1 UltimiiPasi AbsorbtiaFondurilorEuropene VictorBostinaru

Cuprins
Cuvnt nainte - 7
Introducere -10
Evaluri repetate privind gradul extrem de sczut al absorbiei

fondurilor europene -15
Dimensiunea conceptual - 26
Absorbia fondurilor structurale i de coeziune - 29
I. Precizri preliminarii 29
II. Descrierea fondurilor structurale europene 31
III. Condiiile generale pentru a beneficia de fondurile structurale 62
IV. Principalele dificulti n implementarea programelor

operaionale - 67
V. Concluzii i observaii. Recomandri privind modalitile de

remediere ale problemelor expuse - 101
Bugetul UE i impactul su asupra Politicii de Coeziune - 118
Reforma regional n dezbaterea public - 128
Concluzii - 137
Anexe - 279
Contents
Foreword - 144
Introduction - 147
Constant evaluations of the extremely low

absorption rate of European funds - 152
Conceptual framework - 163
The absorption of structural and cohesion funds - 166
I. Preliminary Considerations - 166
II. The description of European Structural Funds - 168
III. General conditions for obtaining Structural Funds - 198
IV. Main difficulties in implementing Operational Programs - 203
V. Conclusions and observations. Recommendations of remedies for

the difficulties referred to above - 237
The budget of the EU and its impact on the Cohesion Policy - 255
Regional Reform in the public debate - 265
Conclusions and recommendations - 273
Annexes - 279
Ultimii pai absorbia fondurilor structurale i de coeziune 2007-2013
Cuvnt nainte
Victor Botinaru
Membru al Parlamentului European
Studiul Ultimii pai absorbia fondurilor structurale i de

coeziune 2007-2013 este rezultatul activitii n Comisia pentru
Dezvoltare Regional a Parlamentului European, iar decizia de a-l elabora
a pornit de la modul n care Romnia a ratat o ans uria.
n materie de incapacitate de absorbie, Romnia nu are

precedent de la instituirea Comunitii Europene. Rdcinile acestui eec
costisitor trebuie cutate n perioada 2005-2007, cnd guvernul Romniei
a omis pur i simplu pregtirea rii sub aspect instituional i
administrativ pentru a absorbi fondurile care urmau s ne fie puse la
dispoziie.
Momentul apariiei acestui studiu este marcat de ngrijorare dar i

de speran. ngrijorarea survine ca urmare a faptului c, n perioada
2007-2012, Romnia a absorbit aproximativ 10% din fondurile structurale
i de coeziune, fiind de departe ara care, n termeni comparativi, are cea
mai slab performan din cele 27 de state membre. De asemenea, ara
noastr se confrunt i cu riscul pierderii unor fonduri de ordinul
miliardelor de euro, ca urmare a aplicrii mecanismului de suspendarea
automat n 2013.
7
Singurele sperane sunt alimentate de faptul c din vara lui 2012,

guvernul Romniei a adoptat n cooperare cu Comisia European,
pachetul de msuri care s permit deblocarea plilor. Mai mult, noul
guvern condus de premierul Victor Ponta, a propus reorganizarea
arhitecturii instituionale privind gestionarea fondurilor europene i a
declanat dezbateri privind reforma regional, pentru a ne asigura c, n
sfrit, mcar pentru urmtorul cadru financiar multianual pentru perioada
2014-2020, Romnia i va mbunti substanial performana.
Leciile amare ale politizrii excesive a administraiei publice, cu

efecte grave de deprofesionalizare a corpului experilor care gestioneaz
fondurile europene i leciile instabilitii instituionale i legislative, ne
plaseaz n situaia n care trebuie s se acioneze rapid i ferm. n oricare
alt perspectiv, riscm adncirea decalajelor dintre Romnia i celelalte
state membre ale Uniunii Europene.
Studiul realizat de ctre prestigioasa companie de avocatur

Muat&Asociaii, reprezint o radiografie instituional, o analiz tehnic
i nepartizan. n egal msur, studiu reprezint cea mai bun baz de
plecare, acum, n ceasul al doisprezecelea, pentru a ameliora performana
absorbiei pentru cadrul financiar care se finalizeaz n anul 2013, dar mai
ales pentru urmtorul.
Fondurile structurale i de coeziune sunt n opinia experilor

printre singurele instrumente de dezvoltare ale Romniei pentru perioada
urmtoare i singurul suport real de recuperare a decalajelor de dezvoltare
i aa accentuate, mai ales n contextul crizei i pe fondul reducerilor
investiiilor strine sau a condiionalitilor teribile impuse de ctre
acordul cu FMI.
Studiul care continu preocuparea anterioar referitoare la

capacitatea administrativ i instituional i regionalizarea, este n acelai
timp, o invitaie la a gndi strategic viitorul rii noastre, la nevoia de a
planifica dezvoltarea i la necesitatea de a nva din propriile greeli i
din experienele similare, relevante pentru o ar de dimensiunea
8
Romniei. i aici, m gndesc deloc ntmpltor la Polonia prieten, care,

la o scar mai mare dect noi i cu probleme potenial mai complexe
dect ale noastre, a fcut din politica de coeziune un motor de cretere
economic, de progres social, de reducere a decalajelor dar i de cretere
a credibilitii sale ca actor major al Uniunii.
La momentul apariiei acestui studiu, Parlamentul European

negociaz cu Consiliul i Comisia viitorul Politicii de Coeziune pentru
perioada 2014-2020. ansa mi-a surs ca, dup ani de lucru n Comisia
REGI, s fiu desemnat raportor al Parlamentului European pentru Fondul
de Coeziune, un fond cheie al politicii de coeziune la scara Uniunii.
Prin amendamentele aduse de mine acestui fond, dar i prin

amendamentele aduse de ctre Parlamentul European cadrului legislativ
al Politicii de Coeziune, regiunile Uniunii Europene i cetenii notri
europeni, vor putea s beneficieze de ceea ce noi, parlamentarii din
REGI, numim cu mndrie investiia n dezvoltare.
Va ti ara mea n sfrit s beneficieze de politica de coeziune?

Rspunsul sau rspunsurile depind de noi, de guvernul Romniei, de
regiuni, de judee, de comuniti. Dac alte state comparabile ca structur,
demografie i indicatori au reuit, noi de ce nu am putea?
Victor Botinaru
Membru al Parlamentului European
9
Introducere
Analize asupra capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor europene,

evaluri privind stadiul absorbiei i condiionalitile care influeneaz
succesul sau eecul Politicii de Coeziune a Uniunii Europene, au fost
fcute publice n spaiul romnesc n cei ase ani de la aderarea Romniei.
ntr-o oarecare msur, analizele reflect complexitatea abordrilor cu
privire la Politica de Coeziune, unde fiecare organism intermediar,
autoritate de management, minister sau unitate administrativ teritorial, ar
trebui s ndeplineasc un rol bine determinat.
ns, n ceea ce putem numi tradiia administraiei publice

romneti, un sistem descentralizat care s antreneze i s maximizeze
integrarea vertical i orizontal rmne n continuare un deziderat. Dac
pe latura vertical avem administraia cu diferitele niveluri ale
autoritilor europene, naionale, regionale i locale, pe latura orizontal
avem companiile, grupurile sociale i organizaiile societii civile care ar
trebui s fie la fel de implicate n procesul de proiectare, implementare i
accesare al fondurilor europene.
Prezenta lucrare nu-i propune s epuizeze subiectul absorbiei

fondurilor europene, demers n bun msur irealizabil, ci mai degrab s
ofere corolarul evalurilor de pn n prezent.
Analizele se bazeaz pe cele mai recente date disponibile n

Comisia pentru Dezvoltare Regional a Parlamentului European i
subliniaz nc o dat, amploarea unui eec cu grave consecine asupra
10
gradului de dezvoltare al Romniei, a incapacitii de recuperare a

decalajelor prin gradul foarte sczut al absorbiei fondurilor europene.
Structura studiului urmrete n detaliu i i propune s explice

principalele direcii ale Politicii de Coeziune a Uniunii Europene. Astfel,
este abordat situaia actual a absorbiei fondurilor europene n Romnia
i principalii indicatori de absorbie pe fiecare Program Operaional.
De asemenea, este vizat i dimensiunea conceptual a

termenilor folosii, pentru ca mai apoi s fie fixat cadrul studiului: care
este contextul actual din Romnia privind absorbia fondurilor europene
cu analiza capacitii de absorbie, situaia suspendrilor i pre-
suspendrilor fondurilor europene i principalele riscuri pentru anul 2013.
Studiul i-a propus s serveasc unor obiective fundamentale

pentru dezvoltarea Romniei i s creioneze o strategie de urmat pe
termen scurt i mediu. Aceast strategie trebuie elaborat din perspectiva
viitorului cadru financiar multianual precum i a viitoarei Politici de
Coeziune, innd cont de experiena acumulat pn n prezent i de
imperativul ca Romnia s-i amelioreze absorbia, mai ales pe fondul
crizei economice i a cvasi-dispariiei celorlalte surse de investiii.
Cea de-a doua mare seciune a studiului este n termeni generali,

o analiz i o serie de raionamente n baza documentelor disponibile, o
evaluare a cadrului legislativ i instituional din perspectiva practicii
judiciare, dar i o prezentare a datelor care pot s evidenieze situaia n
care ne aflm, cauzele care au condus la aceast situaie i o serie de
msuri necesare, att generale, dar mai ales particulare i din prisma
procesului legislativ.
Capitolele din aceast seciune vor aborda att cadrul legislativ i

instituional actual, cu identificarea punctelor slabe, a suprapunerilor,
problema stabilitii acestuia aa acum au fost acestea identificate de ctre
comunicrile Comisiei Europene i documentele autoritilor de audit, dar
i propuneri de corectare i ameliorare.
11
n etapa urmtoare sunt corelate cele dou cadre cu identificarea

punctelor cheie care au fost cauza slabei absorbii a fondurilor europene i
cumulul factorilor care au influenat rezultatele dezastruoase.
n aceast seciune este supus analizei impactul cadrului

legislativ i instituional actual asupra capacitii instituionale i
administrative de absorbie a fondurilor europene, cauzele subfinanrilor
cronice, a gradului sczut de pregtire al funcionarilor, modalitile de
soluionare a contestaiilor i problematica licitaiilor publice care au atras
atenia organismelor de control i anti-fraud.
Aceast seciune caut s ofere rspunsuri la o serie de ntrebri

fundamentale: Este statul romn capabil s mobilizeze resurse pentru
ndreptarea situaiei? Care ar fi principalele msuri de ordin legislativ
necesare pentru reducerea procentajului de fraudare? Ce se poate spune
despre cadrul legal privind licitaiile publice? Ce se poate mbunti sub
acest aspect i care este jurisprudena, inclusiv n alte state?
Ultimele dou capitole sunt dedicate dezbaterilor privind bugetul

Uniunii Europene pentru perioada 2014-2020 i perspectivelor privind
reforma regional din Romnia. Cele dou elemente sunt aspecte
eseniale, care vor influena n mod semnificativ viitorul i dezvoltarea
Romniei.
Principalele concluzii care s-au desprins ca urmare a Consiliului

European din 7-8 februarie 2013 au adus noi motive de ngrijorare.
Bugetul propus de ctre Consiliu nu va ajuta Uniunea European s-i
amelioreze situaia, va accentua srcia dintre statele membre i nu va
crea premisele dezvoltrii economice i crerii locurilor de munc.
Parlamentul European a atras n mod repetat atenia asupra

faptului c sunt necesare negocieri serioase pentru ca noul cadru financiar
multianual 2014-2020 s fie un instrument de cretere economic. Ce s-a
obinut n schimb este un buget care urmeaz n continuare filosofia
obtuz a austeritii i a reducerilor bugetare. Astfel, pe fondul reducerii
12
n termeni absolui a bugetului Uniuni Europene pentru prima dat de la

constituirea acesteia, statele vor trebui s depun eforturi mai mari dac
vor s beneficieze de fondurile puse la dispoziie.
n propunerea Consiliului, Romniei i-au fost alocai aproximativ

1000 euro pe cap de locuitor, n timp ce Poloniei i-au fost alocai 1900. n
Romnia, abia n acest moment agenda public se concentreaz pe noul
cadru financiar multianual i pe reforma regional.
Urmrirea dezbaterilor la scar european i n special n

Parlamentul European, va contribui la adoptarea unor decizii n plan
instituional legislativ i administrativ cu un evident impact asupra
viitorului implementrii Politicii de Coeziune n Romnia i a aducerii n
ar a beneficiilor acesteia, inclusiv sub forma unei mai bune absorbii, nu
doar cantitative ct i calitative.
Pe de alt parte, schimbrile fundamentale care urmeaz s se

produc n Romnia i care afecteaz implementarea Politicii de
Coeziune trebuie s aib n avans acordul explicit al Comisiei Europene,
iar acest lucru se poate obine doar printr-un dialog intens i pragmatic,
att n perioada de pregtire ct i n faza de implementare. Planificarea
unor astfel de reforme este strict, iar acest lucru trebuie luat n
considerare de ctre orice guvern din Uniunea European.
Oricare alt abordare, care nu ine cont de experiena teribil a

rii noastre sau amnarea deciziilor necesare pentru pregtirea direciilor
strategice, reprezint demersuri politicianiste i vor accentua decalajele
dintre Romnia i celelalte state membre.
Concluziile i semnalele de alarm trase n toi aceti ani, sunt la

acest moment la fel de actuale. Ani de zile, guvernele de la Bucureti au
mimat angajamentul pentru efectuarea acestor reforme i rezultatul a fost
catastrofal. Cum timpul nu mai este aliatul nostru, trebuie s efectum n
2013 att pregtirea ct i implementarea reformei regionale, a reformei
13
instituionale i s pregtim aceasta imens mainrie implicat n

gestionarea fondurilor europene.
Miza fondurilor comunitare disponibile pn n anul 2013 i-a

modificat substanial dimensiunea mai ales n contextul efectelor crizei.
Iat de ce ara noastr nu-i mai poate permite pasivitatea n faa unuia
dintre cele mai importante avantaje ale apartenenei la Uniunea
European.
14
Evaluri repetate privind

gradul extrem de sczut
al absorbiei fondurilor
europene
Anul 2010 a accentuat n mod negativ capacitatea de absorbie a

Romniei pentru c s-au produs dou evenimente n egal msur
duntoare: creterea TVA, care a scumpit banii europeni i banii
provenii din co-finanare i reducerea salariilor funcionarilor, inclusiv
cele ale experilor n atragerea fondurilor europene.
De asemenea, s-a produs o destabilizare a sistemului de

gestionare a fondurilor europene pentru c au fost eliminai experii din
acest sistem. Astfel, soluiile care se impuneau nc de la acea dat, vizau
programele de formare, care ar fi trebuit s fie oferite att celor care
lucreaz n administraia public n general, dar i celor care gestioneaz
fonduri UE, n special. De asemenea, era necesar cooperarea i
coordonarea inter-instituional, dar i stimulente economice capabile s-i
impulsioneze pe toi cei care gestioneaz proiecte finanate de Uniunea
European.
15
Astzi, cnd evalum importana atribuit Politicii de Coeziune

de ctre Romnia, prin intermediul resurselor umane i economice
alocate, putem vedea cu uurin cu ct de puin importan a fost tratat
aceast politic.
Lansat la 1 Mai 2009, la iniiativa i sub coordonarea

eurodeputatului Victor Botinaru, studiul Cartea alb a capacitii
administrative absorbia fondurilor europene de ctre comunitile mici
i mijlocii1 a reprezentat primul demers de cercetare de mare anvergur
pentru identificarea problemelor cu care se confrunt actorii locali n
procesul de absorbie a fondurilor europene. Studiul s-a bucurat de
aprecieri att la Bruxelles ct i n mediul academic din Romnia. Cu un
eantion de 874 de primrii, reprezentnd la nivel local peste 7 milioane
de locuitori din Romnia, rezultatele studiului au scos n eviden faptul
c, pe lng lipsa personalului instruit i capacitatea bugetar slab a
administraiilor locale, obstacolele birocratice importante, culegerile de
norme prea voluminoase i greu de neles, reglementrile privind
cofinanarea lipsite de transparen, ansele mici pentru schimbul de
experien dintre susintorii proiectelor, precum i posibilitile
nevalorificate de coordonare interregional i pun amprenta asupra
capacitii administrative de a gestiona orice fel de proiect.
La acea dat, studiul recomanda ca demararea reformei regionale

s nceap cu un act normativ referitor la instituirea funciei de
Guvernator/Prefect Regional care s asigure coordonarea politicii de
dezvoltare regional n interiorul regiunilor de dezvoltare. La aceast
msur se poate aduga sprijinul, att din partea administraiei centrale,
1
Studiul Cartea alb a capacitii administrative absorbia fondurilor europene de
ctre comunitile mici i mijlocii s-a desfurat n perioada 4 februarie 23
februarie 2009, pe un eantion de 874 de primrii, reprezentativ pentru unitile
administrativ teritoriale mici i mijlocii din Romnia, cu o eroare de +/-2,9%. Tipul
eantionului este probabilist, stratificat pe baza datelor oferite de recensmntul din
2002, format din 32 de straturi rezultate din intersecia a 8 zone geografice cu 4
tipuri de localiti urbane i rurale. Studiul este disponibil integral la aceast adres:
www.victorbostinaru.ro/Studiu.zip
16
ct i din partea bncilor n ceea ce privete latura de cofinanare i

elementele de garantare a prefinanrii. Introducerea unor condiionri
pentru ca firmele de consultan s fie pltite doar dac proiectul este
eligibil, iar tarifele practicate s reflecte performanele acestora,
constituia o alt msur n vederea mbuntirii randamentului acestor
firme.
n ceea ce privete reducerea birocraiei, studiul Cartea alb a

capacitii administrative absorbia fondurilor europene de ctre
comunitile mici i mijlocii recomanda convenirea ntre Guvern i
Uniunea Naional a Consiliilor Judeene, Asociaia Municipiilor,
Asociaia Primriilor i Asociaia Comunelor a unei agende privind
simplificarea i debirocratizarea, n concordan cu rapoartele adoptate in
Comisia pentru Dezvoltare Regional a Parlamentului European.
i nu n ultimul rnd, se recomanda identificarea i promovarea

exemplelor de bun practic i a proiectelor de succes din Romnia. n
acest sens, se mai arta la acea dat, c s-ar putea construi cu sprijinul
autoritilor naionale i locale o baz de date cu aceste proiecte la nivelul
fiecrei Agenii de Dezvoltare Regional din Romnia.
n perioada august 2009 ianuarie 2010, Fundaia Soro

Romnia a desfurat o cercetare sociologic cu dou componente: una
cantitativ, pe baz de chestionar auto-completat, adresat tuturor
primriilor din toat Romnia i o component calitativ, n cadrul creia
s-au realizat 8 studii de caz. Conform rezultatelor cercetrii, publicate n
studiul Autoritile locale fa n fa cu fondurile europene, s-a
constatat c2:
Cei bogai (primriile cu un buget local mare) sunt cei care

acceseaz fonduri europene i se dezvolt de pe urma acestora
2
Alexandru TOTH, Ctlin DRTEANU, Daniela TARNOVSCHI coord., Autoritile
locale fa n fa cu fondurile europene, Coordonatori, Fundaia Soro, Bucureti,
2010. http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?cat=24#, 30 ianuarie 2013.
17
avnd ca rezultat creterea diferenelor inter i intraregionale,

fiind n contradicie cu principiile politicii de coeziune ale
Uniunii Europene, prin care se dorete tocmai reducerea
diferenelor i a decalajelor dintre regiuni.
Lipsete o strategie naional pentru sprijinirea i asistarea acelor

primrii srace i defavorizate care au probleme n accesarea
fondurilor comunitare.
Este nevoie ca instituiile statului care coordoneaz fondurile

europene s realizeze monitorizarea teritorial a distribuiei
acestor fonduri pentru a preveni i stopa creterea diferenelor de
dezvoltare inter i intraregionale.
Fondurile europene sunt greu de accesat i vor fi extrem de greu

de implementat, iar n condiiile n care se vor constata probleme,
banii vor trebui returnai. Este foarte probabil ca ntr-un viitor
extrem de apropiat s se constate c Romnia rmne doar un
contribuitor net la bugetul Uniunii Europene. n momentul de
fa, autoritile locale ale cror bugete sunt puternic afectate de
criza economico-financiar vor avea, probabil, probleme n
implementarea proiectelor deja ctigate (lipsa cofinanrii).
Dac pentru muli (n special pentru guvernani, conform

declaraiilor primului ministru) fondurile europene sunt o soluie
pentru ieirea din criz, realitatea poate fi nsa alta. Fondurile
europene se pot transforma ntr-o povar, neputnd fi absorbite,
sau pot constitui mrul discordiei, al apariiei insecuritii i a
tensiunilor sociale datorate tocmai creterii diferenelor dintre
cei avui i cei srcii.
ntr-o alt evaluare elaborat n contextul vizitei n Romnia a

delegaiei Comisiei pentru Dezvoltare Regional, care a avut loc n
perioada 3-5 noiembrie 2010, se arat c:
18
n Romnia structurile regionale nu au nicio responsabilitate

funcional sau fiscal, prin urmare, nicio competen de elaborare de
politici. Prin urmare, una dintre cele mai mari provocri n anii urmtori
va fi s abordm acest tip de dezechilibre n avantajul regiunilor. Ca o
cerin a aderrii la Uniunea European, Romnia a creat un cadru
instituional pentru gestionarea asistenei Uniunii Europene, care include
o serie de structuri administrative i mecanisme de monitorizare.
Cu toate acestea, rapoartele de monitorizare ale Comisiei

Europene sugereaz c Romnia ar trebui s consolideze politica
general anti-corupie, n special printr-o coordonare la nivel nalt i pe
baza unei evaluri independente de impact a rezultatelor ultimelor dou
strategii anti-corupie puse n aplicare din 2005. n plus, n ceea ce
privete achiziiile publice, Romnia ar trebui s evalueze eficiena
cadrului juridic i a atribuirii responsabilitilor autoritilor competente
n ceea ce privete protecia mpotriva conflictelor de interese, i s le
modifice, dac este cazul. n plus, autoritile ar trebui s ia n
considerare interdicia ca nalii funcionari publici i reprezentanii alei
s beneficieze n mod direct sau indirect de contracte comerciale
ncheiate n numele instituiei lor i s instituie o transparen total n
acest domeniu.3
De remarcat n acest punct este faptul c Raportul Comisiei

Europene privind progresele nregistrate de Romnia n cadrul
Mecanismului de Cooperare i de Verificare din 30 ianuarie 2013, arat
c progresele par foarte limitate n ceea ce privete prevenirea i
pedepsirea corupiei legate de achiziiile publice. Paii nainte fcui n
combaterea corupiei la nivel nalt nu au fost nsoii de progrese n
domeniul achiziiilor publice. Instrumentarea dosarelor pare s dureze
mult, parial din cauza necesitii unei expertize financiare specifice,
3
Ivana KATSAROVA, Situaia economic, social i teritorial a Romniei, Direcia
General Politici Interne - Departamentul tematic politici structurale i de coeziune,
noiembrie 2010.
19
ceea ce conduce la problema special a contractelor ncheiate nainte de

pronunarea unei hotrri judectoreti cu privire la infraciune.
Pedepsele pentru funcionarii implicai n dosare de fraud n

materie de achiziii publice sunt n continuare foarte mici, iar legea nu
prevede posibilitatea unei anulri pe motive de conflict de interese a
proiectelor care au fost deja executate. Exist, de asemenea, mari
ndoieli cu privire la eficacitatea organelor de urmrire penal care
gestioneaz aceste cazuri. Propunerile recente par s pun n discuie
baza instituional independent i stabil, care este esenial pentru
realizarea de progrese reale.4
Ori, aceste remarci, mpreun cu relatrile din pres nc din vara

anului 2011, vin s ridice mari semne de ntrebare asupra integritii
mecanismelor de control i audit romneti pe de o parte, dar i asupra
conducerii ministerelor i instituiilor implicate n aceast perioad n
procesul de absorbie, pe de alt parte.
Tot n aceeai evaluare a Direciei Generale Politici Interne -

Departamentul tematic politici structurale i de coeziune se mai arat c:
Absorbia eficient a fondurilor structurale depinde n mare msur de
calitatea fazei de programare, n cazul creia prioritile stabilite ar
trebui s corespund nevoilor i capacitii reale a beneficiarilor. Prin
urmare, definirea lor n cadrul consultrii cu prile interesate ntr-un
mod descentralizat i transparent necesit dezvoltarea capacitilor
naionale care trec printr-un proces de formare n Romnia. De la
aderarea sa la UE la 1 ianuarie 2007, Romnia a absorbit fonduri
echivalente cu 0,75 % din PIB, comparativ cu cei 2 % planificai iniial,
n timp ce n 2008 a fost utilizat abia un sfert din fondurile puse la
dispoziie de Bruxelles. Continuarea simplificrii mecanismelor de
4
Raport al Comisiei ctre Parlamentul European i Consiliu privind progresele
nregistrate de Romnia n cadrul Mecanismului de Cooperare i de Verificare,
http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf, 30 ianuarie 2013.
20
livrare la nivel european i naional va contribui cu siguran la

accelerarea procesului.5
Acest lucru nu s-a ntmplat ns, n bun parte pentru c

mecanismul de livrare la nivel european nu a cunoscut o simplificare, n
timp ce, mecanismul naional s-a confruntat cu o serie de probleme pe
care acest studiu i propune s le sublinieze.
La aceste evaluri se adaug i articolele din presa romneasc,

care citeaz un raport intern al Comisiei Europene. Conform Fin.ro, ntr-
un articol din iulie 2011, un document al Executivului Uniunii Europene
arat gradul de dezamgire pe care l-a produs ara noastr ca stat
membru6. Astfel, o analiz asupra modului de utilizare a fondurilor
europene detaliaz principalele probleme: corupia i achiziiile publice
abuzive.
Mai mult dect att, ca urmare a neregulilor sesizate de ctre

Comisia European n aproape 100% din eantionul supus verificrilor, s-
a luat decizia suspendrii plilor pn n luna decembrie a anului 2011.
Astfel, decizia suspendrii plilor la Bruxelles a venit ca urmare a unor
suspiciuni de fraud, constatate la 61 din cele 64 de proiecte supuse
analizei de instituiile europene de combatere a fraudei. Un an mai
trziu, n decembrie 2012, alte cinci Programe Operaionale urmau s se
confrunte cu suspendarea plilor ca urmare a neregulilor constatate de
auditurile Comisiei Europene.
Fondul documentului se refer la problema general a absorbiei

fondurilor europene, fiind invocat perspectiva retragerii unei mari pri
din bani din 2013, n lipsa unor msuri concrete n acest an. Funcionarii
Comisiei artau c ratele de absorbie sunt mici n Bulgaria i alarmant
de mici n Romnia, cu excepia fondurilor pentru agricultur. n cazul
5
Ivana KATSAROVA, op cit.
6
Vlad BRLEANU, CE suspecteaz DNA i guvernul c mpiedic investigaiile OLAF
din Romnia, Fin.ro http://www.fin.ro/articol_63625/ce-suspecteaza-dna-si-
guvernul-ca-impiedica-investigatiile-olaf-din-romania.html, 18 iulie 2011.
21
Romniei, rata de absorbie pentru Fondul European de Dezvoltare

Regional (FEDR) este de 3,4%, iar pentru Fondul Social European
(FSE) - 1,4%. n comparaie, media Uniunii Europene n al patrulea an
de implementare a fost de 17%.
n pofida eforturilor Comisiei de a aborda aceast situaie, nu

se nregistreaz mari progrese. Rspunsul Romniei pare s fie
superficial i nu se adreseaz cauzelor iniiale ale problemei. Aceast
evaluare negativ este mprtit i de alte instituii financiare
internaionale. Directoratele Generale nu au interlocutori la nivel politic,
iar directorii din administraie sunt nlocuii des. Capacitatea sistemului
de a se ocupa de achiziii publice rmne redus. Dac nu se iau msuri
concrete n 2011, Romnia va pierde o mare parte din fondurile Uniunii
Europene din 2013. Directoratele Generale au cerut aciuni la cel mai
nalt nivel politic din partea Comisiei7, se mai arat n document.
Conform Fin.ro, aceste mesaje au fost trimise oficial ctre

Administraia de la Bucureti, ceea ce explic i precipitarea n sensul
unei remanieri avnd drept criteriu rezultatele n implementarea
proiectelor europene sau chiar nfiinarea unui minister special. Astzi,
Comisia nu are un interlocutor la nivel central n Romnia, cu suficient
influen politic pentru a asigura implementarea unui plan de aciune
agreat, pentru a accelera absorbia8, spuneau specialitii de la Bruxelles
citai n articolul de pres.
ntr-una din concluziile articolului se menioneaz faptul c

Politica Regional a Uniunii Europene este pus la ndoial de ctre
politica dezastruoas a guvernului. Cauzele identificate de Comisie pentru
aceast stare de fapt sunt administraia slab, procedurile ineficiente,
interferenele politice, modul formalist de aplicare a regulilor i un sistem
judiciar care nu poate proteja suficient mpotriva conflictului de interese,
a corupiei i a fraudei.
7
Idem
8
Idem
22
Consecinele financiare ale ratei mici de absorbie amenin

credibilitatea politicii regionale i slbesc poziia Comisiei n negocierile
bugetare care vor urma9 este unul din citatele din documentul intern al
Comisiei Europene.
Funcionarii Comisiei fac un scurt istoric al celor mai recente

evenimente n relaia cu Romnia. Astfel, n decembrie 2010, preedintele
Comisiei Europene, Jose Manuel Barroso, le-a sugerat liderilor politici de
la Bucureti s creeze un portofoliu ministerial special pentru
coordonarea fondurilor Uniunii Europene i s stabileasc un plan de
aciune, oferind ajutorul Comisiei.
Replica Romniei la aceast iniiativ a fost dezamgitoare

pn acum. Nu a fost stabilit vreo politic eficient de coordonare la
nivel nalt, implementarea unui plan de aciune primit de Romnia n
luna mai a depit deja termenele limit i nu a fost primit vreun rspuns
la oferta de asisten tehnic specializat10 se afirma n document.
n acest context, Comisia afirm c Romnia ar trebui s ia

cteva msuri imediate:
S transfere coordonarea fondurilor Uniunii Europene ctre o

persoan cu rang de ministru, n subordinea primului ministru,
pn la 1 august 2011.
S implementeze riguros planul de aciuni prioritare pentru

creterea capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor, la care s-a angajat
n aprilie 2011. Implementarea va fi monitorizat prin ntlniri
periodice ntre guvern i Comisie i prin raportri lunare. Daca
este necesar, planul va fi revizuit prin decizia guvernului, n
consultare cu Comisia European.
9
Idem
10
Idem
23
Pn la 1 octombrie 2011 se va stabili mpreun cu Comisia, o

list cu msuri de mbuntire a capacitii administrative, care
va fi aprobat de guvern. Aceast list ar trebui s includ msuri
de mbuntire a stabilitii instituionale, de adoptare a unor
criterii de numire transparente, pe baz de merit, pentru poziii de
management i de prevenire i detectare a conflictelor de interese
n managementul fondurilor.
Pn la 1 octombrie 2011 se va stabili mpreun cu Comisia, o

list cu msuri de mbuntire a activitii de achiziii publice,
care va fi aprobat de guvern, dup o evaluare independent.
Msurile vor fi revizuite pn la 1 martie 2012, n urma
publicrii unei analize complementare a Bncii Mondiale.
Conform cifrelor disponibile la 21 decembrie 201211, Romnia a

absorbit efectiv 4 miliarde de Euro din cele 20 de miliarde puse la
dispoziie n perioada 2007-2013, cu o rat a plilor intermediare de doar
9,7%. Cifrele plaseaz Romnia pe ultimul loc n Uniunea European.
Analizele i evalurile din toi aceti ani sunt surprinztor de

actuale i recurente. Din acest punct de vedere, constatrile sunt simple:
impasivitatea, corupia i incompetena de la cel mai nalt vrf i-au pus
amprenta pe capacitatea de absorbie a fondurilor structurale i de
coeziune.
Problemele sistemice au ns i ele aportul la situaia

dezastruoas n care se afl Romnia. Dac prima categorie de
vulnerabiliti rmne n sfera de aplicabilitate a sistemului judiciar i
chiar a ciclului electoral n ultim instan, pentru cea de-a doua, sunt
necesare decizii politice, adoptate n cel mai larg consens dup discuii cu
toi actorii implicai.
11
Anexa 1
24
Note i referine
BRLEANU Vlad, CE suspecteaz DNA i guvernul c mpiedic
investigaiile OLAF din Romnia, Fin.ro http://www.fin.ro/articol_63625/ce-
suspecteaza-dna-si-guvernul-ca-impiedica-investigatiile-olaf-din-
romania.html, 18 iulie 2011.
KATSAROVA Ivana, Situaia economic, social i teritorial a Romniei,

