative pavilion of the Burila Mare Center for Integration through Occupational Therapy DGASPC Mehedinţi 1,460,817 968,737 148,160 22,794 321,126 Sustainable social responsibility through modernization, development and equipment of the building of the Disabled Persons Care and Assistance Center within the Community Service Facility of Nuseni Bistriţa Năsăud County Council 3,015,773 1,754,098 268,274 41,273 952,128 28 Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Modernization of utility networks, access facilities and providing of equipment specific to the needs of service beneficiaries of C.I.A.P.A.H Mislea, Prahova County The Mislea Care and Assistance center for Adult Disabled Persons 3,555,416 2,102,276 321,524 49,465 1,082,151 Extension of the CARTHA Assistance Center for the Recovery of Young Disabled Persons, Adjud, Vrancea County Adjud Town Local Council 2,786,510 1,695,537 259,098 40,115 791,761 Modernization works, utility networks, access facilities and equipment of the C.I.T.O.P.A.H. Urlaţi, Prahova County The Urlaţi Center for Integration through Occupational Therapy for Adult Disabled Persons 3,617,331 2,414,133 369,220 56,803 777,174 Dâmboviţa Multifunctional Resource and Service Center for Adult Disabled Persons DGASPC Dâmboviţa 3,546,753 2,440,954 373,323 57,434 675,043 Rehabilitation, modernization and equipment of a building for the creation of the Luduş Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center DGASPC Mureş 3,713,785 2,483,306 379,800 58,431 792,249 29 Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Creation of the Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center for Adults DGASPC Ialomiţa 3,710,024 2,488,025 380,521 58,542 782,936 Extension, thermal rehabilitation and equipment of the Slobozia Care and Assistance Center, Ialomiţa County DGASPC Ialomiţa 3,446,360 2,325,402 355,650 54,715 710,593 Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipment of the Care and Assistance Facility, Gorj County DGASPC Gorj 3,635,939 2,465,670 376,883 58,235 735,150 Extension and modernization of the Day Care Center for Disabled Persons Călăraşi Local Council The Association Offering Support to Physically Disabled Children of Romania, Călăraşi Subsidiary 1,350,982 916,817 140,219 21,572 272,374 Rehabilitation, modernization and equipment of the social service infrastructure within the Horia Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center DGASPC Tulcea 3,050,134 2,086,762 298,242 70,000 595,120 30 Title Beneficiary Total value RON FEDR Funds RON The state budget RON Own contribution RON Non‐eligible expenses RON Drăgăneşti ‐ Olt Occupational Therapy Center Olt County Council Drăgăneşti Olt Local Council 3,606,107 2,373,884 363,065 55,856 813,302 Works for the modernization of buildings, utility networks, access facilities and equipment of the Urlaţi CRRNPAH CRRNPAH Urlaţi, Prahova County 3,792,631 2,442,379 373,540 57,468 919,245 Rehabilitation, modernization, development, extension and equipment of the Ciolpani Care and Assistance Center, Ilfov County Ilfov County Council 3,657,606 2,482,231 379,635 58,405 737,334 Modernization and partition of the attics in the "Don Orione" Recovery and Treatment Center for Disabled Persons Don Orione Association, Ilfov County 3,886,471 2,661,069 406,987 62,613 755,802 Periam Horia Neuropsychiatric Recovery and Rehabilitation Center DGASPC Timiş 3,931,851 2,625,337 401,522 61,773 843,219 3,499,670 2,402,879 367,499 56,538 672,753 Creation of the Alzheimer Center and rehabilitation of Galaţi Multifunctional Social ancillary services of the Galaţi Medical and Social Service Center Center 31 Operational Program Priority axis POR ACDOP HRDSOP POS Environment POS CCE POS T 6 3 7 6 5 4 Appendix no. 6: Funds accessed for technical assistance per each operational program (on 31 July 2012) Contracting percentage out Financial allocation Value of contracted Number of of the 2007 – –EU contribution projects – EU contracted projects 2013 financial (EURO) contribution (EURO) allocation (%) 98.6 mill. 57.8 mill. 58% 56 8.3 mill. 3.4 mill. 41% 15 122.7 mill. 9.05 mill. 7% 32 130.4 mill. 40.8 mill. 31% 105 67.5 mill. 92.02 mill. 27.9 mill. 12.9 mill. 32 41% 14% 25 24 Appendix no. 7: Absorption status per each operational program The Regional Operational Program (data available as of 31 July 2012) Fig. 1 Distribution of funds accessed through the ROP at the level of development regions Development Region Population No. of projects North‐East
3,836,875
2,595
460
South‐West 2,394,895
2,082
384
South
3,258,775
2,037
472
North‐West 2,740,064
1,711
408
South‐East
2,932,124
1,697
400
West
1,930,458
1,682
304
Center
2,638,809
1,547
367
Bucharest ‐Ilfov
2,198,285
1,272
290
33 Value EU funds (bill. RON) Fig. 2 Investments per capita out of the ROP at the level of development regions Development Region Value EU funds Population (RON) Investments per capita (RON) West
1,930,458
1,682 304
871
South‐West 2,394,895
2,082 384
869
North‐East
3,836,875
2,595 460
676
South
3,258,775
2,037 472
625
North‐West 2,740,064
1,711 408
624
Center
2,638,809
1,547 367
586
South‐East
2,932,124
1,697 400
579
Bucharest‐ Ilfov
2,198,285
1,272 290
579
34 No. of projects Fig. 3 Synthesis of funds accessed through ROP Axes ROP priority axes Axis 1 – Support of the sustainable development of cities – urban growth poles DMI 1.1. Integrated urban development plans Main quantitative indicators estimated until 2015 Medium or long term integrated urban
development plans seeking to regenerate urban areas (”urban action zones”), clearly demarcated in space within cities/towns. Such plans will be implemented through projects of rehabilitation of the degraded urban infrastructure, of development of entrepreneurial activities for the employment of the labor force, as well as through activities for the rehabilitation of the social infrastructure and the improvement of social services. Axis 2 – Improvement of the 877 km of rehabilitated/modernized county regional and local transport roads, 411 km of rehabilitated/modernized infrastructure urban streets, and 219 km of rehabilitated/modernized beltways. DMI 2.1. Rehabilitation and modernization of the network of county roads and urban streets – including construction/ rehabilitation of beltways No. of approved projects 366 EUR 2.45 mill. EUR 7.06 mill. 135 35 Average value of EU funding The first 3 large projects per Axis Profile of beneficiaries Iaşi City ‐ development of the road network in the cultural, historical and touristic area of Iaşi City – RON 59,223,042 (EUR 13.93 mill.) Iaşi City – traffic management system – 59,111,732 lei (13.9 mill. euro) Iaşi City ‐ development of the East‐West transport axis in Iaşi City – RON 58,651,690 (EUR 13.8 mill.) 100% local public authorities (local councils and county councils) Mehedinţi CC – Rehabilitation of CR 606 –
RON 96,285,310 (EUR 22.65 mill.) Bistriţa Năsăud CC ‐ Rehabilitation of CR 151 – RON 90,514,863 (EUR 21.29 mill.) Teleorman CC ‐ Rehabilitation of CR 701 – RON 85,494,724 (EUR 20.11 mill.) 100% local public authorities (local councils and county councils) Axis 3 – Improvement of the social infrastructure DMI 3.1 Rehabilitation/modernization/equi
pment of health services infrastructure DMI 3.2 Rehabilitation/modernization/ development and equipment of the social service infrastructure, DMI 3.3 Improvement of the provision of equipment for the operational bases for interventions in emergency situations DMI 3.4., Rehabilitation/modernization/ development and equipment of the pre‐university and university educational infrastructure and of the continuous professional training infrastructure Ilfov CC ‐ Rehabilitation, modernization and equipment of the Ilfov Emergency County Hospital – RON 59,782,199 (EUR 14.06 mill.) Teleorman CC ‐ of the Alexandria Emergency County Hospital – RON 57,737,872 (EUR 13.58 mill.) CJ Covasna ‐ Rehabilitation of the “Dr. Fogolyan Kristof” Emergency County Hospital –Sf. Gheorghe – RON 59,729,436 (EUR 14.05 mill.) 50 rehabilitated and equipped hospitals, 270 rehabilitated/equipped social service units, 510 mobile units equipped for emergency situations, 130 rehabilitated/equipped school units, 30 rehabilitated/equipped university campuses, 35 rehabilitated/equipped continuous professional training centers, and 15 rehabilitated/equipped university campuses. 442 EUR 1.28 mill. 36 90% local public authorities (local councils and county councils) 5% NGOs 3% ADI 1% universities/schools 1% religious organizations Axis 4 – Support of the regional and local business environment DMI 4.1 Sustainable development of the structures supporting businesses of regional and local importance; DMI 4.2 Rehabilitation of polluted and not used industrial sites, and their preparation for new activities, DMI 4.3 Support for the development of micro‐enterprises 15 projects for the support of assisted business structures, 500 polluted industrial sites rehabilitated and their preparation for new activities, as well as support for 1,500 SMEs. Axis 5 ‐ Sustainable development and promotion of tourism DMI 5.1, Restoration and sustainable capitalization of the cultural heritage, as well as creation/modernization of ancillary infrastructures; DMI 5.2 Creation, development, and modernization of the tourism infrastructure for the capitalization of natural resources and increasing the quality of touristic services; DMI 5.3 Promotion of the touristic potential and creation of the necessary infrastructure, in order to 400 projects implemented in the area of accommodation infrastructure, 350 companies in the tourism area assisted, funding of 10 companies for the promotion of the touristic brand at a national and international level, creation of 10 information and tourism promotion national centers, for the main purpose of increasing the number of tourists by 15% and of creating 1,000 new jobs. 1588 498 EUR 1.15 mill. 37 EUR 245,440 Călan Town (Hunedoara) ‐ Rehabilitation of the industrial site on the former Calan industrial platform and its preparation for new activities – RON 51,130,034 (EUR 10.03 mill.) SC Transcar International SRL, Sibiu – the Sibiu Business Center – RON 40,516,850 (EUR 9.53 mill.) Berzasca Commune (Caraş Severin) ‐ Rehabilitation and preparation of the polluted and not used industrial site of Cozla village, Berzasca Commune for its reuse and the development of a business park – RON 36,823,205 (EUR 8.66 mill.) The Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism – Promotion and strengthening of the national touristic brand – RON 69,809,886 (EUR 16.42 mill.) The Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism ‐ Promotion Romania’s Touristic Brand – RON 59,254,555 (EUR 13.94 mill.) SC Valgos SRL Iaşi ‐ SPASIA – recreation and Spa center – RON 43,813,117 (EUR 10.3 mill.) 99% companies 1% local authorities 56% local public authorities 21% companies 13% NGOs 7% religious organizations 2% central public administration 1% ADI increase attractiveness of Romania as a touristic destination. Axis 6 ‐ Technical assistance
56 EUR 1.03 mill. The complete list of accessed funds is available at: http://www.inforegio.ro/node/22 38 AMPOR ‐ Regio: Information and promotion 2009‐2010 – RON 18,593,505 (EUR 4.37 mill.) South Muntenia RDA– Support for South Muntenia RDA /Intermediary Body Department for the implementation of the 2011‐2012 ROP – RON 16,446,542 (EUR 3.87 mill.) North‐East RDA– Support for the IB – from the North‐East RDA during the 2011‐2012 time period for the implementation of the 2007‐2013 ROP – RON 15,713,881 (EUR 3.70 mill.) 82% Regional Development Agencies (RDA) 15% AMPOR 3% Intermediary Bodies (IB) Fig. 4 Funds accessed through the ROP for the revival of tourism in Romania (mill. RON) 39 The Administrative Capacity Development Operational Program (data available as of 31 July 2012) Fig. 5 Distribution of ACDOP funds in Bucharest compared to the rest of the country RON 151,012,372;18%
RON 677,880,770; 82%
Bucharest Rest of the country
Fig. 6 Funds accessed by the MIA compared to other central institutions RON 299,618,571; 45%
RON 361,094,422; 55%
MIA and other structures, including MA ACDOP
Other central institutions
40 Fig. 7 Beneficiaries of ACDOP funds from the central public administration Central public institution The Ministry of Administration and Interior
The Government’s General Secretariat
The Ministry of Education, Research and Youth
The Ministry of Labor, Family and Social The Romanian Gendarmerie
The National Agency of Public Servants
The Romanian Office for Immigration
The Ministry of Public Finance
The National Pension Fund
The Ministry of Transport
The General Inspection of the Romanian Police
The National Statistics Institute
The National Integrity Agency
The Construction State Inspection
The National Environmental Guard
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Ministry of Small and Medium Enterprises
The Scientific Research National Authority
The National Customs Authority
The Ministry of Regional Development
The Ministry of Health
The Emergency Response National Center
The National Fiscal Administration Agency
The Romanian Navy Authority
The National Cadastre and Real Estate Publicity The Ministry of Agriculture
The National Antidrug Company
The National Prognosis Commission The Family and Child Right Protection National Authority The Ministry of Justice
The Al. I. Cuza Police Academy The Romanian Office for Adoptions
The Ministry of Youth and Sports
The Ministry of Environment