Direcia General Politici Interne - Departamentul tematic politici
structurale i de coeziune, noiembrie 2010.
TARNOVSCHI Daniela coord.,TOTH Alexandru, DRTEANU Ctlin,

Autoritile locale fa n fa cu fondurile europene, Coordonatori,
Fundaia Soro, Bucureti, 2010.
http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?cat=24#, 30 ianuarie 2013.
Raport al Comisiei ctre Parlamentul European i Consiliu privind progresele

nregistrate de Romnia n cadrul Mecanismului de Cooperare i de
Verificare, http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf, 30
ianuarie 2013.
25
Dimensiunea
conceptual
Capacitatea de absorbie reprezint gradul n care o ar este

capabil s cheltuiasc efectiv i eficient resursele financiare alocate din
Fondurile Structurale1. Capacitatea de absorbie depinde de capacitatea
administrativ i instituional, respectiv de existena unor structuri
instituionale capabile s elaboreze proiecte i s le implementeze, dar i
de capacitatea de coordonare i corelare ntre instituiile implicate.
Experiena statelor performante confirm faptul c o capacitate

de absorbie este strns legat de capacitatea administrativ i
instituional.
Legea cadru a descentralizrii nr. 195/2006, definete

capacitatea administrativ ca ansamblul resurselor materiale,
instituionale i umane de care dispune o unitate administrativ-teritorial,
precum i aciunile pe care le desfoar aceasta pentru exercitarea
competenelor stabilite prin lege. Conform aceleiai legi, capacitatea
administrativ se evalueaz i se stabilete n condiiile legii.
1
Gheorghe OPRESCU coord.,Daniela Luminia CONSTANTIN, Florinel ILIE, Drago
PSLARU, "Analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor comunitare n Romnia",
Institutul European din Romnia - Studii de Impact III, p. 9
26
ntr-o accepie mai restrns, capacitatea administrativ de

absorbie a fondurilor europene este definit ca un set de competene
care aparin autoritilor centrale, regionale i locale i care le permit s
elaboreze la un nivel rezonabil i la termen, planuri, programe i proiecte,
s ia decizii asupra acestor programe i proiecte, s coordoneze principalii
parteneri i s gestioneze cu succes munca administrativ i de raportare.
De asemenea, capacitatea administrativ de absorbie se refer i la
capacitatea de a finana, de a superviza implementarea proiectelor i de a
evita fraudele2.
Capacitatea instituional desemneaz factorii instituionali3,

att la nivelul Uniunii Europene, ct i la nivel naional. La nivelul
Uniunii, capacitatea instituional se refer n bun msur la Comisia
European i activitatea sa, dar i la rapoartele Parlamentului European
sau rezultatul negocierilor din Consiliu. La nivel naional, factorii
instituionali privesc structura real a economiei, organizarea sistemului
politic i a structurii guvernamentale, precum i politicile economice.
Capacitatea financiar reprezint capacitatea autoritilor

centrale i locale de a co-finana programe i proiecte sprijinite de
Uniunea European, de a planifica i garanta aceste contribuii interne n
bugete multianuale i de a le colecta de la diverii parteneri implicai ntr-
un proiect sau program.
2
Andrej HORVAT, Absorption Problems in the EU Structural Funds, Ljubljana, 2004,
p. 9.
3
Idem.
27
Note i referine
HORVAT Andrej, Absorption Problems in the EU Structural Funds, Ljubljana,
2004.
OPRESCU Gheorghe coord., CONSTANTIN Daniela Luminia, ILIE Florinel,

PSLARU Drago, "Analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor comunitare n
Romnia", Institutul European din Romnia - Studii de Impact III.
28
Absorbia fondurilor
structurale i de
coeziune
I. Precizri preliminare
Acest studiu a fost redactat de ctre Muat & Asociaii n urma solicitrii
domnului Victor Botinaru, membru n Parlamentul European i are ca
scop realizarea unei analize juridice a cadrului legislativ i instituional al
Fondurilor Structurale Europene i a disfuncionalitilor acestuia,
evaluarea consecinelor disfuncionalitilor identificate i propunerea
unor eventuale soluii de remediere a disfuncionalitilor.
Prezentul Studiu se dorete a fi o analiz a cauzelor care au generat o rat

foarte sczut de absorbie a fondurilor europene n Romnia, urmnd a
analiza motivele care in de autoritile publice implicate n ntregul
proces de finanare european la nivel naional, ct i cele care in de
actorii (beneficiarii) implicai.
Totodat, prezentul Studiu dorete a analiza capacitatea de absorbie a

Romniei n vederea realizrii Politicii de Coeziune, capacitate de
absorbie, care n cazul statelor ce au aderat recent la Uniunea European,
29
reprezint principalul mijloc prin care se pot ajusta decalajele fa de

statele membre cu vechime.
Prezentul Studiu a fost realizat n perioada martie 2012 octombrie 2012

(perioad care va fi considerat drept perioada de referin a accesrii
documentelor i informaiilor studiate). Concluziile, constatrile i
recomandrile Muat & Asociaii coninute n prezentul Studiu se
raporteaz i se limiteaz la scopul analizei, astfel cum acesta este descris
mai sus.
Prezentul Studiu se bazeaz exclusiv pe prevederile legilor romne i

reglementrilor europene, aa cum acestea ar putea fi interpretate i puse
n aplicare de ctre instanele judectoreti i/sau arbitrale din Romnia.
Muat & Asociaii nu i exprim i nu emite nicio opinie n legtur cu
sau care ar putea avea consecine legale cu privire la legislaia altor
jurisdicii dect cea romn. n acest sens, trebuie menionat c opinia
Muat & Asociaii referitoare la incidena unei obligaii sau aplicabilitatea
unui document nseamn c obligaia sau documentul analizat are tipul
sau forma pe care le-ar aplica instanele din Romnia. Cu toate acestea,
avnd n vedere c Romnia este o jurisdicie de drept civil, n care
hotrrile judectoreti pot fi diferite n funcie de instana care le
pronun, este practic imposibil de stabilit cu certitudine modul n care o
instan din Romnia ar putea interpreta drepturile i obligaiile prilor n
temeiul legii romne.
30
DESCRIEREA FONDURILOR STRUCTURALE EUROPENE
2.1. Introducere n politica de dezvoltare a Uniunii Europene
Odat cu intrarea n vigoare a Tratatului de la Maastricht privind Uniunea

European, unul din obiectivele majore ale Uniunii Europene a fost
ntrirea politicii de coeziune economic i social.
n mod evident, nu toate regiunile Uniunii Europene se bucur de acelai

nivel de dezvoltare, mai ales c extinderea Uniunii Europene la 27 de
state membre a generat noi probleme n materia competitivitii i a
coeziunii interne. Diferena de dezvoltare economic i social ntre
vechile state membre ale Uniunii Europene i statele care au aderat n
ultimii ani a constituit cauza pentru care decalajele existente ntre statele
membre au fost accentuate.
n ncercarea de a reduce decalajele dintre statele (regiunile) din Uniunea

European, s-a nceput implementarea unei politici de coeziune, care
presupune reducerea decalajelor existente ntre regiuni n termeni de
producie i productivitate. Pentru atingerea elului politicii de coeziune,
statele membre i regiunile vizate au nevoie de ajutor financiar n vederea
soluionrii diverselor probleme structurale existente i a realizrii
potenialului lor de cretere. Astfel, dezvoltarea fiecrui nou stat membru
n vederea reducerii decalajelor ine n mare msur de capacitatea de
absorbie, care reprezint gradul n care un stat membru reuete ntr-o
perioad de timp determinat (de regul, n cadrul unui exerciiu
financiar) s absoarb i s utilizeze fondurile puse la dispoziia sa din
bugetul Uniunii Europene, avnd la baz capacitatea administrativ a
respectivei ri i capacitatea instituional de a realiza, dezvolta i
implementa proiecte pentru atragerea de fonduri europene. La rndul su,
capacitatea administrativ1 reprezint ansamblul resurselor materiale,
instituionale i umane de care dispune o unitate administrativ-teritorial,
precum i aciunile pe care le desfoar aceasta pentru exercitarea
1
Conform Legii nr. 195/2006 legea cadru a descentralizrii.
31
competenelor stabilite prin lege, n vreme ce capacitatea instituional

reprezint ansamblul instituiilor prin care statul sau unitile
administrativ-teritoriale transpun deciziile luate la nivelul administraiei
n vederea realizrii politicii de coeziune.
Politica de Coeziune economic i social, bazat pe solidaritate

financiar, adic pe redistribuirea unei pri din bugetul comunitar
realizat prin contribuia Statelor Membre ctre regiunile i grupurile
sociale mai puin prospere reprezint o politic a solidaritii, scopul
acesteia fiind promovarea unui nalt nivel de competitivitate i de ocupare
a forei de munc
Totodat, unul din principalele scopuri ale politicii de coeziune este

mbuntirea Pieei Unice Europene2, acest fapt avnd drept consecin o
cretere a bunstrii rilor membre ale Uniunii Europene. Astfel,
Uniunea European a creat un cadru legislativ i instituional pentru a
permite atingerea obiectivelor politicii de coeziune.
2.2. Cadrul legislativ general la nivel comunitar
Cadrul juridic al politicii comunitare de dezvoltare regional este

prevzut n cuprinsul Titlului XVII al Tratatului Uniunii Europene, prin
care este stabilit obiectivul politicii regionale, i anume reducerea
disparitilor existente ntre nivelele de dezvoltare ale diferitelor regiuni
i a rmnerii n urm a regiunilor mai puin dezvoltate sau a insulelor,
inclusiv a regiunilor rurale.
2
Piaa Unic European const n circulaia liber a populaiei, bunurilor, serviciilor i
a capitalului n i ntre rile membre ale Uniunii Europene, ca i cnd ar circula ntr-o
singur ar. Aceasta presupune o uniune vamal, o pia intern (constnd n
anularea ntre statele membre a obstacolelor fa de cele patru liberti
fundamentale: libera circulaie a persoanelor, bunurilor, serviciilor i a capitalului),
libera concuren i politica comercial comun.
32
Suplimentar fa de cadrul legal general prevzut n cuprinsul Titlului

XVII al Tratatului Uniunii Europene, principalele acte normative care
constituie cadrul legislativ general la nivelul Uniunii Europene sunt:
Regulamentul nr. 1080/2006 privind Fondul European pentru

Dezvoltare Regional (FEDR);
Regulamentul nr. 1081/2006 privind Fondul Social European

(FSE);
Regulamentul nr. 1082/2006 privind cooperarea teritorial

european;
Regulamentul nr. 1083/2006 stabilind prevederile generale

privind Fondul European pentru Dezvoltare Regional, Fondul
Social European i Fondul de Coeziune;
Regulamentul nr. 1084/2006 privind Fondul de Coeziune (FC);
Regulamentul nr. 1828/2006 cu privire la regulile de

implementare a Regulamentului Comisiei (CE) nr. 1083/2006
care conine prevederi generale cu privire la Fondul European de
Dezvoltare Regional, Fondul Social European i Fondul de
Coeziune i a Regulamentului Comisiei (CE) 1080/2006 cu
privire la Fondul European de Dezvoltare Regional;
Regulament (CE) nr.1177/2009 al Comisiei din 30 noiembrie

2009 - privind noile praguri de achiziii.
2.3. Cadrul legislativ la nivelul Romniei
Principalele norme legislative naionale n domeniul gestionrii fondurilor

structurale:
Hotrrea de Guvern nr. 457/2008 privind cadrul instituional de

coordonare i de gestionare a instrumentelor structurale;
33
Hotrrea de Guvern nr. 1115/2004 privind elaborarea n

parteneriat a Planului Naional de Dezvoltare;
Legea nr. 315/2004 privind dezvoltarea regional n Romnia;
Hotrrea de Guvern nr. 109/2009 privind organizarea i

funcionarea Ageniei Naionale de Administrare Fiscal;
Legea nr. 490/2004 privind stimularea financiar a personalului

care gestioneaz fonduri comunitare;
Hotrrea de Guvern nr. 595/2009 pentru aplicarea Legii

nr.490/2004 privind stimularea financiar a personalului care
gestioneaz fonduri comunitare;
Legea nr. 200/2005 privind aprobarea OUG nr. 22/2005 pentru

completarea Legii nr. 94/1992 privind organizarea i
funcionarea Curii de Conturi;
Ordonana Guvernului nr. 66/2011 privind prevenirea,

constatarea i sancionarea neregulilor aprute n obinerea i
utilizarea fondurilor europene i/sau a fondurilor publice
naionale aferente acestora;
Legea nr. 500/2002 a finanelor publice;
Legea nr. 273/2006 privind finanele publice locale;
Legea nr. 84/2003 pentru modificarea i completarea OG nr.

119/1999 privind auditul intern i controlul financiar preventiv;
Legea nr. 672/2002 privind auditul public intern;
Ordonana de Urgen a Guvernului nr. 63/1999 privind

gestionarea fondurilor comunitare nerambursabile alocate
Romniei i a fondurilor de co-finanare aferente, modificat i
completat;
34
Ordonana de Urgen nr. 64/2009 privind gestionarea financiar

a instrumentelor structurale i utilizarea acestora pentru
obiectivul convergen;
Ordinul nr. 673/13.04.2009 pentru modificarea Ordinului

Ministrului Finanelor Publice nr. 752/2006 privind aprobarea
procedurii de eliberare a certificatului de atestare fiscal pentru
persoane juridice i fizice, a certificatului de obligaii bugetare,
precum i a modelului i coninutului acestora;
Legea administraiei publice locale nr. 215/2001;
Legea nr. 220/2008 pentru stabilirea sistemului de promovare a

producerii energiei din surse regenerabile de energie.
Hotrrea Guvernului nr. 218/2012 pentru aprobarea Normelor

metodologice de aplicare a prevederilor Ordonanei de Urgen a
Guvernului nr. 64/2009 privind gestionarea financiar a
instrumentelor structurale i utilizarea acestora pentru obiectivul
convergen.
Obiectivele Politicii de Coeziune
n vederea finanrii politicii de coeziune au fost nfiinate un numr de 3

(trei) instrumente structurale de finanare, dup cum urmeaz:
1. Fondul European de Dezvoltare Regional (FEDR),
2. Fondul Social European (FSE) i
3. Fondul de Coeziune (FC).
La rndul lor, aceste instrumente structurale finaneaz urmtoarele

obiective:
35
(i) Obiectivul de convergen
Prin obiectivul de convergen, se urmrete dezvoltarea economic a

regiunilor mai puin dezvoltate prin efectuarea de investiii n domenii
cheie precum: infrastructur, capital uman sau mediu. Regiunile vizate n
baza obiectivului de convergen sunt regiunile NUTS II (n englez,
Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics) i anume cele care
nregistreaz PIB/capita mai mic dect 75% din media comunitar. Pe
cale de consecin, n baza criteriilor precizate anterior, ntreg teritoriul
Romniei este eligibil sub obiectivul convergen, avnd n vedere ca
PIB-ul/capita n fiecare regiune este sub 75% din media comunitar UE-
253. Totodat, n afara regiunilor menionate anterior, sunt eligibile pentru
a fi finanate n baza acestui obiectiv i statele membre ale cror
PNB/capita este mai mic dect 90% din media comunitar UE-25.
(ii) Competitivitate regional i ocuparea forei de munc
Pentru a beneficia de finanare n baza obiectivului privind

competitivitatea regional i ocuparea forei de munc este obligatoriu ca
regiunile vizate s nu poat beneficia de finanri n baza obiectivului de
convergen. Acest obiectiv este finanat din FEDR i FSE.
Referindu-ne la aciunile care pot fi finanate sub acest obiectiv,

menionm c este obligatoriu ca acestea s priveasc obiective
precum:(i) dezvoltarea regiunilor competitive sau (ii) ocuparea forei de
munc.
(iii) Cooperare teritorial european
Scopul acestui obiectiv l constituie creterea cooperrii inter-regionale,

ncurajarea schimbului de experien respectiv, cooperare transfrontalier
n baza unor programe comune derulate de regiunile nvecinate.
3
UE-25 desemneaz totalitatea celor 25 de state membre ale Uniunii Europene,
care formau Uniunea nainte de aderarea Romniei i Bulgariei.
36
Pentru perioada financiar 2007-2013, cadrul politicii este legat de

ndeplinirea obiectivelor stabilite n Agenda de la Lisabona4, precum i n
cuprinsul Agendei de la Goteborg5.
2.4. Instrumentele financiare
n baza celor trei instrumente financiare, din bugetul total al Uniunii

Europene pentru perioada 2007-2013, s-a alocat o treime, urmnd a se
distribui ntre:
(a) Fondul European de Dezvoltare Regional (FEDR)
Fondul European de Dezvoltare Regional este cel mai important fond

structural n termeni de resurse, fiind destinat reducerii dezechilibrelor
ntre diferitele regiuni ale Uniunii Europene, prin acordarea de ajutoare
financiare zonelor defavorizate.
Sumele alocate prin intermediul FEDR trebuie s respecte n mod

obligatoriu anumite criterii i anume: (i) concentrarea pe obiective i
regiuni, (ii) stabilirea unei politici de parteneriat ntre Comisia European,
statele membre ale Uniunii Europene i actorii locali, (iii) programarea
interveniei i (iv) complementaritatea contribuiei comunitare.
4
Obiectivele strategiei de la Lisabona, astfel cum a fost aceasta relansat la 2
februarie 2005, includ: susinerea cunoaterii i a inovaiei n Europa, reforma
politicii privind ajutorul de stat, mbuntirea i simplificarea cadrului de
reglementare n care ntreprinderea funcioneaz i instituirea pieei interne a
serviciilor; eliminarea obstacolelor n ceea ce privete libera circulaie n domeniul
transporturilor, muncii i educaiei; dezvoltarea unei abordri comune a migraiei
economice; susinerea eforturilor n vederea abordrii consecinelor sociale ale
restructurrii economice.
5
Obiectivele agendei de la Goteborg pentru o dezvoltare durabil, astfel cum aceasta
a fost agreat de ctre Consiliul European n anul 2001 includ: schimbrile climatice,
sistemele de transport, sntatea public, gestionarea responsabil a resurselor
naturale.
37
n plus fa de cele menionate anterior, FEDR are o contribuie

semnificativ la creterea coeziunii economice i sociale prin sprijinirea
dezvoltrii economiilor regionale i refacerea regiunilor aflate n declin
industrial. Astfel, FEDR susine prioritile Uniunii Europene, n mod
particular ntrirea competitivitii i inovrii, crearea de locuri de munc
pe termen lung i asigurarea dezvoltrii durabile.
(b) Fondul Social European (FSE)
Fondul Social European constituie principalul instrument n

implementarea politicii sociale a Uniunii Europene, prin intermediul
acestuia asigurndu-se susinerea financiar a aciunilor de formare i
reconversie profesional, dar i crearea de noi locuri de munc.
Totodat, rolul FSE este de a contribui la ntrirea coeziunii economice i

sociale, n vederea asigurrii unui nivel nalt de ocupare i a unui numr
suficient de locuri de munc, prin mbuntirea oportunitilor de
angajare a cetenilor Uniunii Europene.
n plus, prin intermediul FSE se dorete sprijinirea politicilor naionale n

domeniul forei de munc, precum i asigurarea calitii i productivitii
prin accesul liber al cetenilor Uniunii Europene pe piaa comunitar a
muncii.
(c) Fondul de Coeziune (FC)
Contribuia major a Fondului de Coeziune se evideniaz prin ntrirea

coeziunii economice i sociale a Uniunii Europene avnd ca scop final
promovarea unei dezvoltri durabile a statelor membre.
38
2.5. Fondurile structurale i de coeziune n Romnia
Pentru perioada 2007-2012, Romniei i-a fost alocat6, n baza fondurilor

structurale i de coeziune, o sum total de 19,668 miliarde Euro, din care
(i) 12,661 miliarde Euro reprezint Fonduri Structurale n cadrul
Obiectivului Convergen, (ii) 6,552 miliarde Euro sunt alocate prin
Fondul de Coeziune, iar (iii) 0,455 miliarde Euro sunt alocate
Obiectivului Cooperare Teritorial European.
n Romnia, implementarea Fondurilor Structurale i de Coeziune este

realizat n baza urmtoarelor documente: (i) Planul Naional de
Dezvoltare al Romniei 2007-2013 (PNDR), (ii) Cadrul Strategic
Naional de Referin 2007-2013 (CSNR), (iii) Programele
Operaionale (PO) i (iv) Documentele Cadru de Implementare
(DCI).
2.5.1. Planul Naional de Dezvoltare al Romniei 2007-2013
PNDR aferent perioadei 2007-2013 este un document de planificare

strategic i programare financiar, aprobat de Guvernul Romniei,
elaborat n parteneriat cu structurile specializate ale Uniunii Europene,
care are ca scop dezvoltarea economic a Romniei n concordan cu
politicile de coeziune ale Uniunii Europene. Strategia convenit cu
Comisia European pentru utilizarea instrumentelor structurale i PO n
baza crora se vor implementa aceste fonduri au fost elaborate n
conformitate cu PNDR 2007 - 2013.
2.5.2. Cadrul Strategic Naional de Referin 2007-20137
CSNR reprezint documentul de baz pentru programarea Fondurilor

Structurale i de Coeziune n Romnia. Documentul este elaborat de
fiecare stat membru al Uniunii Europene, conform noului acquis
6
Conform informatiilor existente pe pagina de internet
http://ec.europa.eu/romania/documents/press_releases/10_07_sinteza_csnr.pdf
7
Idem.
39
comunitar8 privind Politica de Coeziune. Totui, trebuie menionat ca

acest document nu poate constitui un instrument de management, ci
trebuie privit ca un instrument n baza cruia vor fi stabilite modalitile
de intervenie ale Fondurilor Structurale i de Coeziune n perioada 2007-
2013.
Totodat, prin intermediul CSNR este detaliat modul de implementare al

instrumentelor structurale n perioada 2007-2013, documentul servind
drept punte ntre prioritile naionale i prioritile la nivel european
instituite n baza Orientrilor Strategice Comunitare9 privind coeziunea
2007-2013 i Liniilor Directoare integrate ale Uniunii Europene pentru
Cretere Economic i Locuri de Munc 2005-200810.
Modelul elaborrii CSNR l-a constituit PNDR, astfel cum a fost acesta
aprobat de Guvernul Romniei n luna decembrie a anului 2005, n vreme
ce scopul elaborrii CSNR l constituie consolidarea politicilor
economice, sociale i regionale ale Romniei n vederea alinierii cu
politicile Comisiei Europene impuse prin Strategia de la Lisabona,
document care st la baza elaborrii politicilor de dezvoltare economic.
8
Conform noului acquis privind Politica de Coeziune a Uniunii Europene, fiecare stat
membru elaboreaz un Cadru Strategic Naional de Referin (CSNR), ca document
de referin pentru programarea Fondurilor Structurale i de Coeziune.
9
The Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion 2007-2013 Aceste orientri
elaborate de Comisia European i adoptate de Consiliul Uniunii Europene se refer
la mbuntirea atractivitii statelor membre, regiunilor i oraelor prin
mbuntirea accesibitii, serviciilor i mediului, ncurajarea antreprenoriatului,
inovativitii i creterii economice prin mbuntirea capacitilor inovative i de
cercetare i crearea unor noi locuri de munc prin dezvoltarea spiritului
antreprenorial, mbuntirea adaptabilitii lucrtorilor i companiilor i majorarea
investiiilor n capitalul uman.
10
Consiliul European ntrunit n luna martie a anului 2005 a relansat strategia de la
Lisabona prin reorientarea pe dezvoltare i ocupare n Europa. Astfel, s-a decis c
Uniunea European i fiecare stat membru i vor concentra atenia ctre aceste
domenii i vor lua toate msurile necesare promovrii cunoaterii, atragerii a ct mai
multor oameni pe piaa muncii i crerii a ct mai multe locuri de munc.
40
n cele din urm, obiectivul CSNR const n reducerea decalajelor de

dezvoltare economic i social dintre Romnia i statele membre ale
Uniunii Europene prin generarea unei creteri suplimentare de 15-20% a
PIB pn n anul 2015.
2.5.3. Programele Operaionale
PO reprezint documentele aprobate de Comisia European n vederea

implementrii prioritilor sectoriale i regionale menionate n cuprinsul
PNDR i aprobate spre finanare, acestea fiind chiar instrumentele de
management prin care se realizeaz obiectivele CSNR.
La data redactrii prezentului document, Romnia utiliza un numr de 7

(apte) PO sub obiectivul Convergen:
(i) Programul operaional dezvoltarea resurselor umane (POS-

DRU);
(ii) Programul operaional creterea competitivitii economice

(POS-CCE);
(iii) Programul operaional de transport (POST);
(iv) Programul operaional de mediu (POS-MEDIU);
(v) Programul operaional regional (POR);
(vi) Programul operaional asisten tehnic (POAT);
(vii) Programul operaional dezvoltarea capacitii administrative

(PO-DCA).
n privina finanrii trebuie menionat c, cu excepia POS-MEDIU i

POST fiecare PO este finanat dintr-un singur instrument, totodat,
fiecare PO fiind completat de un DCI, aprobat de Comisia European, n
baza cruia sunt prezentate detaliile privind proiectele i cheltuielile
eligibile, potenialii beneficiari, modalitatea de decontare a cheltuielilor
41
eligibile, dar i rolul autoritilor n ntregul proces de acordare a

fondurilor europene.
n continuare vom detalia pe scurt principalele caracteristici ale fiecrui

program operaional:
(i) Programul operaional Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane

(POS DRU)
POS-DRU reprezint programul operaional elaborat n concordan cu

cea de-a patra prioritate din cuprinsul CSNR (i anume dezvoltarea i
utilizarea eficient a capitalului uman din Romnia prin obiectivul
Convergen).
Obiectivul principal al POS-DRU l constituie dezvoltarea capitalului

uman i creterea competitivitii, alturi de asigurarea de oportuniti
sporite pentru participarea viitoare pe o pia a muncii modern, flexibil
i incluziv a unui numr de 1.650.000 de persoane.
Obiectivele specifice ale POS-DRU sunt:
Promovarea educaiei i formrii iniiale i continue de calitate,

inclusiv nvmntul superior i cercetare;
Promovarea culturii antreprenoriale i creterea calitii i

productivitii muncii;
Facilitarea inseriei tinerilor i a omerilor de lung durat pe piaa

muncii;
Dezvoltarea unei piee a muncii moderne, flexibile i incluzive;
Promovarea inseriei/reinseriei pe piaa muncii a persoanelor

inactive, inclusiv din zonele rurale;
mbuntirea serviciilor publice de ocupare;
42
Facilitarea accesului grupurilor vulnerabile la educaie i pe piaa

muncii.
Realizarea acestor obiective este asigurat prin orientarea fondurilor spre

urmtoarele Axe Prioritare:
Axa Prioritar 1 Educaia i formarea profesional n sprijinul

creterii economice i dezvoltrii societii
bazate pe cunoatere, care implic dezvoltarea
rutelor flexibile de nvare pe tot parcursul
vieii i creterea accesului la educaie i
formare prin furnizarea unei educaii iniiale i
continue, moderne i de calitate, incluznd
nvmntul superior i cercetarea.
Axa Prioritar 2 Corelarea nvrii pe tot parcursul vieii cu

piaa muncii, reprezentnd facilitarea accesului
la educaie, creterea gradului de ocupare i a
nivelului de educaie i formare profesional a
resurselor umane printr-o abordare de tip pe tot
parcursul vieii, n contextul societii bazate
pe cunoatere.
Axa Prioritar 3 Creterea adaptabilitii lucrtorilor i a

ntreprinderilor, prin promovarea culturii
antreprenoriale, flexibilitii i adaptabilitii
prin sprijinirea forei de munc i a
ntreprinderilor competente, pregtite i
adaptabile.
Axa Prioritar 4 Modernizarea Serviciului Public de Ocupare,

prin creterea calitii, eficienei i transparenei
serviciilor de ocupare furnizate de Serviciul
Public de Ocupare al Forei de Munc
(ANOFM).
43
Axa Prioritar 5 Promovarea msurilor active de ocupare,

urmrind facilitarea integrrii pe piaa muncii a
omerilor tineri i a omerilor de lung durat,
atragerea i meninerea unui numr mai mare de
persoane pe piaa muncii, inclusiv n zonele
rurale i sprijinirea ocuprii formale.
Axa Prioritar 6 Promovarea incluziunii sociale, prin facilitarea

accesului pe piaa muncii a grupurilor
vulnerabile i promovarea unei societi
inclusive i coezive n scopul asigurrii
bunstrii tuturor cetenilor.
(ii) Programul operaional Sectorial Creterea Competitivitii

Economice (POS CCE)
POS CCE reprezint principalul instrument pentru realizarea celei dinti

prioriti a PNDR i anume creterea competitivitii economice i
dezvoltarea unei economii bazate pe cunoatere. Obiectivul general al
POS CCE const n creterea productivitii economice a ntreprinderilor
romneti pentru reducerea decalajelor fa de productivitatea medie la
nivelul Uniunii Europene, inta fiind o cretere medie anual de 5,5%
pn n 2015, aceast cretere permind Romniei s ating un nivel de
aproximativ 55% din media Uniunii Europene.
Obiectivele specifice ale POS-CCE sunt:
Consolidarea i dezvoltarea n acord cu principiile dezvoltrii

durabile a sectorului productiv. Aspectul principal al acestui obiectiv
const n sprijinirea modernizrii i inovrii ntreprinderilor existente
i crearea unora noi, n special a IMM-urilor n sectoarele productive
i al serviciilor pentru afaceri.
Valorificarea i calificarea echipamentelor de producie, lrgirea

bazei de producie, inovarea proceselor de producie i a
44
echipamentelor i sprijinirea adoptrii standardelor internaionale

conduc la creterea gamei de produse. Aspectul principal al acestui
obiectiv l reprezint crearea unui cadru favorabil dezvoltrii
antreprenoriatului, sens n care se urmrete reducerea
constrngerilor n domeniile de eec ale pieei (acces la finanare,
instrumente financiare, accesul la infrastructurile i serviciile de
afaceri - pentru crearea de noi ntreprinderi i pentru dezvoltarea
celor existente).

Axa Prioritar 1 Un sistem inovativ i eco-eficient de producie;
Axa Prioritar 2 Competitivitate prin Cercetare, Dezvoltare

Tehnologic i Inovare;
Axa Prioritar 3 Tehnologia Informaiilor i Comunicaiilor

pentru sectoarele public i privat;
Axa Prioritar 4 Creterea eficienei energetice i a securitii

furnizrii n contextul combaterii schimbrilor
climatice.
(iii) Programul operaional Sectorial Transport (POST)
POST reprezint documentul programatic al Romniei care stabilete

prioritile, obiectivele i intele de atins privind procesul de
implementare al instrumentelor structurale n sectorul transporturi n
perioada 2007-2013.
n comparaie cu celelalte PO, POST, prezint anumite particulariti care

n implementare l deosebesc considerabil, i anume:
45
a) numrul redus de beneficiari eligibili - POST se adreseaz

administratorilor infrastructurilor naionale de transport aflai, n
mare parte, sub coordonarea Ministerului Transporturilor;
b) toate axele i domeniile de intervenie sunt similare din punct de

vedere al structurii investiiilor, diferenierea fcndu-se n
funcie de obiectivul general al investiiilor, pe cale de consecin
ghidul solicitantului fiind acelai pentru toate prioritile tehnice
din cadrul POST;
c) proiectele eligibile POST sunt cunoscute nc din faza de

elaborare a strategiei POST;
d) proiectele de investiii de transport au o perioad foarte lung de

pregtire care include elaborarea studiilor de prefezabilitate, a
proiectelor tehnice a documentaiei de licitaie i obinerea
aprobrilor necesare, perioad ce se poate extinde pn la 5 ani.
Obiectivele specifice ale POST sunt:
modernizarea i dezvoltarea axelor prioritare TEN-T11, cu

aplicarea msurilor necesare pentru protecia mediului
nconjurtor;
modernizarea i dezvoltarea reelelor naionale de transport, n

conformitate cu principiile dezvoltrii durabile;
promovarea transportului feroviar, naval i intermodal;
sprijinirea dezvoltrii transportului durabil, prin minimizarea

efectelor adverse ale transportului asupra mediului i
mbuntirea siguranei traficului i a sntii umane.
11
n limba romn - Reeaua Trans-European de Transport.
46

Axa Prioritar 1 Modernizarea i dezvoltarea axelor prioritare

TEN-T12 n vederea dezvoltrii unui sistem de
transport durabil i a integrrii acestuia cu
reelele de transport ale Uniunii Europene;
Axa Prioritar 2 Modernizarea i dezvoltarea infrastructurii

naionale de transport n afara axelor prioritare
TEN-T n scopul crerii unui sistem naional de
transport durabil;
Axa Prioritar 3 Modernizarea sectorului de transporturi n

scopul creterii proteciei mediului i a sntii
publice i siguranei pasagerilor;
Axa Prioritar 4 Asisten tehnic.
(iv) Programul operaional Sectorial Mediu (POS MEDIU)
Prin Programul operaional Sectorial Mediu se stabilesc prioritile pentru

interveniile prin Fondurile Structurale i de Coeziune (n perioada 2007-
2013) i strategia de alocare a fondurilor europene. Elaborarea POS
Mediu a fost realizat de ctre Ministerul Mediului i Dezvoltrii
Durabile sub coordonarea Ministerului Economiei i Finanelor, n
calitate de coordonator al procesului de pregtire a Romniei pentru
accesarea Fondurilor Structurale i de Coeziune pentru perioada 2007-
2013.
12
Aceast ax prioritar se refer la TEN-T nr. 7 dezvoltarea reelei de autostrzi,
TEN-T nr. 18 cu privire la transportul naval pe cile navigabile i TEN-T nr. 22
modernizrii infrastructurii feroviare din punct de vedere al inter-operabilitii.
47
POS Mediu este cel mai important program operaional din punct de
vedere al alocrii financiare i reprezint cea mai important surs de
finanare pentru sectorul de mediu, programul fiind finanat din FEDR i
FC.
Obiectivul general al acestui PO l constituie mbuntirea standardului

de via i a standardului de mediu contribuind totodat n mod
substanial la ndeplinirea angajamentelor Romniei n privina proteciei
mediului, de la momentul aderrii la Uniunea European.
Obiectivele specifice ale POS Mediu sunt:
mbuntirea accesului la utiliti publice n sectorul de ap i ap

uzat prin asigurarea sistemelor de alimentare cu ap i canalizare
n majoritatea zonelor urbane pn n 2015 i stabilirea structurilor
de management al serviciilor de ap/ap uzat la scar regional.
Optimizarea sistemelor de management al deeurilor prin

mbuntirea infrastructurii de gestionare a deeurilor i reducerea
numrului de zone poluate istoric n minimum 30 de judee pn n
2015.
Reducerea impactului negativ asupra mediului i diminuarea

schimbrilor climatice cauzate de sistemele de nclzire urban n
cele mai poluate localiti pn n 2015.
Protecia i mbuntirea biodiversitii i a patrimoniului natural

prin sprijinirea managementului ariilor protejate, inclusiv prin
implementarea reelei Natura 200013.
13
Reeaua Natura 2000 este o reea european de zone naturale protejate care
cuprinde un eantion reprezentativ de specii slbatice i habitate naturale de interes
comunitar. Reeaua a fost constituit nu doar pentru protejarea naturii, ci i pentru
meninerea acestor bogii naturale pe termen lung, pentru a asigura resursele
necesare dezvoltrii socio-economice.
48
Reducerea riscului de producere a dezastrelor naturale cu efect

asupra populaiei, prin implementarea msurilor preventive n cele
mai vulnerabile zone pn n 2015.

Axa Prioritar 1 Extinderea i modernizarea infrastructurii de

ap i ap uzat (total aproximativ 3,3
miliarde Euro, din care grant UE 2,8 miliarde
Euro14).
Axa Prioritar 2 Dezvoltarea sistemelor de management

integrat al deeurilor i reabilitarea siturilor
contaminate istoric (1,2 miliarde Euro, din
care grant UE aproximativ un miliard
Euro15).
Axa Prioritar 3 Reabilitarea centralelor municipale de

termoficare n vederea reducerii polurii
(458 milioane Euro, din care grant UE 229
milioane Euro16).
Axa Prioritar 4 Implementarea sistemelor adecvate de

management pentru protecia naturii (215
14
Conform datelor furnizate de Ministerul Mediului i Pdurilor pe site-ul su oficial
www.mmediu.rowww.mmediu.ro/...europene/01...europeana/02.../stadiu_proiecte.
doc.
15
http://www.fonduri-
structurale.ro/Document_Files//mediu/00000029/h7748_Rezumat_POS_Mai_2007.p
df
16
http://eufinantare.info/stiri/iul2007/declaratie-ministru-mediu.html
49
milioane Euro, din care grant UE 172

milioane Euro17).
Axa Prioritar 5 Dezvoltarea infrastructurii de prevenire a

riscurilor naturale n zonele cele mai expuse
la risc (329 milioane Euro, din care grant UE
270 milioane Euro18).
Axa Prioritar 6 Asisten Tehnic (174 milioane Euro, din

care grant UE 130 milioane Euro19).
Programul vizeaz perioada 2007-2013, dar, spre deosebire de restul PO,

obiectivele sale urmresc i nevoile de dezvoltare ale Romniei ulterioare
anului 2013, prin punerea bazelor dezvoltrii economice durabile.
(v) Programul operaional Regional (POR)
POR are ca obiectiv sprijinirea i promovarea unei dezvoltri economice

i sociale durabile i echilibrate din punct de vedere teritorial, a tuturor
regiunilor Romniei, cu accent pe sprijinirea dezvoltrii durabile a
oraelor (poteniali poli de cretere urban), mbuntirea mediului de
afaceri i a infrastructurii cu scopul de a transforma regiunile Romniei n
locuri atractive pentru munc, via i timp liber.
Obiectivele specifice ale POR sunt:
mbuntirea gradului general de atractivitate i accesibilitate a

regiunilor;
Creterea competitivitii regiunilor ca locaii pentru afaceri;
Creterea contribuiei turismului la dezvoltarea regiunilor;
17
Ibidem.
18
Ibidem.
19
Ibidem.
50
Creterea rolului economic i social al centrelor urbane.

Axa Prioritar 1 Sprijinirea dezvoltrii durabile a oraelor

poteniali poli de cretere.
Axa Prioritar 2 mbuntirea infrastructurii de transport

regionale i locale.
Axa Prioritar 3 mbuntirea infrastructurii sociale.
Axa Prioritar 4 Sprijinirea dezvoltrii mediului de afaceri

regional i local.
Axa Prioritar 5 Dezvoltare durabil i promovarea

turismului.
Axa Prioritar 6 Asisten tehnic pentru sprijinirea

implementrii POR.
(vi) Programul operaional Asisten Tehnic (POAT)
Obiectivul Programului operaional Asisten Tehnic (POAT) l

constituie asigurarea unui proces de implementare a instrumentelor
structurale n conformitate cu principiile i regulile instituite ntre Statele
Membre i Comisia European, conform prevederilor din Regulamentul
Consiliului (CE) Nr. 1083/2006 privind FEDR, FSE i FC.
Astfel, pentru a asigura cel mai eficient mod de utilizare a instrumentelor

structurale, fiecrui stat membru i revine obligaia monitorizrii,
evalurii i controlului cheltuielilor din instrumentele structurale, precum
i informrii i promovrii asistenei financiare i a sistemului de
implementare. n acest scop, POAT vine n completarea axelor prioritare
51
de asisten tehnic din cadrul programelor operaionale i reprezint un

instrument important pentru coordonarea politicii de coeziune.
Axele prioritare de asisten tehnic din cadrul fiecrui program

operaional vor oferi asisten specific procesului de pregtire a
proiectelor, monitorizare, evaluare i control, precum i activitilor de
comunicare care s asigure o publicitate corespunztoare, n conformitate
cu specificitatea fiecrui PO.
Autoritile de Management20 pot primi sprijin prin POAT n vederea

implementrii operaiunilor utile prilor implicate n dou sau mai multe
programe operaionale. n acelai timp, POAT ofer sprijin sporit
procesului de coordonare i sistemului de control financiar i audit.
Obiectivul global al POAT este de a asigura sprijinul necesar procesului

de coordonare i de a contribui la implementarea i absorbia eficace i
transparent a instrumentelor structurale n Romnia.
Obiectivele specifice ale POAT sunt urmtoarele:
Asigurarea sprijinului i a instrumentelor adecvate n vederea unei

coordonri i implementri eficiente i eficace a instrumentelor
structurale pentru perioada 2007-2013 i pregtirea pentru
urmtoarea perioad de programare a instrumentelor structurale.
Asigurarea unei diseminri coordonate la nivel naional a

informaiilor generale cu privire la instrumentele structurale i
implementarea Planului de Aciuni al ACIS21 pentru comunicare, n
20
Autoritile de Management sunt organisme desemnate de Romnia ca fiind
responsabile pentru administrarea Programelor Operaionale.
21
Autoritatea pentru Coordonarea Instrumentelor Structurale.
52
conformitate cu Strategia naional de Comunicare22 pentru

instrumentele structurale.

Axa Prioritar 1 Sprijin pentru implementarea instrumentelor

structurale i coordonarea programelor;
Axa Prioritar 2 Dezvoltarea continu i sprijin pentru

funcionarea Sistemului Unic de
Management al Informaiei;
Axa Prioritar 3 Diseminarea informaiei i promovarea

instrumentelor.
(vii) Programul operaional Dezvoltarea Capacitii Administrative

(PO DCA)
Programul Operaional Dezvoltarea Capacitii Administrative este

finanat din FSE i vizeaz dezvoltarea capacitii administrative, precum
i sprijinirea eforturilor de modernizare a administraiei publice din
Romnia. PO DCA beneficiaz de o finanare total de 246.014.081 Euro,
din care 208.002.622 Euro reprezint contribuia Uniunii Europene, iar
38.011.459 Euro este contribuia statului romn.
PO DCA are un obiectiv general i dou obiective specifice. Obiectivul

general al PO DCA l constituie crearea unei administraii publice mai
22
Strategia Naional de Comunicare pentru Instrumentele Structurale a fost
elaborat pentru promovarea i coordonarea interveniilor structurale n Romnia,
aceasta deoarece era necesar s existe un sistem de coordonare central al
activitilor de comunicare pentru instrumentele structurale, astfel nct procesul de
comunicare s fie coerent i echilibrat, s se evite suprapunerile i informaiile
contradictorii i s se acopere golurile din comunicare, s se respecte n comunicare
principiul vocii unice.
53
eficiente i mai eficace n beneficiul socio-economic al societii

romneti.
Obiectivele specifice ale POAT sunt urmtoarele:
Obinerea unor mbuntiri structurale i de proces ale

managementului ciclului de politici publice n administraia public
central i local.
mbuntirea calitii i eficienei furnizrii serviciilor publice, cu

accentul pus pe procesul de descentralizare.
Aceste dou obiective specifice se regsesc n cele dou axe prioritare,

fiecare din cele dou axe prioritare fiind organizat pe domenii de
intervenie.
Pe lng aceste dou axe prioritare tematice, exist i o a treia ax

prioritar, de mai mic ntindere, care prevede asigurarea asistenei
tehnice pentru buna desfurare a managementului PO DCA.
Realizarea acestor obiective va fi asigurat prin orientarea fondurilor spre

urmtoarele Axe Prioritare principale:
Axa Prioritar 1 mbuntiri de structur i proces ale

managementului ciclului de politici publice.
Prima ax prioritar are drept scop

dezvoltarea capacitii administrative la nivel
central i local, prin mbuntiri structurale
menite s sprijine managementul strategic,
precum i prin optimizarea acestui proces n
vederea modernizrii performanei n materie
de metode, instrumente i proceduri.
54
Axa Prioritar 2 mbuntirea calitii i eficienei furnizrii

serviciilor publice, cu accent pe procesul de
descentralizare.
Cea de-a doua ax cuprinde dou domenii
majore de intervenie, care vizeaz n mod
direct furnizarea de servicii publice,
punndu-se accent pe procesul de
descentralizare.
2.5.4. Documentele Cadru de Implementare (DCI)
DCI este documentul elaborat pentru implementarea strategiei i a axelor

prioritare ale PO coninnd elemente detaliate ale PO la nivel de domeniu
major de intervenie23. DCI sunt elaborate de statele membre fiind
revizuite de comitetele de monitorizare, potrivit propunerii din partea
Autoritilor de Management.
Pentru a urgenta procedurile, DCI poate fi naintat n acelai timp cu

proiectul de PO. Indiferent de situaie, Autoritatea de Management
trebuie s adopte DCI cel mai trziu la 3 (trei) luni dup decizia CE de
aprobare a unui PO.
2.7. Cadrul instituional
Instituiile responsabile cu coordonarea, implementarea i gestionarea

asistenei financiare comunitare, precum i misiunile ncredinate
fiecreia, reprezint mpreun, cadrul naional al mecanismelor de
accesare a fondurilor europene.
23
Domeniul major de intervenie este o subdiviziune a axelor prioritare care
alctuiesc fiecare Program Operaional, prin care se clasific ntr-un mod mai detaliat
liniile directoare pentru finanarea acordat n cadrul respectivelor axe prioritare.
55
Astfel:
1. Ministerul Afacerilor Europene este stabilit ca autoritate pentru
coordonarea instrumentelor structurale, avnd responsabilitatea
coordonrii implementrii asistenei comunitare prin fondurile
structurale.
2. Ministerul Dezvoltrii Regionale i Turismului este desemnat ca

Autoritate de Management pentru POR, avnd responsabilitatea
managementului, gestionrii i implementrii asistenei
financiare alocate acestui program.
3. Ministerul Finanelor Publice este Autoritate de Management

pentru POAT i pentru POS-CCE, avnd responsabilitatea
managementului, implementrii i gestionrii asistenei
financiare alocate acestui program.
4. Ministerul Transporturilor este Autoritate de Management

pentru POST, fiind responsabil de managementul, implementarea
i gestionarea asistenei financiare alocate acestui program.
5. Ministerul Mediului i Dezvoltrii Durabile este Autoritatea de

Management pentru POS-MEDIU, fiind responsabil, ca i
celelalte autoriti de management, de managementul,
implementarea i gestionarea asistenei financiare programului.
6. Ministerul Muncii, Familiei i Egalitii de anse este Autoritate

de Management pentru POS-DRU, avnd, de asemenea,
responsabilitatea managementului, gestionrii i implementrii
asistenei financiare alocate acestuia.
7. Ministerul Internelor i Reformei Administrative a fost desemnat

drept Autoritate de Management pentru PO-DCA.
n vederea asigurrii rolului de coordonator al instrumentelor structurale

al Ministerului Afacerilor Europene, a fost nfiinat Autoritatea pentru
Coordonarea Instrumentelor Structurale, n subordinea aceluiai minister.
56
De asemenea, conform Regulamentului Consiliului nr. 1083/2006 privind

aspectele generale referitoare la FEDR, FSE i FC, Sistemul de
implementare al PO n Romnia cuprinde urmtoarele autoriti:
Comitetul de Monitorizare al PO;
Autoritatea de Management;
Organisme Intermediare;
Autoritatea de Certificare i Plat;
Autoritatea de Audit.
2.7.1. Autoritatea pentru Coordonarea Instrumentelor Structurale

(ACIS)
Autoritatea pentru Coordonarea Instrumentelor Structurale, nfiinat n

baza Hotrrii de Guvern nr. 128/2006 (abrogat prin Hotrrea de
Guvern nr. 457/2008), are urmtoarele responsabiliti (principale):
actualizeaz legislaia privind cadrul instituional i procedural de

coordonare i implementare a instrumentelor structurale, dup
consultarea autoritilor cu atribuii n domeniu i formuleaz puncte
de vedere i propuneri de modificare cu privire la legislaia cu impact
asupra procesului de gestionare a instrumentelor structurale;
coordoneaz, monitorizeaz i sprijin dezvoltarea capacitii

administrative a tuturor structurilor implicate n gestionarea
instrumentelor structurale, elabornd i actualiznd n acest sens
planuri de aciune i raportnd anual progresele nregistrate n
implementarea acestora;
elaboreaz ghiduri i ndrumare pentru dezvoltarea procedurilor de

gestionare a instrumentelor structurale, asigurnd o abordare unitar a
cadrului procedural, i analizeaz i formuleaz recomandri pentru
57
mbuntirea procedurilor de implementare a programelor

operaionale;
coordoneaz elaborarea i actualizarea PND, ca instrument de baz

pentru elaborarea CSNR, precum i elaborarea i modificarea CSNR;
coordoneaz elaborarea i modificarea programelor operaionale i a

DCI aferente, asigurnd corelarea acestora, precum i concordana cu
regulamentele comunitare i cu CSNR;
analizeaz oportunitatea realocrii de fonduri ntre PO;
avizeaz documentele elaborate de autoritile de management n

vederea fundamentrii programrii bugetare a surselor reprezentnd
fonduri externe nerambursabile primite din instrumentele structurale,
precum i a celor alocate din bugetul de stat pentru prefinanare,
cofinanare i finanare a cheltuielilor neeligibile;
urmrete i sprijin dezvoltarea de ctre autoritile de management

a portofoliului de proiecte aferente PO;
asigur armonizarea cadrului legal i procedural pentru funcionarea

comitetelor de monitorizare ale programelor operaionale i particip
ca membru la reuniunile acestora;
elaboreaz standarde i ghiduri de evaluare pentru interveniile

finanate din instrumentele structurale;
coordoneaz formularea poziiei Romniei cu privire la propunerile

de politici i reglementri comunitare n domeniul instrumentelor
structurale.
2.7.2. Comitetele de Monitorizare a Programelor Operaionale

(CMPO)
58
Comitetele de Monitorizare a Programelor au fost nfiinate pentru fiecare

PO n parte ulterior hotrrii de aprobare a respectivului PO, dup
consultarea partenerilor europeni i a AM corespunztoare.
Aceste comitete au responsabilitatea de a superviza ntreaga coordonare a

PO, de a asigura coordonarea instrumentelor structurale, precum i de a
urmri eficacitatea i calitatea implementrii asistenei comunitare,
modului de utilizare i impactului acestora.
Printre atribuiile specifice CMPO se regsesc, n principal, urmtoarele:
examinarea i aprobarea criteriilor de selecie elaborate de AM (n cel

mult 6 luni de la aprobarea PO respectiv), precum i aprobarea
oricror modificri ale acestora;
analizarea periodic a progreselor nregistrate n atingerea

obiectivelor programului pe baza documentelor de la AM;
propunerea ctre AM de actualizare a PO;
examinarea i aprobarea propunerilor de modificare a alocrilor

financiare ale PO, n DMI, ntre axele prioritare, precum i ntre
regiuni.
2.7.3. Autoritile de Management(AM)
Autoritile de Management sunt entitile responsabile cu asigurarea

implementrii eficiente a programelor finanate din fondurile structurale.
Conform Regulamentului Consiliului nr. 1083/2006, fiecare AM este
responsabil pentru managementul i implementarea eficient a PO pe
care l gestioneaz.
59
Astfel, fiecare AM are urmtoarele atribuii principale24:
utilizarea eficient a fondurilor aferente PO;
dezvoltarea i promovarea de parteneriate la toate nivelurile

administraiei publice;
coordonarea i armonizarea cadrului instituional concomitent cu

dezvoltarea capacitii administrative;
informarea prilor interesate n legtur cu derularea programelor

operaionale.
2.7.4. Organismele intermediare (OI)
OI ndeplinesc toate atribuiile delegate de ctre AM i Autoritile de

Certificare i Plat pe baz contractual, AM fiind responsabile pentru
ndeplinirea sarcinilor delegate n legtur cu asigurarea finanrilor din
fondurile structurale. Delegarea atribuiilor trebuie realizat cu
respectarea i observarea caracterului regional al PO, dar i a capacitii
efective i a experienei OI.
2.7.5. Autoritatea de Certificare i Plat (ACP)
Ministerul Finanelor Publice este autoritatea desemnat s ndeplineasc

rolul de ACP pentru toate PO, fiind responsabil cu certificarea
declaraiilor privind cheltuielile efectuate i a cererilor de plat anterior
naintrii acestora ctre Comisie.
Fiecare stat membru al Uniunii Europene a desemnat o unitate separat

care s funcioneze ca ACP, organism responsabil cu (i) primirea tuturor
plilor de la Comisia European aferente FEDR, FSE i FC, pentru toate
24
Hotrrea de Guvern nr. 457/2008 privind cadrul instituional de coordonare i de
gestionare a instrumentelor structurale (publicat n Monitorul Oficial al Romniei
nr. 346/20.04.2004).
60
PO-urile, i cu (ii) efectuarea plilor din resursele comunitare ctre

beneficiari (pli directe) sau ctre Unitile de Plat din cadrul
ministerelor avnd rol de AM (pli indirecte).
2.7.6. Autoritatea de Audit (AA)
n cazul Romniei, un organism asociat Curii de Conturi a fost desemnat

n calitate de AA pentru toate PO. Trebuie menionat c AA este
independent fa de AM i ACP.
2.7.7. Procesul de certificare
Certificarea plilor n cazul fondurilor structurale este supus unui proces

realizat n 4 (patru) etape i anume:
Etapa I de verificare aa numita evaluare ex-ante, este

asigurat de beneficiar prin verificarea
corectitudinii i eligibilitii
cheltuielilor. Ulterior, beneficiarul
depune solicitarea de plat n atenia
AM/OI mpreun cu documentele
justificative.
Etapa II de verificare este realizat la nivelul OI printr-o

verificare intern a documentelor
depuse n acest sens de ctre Beneficiar.
Etapa III de verificare este asigurat de AM, similar cu OI,

printr-o verificare intern a
documentelor.
Ultima etap de verificare aparine ACP, care ulterior realizrii

verificrilor necesare depune ctre
Comisia European solicitrile de plat
intermediare i certificarea acestora.
61
III. CONDIIILE GENERALE PENTRU A BENEFICIA DE

FONDURILE STRUCTURALE
3.1. Consideraii cu caracter general
Problematica accesrii fondurilor comunitare i, mai ales, aceea a

accesrii acestora de ctre noile state membre ale Uniunii Europene
reprezint o preocupare major la nivel comunitar25. Astfel, dat fiind c
Romnia face parte din ultimul grup de state care au aderat la Uniunea
European, problematica accesrii fondurilor europene are o importan
deosebit prin simplul fapt c:
1. consecinele unei absorbii deficitare se rsfrng asupra intereselor

pe termen lung ale Romniei;
2. Romnia are nevoie de un nivel ridicat de absorbie a finanrii

comunitare nerambursabile, la nivel naional, pentru a contracara
efectele presiunii exercitate de criza economic i financiar
global.
n acest context, nu trebuie ignorat faptul c, n cadrul procesului de

negociere pentru urmtorul cadru financiar multianual la nivel comunitar
(2014-2020), Romnia are interesul de a rmne beneficiar net, ceea ce
nseamn c, atta timp ct, n calitate de stat membru al Uniunii
Europene, Romnia este obligat s contribuie la bugetul Uniunii
Europene, ar fi n beneficiul su ca fondurile europene la care este
ndreptit s fie efectiv cheltuite de beneficiari, pentru a se asigura un
echilibru avantajos ntre contribuia Romniei la bugetul Uniunii
Europene i fondurile structurale absorbite.
n acest sens, planul financiar multianual propus de Preedintele

Consiliului European, Herman Van Rompuy afecteaz grav regiunile cele
mai slab dezvoltate ale Uniunii Europene, astfel, statele membre srace
25
Ctlina Constantin, Andreea Florina Radu, revista Consilier European nr. 9/2009,
http://www.dae.gov.ro/admin/files/Consilier%20European%20Nr%209.pdf
62
(printre care se afl i Romnia) i cu capacitatea de finanare cea mai

sczut vor avea cel mai mult de pierdut prin aplicarea planului
multianual, diminiundu-se n acest sens chiar unul dintre obiectivele
fundamentale ale Politicii de Coeziune i anume: reducerea decalajelor de
dezvoltare.
Totodat, propunerea privind planul financiar multianual introduce o

nou condiie privind alocarea bugetelor - n funcie de capacitatea de
absorbie din perioada 2007-2013. Astfel, este notoriu faptul c n
perioada menionat anterior, Romnia a avut cea mai sczut rat de
absorbie din Uniunea European, fapt care n mod evident, prin aplicarea
celor cuprinse n planul multianual, va aduce mai multe deservicii
Romniei, prin scderea n mod drastic a fondurilor puse la dispoziie
spre absorbie.
Pe de alt parte, este de notorietate faptul c accesarea fondurilor

nerambursabile nu este un proces facil, ns, atunci cnd eventualul
beneficiar este informat din punct de vedere al locului n care poate
obine informaiile de care are nevoie, demersurile de accesare ale
fondurilor pot deveni mai uor de parcurs.
Pentru a obine finanare european, primul pas care trebuie realizat de

ctre un solicitant este identificarea PO n cadrul cruia se ncadreaz
investiia nvederat, respectiv s consulte DCI aferent respectivului PO
pentru identificarea DMI n cadrul cruia este eligibil n calitate de
solicitant. n plus fa de modalitile prevzute anterior, beneficiarul va
trebui s consulte Ghidul Solicitantului (Ghidul Solicitantului)
disponibil pentru fiecare DMI i operaiune din cadrul acestora, n
vederea elaborrii proiectului pentru care se dorete accesarea fondurilor
europene.
Alturi de cele menionate anterior, potenialii beneficiari ai finanrilor

nerambursabile trebuie s ia n considerare faptul c, pe lng
posibilitatea realizrii unei investiii cu efort financiar relativ redus
(datorit nerambursabilitii fondurilor accesate), acetia au i anumite
63
responsabiliti, care, n principiu, intervin dup ncheierea seleciei

proiectelor de ctre AM/OI i semnarea contractelor de finanare ntre
AM/OI i beneficiar. Astfel, este recomandabil consultarea seciunii
Obligaiile beneficiarului din Ghidurile Solicitantului, pentru luarea la
cunotin a tuturor ndatoririlor beneficiarului, a cror asumare este
obligatorie.
n vederea obinerii cu succes a fondurilor europene, un potenial

beneficiar trebuie s parcurg urmtoarele etape:
Etapa 1: identificarea ideii de proiect;
Etapa 2: identificarea PO n cadrul creia se ncadreaz ideea de

proiect;
Etapa 3: informarea asupra existenei unei cereri de proiecte

deschis n acest sens, urmat de
Etapa 4: iniierea procedurilor de accesare efectiv a fondurilor

puse la dispoziie.
n plus, solicitantul trebuie s se asigure c ndeplinete condiiile de

eligibilitate, c dosarul cererii de finanare este complet, respectiv, c
ntrunete toate condiiile prevzute n Ghidul Solicitantului.
3.2. Criterii de eligibilitate a solicitanilor
n primul rnd, potenialul beneficiar trebuie s se asigure c ndeplinete

condiiile specifice stabilite de ctre AM la momentul lansrii cererii de
proiecte pentru a fi considerat beneficiar eligibil.
n general, pentru a primi finanare nerambursabil n baza PO,

solicitantul trebuie s fie:
64
o organizaie legal constituit n Romnia, respectiv persoan juridic

de drept public sau privat, cu sau fr scop patrimonial, cu sediul
social n Romnia;
o asociaie ori fundaie constituit conform Ordonanei de Guvern nr.

26/2000 cu privire la asociaii i fundaii, cu modificrile i
completrile ulterioare;
o organizaie sindical sau patronal constituit conform legislaiei n

vigoare;
o instituie de cult recunoscut conform Legii nr. 489/2006 privind

libertatea religioas i regimul general al cultelor.
Totodat, beneficiarul trebuie s fie responsabil pentru managementul

proiectului propus.
3.3. Criterii de eligibilitate a proiectelor
n general, toate cererile de finanare primite n cadrul cererii de

propuneri de proiecte vor fi evaluate i selectate avndu-se n vedere
criteriile de selecie aprobate de comitetul de monitorizare i elaborate n
conformitate cu prevederile Regulamentelor Consiliului (CE) aplicabile.
Totui, pentru ca proiectul s fie acceptat, acesta trebuie s ndeplineasc
urmtoarele criterii eliminatorii:
proiectul s fie dezvoltat i implementat pe teritoriul Romniei;
proiectul s aib relevan n considerarea obiectivelor specifice ale

axei prioritare aplicabile;
bugetul proiectului s fie n concordan cu limitele prevzute de

cererea de propuneri de proiecte, iar proiectul se regsete pe lista
operaiunilor eligibile prezentate n Ghidul Solicitantului;
65
proiectul, durata i valoarea finanrii solicitate s se ncadreze n

limitele stabilite n cererea de proiecte".
3.4. Cofinanarea necesar proiectelor realizate cu fonduri

structurale
Din costul total al proiectului, beneficiarul trebuie s acopere cheltuielile

neeligibile, precum i cofinanarea. Cofinanarea poate fi reprezentat i
de contribuia n natur a beneficiarului, aa cum este prezentat n
manualul privind eligibilitatea cheltuielilor i n Ghidul Solicitantului.
Cheltuielile eligibile pentru fiecare proiect n parte vor fi stabilite de ctre

AM n conformitate cu regulile naionale de eligibilitate, astfel nct, n
momentul lansrii unei cereri de proiecte", AM face cunoscut i lista
cu cheltuielile eligibile pentru acele proiecte.
3.5. Etape pentru obinerea finanrii
Etapele ce trebuie parcurse de ctre solicitani pentru obinerea finanrii

europene nerambursabile pot fi sintetizate dup cum urmeaz:
Etapa 1: beneficiarul eligibil completeaz cererea de finanare i

anexele solicitate de AM;
Etapa 2: cererea de finanare este transmis/depus ctre/la

OI/AM (dup caz);
Etapa 3: se verific conformitatea administrativ a cererii de

finanare, n conformitate cu procedurile interne ale
fiecrei AM;
Etapa 4: dup verificarea conformitii administrative urmeaz

verificarea eligibilitii proiectului (criteriile de
eligibilitate a proiectelor sunt prezentate n Ghidul
Solicitantului);
66
Etapa 5: se procedeaz la evaluarea tehnic i financiar a

proiectului;
Etapa 6: se procedeaz la selectarea proiectului conform

criteriilor aprobate de comitetul de monitorizare;
Etapa 7: se aprob proiectul i se ncepe procedura negocierii i

semnrii contractului de finanare.
IV. PRINCIPALELE DIFICULTI N IMPLEMENTAREA

PROGRAMELOR OPERAIONALE
4.1. Consideraii cu caracter general
Politicile statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene aplicabile pe ntreg

teritoriul Uniunii au la baz un principiu fundamental al construciei
europene, i anume principiul solidaritii i coeziunii. Obiectivul politicii
regionale europene este de a concretiza solidaritatea Uniunii Europene
prin coeziunea economic i social, reducnd discrepana dintre
nivelurile de dezvoltare ale diverselor regiuni.
Politica pentru dezvoltare regional devine, astfel, pentru statele

membre, fie vechi sau noi, unul dintre cele mai importante instrumente de
dezvoltare. Un rol deosebit n realizarea acestui obiectiv l are
capacitatea Romniei de a dezvolta i de a implementa proiecte de
dezvoltare durabil, prin atragerea fondurilor provenite din
instrumentele financiare europene. n mod evident, eficiena gradului de
absorbie a acestora este condiionat de capacitatea administrativ a
statului beneficiar, n cazul de fa, a Romniei26.
26
Ctlina Constantin, Andreea Florina Radu, revista Consilier European nr. 9/2009,
67
Dei Romnia s-a numrat printre primele state ale Uniunii Europene ale
cror PO au fost aprobate de ctre Comisia European, demararea
efectiv a implementrii strategiei aprobate a fost mai lent. n acest sens,
beneficiarii au ntmpinat mari probleme, soluionarea acestora solicitnd
att timp ct i eforturi consistente, ceea ce era de ateptat pentru un
sistem nou-creat, aflat la nceputurile sale n procesul de implementare a
fondurilor structurale i de coeziune.
Conform datelor furnizate27 de Guvernul Romniei, ncepnd cu anul