TOTAL Total value (lei) 199,071,013 50,628,230 36,689,891 29,437,565 27,167,347 27,202,718 20,777,443 19,513,938 18,986,060 18,059,407 18,004,471 16,579,250 16,572,274 16,342,125 16,171,144 16,148,721 13,781,882 11,390,531 10,144,592 9,536,381 9,455,388 9,437,550 7,648,671 7,473,888 7,413,352 4,917,668 4,811,120 4,405,505 3,653,865 2,839,587 2,584,459 1,671,015 1,513,000 682,942 660,712,993 By comparison, the local public administration has accessed only approximately RON 99 million, meaning only 15% out of the amount accessed by the central public administration. 41 Fig. 8 Area of the projects accessed by the local administration through ACDOP 42 Fig. 9 Synthesis of funds accessed through ACDOP Axes ACDOP priority axes Axis 1 – Improvements in the structure and process of the public policy cycle management DMI 1.1 – Improvement of the decision making process at a political and administrative level DMI 1.2 – Increase in the accountability of the public administration DMI 1.3 ‐ Improvement of organizational efficiency Main quantitative indicators estimated until 2015 ‐ 20% of unsatisfactory public policy documents and draft legal norms returned by their initiators by the Government’s General Secretariat (GGS); ‐ 20% reduction of administrative costs; ‐ 95% of public institutions prepare annual activity reports according to Law no. 544/2001; ‐ 75,000 certified training participants; ‐ 287 newly created and reorganized structures are operational No. of approved projects 230
43 Average value of EU funding EUR 509 thousand The first 3 large projects per Axis The Prefect’s Institution of Alba County ‐ Management of intervention and contingency plans for the critical infrastructure at a regional level, by means of risk management and assessment computerized systems, for improving the decision making process at the level of public authorities – RON 16,999,941 (EUR 4 mill.) The Government’s General Secretariat – improvement of efficiency in the application of competition policies by correlation with sector policies – RON 16,952,055 (EUR 3.98 mill.) The National Statistics Institute ‐ Improvement of the public administration’s capacity to measure administrative performance –databases methodologies, instruments for the modernization and standardization of statistical reporting techniques and for the description of the administration’s performance – RON 16,579,250 (EUR 3.9 mill.) Axis 2 – Improvement of the quality and efficiency of providing public services, with a focus on the decentralization process DMI 2.1 – Support for the process of sector decentralization of services DMI 2.2 ‐ Improvement of the quality and efficiency of providing services ‐ 142 newly decentralized structures are operational; ‐ 95% own revenues collected by local public administration; ‐ 3 priority sectors in which quality and cost standards were introduced 123
44 EUR 542 thousand The National Integrity Agency – efficient public services through a simplification of the procedure for filling in, archiving and analysis of documents within the National Integrity Agency and facilitation of electronic access to information of public interest – RON 16,572,274 (EUR 3.89 mill.) The Construction State Inspection – a Computerized System intended to the Management of the Construction State Inspection’s Activities – RON 16,342,125 (EUR 3.84 mill.) The National Environmental Guard – Bringing the control methodology of the National Environmental Guard in line with international control directives and conventions – RON 16,171,144 (EUR 3.80 mill.) Axis 3 ‐ Technical assistance DMI 3.1 – Support for the implementation, general management and assessment of the ACDOP and for the preparation of the next programming financial reference period DMI 3.2 – Support for communication and for the promotion of the ACDOP ‐ 100% observance of the set contracting percentage; ‐ 500 potential applicants that participated in communication events 17
The complete list of accessed funds is available at http://www.fonduri‐ue.ro/ 45 EUR 452 thousand The Directorate for Administrative Capacity Development – support for the operation of the ACDOP's Management Authority and for the preparation of the next programming reference period – RON 15,000,000 (EUR 3.5 mill.) The Directorate for Administrative Capacity Development – support for an increased efficiency of the general management and for the implementation of the ACDOP – RON 4,633,086 (EUR 1.09 mill.) The Directorate for Administrative Capacity Development – provision of project assessment services for the MAACDOP – RON 3,572,850 (EUR 840 thousand) Fig. 10. Status of NGO projects – won amounts and collected payments Beneficiary County Project title DMI The association for Teleorman Community Education and Development We Grow Together
The Center for Legal Bucharest Resources Foundation Development of professional skills in the local public authorities in the project management and public procurement areas The Association for Bucharest the Democracy Implementation (A.I.D.) Development and 1.3. strengthening of the Improvement of National Integrity Center organizational effectiveness The Center for Public Cluj
Policy Association Training program for participative drafting of local public policies for public servants Valea Oltului PRO Vâlcea DEZVOLTARE Association Professional training for 1.3. organizational Improvement of effectiveness organizational effectiveness 1.1.Improvemen
t of the decision making process at a political and administrative level 1.3. Improvement of organizational effectiveness 1.3. Improvement of organizational effectiveness Total project budget (RON) 509,984 1,907,641 5,168,275 272,440 413,828 1,405,133 3,219,807 224,817 Project objectives Increasing the capacity of 10 local authorities of 10 rural communities of Teleorman County to work together with local and regional interest stakeholders, in order to improve the process of drafting and implementing local public policies. Increasing efficiency of local public authorities and of the general knowledge and expertise standards at the level of public servants. Increasing the capacity, efficiency and effectiveness of central and local administrative structures for an improvement of the public policy cycle management, and for assuring high quality public services to the social and economic benefit of the Romanian society. Process improvements in the public policy cycle management at the level of the own personnel of Sighişoara Municipality and Local Council. NA
243,100 46 EU funds (RON) 206,635 The Human Resource Development Sector Operational Program (data available as of 31 July 2012) Fig.11 Synthesis of funds accessed through HRDSOP Axes Priority axes of HRDSOP Main quantitative indicators estimated until 2015 No. of approved projects Priority axis 1: Education and Number of supported schools: 6,500
427