2007 i pn la nivelul lunii octombrie 2012, situaia absorbiei fondurilor
europene era urmtoarea:
Pli ctre
Programul Proiecte Proiecte Contracte/decizii beneficiari
Operaional depuse aprobate de finanare (total milioane
lei)
POST 145 90 82 1.884,76
POS Mediu 626 352 338 3.474,60
POR 8.162 3.525 3.216 6.040,77
POS-DRU 10.224 3.006 2.465 5.083,24
POS-CCE 14.545 3.617 2.466 2.510,53
PO-DCA 1.371 420 387 217,35
POAT 129 110 103 135,48
TOTAL 35.202 11.120 9.057 19.346,73
27
http://www.gov.ro/absorbtia-fondurilor-structurale-si-de-coeziune-proritate-zero-
a-guvernului- romaniei__l1a109210.html
68
Referindu-ne la o sintez a indicatorilor de absorbie, putem observa din

analiza tabelului28 de mai jos c la nivelul anului 2011 procentajul
Romniei n ceea ce privete absorbia fondurilor europene era mult
inferioar restului statelor nvecinate, acesta fiind chiar mai mic cu 6,7%
fa de cel al Bulgariei, ar care a fost admis n Uniunea European
concomitent cu Romnia.
Absorbia fondurilor structurale comparaie cu alte state membre UE
ara Total alocri Pli martie 2012 Rata de Total alocri Total pli
absorbie capita/Euro
2007 2013 (miliarde de capita/Euro
Euro)
(miliarde de
Euro)
Estonia 3,4 1,6 46,8% 2.540 1.190
Letonia 4,5 1,7 36,4% 2.032 740
Polonia 67,2 26,4 39% 1.759 690
Cehia 26,5 7,0 26,5% 2.520 667
Bulgaria 6,7 1,6 24% 889 209
Romnia 19,2 3,3 17,3% 897 155
Ungaria 24,9 8,8 35,3% 2.496 881
Lituania 6,8 3,3 48,0% 2.088 1.002
Slovenia 4,1 1,6 38,3% 2.000 767
Slovacia 11,5 3,2 27,8% 2.116 587
Analiznd datele prezentate n tabelul de mai sus, nu putem dect s

anticipm c, la sfritul exerciiului financiar 2007 2013, poziia
Romniei va fi tot la coada clasamentului, n mare parte datorit
28
Raportul anual pe anul 2011, Evoluii i perspective macroeconomice i bugetare.
http://www.wall-street.ro/files/131509-255.pdf
69
decalajului mare nregistrat de Romnia pe parcursul celor 6 (ase) ani de

la aderarea la Uniunea European, care n mod evident, n ciuda msurilor
luate n acest sens de administraia central i/sau local, nu vor putea
suplini lipsa de activitate, acuratee i consecven nregistrat de
Romnia n elaborarea de proiecte i atragerea de fonduri europene.
4.2. Msuri pentru mbuntirea gradului de absorbie
4.2.1. Msuri luate de autoritile din Romnia
Avnd n vedere dificultile ntmpinate n implementarea efectiv a

cadrului legislativ i n asigurarea corespondenei ntre cadrul legislativ i
cel instituional, Romnia a adus unele modificri la procedura de
accesare a acestora, cu scopul de a nltura, pe ct posibil, efectele
negative ale unei absorbii limitate. Printre msurile29 luate de autoritile
romne n vederea mbuntirii gradului de accesare i absorbie al
fondurilor europene s-au numrat:
1. introducerea posibilitii acordrii unor procente importante din

valoarea eligibil a proiectului ca prefinanare. Aceast msur a
ajutat beneficiarii entiti publice, prin asigurarea fondurilor
necesare pentru demararea contractelor de achiziii. n cazul
beneficiarilor privai, dei iniiativa autoritilor a fost benefic,
obinerea unei prefinanri presupunea o procedur anevoioas
condiionat n cele mai multe cazuri de prezentarea unei scrisori
de garanie bancar, care n mod evident nu putea fi obinut de
ctre micii antreprenori, care nu dispuneau de resurse financiare
considerabile din care s constituie garaniile solicitate de bnci.
2. prezentarea, n faza de contractare, a anumitor documente,

solicitate pn la momentul introducerii acestei modificri n faza
29
Ioana Morovan Suntem n grafic? 2010 Primul bilan utilizarea fondurilor
structurale, publicat n numrul 7/februarie 2010 al revistei Policy Memo, sub egida
Centrului Romn de Politici Europene
http://www.crpe.ro/library/files/crpe_policy_memo_7_ro.pdf
70
de depunere a cererilor de finanare, a reprezentat o iniiativ

salutat de solicitani, totui, n cele mai multe cazuri, aceast
nlesnire a fost nsoit de condiionri pe msur, care, n
general, erau n dezavantajul beneficiarilor (de exemplu: chiar
dac prezentarea documentelor nu era obligatorie, cei care
depuneau respectivele documente se bucurau de un avantaj n
faa restului beneficiarilor). Pentru a mbuntii gradul de
absorbie, n unele cazuri s-a decis renunarea la solicitarea unor
documente la momentul depunerii proiectului, prin nlocuirea lor
cu declaraii pe propria rspundere a solicitantului i cu obligaia
prezentrii respectivelor documente n etapa de contractare.
3. flexibilizarea criteriilor referitoare la datoriile solicitantului ctre

bugetul de stat a fost realizat printr-un ordin al Ministerului
Finanelor Publice30, care prevedea c societile care nregistrau
astfel de datorii puteau fi eligibile sub rezerva restriciilor
menionate de ctre fiecare minister n parte, n Ghidurile
Solicitanilor. Totodat, un ordin al Ministerului Finanelor
Publice meniona c datoriile nu trebuie s depeasc 1/12 din
totalul obligaiilor de plat n cazul certificatului de atestare emis
de A.N.A.F. sau 1/6 din obligaiile de plat pe ultimul semestru
n cazul certificatului de atestare fiscal emis de autoritile
locale.
4. modificarea unor cerine i a documentaiei solicitate

potenialilor beneficiari de ctre AM.
5. comasarea unor etape ale procesului de evaluare, respectiv: (i)

verificarea administrativ i (ii) verificarea eligibilitii a redus o
30
Ordinul nr. 673/13.04.2009 pentru modificarea Ordinului Ministrului Finanelor
Publice nr. 752/2006 privind aprobarea procedurii de eliberare a certificatului de
atestare fiscal pentru persoane juridice i fizice, a certificatului de obligaii
bugetare, precum i a modelului i coninutului acestora (publicat n Monitorul
Oficial al Romniei nr. 355/27.05.2009).
71
parte din termenele de evaluare, totui o astfel de reducere nu a

avut un impact semnificativ asupra termenelor de evaluare.
Simplificarea normelor de achiziii nu a condus n mod real la o

simplificare a procesului de accesare a fondurilor europene, rmnnd o
serie de probleme nerezolvate (de exemplu: inflaia de documente
nejustificate solicitate de ctre autoriti/funcionari) chiar dac s-a
ncercat includerea n Ghidurile Solicitantului a unor instruciuni mai
clare privind ntocmirea bugetului proiectului i pentru acoperirea
diferenelor nefavorabile de curs valutar aprute ca urmare a situaiei
economice actuale. n acest sens, trebuie precizat faptul c n
jurisprudena naional s-au nregistrat cazuri n care potenialii
beneficiari ale cror cereri de finanare au fost respinse, cu ocazia
aciunilor n instan introduse din acest motiv, au invocat nenelegerea
prevederilor coninute de Ghidurile Solicitanilor, fapt care a condus, n
cele din urm la respingerea cererilor31.
n plus fa de cele menionate anterior, beneficiarii au fost profund

afectai de politica de creditare extrem de prudent a bncilor, mai ales
n contextul crizei financiare globale, i de costurile mari ale
finanrii32.
Ca urmare a celor menionate anterior, se poate constata necesitatea unor

structuri instituionale puternice, capabile s asigure aplicarea politicilor
publice, implementarea programelor naionale i creterea capacitii de
implementare, care poate fi realizat doar printr-o ntrire a
parteneriatului ntre administraiile locale i structurile private, cu att
mai mult cu ct criza financiar i economic a avut un impact
semnificativ asupra problemei absorbiei fondurilor europene.
31
Decizia nr. 3515 din 24.06.2009 a naltei Curi de Casaie i Justiie, Secia de
contencios administrativ i fiscal;
32
http://www.inforegionordest.ro/documente/noutati/publicatii/studiu_privind_impl
ementarea_por_in_regiunea_nord_est_decembrie_2010.pdf
72
Pe cale de consecin, singura modalitate pentru a contracara efectele

crizei economice o reprezint mbuntirea capacitii de absorbie, care
n cazul Romniei a fost foarte redus n prezent, n principal din cauza:
ineficienei instituiilor specializate coroborat cu gradul de

informare i experiena sczut a beneficiarilor n realizarea
proiectelor, dar i din cauza procesului anevoios de formare a
personalului specializat n materia fondurilor europene;
gradul de informare sczut al potenialilor beneficiari asupra

condiiilor de aplicare i funcionare a fondurilor europene.
Totodat, procentul sczut al solicitanilor care au apelat la serviciile

specializate ale societilor de consultan n domeniul fondurilor
europene, a determinat o lips a calitii proiectelor i, implicit, lipsa
finanrii acestora.
La cele menionate anterior, adugm i lipsa de predictibilitate a cadrului

legislativ i instituional (schimbrile repetate au descurajat poteniali
beneficiari); ct i desfiinarea Institutului Naional de Administraie, fapt
care a redus numrul personalului calificat din cadrul administraiilor
publice centrale i locale.
n cele din urm, majorarea cotei TVA n Romnia i influena cursului

de schimb Leu/Euro n ultimii ani au determinat potenialii beneficiari s
renune n mare parte la proiectele planificate avnd n vedere c planul
de afaceri nu mai putea fi realizat ca urmare a schimbrilor de pe piaa
financiar.
Conform revistei Consilier European, la nivelul autoritilor

locale/regionale, inclusiv la nivelul AM i OI, ca i cauze specifice
trebuie evideniate:
capacitate de reacie redus n raport cu dimensiunea procesului de

absorbie a fondurilor, ca efect al personalului insuficient alocat
73
acestor proceduri, fapt care a condus la ntrzierea procesului de

evaluare a proiectelor i, n consecin, la finanarea unui numr mic
de proiecte; respectiv
permanenta modificare i actualizare a condiiilor de eligibilitate

referitoare la beneficiar sau proiecte, aceste modificri fiind operate
chiar n timpul sesiunii de depunere, ceea ce a determinat n
majoritatea cazurilor modificarea proiectului sau a condus chiar la
imposibilitatea depunerii acestuia sau a lipsei conformitii
proiectului, n cazul n care fusese deja depus33.
Astfel, problemele ntmpinate de Romnia n procesul de absorbie al

fondurilor europene sunt determinate n cea mai mare parte de
implementarea ntrziat si neconform a reglementrilor europene n
domeniu, la nivelul legislaiei naionale, precum i de modalitatea n care
autoritile publice au ales, s aplice respectivele norme.
Totodat, un alt motiv al absorbiei reduse l constituie lipsa resurselor

financiare pentru asigurarea co-finanrii proiectelor de ctre beneficiari.
Este relevant de menionat n acest context faptul c, n practic,
instanele judectoreti s-au confruntat cu spee ce au ridicat problema
nerespectrii de ctre beneficiari a obligaiei de a asigura cofinanarea
naional necesar implementrii proiectului34.
Aceast imposibilitate de asigurare a cofinanrii a fost determinat n

majoritatea cazurilor, de constrngerile referitoare la buget (n situaia
beneficiarilor de drept public), respectiv de lichiditile necesare n cazul
beneficiarilor de drept privat.
33
Ctlina Constantin, Andreea Florina Radu, revista Consilier European nr. 9/2009
http://www.dae.gov.ro/admin/files/Consilier%20European%20Nr%209.pdf.
34
A se vedea Sentina civil nr. 2177 din 26 mai 1999 a Curii de Apel Bucureti, Secia
contencios administrativ i fiscal (dei finanarea european ce a constituit obiectul
cauzei respective provenea din fonduri PHARE, considerm relevant spe pentru
chestiunea ridicat, cu att mai mult cu ct aceasta dateaz din 1999 i pare a nu fi
fost rezolvat cu adevrat nici pn n prezent).
74
n ciuda celor menionate anterior, trebuie adugat faptul c potenialii

beneficiari poart, de asemenea, o responsabilitate n creterea propriei
capaciti de atragere i implementare a proiectelor finanate din
instrumente structurale, printr-o informare interesat i continu asupra
acestei probleme. Dintre mijloacele proprii de pregtire a beneficiarilor
pentru accesarea fondurilor europene trebuie menionate:
informarea continu referitoare la fondurile destinate sectorului de

activitate propriu, participarea la seminarii, conferine dedicate
fondurilor i accesrii acestora etc.;
ndreptarea ateniei n direcia formrii profesionale/specializrii a

personalului intern care s aib capacitatea de a elabora proiecte sau
apelarea la serviciile profesionale de consultan n acest domeniu;
apelarea la suportul oferit de o instituie bancar pentru a identifica

soluiile de cofinanare a proiectelor constituie o modalitate optim
pentru soluionarea problemelor referitoare la co-finanarea necesar
beneficiarului, n vreme ce, pentru investiiile majore este
recomandat realizarea unui studiu de prefezabilitate iniial n
vederea identificrii cu exactitate a oportunitii investiiei, ct i
pentru a scuti risipa de fonduri i timp, att de necesare acestui proces
de accesare a fondurilor;
n cele din urm, convenirea cu actorii locali (uniti administrativ-

teritoriale, parteneri, structuri asociative) a unui acord pentru
garantarea cadrului legislativ pentru un ciclu politic mai mare de 4
ani.
Conform celor menionate anterior, principala direcie de aciune pentru

combaterea efectelor crizei economice a vizat i se va concentra i n
perioada urmtoare asupra accelerrii absorbiei acestor fonduri. Astfel,
n ultima perioad, autoritile romane s-au concentrat asupra identificrii
acelor msuri care s contracareze efectele imediate ale crizei economice
cu impact direct asupra ritmului implementrii strategiei aprobate. n
75
acest sens, printre msurile adoptate amintim (i) facilitarea accesului

potenialilor beneficiari la liniile de finanare35i (ii) sprijinirea
beneficiarilor n implementarea proiectelor deja aprobate. Msurile au
inut cont de experiena acumulat la nivelul sistemului de gestionare a
fondurilor n primii ani de implementare, precum i de principalele
dificulti ntmpinate de solicitani la depunerea de proiecte sau de
beneficiari n procesul de implementare.
Avnd n vedere necesitatea de a include ct mai repede resursele alocate

n cadrul programelor operaionale, autoritile au implementat i alte
msuri de simplificare a procesului de depunere a proiectelor, fr a
afecta totui procesul de selecie i cerinele impuse de ctre autoritile i
regulamentele comunitare.
Astfel, pentru a sprijinii eventuali beneficiari, autoritile competente au

luat urmtoarele msuri:
majorarea cotei de prefinanare pentru beneficiari de la 15% la 30%

din valoarea eligibil a contractului de finanare36;
introducerea prefinanrii pentru beneficiarii ale cror proiecte intr

sub incidena ajutorului de stat/de minimis, n cuantum de pn la
35% din valoarea grantului;
introducerea posibilitii beneficiarilor de a gaja/ipoteca active

finanate prin proiect n scopul facilitrii contractrii de credite
exclusiv pentru asigurarea implementrii proiectelor.
De asemenea, n vederea soluionrii problemelor de finanare ale

beneficiarilor, au fost continuate discuiile cu instituiile financiar bancare
n vederea identificrii i altor msuri de sprijin. n privina cofinanrii
35
http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd-
62/Documente_Suport/Rapoarte_Strategice/Raport_strategic_national_2009_RO.pd
f- pagina 81, ultimul paragraf
36
Ordinul MFP nr. 2.359/2011.
76
de la bugetul de stat, autoritile romne au declarat acest aspect drept

prioritate la nivelul Ministerului Finanelor Publice, n plus, pentru a evita
existena oricror deficiene n asigurarea cofinanrii publice, n luna
martie a anului 2011 au existat discuii referitoare la creterea sumei care
urma a fi mprumutat de Banca European pentru Investiii, de la
valoarea de 400 mil. Euro la 800-1 miliard Euro, o parte din aceast sum
fiind destinat asigurrii cofinanrii de la bugetul de stat pentru
proiectele de investiii n infrastructura de transport, mediu i energie.
Totodat, autoritile romne au depus eforturi nsemnate pentru

simplificarea i accelerarea absorbiei instrumentelor structurale, ca
element important al luptei anti-criz. n acelai timp, accelerarea
utilizrii acestor fonduri constituie una dintre recomandrile centrale ale
PERE37, pentru implementarea creia a fost prevzut i o serie de msuri
concrete, mprite n trei categorii:
(i) msuri care nu necesit modificarea regulamentelor comunitare;
(ii) msuri care au necesitat modificarea regulamentelor comunitare

i care au fost legiferate n cursul anului 2009;
(iii) msuri care necesit modificarea regulamentelor comunitare i

care urmeaz a fi legiferate.
O analiz a categoriilor sus-menionate relev38 faptul ca la nivelul

programelor operaionale implementate n Romnia au fost puse n
37
Planul European de Redresare Economic (PERE).
38
A se vedea Raportul Strategic Naional pentru Implementarea Fondurilor
Structurale i de Coeziune pregtit n ianuarie 2010 i disponibil pe pagina de
internet http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd-
f
77
aplicare urmtoarele msuri punctuale din PERE i din Comunicarea

Comisiei Cohesion Policy: Investing n the real economy39:
folosirea posibilitii de cretere pn la 100% a contribuiei

comunitii la nivel de operaiune;
introducerea posibilitii ca, n cazul operaiunilor finanate din FSE

i FEDR, avnd activitile cheie implementate direct de ctre
beneficiar/partener, costurile indirecte ale operaiunilor s fie
declarate n mod forfetar;
utilizarea FSE ca instrument de combatere a problemelor create de

criz pe piaa muncii (fr a fi necesare modificri de program);
utilizarea procedurii accelerate de achiziie public;
continuarea utilizrii JASPERS40 ca sprijin pentru pregtirea

proiectelor majore.
39
Cohesion Policy - Investing in the real economy reprezinta o important expresie a
solidaritii europene i orienteaz sprijinul ctre cetenii europeni cei mai
defavorizai. n perioada 20072013, politica de coeziune va investi 347 miliarde de
euro pentru a stimula creterea i va contribui la coeziunea economic i social.
40
JASPERS este un parteneriat ntre Comisia European (Direcia General Politic
Regional), Banca European de Investiii (BEI), Banca European pentru
Reconstrucie i Dezvoltare (BERD) i Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (KfW).
Parteneriatul reprezint un instrument de asisten tehnic pentru cele
dousprezece (12) ri care au aderat la UE n 2004 i 2007. Prin acest instrument,
statelor membre n cauz li se ofer sprijinul de care au nevoie pentru a pregti
proiecte importante de nalt calitate, care urmeaz a fi cofinanate din fonduri ale
UE. Consultana JASPERS poate s acopere: (i) pregtirea proiectului (de exemplu:
analiza costurilor i a beneficiilor, analiza financiar, aspecte de mediu, planificarea
achiziiilor), (ii) verificarea documentaiei (de exemplu: studii de fezabilitate, solicitri
de granturi etc.), (iii) consultan privind respectarea legislaiei UE (de exemplu: de
mediu, privind concurena etc.).
78
Astfel, autoritile romne au preluat un numr limitat de msuri

prevzute n PERE, motivele principale fiind urmtoarele:
unele msuri nu sunt aplicabile sau nu sunt necesare n cazul

Romniei (de exemplu: reprogramri la nivelul programelor
operaionale);
alte msuri sunt relativ dificil de ndeplinit n raport cu nevoile

fundamentale de finanare ale Romniei i cu capacitatea/experiena
beneficiarilor i a structurilor de gestionare a programelor;
n vreme ce unele msuri implic asumarea unor riscuri la nivelul

sistemelor de management i control, pe care autoritile romne nu
au considerat oportun s le asume la acest moment.
n vederea contracarrii impactului crizei economice asupra

instrumentelor structurale, n conformitate cu obiectivul specific al PERE,
autoritile romane au continuat identificarea msurilor interne de
simplificare i clarificare a procedurilor de implementare a PO in
contextul cadrului legislativ naional relevant.
Totui, n ciuda celor menionate anterior, principalele obstacole

ntmpinate au constatat n dificulti n pregtirea portofoliului de
proiecte i lansarea cererilor de proiecte, ntrzieri n evaluarea
proiectelor, dificulti n implementarea proiectelor de ctre beneficiari,
dar i probleme de natur instituional.
Pe cale de consecin, o mare parte dintre proiectele depuse au

dificulti n accesarea fondurilor comunitare sau ntmpin
probleme n implementare, care n cele mai multe cazuri sunt cauzate
de greeli realizate chiar la momentul conceperii proiectelor.
79
4.2.2. Studiu de caz: exemplul Poloniei n atragerea de fonduri europene
Spre deosebire de Romnia care poate fi dat exemplu de ineficien n

atragerea fondurilor europene, cazul Poloniei poate fi lesne considerat
drept un exemplu de succes i eficien n acest sens. Dei succesul
atragerii fondurilor e atribuit ntr-o mare msura Ministerului pentru
Dezvoltare Regional, condus de Elzbieta Bienkowska, succesul unui
asemenea demers nu putea fi realizat fr un sprijin constant al
autoritilor locale.
ntr-un interviu41, Ministrul pentru Dezvoltare Regional, vorbind despre

intele stabilite de guvernul polonez n acest domeniu, preciza c (...) am
decis s stabilim un obiectiv n ce privete atragerea fondurilor europene.
n 2009, ne-am atins cu succes inta: atragerea i cheltuirea a patru
miliarde de euro, era un proiect vzut de experi ca ambiios. Pentru
2010, am crescut miza i ne-am propus s obinem 6,7 miliarde, dar am
reuit s ne apropiem de nou miliarde. Obiectivul pentru 2011 a fost de
zece miliarde de euro i cel mai probabil c a fost depit. Succesul e
seriozitatea i buna pregtire a celor care se ocup de acest domeniu.
Sprijinul politic i al administraiilor locale e implicit, nici nu se mai
pune n discuie, existena specialitilor nu mai e de mult o problem, ne-
am pregtit pentru a beneficia de aceti bani dinainte de a intra n
Uniunea European i se vede. n momentul n care am avut acces la
bani, aveam deja o echip de oameni la Bruxelles i o alta n Polonia,
care tia tot ce trebuia s tie.
Pe de alt parte, n Romnia, atragerea fondurilor europene e mai curnd

un insucces. Abia la cinci ani de la aderarea european a fost nfiinat un
Minister al Afacerilor Europene. Mai mult, dac n cazul Poloniei, din
cele dou mii de comune, doar 30 nu au avut proiecte n desfurare, n
Romnia procentul este invers.
Cele menionate anterior sunt rezultatul faptului c, n cazul Poloniei,

Ministerul Dezvoltrii Regionale coordoneaz ntreaga procedur privind
fondurile comunitare, toate PO trecnd prin acest minister, n plus
41
http://m.rfi.ro/articol/stiri/social/polonia-modelul-atragerii-fondurilor-europene
80
reprezentanii unitilor administrative fiind evaluai n funcie de modul

n care se strduiesc s obin fonduri europene.
Totodat, n ceea ce privete responsabilizarea funcionarilor desemnai,

avnd n vedere c n perioada 2004-2006, personalul de la Ministerul
Dezvoltrii Regionale a fost schimbat la fiecare ase luni, guvernul
polonez a decis s majoreze veniturile angajailor, pentru ca salariul s
devin competitiv cu salariile existente pe pia, n acest fel, asigurndu-
se o continuitate a expertizei n sectorul public, i evitndu-se migraia
specialitilor, care, dup cum s-a vzut n cazul Romniei, a condus la
schimbarea cerinelor de form privind documentele necesare, dar i o
incoeren n verificarea dosarelor.
4.3. Pregtirea de ctre AM a portofoliului de proiecte
Una din principalele probleme ale Romniei a constituit-o pregtirea unui

portofoliu de proiecte care s asigure o accesare rapid a fondurilor
europene, imediat dup aprobarea i lansarea PO aferent. Totodat,
capacitatea limitat a autoritilor publice n ceea ce privete identificarea
i pregtirea proiectelor de investiii a reprezentat una dintre cauzele
majore care au mpiedicat realizarea demersurilor menionate anterior.
Totui, pentru a veni n sprijinul potenialilor beneficiari, au fost

identificate diverse surse de finanare a asistenei tehnice necesare, i
anume: programele de pre-aderare (ISPA42, PHARE43), mprumuturi
42
Programul ISPA (Instrumentul pentru Politici Structurale de Pre-Aderare) este unul
dintre cele trei instrumente de finanare nerambursabile ale Comunitii Europene i
a fost stabilit prin Regulamentul Consiliului Uniunii Europene nr. 1267/1999 n
vederea acordrii asistenei pentru pregtirea aderrii la Uniunea European a
rilor din Europa Central i de Est, asistena acordat pentru realizarea coeziunii
economice i sociale ntre state, n domeniul politicilor privind infrastructura de
transport i de mediu.
43
Programul PHARE (Poland Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy Polonia
Ungaria Ajutor pentru Reconstrucia Economiei) este unul dintre cele trei
instrumente de pre-aderare finanat de ctre Uniunea European pentru a asista
81
externe i bugetul naional. Drept consecin, n anumite sectoare (de

exemplu: infrastructura de ap i ap uzat) a fost generat un portofoliu
substanial de proiecte, care uneori chiar au depit alocrile disponibile
din instrumentele structurale44.
n plus, Romnia a utilizat instrumentul JASPERS de asisten tehnic,

pus la dispoziie de ctre Comisia European pentru a suplini lipsa de
expertiz la nivelul beneficiarilor. n acest sens beneficiarii (de drept
public) au avut la dispoziie asisten tehnic pentru pregtirea aplicaiilor
pentru proiectele majore. Mai mult dect att, sprijinul JASPERS a fost
utilizat i pentru asistena tehnic n elaborarea unui ghid metodologic de
realizare a analizei cost-beneficiu a proiectelor de investiii finanate din
instrumente structurale n anumite sectoare.
n unele domenii (de exemplu: sectorul de ap i ap uzat), constituirea

cu ntrziere a Asociaiilor de Dezvoltare Intercomunitar (ADI) a
constituit o cauz major de ntrziere n procesul de pregtire i
depunere a proiectelor.
Totodat, dificultile n identificarea terenurilor pentru demararea unor

obiective majore de investiii, reprezint n continuare o provocare
important care trebuie depit n procesul de pregtire a proiectelor, n
ciuda faptului c AM au informat din timp potenialii beneficiari cu
privire la condiiile care trebuie ndeplinite.
rile candidate din Europa Central i de Est candidate la aderarea la Uniune.Creat

iniial n 1989 pentru a asista Polonia i Ungaria, programul PHARE acoper zece ri:
Republica Ceh, Estonia, Ungaria, Letonia, Lituania, Polonia, Slovacia i Slovenia,
precum i Bulgaria i Romnia.
44
Studiu asupra POS Mediu elaborat de Guvernul Romniei, disponibil spre
consultare pe pagina de internet www.fonduri-
ue.ro/.../Raport_strategic_national_2009_RO.pdf
82
4.4. Probleme majore n procesul de atragere a fondurilor i

lansarea cererilor de proiecte
Dup cum am precizat anterior, aprobarea rapid a PO nu a determinat o

lansare imediat a finanrilor aprobate, n anumite situaii nregistrndu-
se ntrzieri care au depit cu mult termenul iniial preconizat.
Astfel, printre problemele45 n direct legtur cu lansarea de proiecte

trebuie amintite:
A. Probleme anterioare lansrii cererilor de proiecte:
calendar necunoscut al lansrilor de cereri de proiecte;
Rezolvarea problemei a fost posibil prin publicarea de

ctre ACIS a unui calendar orientativ aferent lansrilor de
proiecte pentru perioada urmtoare.
amnarea lansrii unor cereri de proiecte, fa de termenele

anunate, ceea ce a condus adeseori la expirarea valabilitii
documentelor pregtite de solicitani, expirarea avizelor,
modificarea planurilor de afaceri n vederea adaptrii
acestora cu cererea pieei.
Ca o posibil soluie la aceast problem s-ar putea lua n

considerare respectarea calendarului de lansri i
formularea unor termene concrete.
B. Probleme ulterioare lansrii cererilor de proiecte:
decalarea termenelor limit de depunere a proiectelor, fapt

care a determinat decalarea termenelor privind evaluarea
acestora.
45
structurale , publicat n numrul 7/februarie 2010 al revistei Policy Memo, sub egida
83
Ca o posibil soluie la aceast problem ar fi

recomandabil meninerea termenelor anunate.
permanenta modificare a documentaiei necesare, i anume

implementarea unor modificri numeroase (de exemplu:
corrigenda) la Ghidurile Solicitantului.
Ca o posibil soluie la aceast problem ar putea fi luat

n considerare posibilitatea ca eventualele modificri s se
aplice doar proiectelor care urmeaz a fi lansate dup data
apariiei modificrii.
celeritatea cu care AM au pregtit prima generaie de

Ghiduri ale Solicitanilor. Intenia autoritilor a fost de a
pregti ghidurile ca nite documente foarte detaliate i
cuprinztoare. Detalierea prevederilor menionate n
documentaie a presupus n mod evident o analiz
aprofundat a prevederilor legislaiei naionale i comunitare
relevante, fapt care a necesitat o perioad foarte mare de
timp. Totodat, experiena limitat i gradul de ncrcare al
personalului responsabil de pregtirea ghidurilor la nivelul
structurilor competente a constituit o piedic la realizarea
eficient a primei generaii de ghiduri, acestea dovedindu-se
incomplete n cele mai multe cazuri.
lipsa unor strategii naionale a condus la ntrzieri n

implementarea interveniilor, i evident la aprobarea de
proiecte.
Principalele msuri pe care AM le-au luat n vederea

impulsionrii procesului de definitivare a acestor strategii
au constat fie n contractarea de asisten tehnic specific
pentru elaborarea documentelor relevante, fie n
intensificarea dialogului cu structurile responsabile de
elaborarea acestor strategii.
84
4.5. Pregtirea de ctre beneficiari a proiectelor i ncadrarea

acestora
4.5.1. Criteriile de eligibilitate
Criteriile de eligibilitate a solicitanilor, mai precis tratarea n mod

superficial a acestora, constituie una din cauzele care au condus la
respingerea nc din faza iniiala a unui numr semnificativ de proiecte.
Astfel, criteriile prevzute n Ghidurile Solicitanilor, precum (i) forma de
constituire, (ii) vechimea, (iii) profitabilitatea, (iv) activitatea pentru care
se solicit finanare i (vi) lipsa datoriilor, trebuie respectare cu strictee,
altfel proiectul este respins nc din faza incipient.
O importan deosebit o are i ndeplinirea condiiilor de eligibilitate ale

proiectului, ncepnd cu modalitatea de atingere a obiectivelor
programului de finanare, condiiile referitoare la imobilele cuprinse n
proiect sau la capacitatea operaional i financiar a potenialului
beneficiar, precum i cele referitoare la durata de implementare a
proiectului i respectarea condiiilor de punctaj minim, trebuie ndeplinite
cu strictee pentru a asigura calificarea proiectului n grupa proiectelor
considerate drept eligibile i pentru a obine finanarea necesar.
Totodat, n momentul elaborrii proiectului nu trebuie ignorate nici

condiiile administrative ale proiectului i ale solicitantului, precum i
timpul, modalitatea, respectiv costurile pentru obinerea avizelor,
certificatelor i aprobrilor necesare.
Ca o concluzie asupra celor menionate anterior, apreciem c respectarea

strict a criteriilor i condiiilor de eligibilitate, astfel cum sunt acestea
menionate n cuprinsul ghidului de finanare, va duce n majoritatea
cazurilor la evitarea respingerii proiectului n etapa de evaluare a
conformitii i a eligibilitii.
85
4.5.2. Analiza superficial a grilei de evaluare
Majoritatea solicitanilor nu acord importan grilei de evaluare a

programului de finanare anterior demarrii acestuia. O analiz
preliminar a grilei de evaluare ar putea ajuta potenialii beneficiari s
estimeze punctajul minim i maxim pe care proiectul lor l-ar putea obine.
Astfel, este recomandabil efectuarea unei auto-evaluri pe parcursul
elaborrii proiectului, cu ajutorul grilei de evaluare, pentru ca potenialul
beneficiar s obin o imagine obiectiv asupra anselor de reuit a
proiectului. Aceast auto-evaluare poate conduce la identificarea
punctelor slabe ale proiectului i implementarea unor variante de
mbuntire a acestuia.
4.5.3. Stabilirea unor obiective neadecvate
Majoritatea potenialilor beneficiari au fcut greeala demarrii unui

proiect fr prestabilirea unor obiective adecvate, acest fapt avnd o
influen semnificativ n structura, coninutul, activitile i punctajul
acordat de ctre evaluatori.
Astfel, pentru a preveni respingerea proiectului este recomandabil ca

obiectivele proiectului s fie (i) specifice, adic proiectul s indice exact
ceea ce se dorete a se obine, (ii) cuantificabile, (iii) realizabile n mod
real prin implementarea proiectului i (v) s fie bine definite n timp.
Respectarea de ctre beneficiar a acestor cerine ar putea influena n mod

pozitiv aplicarea unor criterii de evaluare precum: relevana proiectului
pentru obiectivele programului de finanare, calitatea i coerena acestuia.
4.5.4. Menionarea unor activiti incomplete, neclare i/sau necorelate

cu obiectivele proiectului
Planificarea activitilor care urmeaz a fi realizate pe parcursul

proiectului a cauzat probleme majoritii solicitanilor. Astfel, n multe
cazuri, potenialii beneficiari au omis a include sau a detalia n proiectul
propus unele activiti eseniale i obligatorii precum organizarea
licitaiilor, achiziiilor de bunuri/servicii etc. Totodat, n unele cazuri,
86
chiar dac au fost menionate, descrierea neclar a acestora i necorelarea

cu obiectivele proiectului au fost decisive n respingerea proiectului. Pe
cale de consecin, pentru a evita asemenea probleme se recomand o
planificare detaliat a activitilor, cu o prezentare clar i o estimare
real a timpului de realizare, n strns corelare cu obiectivele proiectului
spre aprobare.
4.5.5. Lipsa detaliilor de fundamentare i prezentare a proiectului
Studiile efectuate n domeniu au relevat faptul c o mare parte a

solicitanilor nu acord atenie fundamentrii proiectului. Astfel, sunt
tratate n mod superficial seciunile din cererea de finanare aferente
planului de afaceri, memoriului justificativ sau studiului de fezabilitate.
Dei aceasta nu este o greeal care ar putea atrage neeligibilitatea
proiectului, ar putea influena n mod negativ grila de punctaj acordat
anumitor elemente, precum i capacitatea evaluatorilor de a nelege
proiectul, fapt care ar putea crea dificulti majore n procesul de
implementare i n atingerea obiectivelor propuse46.
n acest sens, se recomand beneficiarilor s acorde o atenie sporit

cerinelor privitoare la realizarea documentaiilor, prin fundamentarea i
prezentarea detaliat a informaiilor coninute n proiect.
4.6. Evaluarea proiectelor
Perioada de timp n care se realizeaz evaluarea proiectelor constituie o

problem major la nivelul tuturor PO. Astfel, n majoritatea cazurilor, de
la depunerea unui proiect i pn la notificarea beneficiarului cu privire la
rezultatul evalurii se nregistreaz, de regul, ntre 6 i 10 luni.
46
http://antreprenor.money.ro/topul_greselilor_in_accesarea_fondurilor_europene_
cum_le_poti_evita-84297.html
87
Principalele cauze ale acestor ntrzieri n evaluarea proiectelor sunt:
insuficiena personalului raportat la numrul de proiecte primite sau

ntrzierile n contractarea unor evaluatori externi;
lansarea simultan a mai multor operaiuni din cadrul aceleiai axe

prioritare, fapt care a condus la ntrzierea momentului la care unele
proiecte au fost evaluate;
lipsa de experien a solicitanilor n ntocmirea de proiecte, n

special n cazul societilor mici i mijlocii, acest fapt fiind corelat cu
gradul de complexitate al documentaiei solicitate, ceea ce a
determinat prelungirea procesului de evaluare i selecie.
n plus fa de cele menionate anterior, remarcm i alte tipuri de

probleme care au o influen negativ asupra procesului de absorbie, i
anume nregistrarea unui numr mare de proiecte n ultimele zile
dinaintea termenului limit de depunere, fapt care a condus la ntrzierea
procesului de evaluare i selecie a proiectelor depuse sau respingerea
unui numr relativ mare de proiecte47.
O alt dificultate a fost generat de deprecierea substanial a valorii

monedei naionale n raport cu Euro n ultima perioad. Aceast
depreciere a afectat pe acei beneficiari care au depus proiecte care
necesitau cheltuieli n valut i al cror buget a fost estimat de beneficiarii
respectivi n lei, la cursul valutar n vigoare la acea dat. Cele menionate
anterior, au condus la renunarea implementrii proiectului de ctre unii
solicitani de finanare sau la dificulti ulterioare n realizarea integral a
obiectivelor proiectului.
Dei ntrzierile n evaluare au fost resimite nc de la debutul perioadei

de accesare a fondurilor europene, reprezentanii statului au recunoscut cu
greu existena unor ntrzieri n procesarea dosarelor. La aceste ntrzieri
47
structurale, publicat n numrul 7/februarie 2010 al revistei Policy Memo sub egida
http://www.crpe.ro/library/files/crpe_policy_memo_7_ro.pdf.
88
s-au adugat i numrul prea mare de proiecte, calitatea slab a acestora i

lipsa personalului calificat care s se ocupe de evaluarea lor. Astfel,
ntrzierea format odat cu lansarea destul de trzie a majoritii
cererilor de proiecte a fost amplificat de ntrzierile n evaluare, care au
generat o ntreag serie de ntrzieri ulterioare. Aadar, ntrzierea
semnrii contractelor a determinat ntrzierea demarrii proiectelor, care
la rndul ei a determinat ntrzierea depunerii cererilor de decontare a
cheltuielilor i a plilor efective.
n practic, au existat cazuri n care potenialii beneficiari au ateptat mai

bine de jumtate de an rezultatul evalurilor, unele contracte fiind
semnate chiar dup mai bine de un (1) an de la depunerea proiectelor48.
O alt cauz care a avut o influen negativ asupra ntrzierilor n

evaluare a fost (i este) numrul prea mic de persoane care se ocup de
evaluare, n comparaie cu numrul prea mare de proiecte. Astfel,
conform informaiilor disponibile public, ntrzierea este cauzat n cele
mai multe cazuri de subdimensionarea aparatului evaluatorilor (de
exemplu: n cadrul AM POSDRU activau la un moment doar trei (3)
evaluatori pentru aproximativ 1.400 de proiecte). Deficiene similare au
fost constate i n cadrul AM POR, cu toate c n 2008 la unul din OI
fusese aprobat o suplimentare de personal cu 30 de posturi. Totui, n
ciuda unui avnt remarcabil n acest domeniu, toate angajrile au fost
oprite odat cu aplicarea politicii de reducere a cheltuielilor bugetare. n
completarea celor menionate anterior, reforma aparatului bugetar a
afectat i departamentele responsabile cu gestionarea fondurilor europene,
acest fapt fiind confirmat indirect de ctre autoriti prin planurile de
disponibilizri elaborate i puse n executare n acest sens.
48
89
n prezent, acest blocaj a fost rezolvat n mod parial prin utilizarea mai
multor evaluatori externi. Totui, o astfel de rezolvare este numai parial
fiindc, oricum, cea mai mare parte din gestionarea proiectelor se
realizeaz intern, de ctre angajai ai autoritilor de stat cu competene n
domeniu.
Soluii directe: avnd n vedere c prioritatea Guvernului o constituie

majorarea gradului de absorbie al fondurilor europene, este
recomandabil excluderea de pe lista restructurrilor a departamentelor
responsabile cu fondurile europene.
Ca i posibile soluii complementare recomandm ncheierea mai multor

contracte de colaborare cu evaluatori externi, respectiv realizarea unei
baze de date cu evaluatori independeni.
4.7. Implementarea proiectelor de ctre beneficiari
Referindu-ne la gradul de implementare al proiectelor, putem observa c

nivelul nc redus al plilor ctre beneficiari, precum i al rambursrilor
efectuate de ctre Comisia European, relev existena unor probleme i
dificulti majore la nivelul beneficiarilor, n ceea ce privete
implementarea.
Principalele cauze sunt determinate de:
1. desfurarea cu dificultate a procedurilor de achiziie public.

Astfel, au fost nregistrate ntrzieri n procesul de atribuire a
contractelor de achiziie public, din cauza unor factori precum:
lipsa ghidurilor orientative i/sau de bune practici;
ntrzierile n elaborarea documentaiilor de atribuire;
experiena redus sau chiar lipsa de experien a

beneficiarilor n promovarea i implementarea
investiiilor;
90
lipsa unor interpretri concrete ale diferitelor aspecte

legislative n domeniul achiziiilor publice;
lipsa unor modele de contracte de achiziie sectoriale n

cteva domenii cheie;
abundena contestaiilor n cazul procedurilor de achiziii

publice;
reluarea procedurii de achiziie ca urmare a modificrilor

criteriilor sau a anulrii licitaiilor.
n vederea remedierii unora dintre problemele semnalate de ctre

beneficiari, n anul 2009 a fost modificat legislaia privind
achiziiile publice n sensul diminurii perioadelor de licitare i al
flexibilizrii procesului, prin posibilitatea de a utiliza o procedur
accelerat de licitare. Cu toate acestea, persist nc dificulti
serioase n realizarea procedurilor de achiziii publice.
Totui, n ciuda modificrilor legislative intervenite, neregulile din

cadrul procedurii de achiziii publice au fost printre motivele care
au cauzat probleme n implementarea proiectelor. Astfel,
referindu-se la problemele generate de procedura de achiziii
publice n cazul proiectelor finanate prin POS CEE, Compendiul
de cazuri de neregul/fraud la nivelul Programului Operaional
Sectorial Creterea Competitivitii Economice realizat de
DLAF49i dat publicitii50 n cursul lunii noiembrie 2012, a
reliefat motive ce in de nerespectarea procedurilor privind
achiziiile publice, drept principalele cauze n utilizarea fondurilor
europene i implicit implementarea proiectelor pentru care au fost
obinute respectivele fonduri.
49
Departamentul de Lupt Antifraud.
50
http://www.capital.ro/fileadmin/fancybox/Compendiu_POS_CCE_noiembrie_2012
_11141555.pdf
91
2. asigurarea cu dificultate a resurselor financiare necesare demarrii

proiectelor sau a contribuiei proprii la finanarea proiectelor, n
special ca urmare a efectelor crizei economice.
3. lipsa experienei i capacitii beneficiarilor din administraia

central i local de a pregti i implementa corespunztor
proiecte, deficienele principale fiind datorare n mare parte
inexistenei personalului specializat suficient;
4. lipsa unor planuri concrete de aciune; respectiv
5. competene sczute n domenii eseniale (de exemplu:

managementul de proiecte sau domeniul achiziiilor publice);
Pentru a veni n ntmpinarea acestor probleme, ACIS, ct i AM-urile au

ntreprins numeroase iniiative care au vizat, n principal, efectuarea unor
cursuri de instruire specifice pentru beneficiarii contractelor de finanare.
De asemenea, referindu-ne la cazul POS DRU, AM au finalizat
elaborarea unui manual al beneficiarului pentru implementarea
proiectelor, precum i un ghid privind parteneriatul ntre diverse entiti
de drept public i privat.
Un alt aspect relevant n contextul problemelor aprute pe parcursul

implementrii proiectelor, l constituie nerespectarea51 de ctre beneficiari
51
A se vedea Sentina nr. 22/F/CA/2008 a Curii de Apel Alba Iulia-Secia contencios
administrativ i fiscal, n care instana a reinut faptul c reclamanta (o asociaie
familial) a consimit prin semnarea contractului de finanare la cele cuprinse n
acesta. Pe cale de consecin instana a decis c reclamanta trebuia s respecte
ntrutotul memoriul justificativ ataat cererii de finanare prin care beneficiarul
contractului (reclamanta) se oblig s achiziioneze un mijloc de transport 8 + 1 (nu 7
+ 1 asa cum a fost achiziionat de ctre reclamant), obligndu-se totodat s asigure
executarea proiectului n conformitate cu descrierea acestuia i s pun n aplicare
proiectul, obligaie asumat n mod ferm i irevocabil, asumndu-i riscul ca sprijinul
acordat s fie recuperat dac obiectivele finanate nu sunt folosite conform scopului
destinat, potrivit celor cuprinse in contractul de finanare.
92
a cererilor de finanare i chiar a documentaiei depuse (cum ar fi studiile

de fezabilitate sau proiectele tehnice depuse chiar de ctre acetia
mpreun cu cererea de finanare), aspect care a generat corecii impuse
de autoritile competente i, subsecvent, chiar aciuni n instan52.
4.8. Bariere legislative cu impact asupra ritmului de absorbie
Barierele legislative au intervenit n toate etapele procesului de absorbie

al fondurilor europene. Astfel, cele mai importante deficiene legislative
deriv din legislaia privind bugetul naional, care conine o serie de
prevederi de natur s afecteze implementarea eficient i rapid a
proiectelor.
Conform unui raport emis de Guvernul Romniei53, o parte dintre

deficiene au fost soluionate prin aprobarea Ordonanei de Urgen nr.
64/2009 privind gestionarea financiar a instrumentelor structurale i
utilizarea acestora pentru obiectivul convergen. Prin acest act normativ,
s-a urmrit o fluidizare a fluxurilor financiar-bugetare n cadrul
programelor operaionale finanate din instrumente structurale i, implicit,
creterea gradului de absorbie.
Totui, nc exist reglementri privind managementul fondurilor publice

care ngreuneaz implementarea proiectelor. Astfel, dintre aceste
reglementri fac parte i prevederile legii finanelor publice i a legii
finanelor publice locale.
Pe lng problemele legislative enumerate anterior, AM i beneficiarii au

ntmpinat o serie de dificulti legate i de legislaiile specifice, cum ar
fi:
52
A se vedea Sentina civil nr. 374 din 2008 a Curii de Apel Craiova, Secia
contencios administrativ i fiscal;
53
Raportul strategic national privind implementarea fondurilor structurale si de
coeziune, disponibil la adresa de internet: http://www.fonduri-
ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd
62
/Documente_Suport/Rapoarte_Strategice/Raport_strategic_national_2009_RO.pdf
93
lipsa normelor de aplicare a Legii administraiei publice locale nr.

215/2001;
lipsa normelor de aplicare a Legii nr. 220/2008 pentru stabilirea

sistemului de promovare a producerii energiei din surse regenerabile
de energie;
legislaia naional din sectorul deeurilor;
legislaia privind serviciile de utilitate public i serviciile de

alimentare cu ap i canalizare;
vidul legislativ alturi de inactivitatea organelor de control au condus

la generalizarea fenomenului de licitaii cu dedicaie;
ordinele ANRMAP n baza crora autoritatea a intervenit n modul

de soluionare a licitaiilor contestate.
Totui, n ciuda celor menionate anterior, nu putem s nu observm c

majoritatea aspectelor legislative sectoriale sesizate ca fiind problematice
de ctre AM au fost modificate sau se afl n curs de modificare n
vederea soluionrii deficienelor constatate pe parcursul implementrii.
4.8.1. Probleme la nivelul Autoritii Naionale pentru Reglementarea

i Monitorizarea Achiziiilor Publice (ANRMAP)
Pn la momentul actual, frauda sau conflictul de interese n achiziiile

publice, avnd component de finanare din fonduri europene, s-a
materializat n pre-suspendarea/suspendarea a patru programe
operaionale: Transport, Mediu, POSDRU i Programul Operaional
Regional, Comisia European ne mai primind cereri de rambursare pentru
proiectele din Romnia.
n ncercarea de a prentmpina blocajele de acest fel i de a stopa

achiziiile cu dedicaie, ANRMAP a decis verificarea documentaiilor
de atribuire nainte ca licitaia s aib loc, analiza ANRMAP urmnd a se
94
concentra asupra criteriilor de selecie i calificare stipulate n aceste

documentaii, respectiv asupra acelor aspecte din documentaiile de
atribuire care creeaz bnuiala c astfel de licitaii sunt direcionate ctre
anumii operatori economici. Cu titlu de exemplu, printre
neconformitile care au generat o atare msur se numr introducerea n
fia de date a achiziiei i/sau caietul de sarcini a unor criterii restrictive
(aceste documente nefiind verificate pn la acest moment de ANRMAP,
ci numai anunul publicat n SEAP), precum i divizarea contractelor n
loturi, astfel nct valorile rezultate s permit efectuarea de achiziii
directe i nu de licitaii.
Cadrul legal pe care se bazeaz procedura sus amintit este reprezentat de

prevederile H.G. nr. 801/2011, pentru modificarea i completarea HG nr.
525/2007 privind organizarea i funcionarea ANRMAP (HG
801/2011). Astfel, potrivit prevederilor HG 801/2011, anterior
transmiterii spre publicare a invitaiei/anunului de participare ctre
SEAP54, ANRMAP este obligat s evalueze conformitatea cu legislaia
aplicabil din domeniul achiziiilor publice a documentaiei de atribuire
aferente contractelor de achiziie public care intr sub incidena
prevederilor Ordonanei de Urgen a Guvernului nr. 34/2006 privind
atribuirea contractelor de achiziie public, a contractelor de concesiune
de lucrri publice i a contractelor de concesiune de servicii (OUG
34/2006), aceast evaluare neviznd aspectele tehnice ale caietului de
sarcini.
n termen de maximum 14 zile de la data primirii documentaiei,

ANRMAP are obligaia de a emite acceptul n vederea iniierii procedurii
de atribuire, dac prevederile din documentaia de atribuire sunt conforme
cu prevederile legale privind achiziiile publice sau de a invalida
publicarea n cazul constatrii neconformitii cu prevederile legale,
precum i de a informa autoritatea contractant asupra neconformitilor
constatate la nivelul documentaiei de atribuire i a motivului pentru care
54
Sistemul Electronic de Achiziii Publice
95
acestea nu sunt n concordan cu prevederile legale privind achiziiile

publice.
Pentru motivarea neconcordanelor prevederilor documentaiei de

atribuire cu prevederile legale privind achiziiile publice, preedintele
ANRMAP a emis Ordinul nr. 509 din 2011, privind formularea criteriilor
de calificare i selecie (Ordinul 509/2011), prin care se exemplific
situaiile de restricionare a concurenei i de nclcare a principiului
proporionalitii prin cerinele de calificare i selecie. n baza acestui
ordin au fost instituie noi prezumii legale privind restricionarea
concurenei i nclcarea principiilor prevzute la art. 2 alin. 2 din OUG
34/2006.
Prezumiile legale menionate anterior sunt completate de cele privind

nclcarea principiului proporionalitii, prevzute la art. 9 din Hotrrea
de Guvern nr. 925/2006, pentru aprobarea normelor de aplicare a
prevederilor referitoare la atribuirea contractelor de achiziie public din
OUG 34/2006. Astfel, date fiind noile prezumii legale, este suficient s
se arate c prevederile documentaiei de atribuire se ncadreaz n
exemplele prezentate n Ordinul nr. 509/2011, pentru ca respectivele
prevederi s fie considerate restrictive, fr a mai trebui s se probeze de
ce i n ce mod se restricioneaz concurena.
Referindu-ne la modul n care sunt respectate prevederile legale n

domeniul achiziiilor publice, este de menionat55 c n primele dou
sptmni de la aplicarea prevederilor HG nr. 801/2011 doar 49 de
documentaii de atribuire din 1.550 au fost acceptate de ANRMAP pentru
publicarea acestora n SEAP.
n baza celor menionate anterior, se poate trage un semnal de alarm

asupra consecinelor grave n cazul unor controale viznd legalitatea
55
http://principiiachizitii.blogspot.ro/2011/11/consecintele-juridice-ale-ordinului.html
96
procedurilor de achiziie public demarate anterior intrrii n vigoare a

HG nr. 801/2011, avnd n vedere sanciunile prevzute de OUG 34/2006
precum i coreciile financiare aplicate de organismele de control ale
Uniunii Europene n cazul derulrii unor proiecte cu finanare european.
4.9. Probleme instituionale
4.9.1. Probleme instituionale generale
n ciuda deficienelor sistemului instituional romnesc nc de la

momentul aderrii la Uniunea European, evalurile de sistem realizate
de ctre AA i Comisia European prin intermediul misiunilor efectuate
n perioada 2008-2009 s-au finalizat prin acreditarea sistemelor de
management i control pentru toate cele apte PO. Cu toate acestea,
dificultile instituionale, n special cele legate de complexitatea i
birocraia procedurilor i de stabilitatea personalului, continu s existe.
Astfel, una dintre problemele majore menionat anterior n cuprinsul

prezentului Studiu, o reprezint resursele umane insuficiente i slab
motivate financiar de la nivelul autoritilor competente.
Volumul mare de munc i gradul ridicat de responsabilitate al

activitilor desfurate de personalul intern a condus n cele mai multe
cazuri la o fluctuaie a personalului instruit n gestionarea acestor fonduri.
Aceste fluctuaii fiind cu att mai puin dorite cu ct, n procesul de
constituire a structurilor de gestionare a fondurilor s-a acordat o mare
atenie procesului de recrutare i specializrii personalului n domeniul
gestionrii instrumentelor structurale.
Dintre efectele deja vizibile ale acestei situaii pot fi menionate:
ntrzieri n elaborarea ghidurilor pentru solicitani i n

contractarea de asisten tehnic;
ntrzieri n finalizarea pregtirii proiectelor majore i n

aprobarea acestora de ctre Comisia European;
97
ntrzieri n implementarea proiectelor, cu impact direct asupra

gradului de absorbie i eventual a nendeplinirii unor
angajamente asumate prin tratatul de aderare al Romniei la
Uniunea European (de exemplu: POS Mediu).
n plus, dificultile instituionale s-au nrutit odat cu blocarea

ocuprii posturilor vacante ca urmare a msurilor de austeritate impuse pe
fondul crizei economice i financiare care a lovit toate statele din Uniunea
European, printre care i Romnia.
Totui, observm faptul c, odat identificate, problemele ntmpinate n

implementare sunt tratate de ctre autoritile competente, n vederea
gsirii unor soluii rezonabile56.
O alt problem major o reprezint birocraia de la momentul solicitrii

i procesrii documentaiei. Astfel, dei autoritile locale doresc
nlturarea ct mai rapid a neajunsurilor, acestea nu au reuit s elimine
i/sau nlture problema birocraiei de la momentul solicitrii i procesrii
documentaiei.
Printre cazurile cele mai rsuntoare n domeniu amintim: solicitarea

aplicrii unei tampile de form oval; aplicarea n mod obligatoriu a
trei tampile pe un document; inserarea unui tabel poziionat numai pe
lungimea paginii i nu pe limea acesteia; refuzarea unui document care
conine o semntur aplicat cu past de culoare neagr etc.
Pe lng acestea, sunt n continuare solicitate la depunerea proiectelor,

documente administrative i financiare suplimentare celor prevzute n
Ghidul Solicitantului, care, ulterior depunerii acestora sunt eliminate de la
evaluare de ctre persoanele care le-au solicitat n prealabil. Remarcm,
totodat, c birocraia excesiv pare s nu fi disprut, chiar dac n
56
f, pagina 77.
98
prezent sunt solicitate mai puine documente la depunerea proiectelor,

restul fiind necesare numai la semnarea contractelor.
n plus, n ceea ce privete imixtiunea politicii n procesul de absorbie al

fondurilor europene, nu putem s nu remarcam c, n mod repetat,
Comisia European a constatat prin auditurile sale nereguli i suspiciuni
de acte de corupie generalizat.
Cu privire la acestea, trebuie menionat faptul c, o perioad lung de

timp, Romnia nu a dat curs propunerilor venite din partea Comisiei
Europene privind desemnarea unui nalt funcionar public/ministru cu
competene n absorbia fondurilor europene i cu sprijin politic. n plus,
Guvernele succesive ale Romniei de pn n toamna anului 2011 au
ntrziat nepermis aciunile cheie i planul de aciune pentru sectoarele
considerate de ctre Comisia European ca avnd slbiciuni majore.
Coordonarea la nivel politic interministerial a lipsit i, mai mult dect
att, autoritile romne nu au rspuns repetatelor oferte de asisten
tehnic din partea Comisiei Europene.
ntrzierile i ezitrile n modificarea legislaiei privind achiziiile publice

asociate cu imixtiunea politicului i cu acordarea contractelor pe criterii
clientelare au sporit considerabil nencrederea Comisiei Europene n
seriozitatea angajamentului Romniei privind reducerea fraudelor n cazul
utilizrii fondurilor structurale. Ca urmare, Comisia European a dispus
suspendarea plilor pe Programul Operaional Sectorial Infrastructur
din cadrul FEDR i a generat decizia de blocare a plilor pe POS-DRU n
anul 2012. Aceste msuri au avut un impact negativ asupra capacitii de
absorbie, oricum foarte sczut.
Gravitatea acestei situaii este confirmat de un document relevant din

presa romneasc57, care concluzioneaz c OLAF a exprimat o
ngrijorare serioas asupra faptului c autoritile administrative i
57
http://a1.ro/news/extern/ce-suspecteaza-dna-si-guvernul-ca-impiedica-
investigatiile-olaf-din-romania.html
99
judiciare relevante din Romnia (Direcia Naional Anticorupie,

agenia de pli, autoritatea de management, ministerele de resort) se
pare c lucreaz ntr-o manier coordonat pentru a contracara
investigaiile OLAF. Aceste suspiciuni sunt bazate pe argumentaii
similare prezentate ca rspuns la cererile OLAF i pe indiciile c
anumite documente sunt distribuite ntre aceste autoriti.
4.9.2. Probleme aferente proiectelor de infrastructur
Conform unui studiu58 privind analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor

europene n Romnia, Programele de infrastructur de transport i de
mediu dein aproximativ 60% din totalul fondurilor europene alocate
Romniei. POS Mediu a demarat rapid pentru c exista deja un portofoliu
consistent de proiecte, pregtite n avans prin programul ISPA. Practic,
Ministerul Mediului a fost constant timp de aproape patru (4) ani n
pregtirea, depunerea, contractarea i demararea proiectelor majore de
mediu.
Totui, n ciuda numrului mare de proiecte, problema consta n timpul

mare necesar elaborrii tuturor studiilor de fezabilitate i obinerea
avizelor necesare.
Problemelor menionate anterior li se adaug i cele referitoare la

procedura de achiziie public pentru semnarea contractului de execuie
lucrri cu antreprenorul desemnat n acest sens. Astfel, remarcm c,
ntruct beneficiarii au ales s foloseasc n mod abuziv remediile i
prghiile puse la dispoziie de legislaia achiziiilor publice59 licitaia
pentru ncredinarea respectivelor lucrri poate dura pn la un (1) an,
58
Gheorghe Oprescu, Daniela Luminia Constantin, Florin Ilie i Dragos Pslaru Studiu
privind analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor comunitare n Romnia publicat
sub egida Institutului European din Romnia
http://www.ier.ro/documente/studiideimpactPaisIII_ro/Pais3_studiu_1_ro.pdf.
59
OUG nr. 34/2006 privind atribuirea contractelor de achiziie public, a
contractelor de concesiune de lucrri publice i a contractelor de concesiune de
servicii.
100
din cauza contestaiilor depuse de participanii la licitaie care, dintr-un

motiv sau altul, se consider nedreptii prin faptul c nu au fost
desemnai ctigtori ai acesteia sau din cauza prelungirii nejustificate a
semnrii contractului de ctre autoritatea contractant.
V. CONCLUZII I OBSERVAII. RECOMANDRI

PRIVIND MODALITILE DE REMEDIERE ALE
PROBLEMELOR EXPUSE
n ciuda faptului c, n cursul anilor 2011-2012, Guvernul a adoptat o

serie de msuri care ar fi trebuit s aib un impact semnificativ asupra
atragerii de fonduri europene, efectele se las ateptate, iar fondurile
europene sunt relativ greu de accesat i implementat.
Evident c, n aceste condiii, Romnia este supus unor riscuri majore

precum:
cel al neutilizrii la nivel naional al unei pri importante a

fondurilor europene, avnd drept consecin ntoarcerea acestora la
bugetul Uniunii Europene i riscnd n acest fel ca Romnia s
devin pe termen mediu contribuitor la acest buget, fr a avea,
totodat, i calitatea de beneficiar al fondurilor rezultate (n alte
cuvinte, s contribuie cu mai multe fonduri la bugetul Uniunii
Europene dect primete sau utilizeaz de la aceasta), i
chiar utilizate, n lipsa unor strategii clare, impactul fondurilor asupra

dezvoltrii rii i reducerea decalajelor regionale vor fi mai mici
dect cele dorite.
Avnd n vedere consideraiile enunate anterior, deficienele majore n

materia accesrii fondurilor europene pot fi sintetizate dup cum
urmeaz:
101
5.1. Stabilirea strategiilor naionale
Autoritile competente nu au prevzut i prentmpinat nevoia

dezvoltrii unor strategii care s permit crearea de mecanisme de
atragere a fondurilor europene. n acest sens, astfel cum a fost remarcat i
de autoarea unui studiu privind utilizarea fondurilor europene60, n anul
2007 nu a fost lansat nicio licitaie public de proiecte avnd finanare
din fonduri structurale. Este adevrat faptul c, n primele ase (6) luni de
la data aderrii Romniei la Uniunea European, atragerea de fonduri
europene nu era posibil pentru c planurile naionale trebuiau supuse
analizei i aprobrii Comisiei Europene. Totui, ar fi fost de preferat ca
acele planuri s fie finalizate sau cel puin s fie ntr-un stadiu avansat de
finalizare nc de la sfritul anului 2006, pentru c autoritile statului,
supuse unui atac mediatic puternic n ceea ce privete incapacitatea de
absorbie a fondurilor europene, s nu realizeze n grab o serie de planuri
naionale, fr o cunoatere clar i profund a reglementrilor europene
n domeniu.
5.2. Funcionarea AM
Similar strategiilor naionale de dezvoltare, nfiinarea AM-urilor a fost

realizata cu ntrziere. Totui, chiar nfiinate, aciunea acestora a fost
limitat de problemele cauzate de personalul subdimensionat i
subcalificat.
O alt problem a AM-urilor este faptul c, aproape n totalitate,

conducerea acestor autoriti a fost desemnat pe criterii politice. Astfel,
avnd n vedere c un criteriu de baz a fost unul politic este evident c
modificarea ghidurilor, respectiv a direciilor de investiie a fost trecut n
plan secundar.
60
102
Mai mult, imixtiunea politicului n cadrul autoritilor competente a sporit

sentimentul de insecuritate n rndul personalului. De aceea, avnd n
vedere c resursele umane de care dispun autoritile locale constituie
unul dintre elementele cheie pentru capacitatea acestora de a elabora i
pregti proiecte, considerm c este important att nivelul general de
calificare a personalului din administraia local, ct mai ales gradul de
specializare a personalului din domeniul accesrii fondurilor europene.
5.3. Modificarea continu a termenilor i condiiilor
Conform informaiilor publice, majoritatea solicitanilor de fonduri

europene au considerat schimbarea criteriilor de eligibilitate drept un
obstacol major n calea accesrii finanrilor. Astfel, este un fapt cunoscut
c majoritatea Ghidurilor Solicitantului au suferit modificri frecvente,
inducnd confuzie att n rndul aplicanilor, ct i n cel al consultanilor.
Aceste modificri s-au datorat mai ales faptului c AM-urile nu au fost
pregtite, n mod real, pentru derularea sesiunilor de proiecte (din punct
de vedere al procedurilor de selecie sau achiziii spre exemplu), ca atare
s-a simit nevoia efecturii unor ajustri ale Ghidurilor Solicitanilor chiar
n timpul n care apelurile respective erau deschise, ceea ce, n mod firesc,
a afectat cel puin o parte dintre proiectele aflate n proces de depunere
sau chiar de evaluare.
5.4. Modificrile aduse grilei punctajului de selecie i schimbarea

calendarului lansrilor de proiecte
Modul de punctare a proiectelor a suferit modificri continue. Iniial,

proiectele erau elaborate pentru a atinge un anumit punctaj de selecie,
dup care, n apropierea lansrii sesiunii, punctajele grilei erau
modificate. Acest fapt a condus la confuzii i incertitudini n cadrul
solicitanilor, acetia ajungnd chiar s renune la a mai aplica pentru
obinerea fondurilor necesare.
n ceea ce privete lansrile de proiecte, n practic, au existat cazuri n

care existau informaii c o anumit sesiune se va lansa ntr-o anumit
103
lun a anului, pentru ca n realitate, aceasta s fie lansat la un interval

ulterior, care frecvent depea o marj de timp de trei (3) luni. Aceste
decalaje au necesitat refacerea documentaiilor i obinerea unor noi
aprobri pentru proiectele care urmau a fi depuse.
n acest context, calendarul lansrilor de licitaii apare ca un document

esenial pentru beneficiar, fiind necesar ca termenele prevzute n acesta
s fie concrete i respectate ntrutotul de ctre AM. De asemenea, n
cazul cererilor de proiecte cu depunere continu este necesar
publicarea periodic (lunar, spre exemplu) de informaii despre numrul
de proiecte aprobate i bugetul rmas disponibil.
n acest caz, ar fi recomandabil renunarea la modificri n Ghidurile