professional training to support knowledge‐based economic growth and society development. Trained/specialized personnel in the areas of education and training: 15,000 DMI 1.1 – Access to high quality education and initial professional Percentage of supported schools that training received an accreditation based on the DMI 1.2 – Quality in academic new quality assurance standards (%): 80% education The National Center for the Development of Professional and Technical Education – Revised Curriculum in the Professional and Technical Education (CRIPT) – RON 20,021,816 47 Bucharest Polytechnic University ‐ Master Program Integrated System in the area of sound engineering, photography and multimedia applications – RON 20,323,492 DMI 1.4 – Quality in continuous Number of supported PhD students: 15,000 professional training EUR 2.14 mill. The first 3 large projects per Axis Babeş ‐ Bolyai University ‐ Quality assurance in the internationalized master education: development of the national framework for making it compatible to the European Area of Academic – RON 20,082,929 DMI 1.3 ‐ Development of Rate of the trained education and education and professional training training personnel that was certified (%): 97% human resources Average value of EU funding DMI 1.5 – PhD and post‐PhD programs to support research Percentage of supported PhD students who obtained a PhD degree (%): 90% Priority axis 2: Correlation of life Number of persons assisted in their 572
learning with the labor market transition from school to active life: 150,000 DMI 2.1 – Transition from school to active life Percentage of persons assisted in their transition from school to active life who DMI 2.2 – Prevention and obtained a job or participated actively in correction of early school dropping subsequent courses: 65% out Number of beneficiaries of career DMI 2.3 – Access and participation counseling services: 400,000 in CPT S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. – Enhancement of the organizations’ competitiveness and productivity through qualification of human resources in the "driller and threader" specialty – RON 19,453,642 S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. ‐ Enhancement of the organizations’ competitiveness and productivity through qualification of human resources in the "mechanical processing technician" specialty – RON 19,451,438 Percentage of „second chance”‐type education program graduates (%): 75% Percentage of certified participants in CPT programs (%): 90% 48 EUR 984.8 Oradea University, the Faculty of Economic Sciences thousand – practice of economist students. Inter‐regional partnership in the labor market between universities and the business environment – RON 19,830,198 Priority axis 3: Enhancement of Percentage of beneficiaries of training 469
adaptability of workers and courses who have initiated new enterprises businesses (%): 35% DMI 3.1 ‐ Promotion entrepreneurial culture EUR 1.06 mill. of Percentage of trainees certified in work management and organization (%): 80% SC Ernst & Young SRL – Training and assistance in the management and entrepreneurial area for small and future entrepreneurs, managers and employees of SMEs – RON 18,671,782 DMI 3.2 ‐ Training and support for Percentage of trainees certified for enterprises and employees for the updating and improving their skills (%): promotion of adaptability 80% Cluj Napoca Technical University – the Center for the Promotion of Entrepreneurship in the Area of Sustainable Development – RON 18,720,673 Orizont Foundation ‐ Entrepreneurship – a successful career – RON 18,471,447 DMI 3.3 ‐ Development of o Percentage of supported social partners partnerships and encouragement of and NGOs that offer community services initiatives for social partners and (%): 50% the civil society Priority axis 4: Modernization of Number of employment agencies that 54
the Employment Public Service provide self‐services: 100 (EPS) Percentage of employment agencies DMI 4.1 – Strengthening the certified in the quality management capacity of EPS to provide system (%): 95% employment services Percentage of unemployed included in DMI 4.2 ‐ Training of the EPS' own training programs out of the total number of unemployed who benefitted personnel 49 EUR 2.2 mill. Alba County Employment Agency ‐ 3C – Quality Creates Competences” – High quality of training creates professional competences of European level for the EPS personnel of the Center, West and North‐
West Regions – RON 16,103,028 The National Employment Agency ‐ Professional of the personnel of EPS of Romania – RON 16,091,736 Hunedoara County Employment Agency – Direct Access to EPS – RON 16,005,000 from at least one active employment measure (%): 10% Percentage of trained personnel having a graduation certificate (%): 80% Priority axis 5: Promotion of Number of long term unemployed 711
employment active measures participating in integrated programs: 65,000, out of which: DMI 5.1 ‐ Development and implementation of employment ‐ women: 30,000 active measures ‐ young people: 16,000 DMI 5.2 – Promotion of long term sustainability of rural areas in Number of rural area participants in terms of development of human integrated programs: 150,000 resources and employment Percentage of rural area participants certified in integrated programs who obtained a job (%): 15% 50 EUR 641.6 The "Equal Opportunities for Everyone" Association – Work Comes First – RON 18,808,861.42 thousand The Casa de Meserii a Constructorilor (Constructors’ Crafts House) Foundation ‐ PICAS Centre – Specialized Information, Counseling and Assistance Points for unemployed and persons looking for a job in the relevant sector – RON 18,792,032.53 The Managerial Development Center Foundation ‐ national career information and counseling network ‐ RON 18,518,847.62 Priority axis 6: Promotion of social Number jobs created by social economy inclusion structures: 5,000 175
EUR 2.24 mill. The Salvaţi Dunărea şi Delta (Save the Danube and the Delta) Association‐ Social economy – a solution for environment – RON 20,174,568.51 DMI 6.1 ‐ Development of social Number of social economy structures economy created: 830 The Pakiv Romania Association – Creation and operation of assistance structures focused on employment ‐ social inclusion centers for Roma origin persons – RON 18,679,165.74 DMI 6.2 – Improvement of access Number of participants in training and participation of vulnerable programs intended to specialists in the groups to/in the labor market area of social inclusion: 10,000 The Institute for Public Policies ‐ Social Inclusion Centers – an opportunity for facilitating the participation of vulnerable groups in the labor market – RON 18,520,433 DMI 6.3 ‐ Promotion of equal Number of participants in opportunities in the labor market qualification/reconversion programs intended to vulnerable groups: 130,000, out of which: DMI 6.4 – Trans‐national initiatives ‐ Roma origin persons: 65,000 for an inclusive labor market ‐ disabled persons: 20,500 ‐ young people leaving the state child protection system: 5,400 Number of dependants supported: 40,000 Number of woman participants in professional qualification/reconversion 51 programs: 20,000
Number of supported trans/national initiatives and partnerships: 120 Priority axis 7: Technical assistance Number of surveys and inquiries: 20
32
DMI 7.1 – Support for the Number of meetings of the Monitoring implementation, general Committee: 18 management and assessment of the HRDSOP Number of promotion campaigns (TV, radio, press): 15 MAHRDSOP – Support for MAHRDSOP and Intermediary Bodies for the implementation of HRDSOP – RON 5,677,305 (bid winner: EUROPEAN PROFILES S.A.) DMI 7.2 – Support for the HRDSOP promotion and communication Annual average of website visits: 90,000 MAHRDSOP – Technical assistance to MAHRDSOP in the process of assessment of projects submitted under HRDSOP – RON 5,212,838 (bid winner: OVE ARUP & PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL LTD in a consortium with SC Avensa Consulting SRL) Number of published brochures: 200 The complete list of accessed funds is available at http://www.fonduri‐ue.ro/ 52 EUR 283 MAHRDSOP ‐
„Computerized Integrated thousand Management System (IMS‐ HRDSOP)” – RON 15,773,460 (bid winner: S.C. TEAMNET INTERNATIONAL S.A, project leader, in a consortium with S.C. ASESOFT INTERNATIONAL S.A. and S.C. ARCHIDATA S.R.L.) Fig. 12 Winners of SOP HRD managed funds – consultancies companies (selection based on the amount won in projects) Project title Increase in the competitiveness and productivity of organizations by qualification of human resources in the area of "Driller threader" Increase in the competitiveness and productivity of organizations by qualification of human resources in the area "Technician mechanical processing " Increase in the competitiveness and productivity of organizations by qualification of human resources in the area “Locksmith maintenance and repairs” DMI of which it shall be funded S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. Bucharest
2.3 "FPC access and participation" 19,453,641.97
601,659.03
1,055,542.00
21,117,558
S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. Bucharest
2.3 "FPC access and participation" 19,451,438.13
601,590.87
1,055,422.00
21,115,166
S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. Bucharest
2.3 "FPC access and participation" 19,449,767.79
601,539.21
1,055,331.00
21,113,353
53 Eligible value (LEI) Registered seat Beneficiary Name Awarded funding EU funds National budget Beneficiary contribution Project total value (LEI) Increase in the competitiveness and productivity of organizations by qualification of human resources in the area "Mechanic repairs " Increase in the competitiveness and productivity of organizations by qualification of human resources in the area "Press‐toolmaker" Increase in the competitiveness and productivity of organizations by qualification of human resources in the area "Metrology technician " Training and assistance for the managerial – entrepreneurial field for small and future entrepreneurs, managers and SMEs employees of the North‐East, North‐
West, Center and South‐East regions Development of entrepreneurship and increase in business competitiveness S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. Bucharest
2.3 "FPC access and participation" 19,449,359.42
601,526.58
1,055,311.00
21,112,912
S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. Bucharest
2.3 "FPC access and participation" 19,447,538.73
601,470.27
1,055,209.00
21,110,933
S.C. CRIVAS CONSULT S.R.L. Bucharest
2.3 "FPC access and participation" 19,411,935.85
600,369.15
1,053,280.00
21,072,300
Ernst & Young SRL
Bucharest
3.1 “Promoting entrepreneurship culture” 18,671,782.12
1,191,815.88
1,045,454.00
20,909,052
People Investment SRL
Bucharest
3.1 “Promoting entrepreneurship culture” 17.987.975,17
1.148.168,63
1.007.165,46
20.878.785,60
54 A NEW TRADE – A NEW LIFE SC OREADE SRL
Braşov
5.1 "Development 17,281,566.12
and implementation of active employment measures" 5.2 “Promoting 17,062,491.38
long‐term sustainability of rural areas as regards the development of human resources and employment” 1,709,165.88
944,956.00
20,501,864
The Road to Europe – equipping persons in the rural areas with new non‐agricultural qualifications ALSIM SOLUTIONS & CONSULTINGS SRL Bucharest
2,791,466.47
1,044,945.15
20,898,903
Rural European Entrepreneur – Development of human resources in the rural areas by forming key entrepreneurship, ITC use and English competences development ITC training at European standards in the Romanian penitentiary system Româno Cher – the Roma House SC EURO TRAINING AND EDUCATION CENTER SRL Ilfov
5.2 “Promoting long‐term sustainability of rural areas as regards the development of human resources and employment” 16,919,395.05
2,768,055.55
1,036,181.70
20,723,632.30
S.C.EUROAPTITUDINI S.A.
Bucharest
16,817,152.14
1,582,357.86
968,396,.00
19,402,106
K CONSULTING, MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION SRL Bucharest
6.2
“Access and participation improvement” 6.1 “Social economy development” 16,434,806.66
3,450,016.89
1,046,569.66
20,931,393.21
APT – Performing entrepreneurship through training and counseling BRAIN WAVE COMMUNICATION S.R.L. Bucharest
3.1 “Promoting entrepreneurship culture” 16,418,857.80
1,048,012.20
919,310.00
20,075,618
55 Initiation in business development Resources, Development & Ideas SRL Bucharest
Human resource, a valuable investment in Romanian rural tourism SC RGIC CONSULTANTA SRL Bucharest
3.1 “Promoting entrepreneurship culture” 5.2 “Promoting long‐term sustainability of rural areas as regards the development of human resources and employment” 56 15,967,012.96
1,019,171.04
894,009.68
18,964,451.08
15,673,384.81
1,550,114.98
906,499.99
18,129,999.78
Sectoral Operational Programme Environment (data available on July 31, 2012) Fig. 13 Funds accessed to rehabilitate/ expand the water/ wastewater and sewage network by the Regional Operators in the counties (mil. lei) 57 Fig. 14 Funds accessed by each county to develop the waste management integrated system (mil. lei) 58 Fig. 15 Funds accessed to restructure and rehabilitate urban heating systems (mil/lei) 59 Fig. 16 Funds accessed for nature and biodiversity protection (mil/lei) 60 Fig. 17 Catchment areas which accessed SOP Environment funds (infrastructure to prevent floods) Project title Beneficiary Total project value, VAT excluded (Lei) Of which, EU funds (Lei) Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Mureş catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, Mureş Catchment Area Administration 5,014,373 4,011,498 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Siret catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, Siret Catchment Area Administration 6,355,152 5,084,122 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Banat catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, Banat Catchment Area Administration 15,701,923 12,561,538 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Buzău ‐ Ialomiţa catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, Buzau‐