Solicitanilor (Corrigenda) care trebuie aplicate pentru solicitrile de
proiecte aflate n derulare sau proiectelor deja depuse.
5.5. Realizarea proiectelor sub presiunea timpului
n practic, majoritatea proiectelor au fost realizate sub presiunea

timpului, determinat n mare parte de motivele expuse anterior (de
exemplu: funcionarea deficitar a AM, modificarea permanent a
termenilor i condiiilor etc.). Acest fapt a condus la o presiune
suplimentar pe umerii solicitanilor ceea ce, n cele mai multe cazuri, a
determinat o lips de calitate n elaborarea proiectelor. Aceasta poate fi,
ntr-o anumit msur, explicaia faptului pentru care exist mai multe
proiecte respinse dect aprobate.
5.6. Transparena procedurilor
Opinia majoritar n brana consultanilor n materia fondurilor europene,

astfel cum aceasta rezult din practic, este c o transparen mbuntit
a procedurilor ar putea conduce la eficientizarea procesului de absorbie a
fondurilor.
104
n acest sens, se recomand organizarea unor ntlniri cu beneficiarii i

potenialii beneficiari pentru a sublinia i explica, dac este cazul,
aspecte concrete legate de derularea proiectelor. Mai mult, pentru a
promova transparena, corectitudinea evalurii i pentru a preveni apariia
unor conflicte de interese, este necesar separarea clar a consultanilor
care vor fi cooptai ca persoane fizice sau juridice s evalueze proiectele
depuse la AM, pe de o parte, de cele care ofer consultan/asisten
tehnic pentru proiectele depuse sau care urmeaz s fie depuse, pe de
alt parte.
n continuarea celor menionate anterior, organizaiile societii civile cu

expertiz n domeniu ar trebui s ia parte la monitorizarea i evaluarea
proiectelor. Astfel, este recomandabil ca reprezentanii partenerilor sociali
i ai organizaiilor societii civile care au fost activi n perioada de
pregtire a accesrii fondurilor europene s se regseasc ntr-o mai mare
msur n cadrul comitetelor de monitorizare i evaluare la nivel naional
i regional. n acest mod s-ar pstra un echilibru i s-ar putea realiza un
control mai strict asupra evalurii i promovrii celor mai bune proiecte i
iniiative cofinanate prin fonduri europene.
Crearea unui sistem informaional care s permit aplicanilor verificarea

stadiului i concluziilor evalurii, respectiv crearea unui spaiu virtual
corespunztor verificrii n orice moment a stadiului evalurii proiectelor
depuse, ar permite solicitanilor s aib acces inclusiv la punctajele
obinute i la punctele slabe ale documentaiei. Aceasta va ajuta nu doar
la o promovare mai transparent a procesului de evaluare a cererilor de
finanare/proiectelor depuse, dar i la asimilarea bunelor practici
rezultate din corecia imperfeciunilor care au condus la respingerea
respectivelor cereri de finanare i reiterarea lor.
Este recomandabil, de asemenea, elaborarea unui protocol tehnic clar

pentru raportrile intermediare n vederea promovrii unui sistem de
comunicare interinstituional ct mai riguros i operativ ntre actorii care
implementeaz proiecte i OI/ACP/AM, prin intermediul cruia s se
105
stabileasc o procedur tehnic clar pentru realizarea raportrilor

periodice, pornind de la bunele practici n domeniu.
5.7. Informarea asupra oportunitilor de finanare
Informaia reprezint n mod evident o resurs extrem de important

pentru potenialii aplicani n ceea ce privete elaborarea i depunerea de
proiecte pentru finanri europene. Avnd n vedere c, n cazul
Romniei, accesul la informaia de specialitate este destul de limitat, se
recomand crearea unui portal oficial, dedicat fiecrui PO n parte (avnd
o interfa identic) pentru o mai bun accesare a informaiilor relevante
de ctre potenialii beneficiari. Dei n prezent exist o multitudine de
pagini de internet n materie, informaiile pe care acestea le ofer (dei
complete i pertinente) sunt lipsite de organizare i coeren pentru un
potenial beneficiar, novice n accesarea fondurilor europene.
Astfel, dei cutarea activ de informaii prin solicitri adresate

instituiilor abilitate este larg rspndit n rndul solicitanilor,
majoritatea acestora s-au limitat la a solicita informaii de baz, care n
mod evident nu compuneau ntreg panoul dezvoltrii unui proiect de
finanare.
n consecin, mbuntirea comunicrii trebuie fcut prin comunicarea

pro-activ a modificrilor i noutilor pe care le lanseaz autoritile prin
comunicate de pres, concomitent cu afiarea acestora pe paginile de
internet specializate, altfel nct beneficiarii s afle n timp util ultimele
nouti.
Cu toate c modul cel mai uzual de accesare a informaiilor rmne

internetul, care constituie principala surs de informaii utile legate de
oportunitile de finanare european, acest mijloc de informare este
aparent limitat n zonele rurale unde lipsa mijloacelor moderne de
comunicare i/sau lipsa abilitilor de utilizare a calculatorului constituie
impedimente majore n accesul la informaie. Astfel, organizarea de ctre
autoritile locale (n colaborare cu personalul calificat sau consultani
106
specializai) a unor ntlniri periodice cu potenialii beneficiari ar putea

avea drept rezultat o cretere a gradului de informare asupra condiiilor i
cerinelor impuse pentru obinerea finanrii concomitent cu dezvoltarea
capacitii, cunotinelor i a interesului potenialilor beneficiari n
accesarea de fonduri europene.
5.8. Contractarea mai multor evaluatori externi. Motivarea

funcionarilor
n practic, se remarc dorina beneficiarilor ca numrul i experiena

personalului autoritilor implicate n procedura de accesare a fondurilor
europene s se mbunteasc. Astfel, ar fi recomandabil ntocmirea
unei baze de date cu societile de consultan/consultanii persoane
fizice, respectiv a unei baze de date cu experi independeni, care s fie
actualizat permanent i pus la dispoziia potenialilor beneficiari pentru
informare i utilizare.
5.9. Introducerea managementului strin n posturile cheie (exemplul

Bulgariei)
Introducerea managementului strin n posturi cheie din cazul AM ar

putea fi considerat drept soluie viabil61 pentru majorarea ratei de
absorbie a fondurilor europene n Romnia.
n cazul Bulgariei, o ar vecin avnd probleme similare cu cele ale

Romniei n privina procedurilor i ineficienei n atragerea de fonduri
europene, guvernul, n urma repetatelor penaliti impuse de Comisia
European i a scrisorilor oficiale prin care Bulgariei i era notificat faptul
c urma s piard importante sume alocate, a decis n anul 2009
nfiinarea unui Minister dedicat fondurilor europene (Ministerul
Fondurilor Europene). Ulterior, n cursul anului 2010, a fost ncheiat un
acord de cooperare cu Banca Mondial pentru asisten n domeniul
61
http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-9212496-facut-bulgaria-cand-aflat-impas-
fondurile-europene.htm
107
fondurilor europene, n baza cruia guvernul bulgar va utiliza expertiza

reprezentanilor Bncii Mondiale pentru a atrage i a manageria fondurile
europene.
Chiar dac n decembrie 2010, Preedintele Comisiei Europene, Jose

Manuel Barroso, a transmis premierului bulgar o scrisoare n care critica
dur rezultatele slabe ale Bulgariei n absorbia fondurilor europene
(Bulgaria avea o rat de absorbie de 6% din totalul fondurilor europene
alocate pe perioada 2007-2013), acesta a menionat, totui, c nfiinarea
Ministerului Fondurilor Europene a reprezentat un pas pozitiv pentru
Bulgaria n procesul de absorbie a fondurilor europene. Ulterior, n
ianuarie 2011, ca urmare a demersurilor concrete luate de
autoritile bulgare n acest sens, adic la mai puin de un an, guvernul
bulgar a prezentat rezultatele nfiinrii Ministerului Fondurilor Europene.
Astfel, ministrul bulgar responsabil pentru Ministerul Fondurilor
Europene a declarat oficial c rata de absorbie a fondurilor europene este
de 10%, dup ce la nceputul lui 2010 aceasta se situa la un nivel de 1%,
guvernul bulgar anunnd, totodat, c inta pentru anul 2011 este o rat
de absorbie de 20%.
5.10. Garantarea cofinanrilor i mai buna utilizare a programului

JEREMIE
Identificarea unui sistem de garantare a cofinanrii pentru firmele

private, iar dac este nevoie, elaborarea unei scheme de ajutor de stat, ar
trebui luat n considerare de ctre toi actorii procesului de finanare, n
vederea mbuntirii ratei slabe de accesare a fondurilor europene de
ctre Romnia.
Astfel, utilizarea facilitilor oferite de programul JEREMIE prin co-

interesarea bncilor din Romnia, care n ultimul timp au introdus n
ofertele de finanare, programe de credite specializate pentru garantarea
cofinanrilor, poate fi o alt modalitate pentru sporirea gradului de
accesare a fondurilor europene.
108
n lumina celor menionate anterior, modificarea condiiilor prin care

IMM-urile pot accesa finanare i accelerarea procedurilor cuprinse n
cadrul programului JEREMIE, poate ajuta, n mod real, beneficiarii
(societile), prin susinerea accesului acestora la credite. Astfel,
programul JEREMIE reprezint un set de aciuni avnd ca obiectiv
creterea accesului la finanare al IMM-urilor, programul fiind organizat
n Romnia prin intermediul Fondului European de Investiii, care
administreaz fonduri puse la dispoziie de FEDR. Creditul de investiii
acordat unui potenial beneficiar prin programul JEREMIE are ca scop
finanarea investiiilor derulate n domeniile eligibile. n acest sens,
bncile participante la program acord un credit destinat acoperirii
cheltuielilor curente rezultate ca urmare a realizrii investiiei, prin
creditul capital de lucru JEREMIE. Totui, pentru a putea obine finanri
garantate prin programul JEREMIE, societile beneficiare trebuie s
ndeplineasc n mod cumulativ urmtoarele condiii:
s aib un numr de sub 250 angajai;
s aib o cifr de afaceri anual de pn la 50 milioane Euro

(echivalent n lei);
s activeze n domeniul comerului, produciei i serviciilor;
s fie nregistrate n Romnia;
s fie la zi cu plata taxelor i impozitelor la momentul acordrii

finanrii;
s nu fie sub incidena niciunui ordin de recuperare emis de Comisia

European pentru fonduri structurale accesate anterior de societate;
s nu primeasc asisten sub un alt program de fonduri europene

referitor la activele i cheltuielile finanate prin JEREMIE;
s se ncadreze n limita de ajutor de minimis stabilit de lege.
109
n completarea celor menionate anterior, trebuie evideniat publicarea n

Monitorul Oficial al Romniei nr. 193/23.03.2012 a Hotrrii Guvernului
nr. 218/2012 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice de aplicare a
prevederilor Ordonanei de Urgen a Guvernului nr. 64/2009 privind
gestionarea financiar a instrumentelor structurale i utilizarea acestora
pentru obiectivul convergen.
Actul normativ preia, n cea mai mare parte, reglementrile Ordinului

Ministerului Finanelor Publice nr. 2548/2009 (abrogat prin Hotrrea
Guvernului nr. 218/2012), introducnd ns noi prevederi avnd drept
scop mbuntirea fluxurilor financiare la nivelul beneficiarilor, precum
i responsabilizarea acestora, cu privire la respectarea termenelor de
implementare a proiectelor, termene asumate prin graficul de depunere a
cererilor de rambursare aferent contractelor de finanare.
n acest sens, actul normativ introduce, n principal, urmtoarele

reglementri:
reduce cota de recuperare a prefinanrii din cererile de rambursare

depuse, de la nivelul de 30% la o cot cel puin egal cu cea conform
creia s-a acordat prefinanarea la nivelul proiectului;
beneficiarii aflai sub incidena ajutorului de stat/de minimis, care

sunt obligai s depun garanii pentru obinerea prefinanrii, vor
avea posibilitatea diminurii garaniei pe msur ce este recuperat
prefinanarea;
se majoreaz cota maxim de acordare a prefinanrii de la 10% la

20% pentru proiectele care au integral finanare nerambursabil i
pentru proiectele care au o valoare eligibil mai mica de 1 milion de
lei;
se stabilete obligativitatea ca prin contractul/decizia de finanare,

beneficiarul s i asume un calendar/grafic de depunere a cererilor de
110
rambursare pe toat durata de implementare a proiectului, calendar

care s poat fi modificat de maximum trei ori.
5.11. Continuarea implementrii msurilor din Proiectul de raport de

audit de sistem al Programului Operaional 2007RO051PO001
Dezvoltarea resurselor umane (DRU) A-Rep No. 2012-
1445/20.06.2012
Conform Raportului de progres privind planul de aciune pentru

ndeplinirea recomandrilor din Proiectul de raport de audit de sistem al
Programului Operaional 2007RO051PO001 Dezvoltarea resurselor
umane (DRU) A-Rep No. 2012-1445/20.06.2012 emis ca urmare a
misiunii de audit din perioada 2-6 aprilie i 3-11 mai 201262, pn la data
de 31.08.2012 au fost ntreprinse urmtoarele aciuni:
cu privire la constatarea aprobrii de proiecte cu bugete neviabile,

cu salarii disproporionate i cu achiziii nejustificate, ce au avut
drept cauz un proces de evaluare necorespunztor sau neluarea n
considerare a opiniei evaluatorilor, autoritaiile romne implicate au
realizat revizuirea Ghidului Solicitantului Condiii generale i a
Metodologiei de evaluare i selecie, aceasta din urm fiind introdus
pe circuitul intern de avizare al AM POS-DRU;
n ceea ce privete ndrumrile deficitare furnizate de AM ctre

beneficiari, ambiguitatea normelor naionale de alocare a
fondurilor i utilizarea resurselor necesare implementrii
proiectelor, au avut loc consultri cu prestatorul, precum i revizuirea
seciunii din cererea de finanare intitulat Graficul activitilor
proiectului;
elaborarea de instrumente de verificare (de exemplu: un Raport de

activitate i Fi de pontaj), aduse la cunotina beneficiarilor de ctre
62
http://www.romaniacurata.ro/ltfont-colorblackgtexclusivitate-arclt-fontgtltbrgt-
citeste-raportul-d-3369.htm
111
AM POS-DRU prin publicarea acestora pe pagina de internet

reprezint doar o parte din aciunile ntreprinse pentru soluionarea
problemelor generate de verificrile de management, care
prezentau deficiente privind metodologia aplicat pentru
eantionarea documentelor justificative, ducnd la un volum foarte
limitat de documente justificative controlate;
n privina controalelor la faa locului, care potrivit constatrilor

raportului de audit, nu acopereau elementele complementare de
asigurare (de exemplu: desfurarea real a activitilor i a
achiziiilor publice), s-a dezvoltat un plan de vizite n concordan cu
noua metodologie de atribuire a riscului i de eantionare i a fost
introdus procedura de verificare a achiziiilor realizate de
beneficiarii/partenerii care nu sunt autoriti contractante;
cu privire la achiziiile publice identificate de AM ca fiind un

domeniu de risc, ntruct doar o mic parte din cheltuielile referitoare
erau controlate i, n plus, nu exista niciun control critic realizat de
AM POS-DRU cu privire la planul de achiziii publice prezentat de
beneficiari, AM POS-DRU a avizat procedura operaional
verificarea cererilor de rambursare;
n final, n ceea ce privete riscul ridicat cu privire la dubla

finanare i inexistena unui control ncruciat al cheltuielilor
beneficiarilor implicai n proiecte multiple n acelai timp, AM
POS-DRU a avizat procedura operaional Vizite la faa locului.
5.12. Studiu de caz: ineficiena absorbiei fondurilor europene n baza

programului POS-DRU. Soluii.
Este notoriu faptul c, n privina nivelului accesrii fondurilor europene

oferite n baza programului POS-DRU, Romnia a cunoscut mari
probleme, cauzate n special de incapacitatea funcionrii AM i ACP
instituite pentru acest PO.
112
n acest sens, n perioada 02.04 11.05.2012, Comisia European a

efectuat, n conformitate cu prevederile art.72 (2) din Regulamentul
Consiliului (EC) Nr. 1083/2006, un audit de sistem i de operaiuni avnd
ca obiect verificarea funcionrii sistemului de management i control
instituit pentru POS-DRU.
Rezultatele auditului au confirmat bnuielile reprezentanilor europeni, n

sensul c, misiunea de audit a constatat deficiene grave ale sistemului de
management i control al POS-DRU, i anume:
probleme legate de ndrumrile oferite beneficiarilor cu privire la

activitile eligibile, grupurile int, indicatori i cheltuielile eligibile
aferente;
probleme legate de procedurile de selecie a operaiunilor;
probleme legate de verificrile de prim nivel efectuate de AM;
probleme cu privire la certificarea declaraiilor de cheltuieli de ctre

ACP;
nereguli privind declararea cheltuielilor eligibile;
nclcarea normelor privind ajutorul de stat.
Urmare a finalizrii misiunii de audit, Ministerul Muncii, prin Autoritatea

de Management POS-DRU a iniiat o serie de msuri eseniale i urgente
menite s remedieze deficienele sistemice constatate de auditori prin
implementarea unui plan de aciune n acest sens.
Astfel, conform planului de aciune agreat cu reprezentanii europeni,

autoritile din Romnia se angajeaz s:
1. revizuiasc metodologia de evaluare i selecie a operaiunilor n

sensul creterii pragurilor minime aferente grilei de selecie;
113
2. revizuiasc metodologia de evaluare i selecie a operaiunilor n

sensul stabilirii unor criterii mai precise de eligibilitate pentru
aplicani;
3. revizuiasc formatul cererii de finanare, astfel nct s permit

evaluarea obiectiv/realist a bugetului i a resurselor proiectului,
n comparaie cu obiectivele propuse (indicatori) i activitile
preconizate i argumentarea dac aceleai activiti ar putea fi
implementate ntr-un mod mai economic, cu condiia respectrii
cerinelor de calitate;
4. implementeze anumite msuri privind respectarea riguroas de

ctre beneficiari n implementare a legislaiei aplicabile privind
achiziiile, i anume:
planul de achiziii pe fiecare proiect va fi transmis de

beneficiar la AM/OI POS-DRU n maxim 10 zile de la data
semnrii contractului;
planul de achiziii pe proiect va fi verificat de ofierul de

monitorizare, pentru a fi prevenite neconcordanele fa de
legislaia aplicabil (de ex. n alegerea procedurii) i fa de
bugetul estimat al proiectului;
orice modificare ulterioar a planului de achiziii a

proiectului trebuie justificat i va fi supus unui proces de
verificare i aprobare la nivelul AM/OI POS-DRU.
5. utilizeze facilitatea de Asisten Tehnic;
6. elaboreze o metodologie de selecie a evaluatorilor de propuneri

de proiecte, astfel nct s se asigure competena specializat n
procesul de evaluare.
7. asigure ndrumri detaliate ctre evaluatori;
114
8. elimine posibilitatea transferului unor chestiuni deschise din faza

de evaluare n contractare.
***
Ca o concluzie a celor de mai sus, se poate spune c, n ciuda reactivitii,

chiar dac lent, a autoritilor implicate n acordarea de finanare
european, n luarea de msuri pentru uurarea accesului potenialilor
beneficiari la liniile de finanare, problema gradului sczut de absorbie a
fondurilor europene n Romnia rmne nc deschis i de actualitate. n
acest sens, este de remarcat faptul c rata sczut a absorbiei se datoreaz
tuturor actorilor implicai n proces, astfel nct nu numai problemele
intrinseci sistemului administraiei publice genereaz un astfel de efect,
dar i inflaia legislativ n materie i lipsa de instruire a potenialilor
beneficiari n elaborarea i derularea proiectelor de finanare. Aadar, n
ciuda eforturilor recente ale autoritilor de a lua msuri administrative,
juridice, instituionale sau organizatorice n vederea creterii gradului de
absorbie aferent exerciiului bugetar 2007-2013, nu s-au nregistrat i
nici nu se preconizeaz c se vor nregistra mbuntiri notabile, fapt
care ar putea echivala cu pierderea de ctre Romnia a unor fonduri
considerabile pentru viitoarea perioad de programare. Totui, n msura
n care autoritile implicate n acordarea finanrilor vor fi deschise la un
dialog public i/sau la preluarea sugestiilor fcute de societatea civil, s-ar
putea crea premisele creterii gradului de absorbie, cel puin ncepnd cu
exerciiul bugetar 2014-2020, cu att mai mult cu ct pentru acest
exerciiu bugetar se estimeaz a se implementa abordarea multi-fond,
pentru care autoritile trebuie s se pregteasc din timp. Trebuie
remarcat totui faptul c, dac planul financiar multianual va fi adoptat n
forma propus de Preedintele Consiliului European, Romnia ar putea
continua s ntmpine dificulti serioase n implementarea soluiilor
identificate, avnd n vedere c rata de absorbie a fondurilor europene a
reprezentat, conform proiectului, o condiie esenial pentru stabilirea
cuantumului fondurilor care vor fi alocate fiecrui stat membru n
exerciiul financiar 2014-2020.
115
Note i referine
Ctlina Constantin, Andreea Florina Radu, Consilier European, nr. 9/2009
Raportul Strategic Naional pentru Implementarea Fondurilor Structurale i

de Coeziune pregtit n ianuarie 2010. http://www.fonduri-
ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd-
62/Documente_Suport/Rapoarte_Strategice/Raport_strategic_national_200
9_RO.pdf;
Studiu asupra POS Mediu elaborat de Guvernul Romniei, disponibil spre

consultare pe pagina de internet www.fonduri-
ue.ro/.../Raport_strategic_national_2009_RO.pdf
Ioana Morovan, Studiul Suntem n grafic? 2010 Primul bilan utilizarea

fondurilor structurale, publicat n numrul 7 din februarie 2010 al revistei
Policy Memo, sub egida Centrului Romn de Politici Europene,
http://www.crpe.ro/library/files/crpe_policy_memo_7_ro.pdf;
Gheorghe Oprescu, Daniela Luminia Constantin, Florin Ilie i Drago Pslaru

Studiul privind analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor comunitare n
Romnia,publicat sub egida Institutului European din Romnia,
http://www.ier.ro/documente/studiideimpactPaisIII_ro/Pais3_studiu_1_ro.pd
f;
http://antreprenor.money.ro/topul_greselilor_in_accesarea_fondurilor_euro
pene_cum_le_poti_evita-84297.html;
http://www.inforegionordest.ro/documente/noutati/publicatii/studiu_privin
d_implementarea_por_in_regiunea_nord_est_decembrie_2010.pdf;
http://www.maeur.ro/articole/stadiul-absorbtiei-fondurilor-structurale-si-de-
coeziune/;
http://www.gov.ro/absorbtia-fondurilor-structurale-si-de-coeziune-proritate-
zero-a-guvernului- romaniei__l1a109210.html;
http://www.fonduri-
structurale.ro/Document_Files//mediu/00000029/h7748_Rezumat_POS_Mai_
2007.pdf;
116
Raportul anual pe anul 2011, Evolutii si perspective macroeconomice si

bugetare. http://www.wall-street.ro/files/131509-255.pdf;
http://www.romaniacurata.ro/ltfont-colorblackgtexclusivitate-arclt-
fontgtltbrgt-citeste-raportul-d-3369.htm;
www.fonduri-structurale.ro;
www.fonduri-ue.ro;
www.euractiv.ro;
www.posmediu.ro;
www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-9212496-facut-bulgaria-cand-aflat-impas-
fondurile-europene.htm;
http://ec.europa.eu;
http://a1.ro/news.
www.capital.ro
117
Bugetul Uniunii Europene

i impactul su asupra
Politicii de Coeziune
n prezent, Politica de Coeziune 2007-2013 reprezint peste dou

treimi (347 miliarde euro dintr-un total de 976 miliarde euro) din bugetul
multianual european, aa-numitul Cadru Financiar Multianual (CFM).
Motivul pentru care se aloc un pachet att de impresionant acestei
politici este destul de uor de neles: Politica de Coeziune reprezint un
instrument cheie pentru Uniunea European, bazat pe principiul
solidaritii i care are drept scop stimularea investiiilor i creterii
economice n toate regiunile Uniunii, concentrndu-se n special pe cele
mai puin dezvoltate.
Acestea fiind spuse, trebuie adugat faptul c, n prezent, situaia

economic a statelor membre este diferit faa de ceea ce s-a luat n
considerare atunci cnd s-a adoptat actualul CFM. i, din moment ce
Politica de Coeziune este prin natura sa un instrument de reducere a
disparitilor dintre statele membre i regiuni. n mod evident, se
investete mai mult n unele ri i mai puin n altele. Astfel, situaia la
momentul adoptrii urmtorului CFM va fi una dificil i va ridica multe
semne de ntrebare.
118
n conformitate cu dispoziiile Tratatului de la Lisabona, n

vederea adoptrii CFM pentru perioada 2014-2020 trebuie s existe n
primul rnd, o propunere din partea Comisiei Europene, iar mai apoi
Consiliul s prezinte propria poziie, pentru care Parlamentul European s
i dea avizul conform. Cu toate acestea, statele membre nu par s fie n
stare s ajung la un acord, fiind mprite n contribuitori net pe de o
parte i beneficiari neti, pe de alt parte. Pentru a clarifica puin, statele
membre, contribuabilii net, sunt acele state care pltesc la bugetul UE mai
mult dect primesc napoi, n timp ce aa-numiii beneficiari net, sunt
statele membre care, dup contribuia la bugetul UE, primesc napoi mult
mai mult. n acelai timp, aceast difereniere a dus la crearea, n cadrul
Consiliului, a dou grupuri: Prietenii coeziunii, din care fac parte
beneficiarii net i Prietenii austeritii, format din pltitorii net.
ntruct Consiliul trebuie s adopte o poziie n unanimitate, este

uor de neles de ce un acord intern nu este simplu de realizat, mai ales
c, negocierile se concentreaz nu doar pe valoarea total a CFM. Sunt
supuse dezbaterii pachetele alocate fiecrei politici i obiectivele acestora,
n special ale Politicii de Coeziune i ale Politicii Agricole Comune
(PAC). n plus, ali factori politici trebuie s fie luai n considerare, cum
ar fi rambursrile dorite de unele ri, rambursri de care au beneficiat i
n trecut.
Ceea ce ar trebui subliniat este faptul c acele state membre care

doresc s reduc drastic contribuia lor i prin urmare, dimensiunea total
a bugetului multianual al Uniunii, fac acest lucru pe baza unor argumente
care sunt de fapt, n esen, nentemeiate. Mai multe studii realizate recent
arat c rambursarea economic pentru aa-numitele state membre nete
pltitoare este mult mai mare dect contribuia efectiv a acestora la
bugetul UE. Motivele sunt multiple, incluznd, de exemplu, faptul c
implementarea unor proiecte de mari dimensiuni, de multe ori duce la
utilizarea de contractori din ri mai dezvoltate i mai avansate, care
adesea coincid contributorilor net.
119
n ceea ce privete Politica de Coeziune n special, cea mai mare

problem care deriv din lipsa unui acord asupra CFM este pregtirea
imperativ a noului pachet legislativ care va reglementa urmtoarea
perioad de programare, 2014 - 2020. Este uor de neles faptul c este
extrem de dificil de lucrat pe un cadru legislativ, fr a ti ci bani vor fi
n cele din urm alocai acestor obiective.
Parlamentul European se afl din acest punct de vedere, n

situaia grea de a decide ce s fac n cazul n care nu se ajunge la un
acord n Consiliul, care prevede reduceri semnificative n comparaie cu
situaia actual. Parlamentul European a fost ntotdeauna clar c nu va
accepta nici un fel de reduceri fa de propunerea iniial a Comisiei, care
a fost oricum considerat cu mult sub ateptri. Dar, n acelai timp,
trebuie s ia n considerare faptul c o ntrziere n adoptarea noului CFM
va avea, de asemenea, un impact asupra adoptrii noului pachet al
Politicii de Coeziune, n cazul cruia procedura legislativ care trebuie
urmat dup Tratatul de la Lisabona este cea de legislaie ordinar (fosta
co-decizie), care prevede ca Parlamentul i Consiliul s ajung la un
acord asupra unui text comun al diferitelor reglementri implicate. Aa-
numitele trialoguri, n cazul n care Parlamentul European, Consiliul i
Comisia se ntrunesc s negocieze asupra unui text, au nceput deja n a
doua jumtate a lui 2012, dar dup cum am explicat mai sus, acordul final
este supus unui acord la nivel de CFM.
n ciuda acestei conexiuni clare ntre problema bugetar i

procedura legislativ, elementele cheie i obiectivele care caracterizeaz
noua Politica de Coeziune sunt deja destul de clare. Desigur, pot exista
unele modificri n cursul negocierilor, dar nu majore. Prin urmare, putem
s ne imaginm modul n care va arat noua politic i care vor fi liniile
sale directoare.
Dar, nainte de a analiza mai n profunzime, trebuie s explicm

ce fonduri fac parte din Politica de Coeziune i care sunt beneficiarii.
120
n perioada actual de programare 2007-2013, sunt utilizate trei

fonduri pentru implementarea acestei politici. Pe de o parte, exist aa-
numitele fonduri structurale, care sunt adresate tuturor regiunilor Europei.
Acestea sunt Fondul European de Dezvoltare Regional (FEDR), care
investete n dezvoltarea regiunilor prin intermediul programelor legate
de exemplu de infrastructur, cercetare i inovare, precum i de asistena
tehnic; Fondul Social European (FSE), care sprijin educaia i formarea
profesional, ocuparea forei de munc i oportunitile de angajare.
Trebuie s menionm c Romnia susine divizarea fondurilor

structurale pe regiuni diferite, n ciuda faptului c sistemul su intern
administrativ nu prevede pn n prezent existena unor astfel de entiti
administrative.
Pe de alt parte, exist Fondul de Coeziune, care este un fond

special conceput pentru a ajuta economiile din statele membre cele mai
puin prospere, prin investiii n reeaua de transport trans-european
(TEN-T) i n mediul nconjurtor.
Modul n care sunt alocai ulterior banii diferitelor regiuni i state

membre variaz n funcie de fondul folosit, fie fonduri structurale, fie
fondurile de coeziune. n primul caz exist o difereniere ntre regiunile
cu un Produs Intern Brut (PIB) mai mare sau mai mic dect 75% din
media UE. Regiunile sub acest prag, definite drept regiuni de
convergen, primesc considerabil mai multe fonduri.
n ceea ce privete Fondul de Coeziune, statele membre sunt

considerate n ansamblul lor i criteriu luat n calcul este venitul naional
brut (VNB). rile care beneficiaz de acest sprijin sunt doar cele cu un
VNB sub 90% din media UE.
Dac aceasta este n linii mari, situaia actualei perioade de

programare, care sunt liniile directoare i modificrile pentru urmtoarea
perioad de programare? Este vorba pn la urm despre o politic de
succes, care a contribuit la dezvoltarea i progresul multor regiuni, cu
121
exemple de top, adesea menionate ca cele mai bune practici. Dar acest
lucru nu nseamn ns c este perfect. Politica de Coeziune continu s
aib deficiene care trebuie s fie adresate, mai ales dac lum n
considerare faptul c este implementat n temeiul principiului gestiunii
partajate. Ce nseamn acest lucru n practic? Aceasta nseamn c
Bruxelles-ul decide cadrul legislativ care reglementeaz n ntregime
politica, iar implementarea la nivel naional i regional, este lsat la
latitudinea statelor membre. De fapt, sistemul nu ar putea fi altfel,
deoarece o gestionare centralizat de ctre Comisia European ar nsemna
un numr foarte mare de angajai, fr a uita lipsa unei conexiuni
inevitabile cu teritoriile locale.
Pentru noua perioad de programare 2014-2020, Tratatul de la

Lisabona ofer posibilitatea introducerii, dup cum am vzut, a procedurii
legislative ordinare (fosta co-decizie) pentru adoptarea noilor
reglementri. Raionamentul poate fi mai bine neles dac lum n
considerare faptul c nainte era doar Consiliul i prin urmare, doar
guvernele statelor membre, cei care decideau cu privire la coninutul
cadrului de reglementare, iar Parlamentul European i ddea acordul pe
ceva ce fusese deja decis.
Astzi, cele dou instituii sunt pe poziii de egalitate, iar aceste

probleme ntmpinate la nivel regional i local, pot fi adresate de ctre
singura instituie care este nu numai la curent cu acestea, ci i dorete
mbuntirea situaiei. Aceast instituie este noul co-legiuitor,
Parlamentul European.
De la nceputul discuiilor privind noul pachet legislativ,