Ialomiţa Catchment Area Administration 12,878,224 10,302,579 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Crişuri catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, Crişuri Catchment Area Administration 2,844,188 2,275,350 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Someş Tisa catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, Someş Tisa Catchment Area Administration 36,652,597 23,646,837 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Argeş ‐ Vedea catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, Argeş ‐ Vedea Catchment Area Administration 21,525,452 17,220,362 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the “Dobrogea ‐ Litoral” catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, “Dobrogea ‐ Litoral” Catchment Area Administration 16,131,209 12,904,967 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Jiu catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters 20,057,962 16,046,370 61 Plan to prevent, protect and reducing the harmful effects of floods in the Olt catchment area, stage – Development of floods hazard maps (flooding likelihood) The National Administration Romanian Waters 32,305,911 25,844,728 Works to reduce the flooding risk in the Prut – Bârlad catchment area The National Administration Romanian Waters, through the Prut‐Bârlad Catchment Area Administration 248,743,753 204,058,642 "Water works on the Adona Valley, County of Bihor " The National Administration Romanian Waters, through the Someş‐Tisa Catchment Area Administration 12,628,866 8,147,652 "Water works on the Crişul Mic Valley, County of Bihor" The National Administration Romanian Waters, through the Crişuri Catchment Area Administration 10,286,055 6,636,170 62 SOP Environment priority axes
Axis 1 ‐ Extension and modernization of water and wastewater systems KAI 1.1. Extension/modernization of water and wastewater systems Axis 2 ‐ Development of integrated waste management systems and rehabilitation of historically contaminated sites KAI 2.1 Development of integrated waste management systems and extension of waste management infrastructure KAI 2.2 Rehabilitation of historically contaminated sites Fig. 18 Summary of funds accessed through the Axes of the SOP Environment Main quantitative indicators estimated until No. of Average value The first 3 largest projects per Axis
2015 approved of EU funding projects 80.65 mil euro
S.C. RAJA S.A Constanţa – Rehabilitation and 300 communities beneficiaries of regional new/ 40
modernizing the water and sewage supply rehabilitated water facilities systems in the Constanţa – Ialomiţa region – 617,442,277 lei 200 new/ rehabilitated cleaning stations The Water Company of Braşov SA – 70% of the population connected to the water Expanding and rehabilitating the water and services supplied by the regional system sewage supply systems in the county of Braşov – 607,350,975 lei 60% of the wastewater is adequately cleaned 35 newly created regional water companies SC Someş Water Company S.A. – Rehabilitating and expanding the water and sewage supply systems in the counties of Cluj/Sălaj – 541,969,415 lei 22.89 mil euro
Cluj County Council – Integrated waste 30 newly created integrated waste 24
management system in the county of Cluj – management systems at county/ regional levels 159,881,232 lei 1500 old landfills closed in the rural areas Suceava County Council – Integrated solid 150 old municipal landfills closed in the urban waste management system in the county of areas Suceava ‐ 150,715,368 lei 8 million inhabitants who benefit of improved Alba County Council ‐ Integrated waste waste management systems management system in the county of Alba – 150,650,869 lei 5 pilot projects to rehabilitate historically contaminated sites Eligible beneficiaries KAI 1.1. Regional water operators KAI 2.1 County Councils County KAI 2.2. Councils, Local Councils 63 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 KAI 3.1. Rehabilitation of urban heating systems in selected priority areas (hotspots) 7
8 rehabilitated central heating systems
15 developed option surveys Reduction by 15,000 tons in the SO2 emissions as a result of the urban heating systems, following the interventions within the SOP ENV Axis 4 Implementation of adequate management systems for nature protection KAI 4.1. Development of infrastructure and management plans to protect biodiversity and Natura 2000 240 protected areas and Natura 2000 sites, 132
with in force/ approved management plans 60% of the total area of protected areas and Natura 2000 sites which benefit of nature conservation measures 30 sites proposed in the Natura 2000 network, which benefit of the implementation of measures Oradea Town hall – Rehabilitation of the urban heating system in the city of Oradea ‐ 158,693,766 lei The Town hall of the City of Bacău – New technology for the heating system of the city of Bacău – 138,206,145 lei The Town hall of the City of Iaşi – Rehabilitation of the heating system of the city of Iaşi – 126,639,588 lei 823.4 thousands The Institute of Biology of Bucharest –
euro Monitoring the conservation status of species and habitats of Romania, based on Article 17 of the Habitats’ Directive – 45,620,798 lei The Local Council of the City of Tulcea – Ecologic reconstruction in the Zaghen polder of the Transborder Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Romania/Ukraine – 41,452,006 lei ANPM ‐ SICRON – Integrated Management System and Awareness Raising in Romania concerning Natura 2000 network ‐ 35,491,390 lei 27.6 mil euro KAI 3.1. Local public administration authorities of the selected communities30 KAI 4.1. Administrators or custodians of protected areas, the National Agency for Natural Protected Areas, Administration of the “Danube Delta” Biosphere Reserve, local and central public administration authorities, NGOs, research institutes, universities, museums 30
According to the Framework Implementation Document, the stage before the selection of potential beneficiaries focused on the assessment of 25 cities. The evaluation criteria firstly meant the CET relevance for the specific SOP ENV objectives (CET with a significant negative impact on air quality), whereas secondly they meant the contribution to fulfilling the obligations Romania committed to through its Accession Treaty (the heating stations with a deadline to comply with the requirements of the Directive concerning pollutant emissions’ limitation); in the last but not in the least place, they looked at the maturity of the project proposals. 64 Axis 5 ‐ Implementation of adequate infrastructure of natural risk prevention in most vulnerable areas KAI 5.1 Protection against floods KAI 5.2 Reduction erosion in the coastal area 10 projects approved for the protection against 14
floods 1.5 mil inhabitants benefitting of flood protection projects 30% reduction in the prevalence of the flooding risk 10 km of rehabilitated seaside 30% expansion of the beaches Axis 6 ‐ Technical Assistance
KAI 6.1 Support for SOP ENV management and evaluation KAI 6.2 Support for information and publicity 17 meetings of the Monitoring Committee a 105
year 5 calls for proposals of TA funded projects 400 employees trained/ year 50 project applications evaluated with TA support 10 thematic surveys/ developed strategies 5 events focused on the exchange of experience concerning the implementation of funds and thematic aspects 2.97 mil euro The National Administration Romanian Waters – The Plan concerning the prevention, protection and reduction of flood effects in the Olt catchment area – 25,844,728 lei The National Administration Romanian Waters – The Plan concerning the prevention, protection and reduction of flood effects in the Someş Tisa catchment area – 23,646,837 lei The National Administration Romanian Waters – Technical assistance to prepare projects with a view to implementing public works combating erosion of the Romanian Black Sea coast – 19,528,284 lei 389.4 thousands Technical and economic assistance for the euro directions and implementation bureaus within MA and IB SOP ENV in the case of projects funded from the non‐reimbursable financial assistance (2010) – 20,128,500 lei Retransmission of audio‐video and print materials created during the campaign to promote the Sectoral Operational Programme ENV – best practices examples (2012) – 19,345,735 lei Technical assistance for MA and IB SOP ENV (2008) – 12,374,099 lei KAI 5.1 The National Administration Romanian Waters KAI 5.2 The National Administration Romanian Waters MA SOP Environment 65 200 types of disseminated flyers /pamphlets 20 organized press conferences 3 media campaigns 118 communication and promotion events 1000 information requests received at the Information Center 66 SOP IEC Priority Axes
Axis 1 ‐ An innovative and eco‐
efficient productive system KAI 1.1 Productive investments and preparation for market competition, especially of SMEs KAI 1.2 ‐ Access to finance for SMEs KAI 1.3. ‐ Sustainable entrepreneurship development Sectoral Operational Programme Increase of Economic Competitiveness (data available on July 31, 2012) Fig. 19 Summary of funds accessed through the Axes of SOP IEC Main quantitative indicators estimated No. of Average value of until 2015 approved EU funding projects 322 thousands 2000 projects to support direct investment 141531
euro in SMEs 1500 financially assisted SMEs – for the implementation of standards 50 large enterprises which are financially assisted 23,000 newly created jobs – investment for SMEs – production sector 1,400 certified SMEs – for the implementation of standards 10 newly created structures to support businesses 5 developed structures to support businesses 2000 financially assisted SMEs – purchase of consultancy services The first 3 largest projects per Axis
SC Automobile Dacia SA – Diversification of production of SC Automobile Dacia SA through the production of an engine block for the new family of engines – 17,200,000 lei32 SC Ambro SA Suceava – Increase in the competitiveness of products with the assembly of a surface size press to paper machine no. 1 and of a boiler with multitubular pipes – 17,199,964 lei SC Selina SRL Timiş ‐ Increase in the competitiveness of SC SELINA SRL through the purchase of last generation equipment and tools to implement European standards for the road infrastructure works – 17,199,853 lei 31
The European Investment Fund – Jeremie Fund project worth 402,020,000 lei EU funds was not taken into consideration, as it has special features unlike the remaining projects approved through SOP‐IEC. 32
The following companies have accessed projects with the same value as well: SC Petrocart SA Neamţ, SC Romcab SA Mureş, SC Cord Romania SRL Olt, SC Totalgaz Industrie SRL Iaşi, SC Marquardt Schalt‐systeme SCS Sibiu, Bamesa Otel SA Bucureşti, SC Metalicplas SRL Cluj. 67 SOP IEC Priority Axes
Main quantitative indicators estimated No. of until 2015 approved projects Axis 2 ‐ Research, Technological 338
600 R&D projects
Development and Innovation for competitiveness 200 Projects implemented in partnership by R&D institutions and enterprises KAI 2.1. – Research and Development partnerships between 150 financially assisted SMEs for R&D universities/research institutes, and partnership projects, R&D projects of high enterprises for scientific level generating results directly applicable in the economy 400 newly created/ maintained jobs at the assisted beneficiaries KAI 2.2 ‐ Investments in Research, 30 patent applications as a result of R&D Development, Innovation partnership projects, R&D projects of high scientific level infrastructure and related administrative capacity 8 developed innovative structures – poles of excellence KAI 2.3 ‐ Research, Development, Innovation support for enterprises 80 institutions supported for the increase in the administrative capacity 1100 newly created jobs 30 developed start‐up enterprises 20 developed spin‐off enterprises 90 financially assisted SMEs for Research& Development projects 30 financially assisted large enterprises for Research & Development projects Average value of The first 3 largest projects per Axis
EU funding 1.09 mil euro
The National Institute of Information and Documentation – Electronic National Access to Research Scientific Literature – 70,317,600 lei Transylvania University of Braşov – Research, Development and Innovation Institute: High‐Tech Products for Sustainable Development – 46,020,000 lei Colentina Clinic Hospital ‐ Colentina Research and Development Wing – 46,015,196 lei 68 SOP IEC Priority Axes
Axis 3 – Information and communication technology for private and public sectors KAI 3.1 ‐ Supporting the ICT use KAI 3.2 ‐ Developing and increasing the efficiency of modern electronic public services KAI 3.3 ‐ Sustaining the E‐Economy Main quantitative indicators estimated No. of until 2015 approved projects 100 implemented broadband networks – 494
electronic communication infrastructure 5,000 SMEs connected to broadband internet 100 public institutions connected to broadband internet 100 NGOs connected to broadband internet 500 schools/ school inspectorates connected to broadband internet 300 additional population with access to broadband networks 300,000 users of electronic means registered on e‐government 200,000 users of electronic means registered on e‐learning 400,000 users of electronic means registered on e‐health 800 SMEs that use integrated information management systems 4,200 SMEs that use computer systems for electronic commerce Average value of The first 3 largest projects per Axis
EU funding 348 euro thousands Ministry of Education, Research and Youth – internet in your school. Broadband internet connection for schools in the rural and small urban areas – 110,517,345 lei The National Health Insurance House – integrated computer system for the electronic health file – 108,151,133 lei The National Health Insurance House – the electronic prescription – 31,544,414 lei 69 SOP IEC Priority Axes
Main quantitative indicators estimated No. of until 2015 approved projects Axis 4 ‐ Increasing energy 150 projects to improve energy efficiency