Parlamentul a precizat clar care trebuie s fie pilonii noului sistem:
continuitatea normelor, unde este posibil, pentru a nu ridica probleme
acelor oameni i organismelor care trebuie ulterior s implementeze
politica la nivel naional i regional; simplificarea la maximum posibil a
normelor, interconectat cu armonizarea acestora cu diferite fonduri;
solidaritatea esena politicii, cu accent n continuare pe regiunile mai
122
puin prospere; aa-numita concentraie tematic, concentrarea

resurselor asupra unui numr limitat de obiective, astfel nct s garanteze
rezultate tangibile; o mai mare implicare a autoritilor regionale i
locale pe tot parcursul etapelor, de la concept pn la implementare;
refuzul categoric al aa-numitelor condiionaliti macroeconomice,
care creaz o conexiune ntre performana economic a unui stat membru
i sprijinul primit din fondurile structurale i n sfrit, dup cum am spus
i nainte, resurse suficiente pentru a ndeplini toate aceste obiective.
Propunerea fcut de Comisia European i care forma baza care

urma a fi modelat de Parlament i de ctre Consiliu, respecta doar parial
afirmaiile menionate mai sus. Dar amendamentele prezentate de
Parlamentul European, precum i poziia sa ferm n negocierile actuale
cu omologul su par a fi fructuoase i permit ca multe elemente pozitive
s devin realitate pentru urmtoarea perioad de programare.
Ceea ce trebuie considerat o schimbare cheie este cu siguran

idea de a avea un regulament de tip umbrel, acel aa-numit Regulament
privind Dispoziiile Comune (CPR) care asigur armonizarea regulilor i
principiilor comune ale diferitelor fonduri pe care le acoper. Iar
fondurile pe care le acoper nu sunt doar fondurile structurale i de
coeziune (sau, aa cum probabil vor fi numite la sfritul negocierilor,
fondurile structurale i de investiie) dar i alte fonduri europene, i
anume Fondul pentru Agricultur i Dezvoltare Rural i Fondul
European pentru Pescuit i Afaceri Maritime. Aceasta este o realizare
important care garanteaz simplificarea regulilor i procedurilor care
urmeaz s fie urmate de beneficiari.
n ceea ce privete simplificarea, eforturi au fost fcute i din

perspectiva administrativ, de exemplu: reguli simplificate, un sistem de
management mai facil i prevzuta introducere a sistemului E-Coeziune
care va permite beneficiarilor s introduc informaii electronic.
Propunerea privind concentrarea tematic pe un numr limitat de

obiective, susinut de Parlament dup constituirea Raportului Barca
123
(comandat de Comisia European expertului Fabrizio Barca, devenit apoi

ministru pentru coeziune teritorial n Italia) rmne n centrul noului
pachet. Acelai lucru este valabil i pentru idea unei mai mari implicri a
autoritilor locale i regionale, prin introducerea conceptului de
parteneriat ntre autoritile guvernamentale, cele regionale i locale n
toate etapele.
n momentul depunerii la Comisie pentru aprobare a noului

introdus Contract de Parteneriat, n care statele membre vor trebui s
arate maniera n care intenioneaz s implementeze politica la nivel
naional, vor trebui s demonstreze i c au fost purtate consultri cu
autoritile locale. n acest sens, va fi introdus i un Cod de Conduit, cu
specificarea modalitii n care autoritile locale vor trebui implicate.
O noutate esenial a noului pachet al Politicii de Coeziune este

reprezentat de introducerea condiionalitilor. Obiectivul principal al
acestora este s asigure c investiiile sprijinite de politic sunt orientate
spre rezultate. Statele membre vor fi obligate s demonstreze c dein
toate condiionalitile ex ante pentru a ndeplini obiectivele programelor
pe care le deruleaz. i unde aceste condiii nu exist, se va stabili un
termen limit pentru ndeplinirea obligaiilor. Indicatorii vor fi n msur
s msoare rezultatele obinute de programe.
Un tip de condiionalitate la care Parlamentul s-a opus mereu, dar

totui prezent n propunerea Comisiei este cel macroeconomic care nu
face altceva dect s pedepseasc regiunile (prin suspendarea tuturor sau
a unei pri a angajamentelor sau plilor) n cazul n care guvernele
naionale nu-i ndeplinesc obligaiile n raport cu guvernana economic
a Uniunii.
Un asemenea aspect introdus de Comisie este absolut nejustificat,

deoarece Parlamentul a evideniat ntotdeauna faptul c nu exist niciun
motiv pentru care regiunile s se confrunte cu sanciuni legate de o
administraie central nesntoas. Este previzibil ca poziia ferm a
Parlamentului s produc rezultatele sale, asigurnd c din acest punct de
124
vedere nu vor exista schimbri comparativ cu actuala perioad de

programare.
O ultim remarc n scopul unei descrieri succinte a principalelor

modificri de reglementare se refer la distribuia resurselor. Aici
modificarea va presupune crearea unei noi categorii de regiuni, cu un PIB
ntre 75% i 90% din media UE. Vor fi astfel trei categorii: regiuni mai
puin dezvoltate cu un PIB sub 75% n cadrul crora vor fi concentrate
majoritatea resurselor, regiuni de tranziie cu un PIB ntre 75% i 90% i
regiunile mai dezvoltate cu un PIB de peste 90% din media UE. Din acest
punct de vedere, Romnia va continua practic s fie n totalitate sub
media de 75%, exceptnd regiunea Bucureti-Ilfov.
n afara de Regulamentul privind dispoziiile comune, noul

pachet al Politicii de Coeziune va consta ntr-un numr de reglementri
specifice fondurilor, dintre care merit menionate cele dedicate Fondului
European de Dezvoltare Regional, Fondului de Coeziune i Fondului
Social European.
Nu este facil s oferim o imagine de ansamblu asupra

modificrilor, dar analiza noastr va prezenta o imagine a celor mai
importante elemente ale noului cadru care se refer la FEDR i la Fondul
de Coeziune.
Fondul European de Dezvoltare Regional i va concentra

desigur investiiile pe obiectivele tematice stabilite n Dispoziiile
Comune ale Regulamentului dar ceea ce conteaz este faptul c, n
funcie de dezvoltarea regiunii n cauz, un anumit procent din fonduri va
trebui alocat spre anumite obiective. Comisia a propus ca, n regiunile de
tranziie i cele mai dezvoltate, 80% din resursele FEDR s fie alocate
ctre eficiena energetic i energiile regenerabile, cercetare i dezvoltare
i sprijinirea IMM-urilor. Cel puin 20% din aceste resurse trebuie
direcionate ctre eficiena energetic i energiile regenerabile. n
regiunile mai puin dezvoltate, procentele ar scdea spre 6-50% pentru a
125
permite concentrarea resurselor pe infrastructura de baz, deseori

deficitar sau absent n aceste regiuni.
Negocierile pe aceast chestiune sunt complexe, fiind dificil de

spus care va fi rezultatul, dar poziia Parlamentului este ca pentru
meninerea flexibilitii, regiunile mai dezvoltate s poat concentra
procentul de 80% din alocrile FEDR pe nc un obiectiv fa de cele
propuse de Comisie, n timp ce procentul dedicat eficienei energetice i
energiei regenerabile s fie crescut la 22%. n ceea ce privete regiunile
de tranziie i cele mai puin dezvoltate, procentele ar trebui s fie 60% i
22%, respectiv 50% i 12%.
Atenia acordat eficienei energetice i energiei obinute din

surse regenerabile este fundamental n poziia Parlamentului, acest fapt
fiind evideniat de ncercarea de a dubla eforturile n anumite sectoare
cheie prin intermediul unui sprijin comun din Fondul European de
Dezvoltare Regional i Fondul de Coeziune.
Mai detaliat, idea Parlamentului spune c pentru a se ndeplini

obiectivele strategiei Europa 2020, respectiv 20% din consumul de
energie s fie din surse regenerabile, cu 20% mai puine emisii de CO2 i
creterea cu 20% a eficienei energetice, este necesar adoptarea unor
msuri drastice. Propunerea este aadar ca toate cldirile, indiferent c
sunt publice sau private i IMM-urile s devin eligibile pentru finanarea
eficienei energetice i a energiilor regenerabile. n plus, finanarea va fi
disponibil att din FEDR ct i din Fondul de Coeziune.
Ceea ce trebuie subliniat este faptul c aceste msuri pot avea

impact nu doar asupra mediului nconjurtor, dar i asupra IMM-urilor
implicate i prin urmare a locurilor de munc, fr a uita economiile
cetenilor la facturile la energie i un nivel crescut de securitate
energetic.
n cele din urm, cteva precizri referitoare la Cogenerarea

energiei electrice i termice i Sistemul de Termoficare. Aceste sisteme
126
sunt foarte ntlnite n unele state membre, n special n Europa Central

i de Est iar n fapt, ele permit economii substaniale de energie
comparativ cu sistemele private de nclzire. Dar n ciuda faptului c sunt
numeroase, sunt adesea depite. Att modernizarea ct i construcia de
noi centrale, necesit investiii specifice al cror pre ar fi trebuit
transferat ctre ceteni.
i n aceast chestiune, Parlamentul a adus n discuie o

propunere care implic finanarea din FEDR i Fondul de Coeziune.
Trebuie reinut faptul c eligibilitatea unor asemenea sisteme nu este att
de simpl pe ct pare pentru c Uniunea European are un Sistem
comunitar de Comercializare a Emisiilor (ETS) cu care ar putea intra n
contradicie. Cu toate acestea, Parlamentul a ncercat s-i prezinte
amendamentele ntr-o manier care s permit compatibilitatea cu ETS,
asigurnd n acelai timp cel mai larg sprijin pentru cogenerare i
termoficare.
n acest fel, centralele sub 20 MW vor fi pe deplin eligibile, n

timp ce centralele care depesc acest prag vor avea o singur excepie de
la finanare, cazanul de ardere. n plus, reeaua de distribuie va fi de
asemenea eligibil.
Elaborarea unei priviri succinte a tuturor elementelor care sunt

implicate n reforma Politicii de Coeziune nu este simpl, dar sperana
noastr este c obiectivul de a prezenta complexitatea dar i importana
acestui subiect a fost atins ntr-o oarecare msur.
127
Reforma regional n
dezbaterea public
n luna iunie a anului 2008, se sublinia faptul c evalurile

primului an i jumtate de dup aderare arat c n Romnia,
capacitatea instituional redus tinde s devin o cauz major a
absorbiei reduse a fondurilor europene. Dei sporadic politicienii
amintesc de nevoia reformei regionale, aceasta nu se afl de fapt pe
agenda public i politic1.
n ciuda avertismentelor de la Bruxelles i a evidenelor interne,

Romnia risca nc de la acea dat s nregistreze decalajele care astzi au
devenit aproape de nerecuperat i care iat, s-au tradus ntr-un ritm de
dezvoltare mult mai mic dect cel potenial.
Totodat se mai arta faptul c lipsa dezbaterii publice i

politice, precum i slbiciunile societii civile conduc la situaia n care
guvernul nu este supus necesarei presiuni pentru a reaciona n sensul
promovrii reformelor regionale2.
1
Prioritatea viitoarei guvernri: Reforma regional,
http://victorbostinaru.ro/2008/06/prioritatea-viitoarei-guvernari-reforma-
regionala/, accesat 20 februarie 2013.
2
Idem.
128
Anul 2012 a adus ns o mbuntire sub acest aspect, fiind

demarate dezbateri consistente privind necesitatea nfptuirii acestei
reforme. Printre cele mai notabile demersuri trebuie menionat
dezbaterea organizat de ctre Academia de Advocacy, unde, n cadrul
unei audierii publice organizat la Timioara, intitulate Regionalizarea
Romniei De ce?3, au fost invitai toi cei interesai s i exprime
argumentat punctul de vedere oferind rspunsuri la o serie de ntrebri:
Are nevoie Romnia de regionalizare? De ce?

Ce tip de decizii i competene sunt necesar a fi transferate la
nivel regional?
Cum ne organizm pentru un proces durabil i eficient al
regionalizrii?
Cum pot regiunile s sporeasc coeziunea social, economic i
teritorial a rii i care sunt riscurile s o submineze?
Redm in extenso principalele concluzii i recomandm

cititorilor s parcurg depoziiile tuturor participanilor.
Audierea public ,,Regionalizarea Romniei De ce? a avut

drept obiectiv general relansarea temei regionalizrii pe agenda public
pornind de la noi premise, respectiv pornind strict de la analiza i
dezbaterea public a rolului, nevoii i oportunitii regionalizrii
Romniei. Numai n contextul identificrii i stabilirii clare a nevoii, dac
ea exist, dezbaterea public poate continua despre modaliti, criterii,
etape, riscuri, beneficii.
Structura opiniilor scrise exprimate de ctre decidenii politici

reliefeaz un spectru destul de larg de instituii i nivele de decizie, i
anume: decideni locali 12 depoziii, consilii judeene 7 depoziii,
ministere 3 depoziii, parlamentari i europarlamentari 8 depoziii,
3
Academia de Advocacy - Audierea public - REGIONALIZAREA ROMNIEI DE CE?,
http://advocacy.ro/, 20 februarie 2013.
129
urmai de membri ai unor partide politice i candidai n alegerile

parlamentare.
Analiznd cele 251 de opinii scrise colectate prin prisma

poziionrii fa de oportunitatea sau nu a eventualei regionalizri a
Romniei, a rezultat urmtoarea structur:
77,29%, respectiv 194 de opinii scrise pro-regionalizare;
14,34%, respectiv 36 de opinii scrise contra-regionalizare;
8,37%, respectiv 21 de opinii scrise colectate ale celor indecii sau

care nu doresc s i asume o poziie inechivoc n acest moment al
consultrii publice.
Principalele argumente care susin ideea i nevoia de regionalizare a

Romniei, sintetizate n cele ce urmeaz, n ordinea importanei lor,
prin prisma frecvenei cu care au fost enunate n opiniile scrise
colectate i analizate, sunt:
eficientizarea procesului decizional public i, implicit, o mai bun

gestionare a resurselor publice, precum i a tuturor resurselor
disponibile, n general, limitate i constant insuficiente n raport cu
nevoile, argument susinut de o serie de alte argumente specifice
subsecvente, cum ar fi:
reducerea costurilor i a birocraiei n sistemul administrativ

public n general, prin simplificarea i optimizarea administraiei
publice, n contextul regionalizrii;
corelarea deciziilor publice cu nevoi i probleme specifice,

precum i cu oportuniti de dezvoltare specifice, diferite i
diverse de la o regiune la alta;
necesitatea susinerii i chiar a accelerrii descentralizrii din mai

multe puncte de vedere:
130
economic: un management regional competent i motivat, cu un

instrument legislativ corespunztor i flexibil ar trebui s
reueasc creterea nivelului economic al regiunii mult mai bine
dect actuala formul de organizare constrns legislativ i
deseori decizional la nivel naional;
financiar: gestionarea regional aproape n totalitate a veniturilor

i cheltuielilor, centralizarea naional doar a unei pri din
veniturile regionale, n scopul meninerii n funciune a
instituiilor naionale, eliminarea pierderilor financiare datorate
unor decizii politice de redirecionare, ctre instituii i entiti
inutile sau neperformante, a unei pri din venituri;
administrativ: actualul mecanism administrativ este ineficient i

mare consumator de resurse; structura ierarhic a administraiei
Romniei nu este stufoas, ns modul de funcionare este adesea
sincopat, lipsit de suplee i perceput drept costisitor; la nivel
regional se pot organiza aparate administrative eficiente, cu
minim de resurse umane, dar puternic informatizate;
transparentizarea actului decizional public i o mai mare i mai bun

accesibilitate la informaii de interes public, datorit apropierii de
cetean i nevoile sale, comparativ cu nivelul naional, fapt ce va
induce i:
o mai mare responsabilizare a decidenilor;
reducerea corupiei n administraia public;
incapacitatea actualelor structuri administrativ-politice de a

colabora i coopera pe palierul interjudeean / regional;
creterea gradului de absorbie a fondurilor europene, corelat cu o

mai eficient i eficace utilizare a acestor fonduri, prin:
131
posibilitatea integrrii proiectelor mici, disparate la nivel local, n

proiecte strategice, de anvergur la nivel regional;
prin extragerea leciilor nvate din perioada experienelor 2007-

2013;
stimularea i susinerea dezvoltrii economice n general i

implicit prin aceasta, reducerea disparitilor i decalajelor
economice interjudeene i interregionale;
din acest punct de vedere, esenial este obiectivul general de

dezvoltare a resurselor umane, promovarea ocuprii i a
incluziunii sociale, n baza experienelor tiut fiind faptul c,
economia local nu poate prezenta o diversitate i specificitate
corespunztoare ateptrilor cetenilor, iar cetenii i cunosc i
recunosc capacitatea de mobilitate profesional i geografic i o
valorific ca atare, n msura oportunitilor existente, cu
precdere ntr-un areal maximal regional;
simplificarea accesului la resurse a mediului de afaceri autohton;
nevoia de identificare identitar, precum i nevoia de notorietate

a regiunilor, eseniale pentru ntrirea spiritului de apartenen,
ncredere i solidaritate a populaiei, toate acestea contribuind la
potenarea i nu mpotriva identitii naionale a statului romn
unitar;
facilitarea interaciunilor socio-economice la nivel regional este

important.
Principalele argumente enunate mpotriva ideii i nevoii de

regionalizare a Romniei sunt sintetizate n cele ce urmeaz, n
ordinea importanei lor, prin prisma frecvenei cu care au fost
enunate n opiniile scrise colectate i analizate:
132
accentuarea disparitilor interregionale, pe fondul dezvoltrii

accentuate i disproporionate a marilor aglomerri urbane i a
capitalelor de regiuni, n detrimentul localitilor periferice ale
acelorai regiuni, n detrimentul oraelor mici i a zonelor rurale;
pierderea locurilor de munc n instituiile administrative vizate de

procesul regionalizrii;
nivelul ridicat al costurilor pe care le implic procesul complex i

ndelungat al regionalizrii Romniei, costuri ce vor fi suportate din
resurse publice, deci din banii contribuabililor;
momentul nepotrivit, n primul rnd corelat cu contextul actual al

crizei economice globale, dar i din perspectiva planificrii noului
ciclu bugetar european, momentul fiind apreciat ca fiind tardiv sub
acest aspect;
fezabilitatea i chiar oportunitatea decuplrii obiectivului

descentralizrii de cel al regionalizrii, pe ideea c o bun
descentralizare decizional se poate realiza i n afara procesului de
regionalizare;
creterea birocraiei, datorit multiplelor schimbri legislative

necesare, precum i datorit etapelor indispensabile ale tranziiei de
la actuala form de organizare administrativ spre cea regional;
teama de riscul federalizrii Romniei, a enclavizrii anumitor zone

ale rii, a pierderii identitii naionale, istorice, a federalizrii chiar
a UE, corelate cu suspiciunea legat de poziionarea contra
regionalizrii a unor state membre ale UE, precum i a unor
politicieni autohtoni;
nesoluionarea problemei calitii i eficienei dialogului cu

decidenii, chiar dac din punct de vedere geografic acetia vor fi mai
133
aproape fizic de ceteni n eventualitatea unui proces al

regionalizrii, comparativ cu nivelul naional.
n urma analizei opiniilor culese raportat la ntrebarea Cum ne

organizm pentru un proces durabil i eficient regionalizrii?,
Comisia de Experi a extras urmtoarele concluzii:
necesitatea fundamentrii, prin studii i analize a oricrui demers

intermediar care conduce spre regionalizare;
necesitatea atragerii de expertiz din societatea civil n elaborarea

analizelor i studiilor care vor fundamenta paii de urmat spre
regionalizare;
implicarea prilor interesate, inclusiv din mediul socio - economic

(agenii de dezvoltare, camere de comer, patronate, IMM-uri,
sindicate) n elaborarea etapelor de transpunere a modelelor
regionale;
necesitatea informrii constante a populaiei asupra etapelor parcurse

i a rezultatelor obinute;
necesitatea consultrii prilor interesate, a grupurilor largi de

populaie cu privire la posibilele etape sau modele de urmat;
necesitatea analizrii modificrii Constituiei i a cadrului legislativ,

n urma alegerii modelului regional acceptat prin consens i/sau
referendum.
Recomandrile Comisiei de Experi a audierii publice
Pe baza analizei depoziiilor i a concluziilor evideniate, Comisia de

Experi formuleaz urmtoarele recomandri, pentru luarea unei
decizii publice optime pe tema regionalizrii:
134
1. nfiinarea unui grup de lucru interdisciplinar, echidistant, neutru i

independent, dedicat studierii problematicii regionalizrii Romniei din
multiple perspective, n scopul elaborrii unor alternative viabile de
regionalizare, inclusiv prin analize comparative, de impact, cost beneficiu
i de risc, proces coroborat cu un calendar specific al dezbaterilor publice
dedicate acestei tematici;
2. evidenierea modalitilor concrete de minimizare a riscurilor pentru

alternativele de regionalizare propuse i analizate de forurile, organismele
cu atribuii n acest sens;
3. publicarea i diseminarea transparent a tuturor analizelor i studiilor

existente i viitoare pe tema regionalizrii Romniei, de ctre forurile cu
atribuii n acest sens, astfel nct cetenii interesai s poat s identifice
avantaje i/sau dezavantaje n procesul de regionalizare;
4. punerea n practic a unei campanii de informare larg i contientizare

cu privire la avantajele i dezavantajele regionalizrii, complementar cu
generarea de dezbateri concentrice, consecutive, respectiv cu publicarea
transparent, accesibil tuturor, a rezultatelor, intermediare i finale,
atinse prin dezbaterile publice derulate;
5. continuarea dezbaterilor publice pe tema regionalizrii, n vederea

identificrii modelului optim, acceptat prin consens larg, inclusiv cu
atragerea n continuare a expertizei practice din rndul societii civile, n
echipe de lucru, pe palierele semnificative ale etapelor specifice de
formulare a modelului optim de regionalizare identificat i analizat pentru
Romnia.
135
Note i referine
Academia de Advocacy - Audierea public - REGIONALIZAREA ROMNIEI
DE CE?, http://advocacy.ro/, 20 februarie 2013.
Prioritatea viitoarei guvernri: Reforma regional, http://victorbostinaru.ro/

2008/06/prioritatea-viitoarei-guvernari-reforma-regionala/, accesat 20
februarie 2013.
136
Concluzii
Este Romnia condamnat s rmn ara srac a Uniunii

Europene?
La ase ani dup aderarea Romniei la Uniunea European,

angajamentele clasei politice pentru o mai bun absorbie a fondurilor
europene au fost contrazise flagrant de cifrele seci transmise de la
Bruxelles, mpreun cu auditurile care priveau suspiciunile de fraud i
ulterior, suspendarea sau presuspendarea plilor.
Procedurile trucate sau nerespectate, licitaiile cu dedicaie,

politizarea, corupia de la vrful aparatului administrativ i ignorarea
ofertelor de asisten din partea instituiilor Uniunii Europene n vederea
ameliorrii situaiei, i-au spus cuvntul asupra ratei foarte sczute de
absorbie a fondurilor structurale i de coeziune. Discursul ritos i
merituos al unei capaciti de absorbie nfptuite, nu poate ascunde
ratarea celui mai mare beneficiu al aderrii la Uniunea European.
De la o prioritate zero n programele succesive de guvernare, la

o rat a plilor intermediare de aproximativ 10% n ianuarie 2013,
complexitatea instrumentelor de finanare, gradul de pregtire al
personalului din administraia public sau argumentele preferate ale
oamenilor de PR, nu mai pot fi invocate pentru situaia critic n care ne
aflm.
Ne aflm n situaia n care, Romnia va plti mai scump pentru

gradul su de srcie. Afirmaia nu izvorte dintr-o teorie socio-
economic a inechitii ci este adevrul dictat pe de-o parte, de ctre
137
birourile tehnocrailor din Bruxelles, adversarii Politicii de Coeziune i

avocaii tierilor bugetare pe de alt parte.
Cnd vine vorba de fonduri europene, toate aciunile, precum i

inaciunile, au implicaii financiare. Chiar dac alocrile bugetare pentru
urmtoarea perioad de programare 2014-2020 vor fi meninute la acelai
nivel din perioada anterioar (n cel mai bun scenariu), criteriile de
accesare cu siguran se vor schimba. Gradul de complexitate al
proiectelor se schimb mpreun cu criteriile de eligibilitate, n timp ce,
sumele destinate co-finanrii se modific i ele. Chiar cu introducerea
unor obiective i a unui cadru pentru elaborarea unor proiecte care s
maximizeze integrarea vertical i orizontal, mpreun cu capacitatea
utilizrii fondurilor multiple pentru finanarea proiectelor, majoritatea
regiunilor de dezvoltare din Romnia nu are infrastructura, logistica,
resursa uman i chiar cadrul legal i instituional s profite de noile
reglementri.
Astfel, vor fi necesare noi investiii, va fi necesar finalizarea

unor proiecte deja ncepute, vor trebui demarate noi negocieri i angajate
companii de consultan i execuie nu doar experimentate, ci care pot
dispune de echipamentele i tehnologiile necesare. ns, chiar dac
rspunsul la ntrebarea Cte din aceste companii vor avea capital
romnesc? este evident, concursul nefericit de mprejurri nu se afl n
acest rspuns. Pentru cei care privesc bugetul Uniunii Europene ca un
instrument de investiii o majoritate larg n Parlamentul European, din
fericire n realizarea obiectivelor fundamentale din Tratatul Uniunii,
faptul c prin fondurile structurale i de coeziune, o parte din beneficii se
ntorc ctre statele membre cu statut de contribuitor net, este nsi o parte
a principiilor fondatoare ale Uniunii. Romnia ns a ratat ocazia de a
economisi mai mult, de a realiza mai eficient aceleai obiective i a irosit
singura resurs pe care nu o poate mprumuta, pe care nu o mai poate
negocia i pe care nu o poate crea: timpul.
138
n ase ani, Romnia a absorbit efectiv 4 miliarde de euro din

cele 20 de miliarde puse la dispoziie n perioada 2007-2013, cu o rat a
plilor intermediare de doar 10%, situndu-se detaat pe ultimul loc n
Uniunea European. Contraperformana guvernrilor succesive Bsescu-
Boc nu poate fi egalat de ctre niciun alt stat membru. Aceast realitate,
cuplat cu rezultatul investigaiilor privind neregulile constatate de ctre
Comisia European, plaseaz ara noastr n poziia ingrat de a periclita
ntreaga Politic de Coeziune a Uniunii Europene, oferind argumente
pentru reducerea substanial a bugetului, o reducere a ratelor de
cofinanare pentru regiunile cele mai puin dezvoltate ale Uniunii
Europene i mai surprinztor, pedepsirea regiunilor care au o rat de
absorbie mai sczut.
n opinia noastr, cel puin n ultimul ceas, cei responsabili de

aceast situaie dezastruoas vor trebui s suporte consecinele
administrative i penale pentru fapte care nu pot rmne doar cu faimoasa
responsabilitate politic. Fondurile europene nu reprezint sume
virtuale, ci aparin i sunt dreptul Romniei. Sunt garania reducerii
decalajelor de dezvoltare, creterea bunstrii i a nivelului de trai al
romnilor. Neregulile care se vor confirma, ignorana i incompetena,
vor trebui s fie imputate demnitarilor care, n ciuda avertismentelor, fie
au asistat impasibili, fie au fost complici. Chiar dac voina politic a
existat, atunci ea a fost umbrit de corupia generalizat, ntr-un act de
grav trdare.
n ciuda tuturor auspiciilor, nc mai exist soluii care s

mbunteasc parial capacitatea de absorbie, astfel nct, Romnia s
obin mcar o bun parte din sumele alocate. n oricare scenariu ns,
Romnia va pierde miliarde de euro din finanri europene. Beneficiul
principal al aderrii la Uniunea European s-a transformat ntr-un
exerciiu n care trebuie minimizate pierderile. Chiar dac primii pai au
fost fcui, eforturile depuse de noul guvern s-ar putea s nu fie de ajuns.
139
Ce este de fcut atunci? De fapt, acesta este momentul ideal

pentru a redresa situaia. Parlamentul European i Consiliul negociaz
noul pachet legislativ pentru perioada de programare 2014-2020 a
Politicii de Coeziune, iar Romnia trebuie s fie capabil s se adapteze
noului cadru i s fie pregtit s o pun corect n aplicare ncepnd cu
anul 2014. Parlamentul European se lupt mpotriva tentativelor din
partea unor state membre de a reduce bugetul acestei politicii, dar trebuie
s spunem aceste lucruri pentru a facilita nelegerea repercusiunilor pe
care le poate produce gestionarea defectuoas a fondurilor, chiar i pe
termen mai lung.
n afar de problema bugetului, vor exista modificri pe care

deputaii europeni responsabili de aceste reglementri, vor ncerca s le
fac simple, eficiente i benefice pentru regiunile europene pe ct posibil.
Factorii cheie sunt reprezentai de adaptarea imediat la noile

dispoziii ceea ce nseamn urmrirea ndeaproape a negocierilor n curs
de desfurare, n scopul anticiprii schimbrilor dar i de o bun
planificare strategic, cu corectarea tuturor lipsurilor i greelilor din
trecut i cu pregtirea programelor i proiectelor care pot face cu adevrat
diferena. Nu trebuie s uitm s asigurm i resursele naionale suficiente
pentru co-finanarea naional.
De asemenea, nu trebuie s uitm de existena celor dou

elemente-cheie care sunt premisele pentru toate acestea: capacitatea
administrativ i instituional pe de o parte i la implicarea deplin a
autoritilor regionale i locale, precum i a prilor interesate, pe de alt
parte.
n ceea ce privete primul element, acesta este de o importan

crucial, pentru c experiena romneasc din trecut i exemplele
provenind din alte ri arat c, fr oameni bine pregtii, obiectivi,
constani, capabili s produc rezultate concrete, mai presus de
modificrile politice i nu n ultimul rnd, suficient recompensai din
punct de vedere economic, nu este posibil s beneficiem pe deplin de
140
sprijinul european. nc o dat, aceste subiecte trebuie s fie abordate de

noul guvern cu mult seriozitate, astfel nct aceste precondiii s fie pe
deplin realizate, cel puin n ceea ce privete noua perioad de
programare.
Pe aceast chestiune se lucreaz i la nivelul cadrului legislativ

pentru crearea condiionalitilor ex ante prin care se va propune
obligarea statelor membre s pun n aplicare aa numitele precondiii
cheie pentru fiecare program pe care statul membru dorete s-l deruleze.
Cel de al doilea element are o mare relevan pentru simplul motiv c,
autoritile locale i regionale sunt cele mai aproape de ceteni, de
teritoriu i cele care i cunosc cel mai bine nevoile. Fr o implicare
total a acestor actori, n toate etapele, este imposibil elaborarea i
implementarea unor programe cu impact real pe teren. De asemenea, din
acest punct de vedere, se depun eforturi pentru msuri care s oblige
statele membre s acioneze n acest sens i n pofida opoziiei guvernelor
naionale, exist ncrederea c se va reui ajungerea la un compromis bun.
Tot ceea ce am menionat pn acum poate determina o bun

utilizare a fondurilor europene n multiplele lor domenii de aciune, de la
infrastructur (digital, transport i energie) la cercetare i inovare, de la
educaie i ocuparea forei de munc la incluziune social i de la
ntreprinderi la mediu, doar ca s dm cteva exemple. n ceea ce privete
transportul (Reeaua trans-european de transport) i mediul, trebuie s
subliniem faptul c Romnia beneficiaz de un sprijin puternic din partea
Fondului de Coeziune.
i dac cele dou domenii instituionale de aciune ale acestui

fond sunt cele descrise, trebuie s spunem c se depun eforturi la nivelul
Parlamentului European s se asigure c toate prioritile de investiii din
partea FEDER i Fondul de Coeziune sunt mbuntite. Ne referim n
special la proiectele legate de eficiena energetic i utilizarea energiilor
regenerabile n sectorul locuinelor pe care eurodeputaii ncearc s-l
fac eligibil, cum este cazul cldirilor i companiilor publice i la
141
cogenerare, nclzire i rcire precum i nclzire districtual, elemente

care sunt foarte prezente i importante n statele din Europa Central i de
Est.
Considerm c sprijinul acordat construirii sau reabilitrii

centralelor i a reelei de distribuie, chiar i cu anumite limitri necesare
pentru a evita incompatibiliti cu legislaia european sectorial
(Sistemul de Comercializare a Emisiilor) poate aduce mbuntiri n ceea
ce privete eficiena acestor centrale, impactul de mediu i bineneles
factura pentru utilizatorii finali, cetenii. Aceeai ceteni care, sperm
noi, vor fi capabili n urma simplificrii regulilor, pregtirii guvernelor
naionale i n urma unei campanii de informare s beneficieze din plin
de Politica de Coeziune i s resimt impactul pozitiv al Uniunii
Europene n viaa lor.
Romnia nu este condamnat s rmn ara srac a Uniunii

Europene. Fondurile europene, la fel ca n cazul Poloniei, i pot conferi
rii noastre avantajele la care nu putea spera n urm cu 10-15 ani.
Important n acest punct este faptul c tim ce trebuie s facem, msurile
pe care trebuie s le implementm i trebuie s avem voina politic de a
ntoarce lucrurile pentru viitorul Romniei. Ansamblul de msuri
enumerate n acest studiu, acordurile largi n rndul organizaiilor
societii civile i autoritilor publice din Romnia pentru nfptuirea
unei reforme regionale care s confere identitate juridic regiunilor, sunt
demersuri capabile s reorienteze i s aduc beneficiile Politicii de
Coeziune n ara noastr.
142
The final steps - absorption of structural and cohesion funds 2007-2013
English version
143
Foreword
Victor Botinaru
Member of the European Parliament
The study The final steps - absorption of structural and cohesion

funds 2007-2013 is the result of years of activity in the Committee on
Regional Development of the European Parliament and the decision to
elaborate this study was taken after witnessing how Romania missed such
a huge opportunity.
In terms of low absorption capacity, Romania has no precedent

since the establishment of the European Community. The roots of this
costly failure should be sought in 2005-2007 period, when the Romanian
government simply failed to prepare the countrys institutional and
administrative framework in order to absorb funds that were to be made
available.
The release of this study is marked both by concerns and hope.