33
efficiency and security of supply, in the context of combating 50 km of enlarged/ modernized transport climate change network – electrical energy sector KAI 4.1 ‐ Efficient and sustainable 50 km of enlarged/ modernized transport energy (improving energy efficiency network – natural gas sector and environmental sustainability of the energy system) 100 km of enlarged/ modernized transport network – electrical energy sector KAI 4.2 ‐ Use of renewable energy sources (RES) for producing green 150 km of enlarged/ modernized transport network – natural gas sector energy 5 Air quality improvement projects – IMA KAI 4.3 ‐ Diversification of interconnection networks in view of projects strengthening security of energy supply 125 financially assisted SMEs – energy efficiency 2 ‐ 3% reduction of technological loss in the distribution network 100,000 t SO2 Increase in the retention capacity for sulfur dioxide emissions – large burning facilities 30 Projects to valorize the renewable energy resources 25 financially assisted SMEs – RRE sector 200 MW additionally installed energy capacity – RRE sector Average value of The first 3 largest projects per Axis
EU funding 3.25 mil euro
SC Complexul Energetic Craiova SA – Joint installations to sweeten burned gas, blocks 1 and 2, SE CRAIOVA II – 93,180,968 lei ROMCONSTRUCT TOP SRL – Siliştea Windmill park – 62,480,000 lei The local council of the city of Topoloveni – Photovoltaic plant of 3 MWp to produce electrical energy through the conversion of solar energy in the city of Topoloveni, the Scientific and Technological Park ‐ TOP PARC TOPOLOVENI – 48,224,126 lei 70 SOP IEC Priority Axes
Axis 5 ‐ Technical Assistance KAI 5.1 ‐ Support to the SOP IEC management, implementation, monitoring and control KAI 5.2 ‐ Support for communication, evaluation and IT Main quantitative indicators estimated No. of until 2015 approved projects 3 interconnections to the transport networks 14 meetings of the relevant committees and 25
working groups 7,000 days per participant to training sessions 20 media campaigns 7,000 information requests received by the Information Center 500 – 550 communication and promotion events Average value of The first 3 largest projects per Axis
EU funding 1.11 mil euro
The National Authority for Scientific Research – Support for the management, implementation, monitoring of activities related to priority axis 2 (Consolidated fiche 2011) – 21,546,895 lei The Intermediary Body for SMEs – Decision to fund KAI 1 – IB SMEs – 19,277,003 lei The Intermediary Body to Promote the Information Society – Support for the management, implementation, monitoring of activities related to priority axis 3 – 14,889,497 lei The full status of accessed funds through SOP IEC can be found at: http://www.fonduri‐ue.ro 71 Sectoral Operational Programme Transport (SOP‐T) (data available on July 31, 2012) Fig. 20 Winners of SOP T projects Eligible beneficiaries The National Highway and Roads Company of Romania ‐ Total value of EU funds attracted (million RON) 6,513.84 CNADNR S.A The National Railway Company ”CFR” S.A. ‐
CNCF “CFR” S.A. 3,161.87 The National Company Administration of Maritime Ports SA Constanţa 331.31 The National Company Administration of Inland Waterways S.A. Constanţa 56.43 The Romanian Naval Authority 29.87 The National Company Administration of Maritime Danube Ports S.A. Galaţi 47.14 The Lower River Danube Administration Galaţi 20.06 The Mihail Kogălniceanu Airport
76.47 The National Company Administration of River Danube Ports SA Giurgiu 37.3 Public Corporation Ştefan cel Mare Airport Suceava 88.59 MA SOP Transport 43.06 72 ROP Priority axes
Axis 1 ‐ Modernization and development of TEN‐T33 priority axes aiming at sustainable transport system integrated with EU transport networks KAI 1.1 Modernization and development of road infrastructure along the TEN‐T priority axis 7 KAI 1.2 Modernization and development of railway infrastructure along the TEN‐T priority axis 22 KAI 1.3 Modernization and development of water transport infrastructure along the TEN‐T priority axis 18 Fig. 21 Summary of the funds accessed for each SOP‐T Axis Main quantitative indicators estimated No. of Average value of until 2015 approved EU funding projects 190 Km completed of new TEN‐T highways 9
221 mil Euro
180 Km of rehabilitated/ modernized railway 450 Km of TEN‐T inland waterways open for navigation The first 3 largest projects per Axis
CFR SA – Rehabilitation of the Brașov ‐ Simeria railway, a component of the IV Pan‐
European Corridor, for the circulation of trains at a maximum speed of 160 km/h, section Coșlariu – Simeria – 2,308,919,506 lei (543.3 mil euro) CNADNR SA – Construction of the Orăştie – Sibiu highway – 2,179,068,541 lei (512.7 mil euro) CFR SA – Rehabilitation of the Border ‐ Curtici – Simeria railway, a component of the Pan‐European IV Corridor, for the circulation of trains at a maximum speed of 160 km/h, section 1: Border Curtici ‐ Arad – km 614 – 1,044,060,454 lei (245.6 mil euro) 33
According to the Framework Implementation Document for SOP‐T, Romania is crossed by 3 TEN‐T priority axes, as follows: 1. TEN‐T Axis 7 (road infrastructure) with two branches: • The Northern Branch: Nădlac ‐ Lugoj ‐ Sibiu ‐ Bucureşti ‐ Constanţa, • The Southern Branch: Lugoj ‐ Drobeta Turnu Severin ‐ Craiova ‐ Calafat with the Simian – Maglavit option 2. TEN‐T Axis 22 (railway infrastructure) with two branches: • The Northern Branch: Curtici ‐ Arad ‐ Braşov ‐ Bucureşti ‐ Constanţa, • The Southern Branch: Arad ‐ Drobeta Turnu Severin ‐ Craiova ‐ Calafat 3. TEN‐T Axis 18 (water transport infrastructure): • The River Danube
73 Axis 2 ‐ Modernization and development of the national transport infrastructure outside the TEN‐T priority axes aiming at sustainable national transport system KAI 2.1 Modernization and development of national road infrastructure KAI 2.2 Modernization and development of national railway infrastructure and passenger service KAI 2.3 Modernization and development of river and maritime ports KAI 2.4 Modernization and development of air transport infrastructure 800 Km of rehabilitated national roads
29
18 rehabilitated/ modernized railway stations +26% Increase of passenger traffic on the railway (mil passengers ‐km) +33% Increase of cargo traffic on the inland waterways (mil kt‐km) 1 mil. passengers transported on the inland waterways and canals 115 mil. tons of cargo transported or in transit through the TEN‐T ports, of which: ‐ maritime: 80 mil. tons ‐ river: 35 mil. tons 3 – 5 rehabilitated/ modernized airports 20.7 mil euro
CNADNR – Rehabilitation of DN 6 Alexandria Craiova – 523,516,448 lei CNADNR ‐ Rehabilitation of DN24, at the limit of the county of Galaţi ‐ Vaslui ‐ Crasna and DN24B Crasna ‐ Albița – 370,639,510 lei CNADNR – Rehabilitation of DN 1H Zalău ‐ Aleşd – 287,807,680 lei The full status of accessed funds can be found at: http://www.fonduri‐ue.ro 74