Concerns arise due to the fact that in 2007-2012 periods, Romania has
only managed to absorb about 10% of the structural and cohesion funds,
thus being by far, in comparative terms, the country with the worst
performance out of all 27 Member States. Our country also faces the risk
of losing billions of Euros as a result of the automatic decommitment
mechanism in 2013.
144
The only hopes lie in the fact that, in the summer of 2012, the
Romanian Government adopted in cooperation with the European
Commission, the package of measures that will allow the unblocking of
payments. Moreover, the new government led by Prime Minister Victor
Ponta proposed the reorganization of the institutional architecture that
manages EU funds and triggered debates on the regional reform, to
ensure that in the end, at least for the next multiannual financial
framework 2014-2020, Romania will substantially improve its
performance.
The bitter lessons of an excessive politicization of the public

administration, with serious effects on the de-professionalization of the
body of experts that manages European Funds and the lessons of
institutional and legislative instability brought us to the point where we
have to act quickly and firmly. In any other perspective, we risk to widen
the gaps between the developing regions of the European Union.
The study carried out by the prestigious law firm Musat &
Associates is an institutional radiography, a technical and unbiased
analysis. Equally, the study is the best starting point, now, at the eleventh
hour, in order to improve absorption performance under the current
financial framework, but also for the next one.
According to experts, structural and cohesion funds are among

the only instruments available for Romania's development for the next
period and the only real support for reducing the development gaps
already widened due to the financial crisis, the decrease of foreign
investments or the terrible conditions imposed by the IMF agreement.
This study that reiterates previous concerns regarding the

administrative and institutional capacity as well as the regional reform
process is also an invitation to debate on the future of our country, to
strategically plan our development and to acknowledge the need to learn
from our mistakes and from the relevant experience of countries similar
in size to Romania. And here, I think without doubt about our Poland
145
friend where despite an amount of funds larger than ours and potentially
more complex problems than those of Romania, the Cohesion Policy was
turned into an engine of economic growth, social progress, which reduced
disparities and also helped the country to increase its credibility as a
major player of the Union.
By the time this study is being elaborated, the European

Parliament negotiates with the Council and the European Commission the
future of the Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020. I had the chance after years
of working in the REGI Committee, to be appointed rapporteur of the
European Parliament for the Cohesion Fund, a key instrument of the
Cohesion Policy.
By the amendments I have submitted to this fund and the

amendments of the European Parliament, the legislative framework of the
Cohesion Policy, the European regions and the European citizens will be
able to benefit from what we, MEPs in the REGI Committee proudly call
investing in development.
Will my country finally know how to benefit from Cohesion

Policy? The answer or the answers depend on us, the Romanian
government, the regions, the counties, the communities. If other states
comparable in structure, demography and indicators succeeded, why cant
we?
Victor Botinaru
Member of the European Parliament
146
Introduction
The analyses on the absorption capacity of European Union

funds, the assessments on the status of absorption and the factors which
influence the success or failure of the European Unions Cohesion Policy
have been made public in Romania in the last six years since our
countrys accession. To some extent, these analyses reflect the
complexity of different approaches on Cohesion Policy, where each
intermediate body, management authority, ministry or administrative
territorial unit should play a well-defined role.
However, in what we can call the traditional Romanian public

administration, a decentralized system which involves and maximizes
vertical and horizontal integration remains a goal to be achieved. If on the
vertical level, we have the administration with various levels of
European, national, regional and local authorities; on the horizontal level
we have companies, social groups and civil society organizations, which
all should be equally involved in designing, implementing and accessing
European Funds.
This study does not aim to exhaust the subject of EU funds

absorption, approach largely unattainable, it rather tries to provide a
corollary and up to date assessment. The analysis is based on the latest
data available in the Committee on Regional Development of the
European Parliament and it emphasizes once again, the extent of a failure
with serious consequences for Romania's development and incapacity to
147
reduce the development gaps because of the very low absorption rate of
European Union funds.
The study aims to follow in detail and sets out to explain the
main directions of the EU Cohesion Policy. Thus, it addresses the current
status of EU funds absorption in Romania and key absorption indicators
for each Operational Programme. It also addresses the conceptual
dimensions of the terms used and establishes the general framework:
what is the current Romanian situation regarding the absorption of EU
funds, the suspensions and pre-suspensions of funds and the major risks
for 2013.
The study intends to serve the basic objectives for Romania's

development and to outline a short and medium term strategy to be
followed. This strategy should be developed in terms of the future multi-
annual financial framework and the future Cohesion Policy, taking into
account the experience built up so far and the urgent need for Romania to
improve its absorption, especially during the economic crisis and the
near-disappearance of other investment sources.
The second major part of the study is in general terms, an

analysis and a series of judgments based on available documents, an
assessment of the legal and institutional framework in terms of
jurisprudence and a presentation of data that can highlight the status of
our country, the causes that led to this situation and a series of measures
required, both in general and especially in particular, in light of the
legislative process.
The chapters in this section will address both the legal and
institutional framework for the identification of weaknesses, overlaps, its
stability problems identified both by the European Commissions
communications and in the documents made public by audit authorities,
as well as proposals for their correction and improvement.
148
In the next steps, the two frameworks are correlated; the key
issues that have led to the very poor absorption rate and the accumulation
of factors that influenced the disastrous results are identified. This section
analyses the current legal and institutional frameworks impact on the
administrative capacity to absorb EU funds, the causes of chronic
underfunding, the low level of staff training, the manner of solving the
litigations and the issue of public tenders which have attracted the
attention of anti-fraud and control bodies.
This section seeks to provide answers to some fundamental

questions: Is the Romanian state capable of mobilizing resources for
improving this situation? What are the main legislative measures needed
to reduce the level of fraud? What can be said about the current legal
framework for public procurement? How can it be improved and what is
the jurisprudence in this regard in other countries?
The last two chapters are devoted to the prospects for regional
reform in Romania and the debate on the EU budget for 2014-2020. The
two elements are key issues that will significantly affect the future and
the development of Romania.
The main conclusions drawn from the European Council of

February 7-8 have raised new concerns. The budget proposed by the
Council will not lead to an improvement of the EUs situation, but it will
rather deepen the disparities between the Member States and will not lay
out the premises for economic development and new jobs.
Repeatedly, the European Parliament drew the attention that

serious negotiations are needed so that the new MFF 20014-2020 to
become a tool of economic progress. Instead the result was a budget that
further on continues the direction of austeritys obtuse philosophy and
budgetary cuts. Thus, for the very first time since the establishment of the
EU, on the grounds of an unprecedented reduction of the EUs budget,
the Members States have to intensify their efforts if they want to benefit
from the available funds.
149
According to the Councils proposal, Romania has to receive

approximately EUR 1000/capita, while Poland gets EUR 1900. Only
now, the Romanian public agenda focuses on the new MFF and the
regional reform.
Succeeding the European debate and especially the one from the
European Parliament, decisions will be adopted in terms of institutional
and administrative legislation with a real impact on the future of the
Cohesion Policy implementation in Romania, which will bring its
benefits to the country, including a higher absorption rate, not only
quantitatively but also qualitatively.
While still outside the public agenda, the two elements will be
the subject of debate in the near future and the decisions that will be taken
must find their argumentation in a set of realities and need to be outlined
in an accurate assessment. The experience from the Committee for
Regional Development of the European Parliament and a negotiation
strategy prepared in advance are fundamental resources in this entire
process.
On the other hand, any fundamental change affecting EU

Cohesion policy has to have Commissions explicit approval in advance
and this cannot be achieved unless a serious and pragmatic dialogue
exists, both during the preparation stage as well as during the
implementation. Any government should take into consideration that
planning such reforms is a strict and serious issue.
Any other approach that does not bear in mind our countrys
terrible experience or the delaying of the decisions required to set the new
strategic guidelines is nothing but petty politics, which will only deepen
the disparities between Romania and the other Member States.
The conclusions and warnings emerging all these years are

equally present today. For years now, Romanian governments have
mimicked their commitment to carry out these reforms and the result was
150
catastrophic. Since time is no longer a friend of ours, 2013 is the year to

elaborate and implement the regional and institutional reforms so that this
colossal machinery managing the European funds to be fully prepared.
The stake of EU funds available until 2013 substantially changed

its weight, especially in the context of crisis consequences. This is why,
our country no longer affords to stand back and deny itself one of the
most important advantages of the EU membership.
151
Constant evaluations on
the extremely low level
of EU funds absorption
2010 negatively emphasized Romanias absorption capacity due

to two equally harmful events: VAT increase, leading to more expensive
European and co-financing money and the significant decrease of civil
servants salaries, including here the experts in attracting European funds.
Also, the removal of the experts from the system has caused a
destabilization of the management of EU funds. Thus, the solutions that
were required, since that time, aimed the training programs, which should
be offered both to those working in public administration in general, but
also to those managing EU funds, in particular. Encouraging all those
managing projects funded by the European Union requires inter-
institutional cooperation and coordination and economic incentives.
Today, when we evaluate the importance confered by Romania to

the Cohesion Policy through the human and economic resources
allocated, we can easily see how lightly this policy was treated.
Launched on May 1, 2009, at the initiative and coordination of

MEP Victor Botinaru, the study "White Paper of the Administrative
Capacity - European funds absorption by small and medium-sized
152
communities1 represented the first large-scale research seeking to

identify the problems faced by local actors in the process of absorption of
EU funds. The study was appreciated both in Brussels as well as by the
Romanian academic circles.
With a sample of 874 municipalities, representing over 7 million

Romanian local inhabitants, the study revealed that, in addition to the
absence of trained personnel and weak fiscal capacity of local
governments, the important bureaucratic obstacles, the collection of rules
that were too bulky and difficult to understand, non-transparent
regulations on financing, small chance to exchange experiences between
project proponents and undeveloped possibilities for interregional
coordination are influencing the administrative capacity to manage any
kind of project.
At that time, the study recommended the regional reform to be

initiated by a law regarding the establishment of the position of Governor
/ Regional Prefect whom to coordinate regional development policy in
developing regions. To this measure, the support of the central
government as well as the banks in terms of co-financing and the
elements of pre-financing guarantees can be added. Introducing some
form of conditionality for the consulting firms like being paid only if the
project is eligible and the practiced fees to reflect their performance, was
another step towards improving the performance of those companies.
1
The Study "White Paper of the administrative capacity - European funds absorption
by small and medium-sized communities" took place from February 4 to February 23,
2009, on a sample of 874 municipalities, representative of small and medium-sized
territorial administrative units in Romania, with an error of +/- 2.9%. The sample
type is probabilistic, stratified based on the data provided by the census of 2002,
consisting of 32 layers resulted from the intersection of 8 geographical areas with 4
types of urban and rural settlements. The full study is available at this address:
www.victorbostinaru.ro/Studiu.zip
153
In terms of reducing bureaucracy, the study "White Paper of the

administrative capacity - European funds absorption by small and
medium-sized communities recommended the conclusion of an
agreement between the Government and the National Union of County
Councils, Association of Municipalities, Association of Municipalities
and Villages Association on the agenda on simplifying and
debureaucratization, in accordance with the reports adopted by the
Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament.
And last but not least, the identification and promotion of

examples of good practice and successful projects in Romania is also
recommended. In this respect, it is also mentioned at that time, that a
database containing all the projects within each Regional Development
Agencies in Romania could be created, with the support of the national
and local authorities.
During August 2009 January 2010, Soros Foundation Romania

carried out a sociological research with two components: one
quantitative, based on a self-filled in questionnaire, addressed to all City
halls in Romania and a qualitative one, during which 8 case studies were
conducted. According to the results of the research, published in the study
Autoritile locale fa n fa cu fondurile europene, the following
were determined2:
The wealthy (city halls with a high local budget) are those accessing
European funds and developing out of them, resulting in an increase
of the inter and intraregional disparities and thus violating the
principles of EU Cohesion Policy, according to which the reductions
of gaps and disparities between regions is pursued.
2
Alexandru TOTH, Ctlin DRTEANU, Daniela TARNOVSCHI coord., Autoritile
locale fa n fa cu fondurile europene, Coordonatori, Funaia Soro, Bucureti,
2010. http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?cat=24#, 30 ianuarie 2013.
154
A national strategy for supporting and assisting the poor and

disadvantaged City Halls, facing problems in accessing the
communitarian funds, is missing.
There is the need that the state agencies coordinating the European
funds to perform the territorial monitoring of the distribution of these
funds in order to prevent and stop widening the inter and
intraregional disparities.
European funds are difficult to access and even more difficult to

implement and if problems are asserted, the money will have to be
returned. It is very likely that in a not so far future, one would
discover that Romania is only a net contributor to the budget of the
European Union. Now, local authorities whose budgets are severely
affected by the economic-financial crisis will probably encounter
problems in implementing the projects already won (no co-financing
power).
If, for many (especially for those governing the country, according to
the statement of the Prime Minister) European funds are a way out of
the crisis, reality can be different though. European funds can
become a burden, not being able to absorb them or they may
represent the apple of discord, the reasons for insecurity and social
tension due to an increase of the differences between the wealthy
and the poor.
Another evaluation made in the context of the visit of the

Committee on Regional Developments delegation to Romania, which
took place in the period November 3-5, 2010, shows that:
In Romania, regional structures have no responsibility, either

functional or fiscal, and thus, no competence in terms of policy drafting.
Therefore, one of the biggest challenges for the next years will be to
address this kind of imbalance in the benefit of the regions. As a EU
accession prerequisite, Romania developed an institutional frame for
155
managing EU support, which includes a series of administrative

structures and monitoring mechanisms.
However, the monitoring reports of the European Commission

suggest that Romania should strengthen anti-corruption general policy,
especially by a high-level coordination and based on an independent
evaluation of the impact of the results of the last two anti-corruption
strategies implemented in 2005.
In addition, in terms of public acquisitions, Romania should

evaluate the effectiveness of the legal framework and the assignment of
responsibilities to the competent authorities, in terms of protection against
the conflict of interest and to modify them, if necessary. Also, the
authorities should consider forbidding public officials and elected
representatives to benefit directly or indirectly from commercial contracts
concluded on behalf of their institution and to establish full transparency
in this area.3
It is worthy of note that, at this point, the European Commission

Report on the progress of Romania under the Cooperation and
Verification Mechanism on January 30, 2013, states that progress seems
very limited in the prevention and sanctioning of corruption related to
public procurement. The advances made against high-level corruption
have not been matched in public procurement. Cases seem to take a long
time, partly due to the need for specific financial expertise, leading to the
particular problem of contracts concluded before court judgement on the
offence. The penalties for officials involved in fraudulent public
procurement cases continue to be very low and the law does not foresee a
possibility of a cancellation on the grounds of conflict of interest of
projects that have already been executed. There are also major doubts on
the effectiveness of prosecution handling of these cases. Recent proposals
3
Ivana KATSAROVA, Situaia economic, social i teritorial a Romniei, Direcia
General Politici Interne - Departamentul tematic politici structurale i de coeziune,
noiembrie 2010.
156
seem to call into question the stable independent institutional basis

essential for real progress.4
Yet these remarks, together with the media reports in summer of

2011, raise important question marks over the integrity of Romanian audit
and control mechanisms on one hand, and the over the leadership of
ministries and institutions involved in this period in the absorption
process, on the other hand.
The same evaluation of DG Internal Policies - Structural and

Cohesion Policy Department also states that "effective absorption of
structural funds depends largely on the quality of the programming phase,
where the priorities should reflect the needs and capacity of the actual
beneficiaries. Therefore, defining them during the consultation with the
stakeholders in a decentralized and transparent environment requires the
development of national capacities which are undergoing a training
process in Romania. Since its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,
Romania has absorbed funds equivalent to 0.75% of GDP, compared with
the 2% originally planned, while in 2008 only a quarter of the funds made
available by Brussels were used. Further simplification of delivery
mechanisms at European and national level will certainly contribute to
speeding up this process5.
This did not happen, mainly because the delivery mechanism

from the European level was not simplified while the national mechanism
encountered a number of problems that this very study intends to
emphasize.
At these assessments add up some articles from the Romanian

media that quote an internal report of the European Commission.
According to Fin.ro, within an article from July 2011, a document of the
4
Report of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the
progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism,
http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf, 30 January 2013.
5
Ivana KATSAROVA, op cit.
157
EU executive shows the degree of disappointment our country produced

as a member6. Thus, an analysis on the use of European funds reveals
the main problems: corruption and abusive public procurements.
Moreover, as a result of the irregularities notified by the

European Commission in nearly 100% of the sample that was verified, a
decision to suspend the payments was taken until December 2011. Thus
the decision to suspend the payments came as a result of fraud
suspicions, found in 61 from the 64 projects that were subject to the
analysis of the European anti-fraud institutions. A year later, in
December 2012, other five Operational Programmes would face
payments suspension due to irregularities found by the European
Commission audits.
The background of the document refers to the general issue of the

absorption of EU funds, the perspective of losing a large amount of
money in 2013 is being invoked in the absence of concrete measures
taken that year. The Commission officials were showing that the levels of
absorption were low in Bulgaria and alarmingly low in Romania,
except the funds for agriculture. In Romania, the absorption rate for the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is 3,4% and for the
European Social Fond (ESF) -1,4%. In comparison, the EU average for
the fourth year of implementation was 17%.
Despite the Commission's efforts to address this situation, there

is little progress on the ground. Romania's response seems to be
superficial and does not address the root causes of the problems. The
negative assessment is also shared by other international financial
institutions. DGs have no interlocutor at the political level, while
managers within the administration are frequently replaced. The system's
capacity to manage public procurement remains low. Unless concrete
6
Vlad BARLEANU, CE suspecteaz DNA i guvernul c mpiedic investigaiile OLAF
din Romnia", Fin.ro http://www.fin.ro/articol_63625/ce-suspecteaza-dna-si-
guvernul-ca-impiedica-investigatiile-olaf-din-romania.html, 18 July 2011
158
steps are taken in 2011, Romania is going to lose a large part of EU fund
as of 2013. DGs called for actions to be taken by the Commission at the
highest political level7, the document also shows.
According to Fin.ro, these messages were officially sent to the

Romanian administration, fact that explains the hurrying for a
governmental reshuffle having as criteria the results of implementing the
European projects or even the establishment of a special ministry.
Today, The Commission has no central interlocutor in Romania, with
sufficient political influence to assure the implementation of an action
plan agreed to speed up absorption8 said the specialists from Brussels
quoted within the media article.
One of the conclusions of the article notes that the Regional

Policy of the European Union is being questioned by the governments
disastrous policy. The reasons identified by the Commission for this
matter of fact are the weak administration, the inefficient procedures, the
political interferences, the formalist manner of applying the rules and a
judiciary system not able to better protect against the conflict of interest,
corruption and fraud.
The financial consequences of the low absorption rate threaten

the credibility of the regional policy and weaken the position of the
Commission within the budgetary negotiations that will follow9 is one of
quoted passages from the EC internal document.
The Commissions officials make a brief history of the most

recent events in the relation with Romania. Thus, in December 2010, Jose
Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission made a
suggestion to the political leaders from Bucharest to create a special
7
Idem
8
Idem
9
Idem
159
ministerial portfolio for the coordination of EU funds and to set up an

action plan, offering the direct support of the Commission.
The reply by Romania to this initiative has so far been

disappointing. No effective policy coordination at high level was
established, the implementation of an action plan received by Romania in
May is already slipping behind the target deadlines and no reply to the
offer of targeted assistance has been received10 the document says.
In this context, the Commission states that Romania should take

the following immediate measures:
The coordination of EU funds is transferred to a person of ministerial

level, close to the Prime Minister, at latest by 1 August 2011. (In this
respect it is notable the delay of about two months from the
Romanian Government).
To rigorously implement the priority action plan to increase the

capacity to absorb structural and cohesion funds submitted by
Romania in April 2011. The implementation is monitored through
regular meetings between the Government and the Commission and
monthly reports. If necessary, the action plan will be revised by
Government decision after consultation with the European
Commission.
A list of measured to improve administrative capacity is agreed with

the Commission and approved by the Government at latest by 1
October 2011. This list should include actions to improve
institutional stability, to adopt transparent and merit-based
appointment criteria for management positions and to prevent and
detect conflicts of interest in the management of funds.
10
Idem
160
A list of measures to improve public procurement practice is agreed

with the Commission and approved by the Government at latest by 1
October 2011 following an independent assessment carried out in this
area. The measures will be updated by 1 March 2012 following
publication of a complementary review of the World Bank.
According to the figures available on 21 December 201211,

Romania has effectively absorbed 4 billion euro of the 20 billion
available for the period 2007-2013, with an interim payments rate of only
9, 7%. These figures place Romania last in the European Union.
The analysis and assessments in all these years are surprisingly

current and recurrent. From this point of view, the findings are simple:
the disregard, corruption and incompetence at the highest level left their
mark on the capacity to absorb structural and cohesion funds. But
systemic issues have also contributed to Romania's disastrous situation. If
the first category of vulnerabilities falls within the scope of the judiciary
system and even the electoral cycle, for the second, political decisions are
needed, adopted with largest consensus after debates with all involved
actors.
11
Annex 1
161
Notes and references

BRLEANU Vlad, CE suspecteaz DNA i guvernul c mpiedic
investigaiile OLAF din Romnia, Fin.ro http://www.fin.ro/articol_63625/ce-
suspecteaza-dna-si-guvernul-ca-impiedica-investigatiile-olaf-din-
romania.html, 18 iulie 2011.
KATSAROVA Ivana, Situaia economic, social i teritorial a Romniei,

Direcia General Politici Interne - Departamentul tematic politici
structurale i de coeziune, noiembrie 2010.
TARNOVSCHI Daniela coord.,TOTH Alexandru, DRTEANU Ctlin,

Autoritile locale fa n fa cu fondurile europene, Coordonatori, Funaia
Soro, Bucureti, 2010. http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?cat=24#, 30
ianuarie 2013.
Report of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on

the progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification
Mechanism, http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf, 30
January 2013.
162
Conceptual framework
The absorption capacity represents the ratio in which a

country is able to effectively and efficiently spend the financial resources
allocated from the Structural Funds12. The absorption capacity depends
on the administrative and institutional capacity, namely on the existence
of some institutional bodies able to draft and implement projects as well
as on the coordination and collaboration capacity between the involved
institutions.
The experience of the performing states shows that the

absorption capacity is closely related to the administrative and
institutional capacity.
The framework law on decentralisation no 195/2006 defines the

administrative capacity as the overall of material, institutional and human
resources a territorial-administrative unit is having, as well as the actions
it carries out to exercise the competences established by the law.
According to the same law, the administrative capacity is being evaluated
and determined by law.
In a smaller acceptation, the administrative capacity to absorb

European funds is defined as a set of competencies belonging to the
central, regional and local authorities that allows them to develop, at a
reasonable level and in time, plans, programmes and projects, to take
12
Gheorghe OPRESCU coord.,Daniela Luminia CONSTANTIN, Florinel ILIE, Drago
PSLARU, "Analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor comunitare n Romnia",
Institutul European din Romnia - Studii de Impact III, p. 9
163
decisions regarding these programmes and projects, to coordinate key

partners and to successfully manage the administrative and reporting
workload. Also, the administrative capacity refers to the ability to
finance, to supervise the implementation of projects and to avoid frauds.13
The institutional capacity marks the institutional factors14, both

at EU level and at national level. At EU level, the institutional capacity
refers mainly to the European Commission and its activity but also to the
reports of the European Parliament and the result of the negotiations from
the Council. At national level, the institutional factors relate to the real
structure of the economy, the organisation of the political system and the
governmental structures as well as the economic policies.
The financial capacity represents the ability of central and local

authorities to co finance programmes and projects supported by the
European Union, to plan and guarantee these contributions within
multiannual budgets and to collect them from the various partners
involved within a project or programme.
13
Andrej HORVAT, Absorption Problems in the EU Structural Funds, Ljubljana, 2004,
p. 9.
14
Idem
164

HORVAT Andrej, Absorption Problems in the EU Structural Funds, Ljubljana,
2004.
OPRESCU Gheorghe coord., CONSTANTIN Daniela Luminia, ILIE Florinel,

PSLARU Drago, "Analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor comunitare n
Romnia", Institutul European din Romnia - Studii de Impact III.
165
The absorption of
structural and cohesion
funds
I. Preliminary Considerations
This Study has been drafted by Musat & Asociatii upon the request of Mr
Victor Bostinaru, member of the European Parliament and its purpose is
to perform a legal analysis of the legislative and institutional framework
of European Structural Funds and the dysfunctions thereof, to evaluate
the consequences of identified dysfunctions and to propose potential
solutions to remedy the dysfunctions.
This Study aims to be an analysis of the causes which generated a very

low level of European funds absorption in Romania, and we shall
hereinafter describe the reasons relating to the public authorities involved
in the entire European financing process at national level, as well as the
ones relating to the actors (beneficiaries) involved.
At the same time, this Study aims to analyze Romanias absorption

capacity in view of achieving the Cohesion Policys goals, an absorption
capacity which in the case of states that recently accessed the European
Union represents the main instruments by which they may adjust the
disparities between them and the senior Member States.
166
This Study was prepared between March 2012 and October 2012 (a
period to be deemed as a reference period for accessing the studied
documents and information).
The conclusions, ascertainments and recommendations of Musat &

Asociatii that are comprised in this Study refer to and are limited to the
purpose of the analysis, as described above.
This Study is based exclusively on the provisions of Romanian laws and

European regulations, as they may be interpreted and enforced by
Romanian courts of law and/or arbitration courts. Musat & Asociatii does
not express nor issue any opinion in relation to which or that may have
legal consequences regarding the legislation of jurisdictions other than the
Romanian one. In this respect, please note that the opinion of Musat &
Asociatii referring to the applicability of an obligation or the applicability
of a document means that the analyzed obligation or document is of the
type and form enforceable by Romanian courts. However, taking into
consideration that Romania is a civil law jurisdiction, in which court
decisions may differ depending on the court rendering them, it is
practically impossible to positively determine the manner in which a
Romanian court would interpret the rights and obligations of the parties
based on Romanian law.
167
II. DESCRIPTION OF EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL FUNDS
2.1. Introduction to the European Union development policy
As of the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty on the European

Union, one of the major objectives of the European Union has been to
strengthen the economic and social Cohesion Policy.
Certainly not all the regions of the European Union enjoy the same level
of development, especially since the extension of the European Union to
27 Member States has generated new issues concerning internal
competitiveness and cohesion. The economic and social development
differences between the senior Member States of the European Union and
the states which have recently accessed the Union represent the reason of
deepening the existing gaps between Member States.
In an attempt to reduce disparities between the states (regions) of the

European Union, a cohesion policy was implemented, involving the
reduction of existing gaps between regions in terms of production and
productivity. To achieve the goal of the Cohesion Policy, the targeted
Member States and regions require financial aid in view of settling
various existing structural issues and achieving their development
potential.
Therefore, the development of any new Member State in view of

reducing the disparities mostly relates to its absorption capacity, which
represents the level at which a Member State manages, within a
determined time frame (usually, during a financial year), to absorb and
use its available funds from the budget of the European Union based on
the administrative capacity of that country and the institutional capacity
thereof for achieving, developing and implementing projects for drawing
European funds. In its turn, the administrative capacity1 is the ensemble
of material, institutional and human resources available to an
1
As per Law no. 195/2006 - the framework law for decentralization
168
administrative-territorial unit, as well as the actions undertaken by the

latter in order to exercise the duties determined by law, while the
institutional capacity is the ensemble of institutions by which the state or
the administrative-territorial units transpose the decisions adopted at the
administration level in view of achieving the Cohesion Policy.
The economic and social cohesion policy based on financial solidarity,

namely the redistribution of a part of the community budget created
through the contribution of the Member States, to the less prosperous
regions and social groups represents a solidarity policy, its purpose being
that of promoting competitiveness and employment at a large scale.
At the same time, one of the main goals of the Cohesion Policy is to
improve the Single European Market2, leading to an increase of welfare
in the Member States of the European Union. Thus, the European Union
has created a legislative and institutional framework to ensure that the
objectives of the Cohesion Policy are achieved.
2.2. General Community-Level Legislative Framework
The legal framework of the Community policy for regional development

is provided in the contents of Title XVII of the European Union Treaty,
determining the objective of the regional policy, namely to reduce the
inequalities between the levels of development of various regions and the
falling behind of less developed regions or islands, including rural
areas.
2
The Single European Market is represented by the free movement of the
population, commodities, services and capital within and among Member States of
the European Union, as if they were moving within a single country. This entails a
customs union, an internal market (consisting of annulling the obstacles between
Member States against the four fundamental freedoms: free movement of persons,
commodities, services and capital), free competition and a joint commercial policy.
169
In addition to the general legal framework provided in Title XVII of the

European Union Treaty, the main legislative documents representing the
general legislative framework at the level of the European Union are:
Regulation no. 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development

Fund (EFRD);
Regulation no. 1081/2006 on the European Social Fund (ESF);
Regulation no. 1082/2006 on European territorial cooperation;
Regulation no. 1083/2006 determining the general provisions

concerning the European Regional Development Fund, the European
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund;
Regulation no. 1084/2006 on the Cohesion Fund (CF);
Regulation no. 1828/2006 concerning the implementation rules for

(EC) Commission Regulation no. 1083/2006 containing general
provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund, the
European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and (EC) Commission
Regulation 1080/2006 concerning the European Regional
Development Fund;
(EC) Commission Regulation no. 1177/2009 of September 30, 2009 -

concerning the new procurement limits.
2.3. The Legislative Framework in Romania
The main national legislative rules in the area of managing structural

funds are:
Government Decision no. 457/2008 on the institutional

framework for coordinating and managing structural instruments;
Government Decision no. 1115/2004 on preparing the National

Development Plan in association;
170
Law no. 315/2004 on regional development in Romania;
Government Decision no. 109/2009 on the organization and

operation of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration;
Law no. 490/2004 on financially stimulating the staff managing

Community funds;
Government Decision no. 595/2009 for the enforcement of Law

no. 490/2004 on financially stimulating the staff managing
Community funds;
Law no. 200/2005 approving EGO no. 22/2005 for

supplementing Law no. 94/1992 concerning the organization and
activity of the Court of Auditors;
Government Ordinance no. 66/2011 on preventing, ascertaining

and sanctioning irregularities occurred in obtaining and using
European funds and/or national public funds relating thereto;
Law no. 500/2002 on public finance;
Law no. 273/2006 on local public finance;
Law no. 84/2003 amending and supplementing GO no. 119/1999

on internal audit and preventive financial control;
Law no. 672/2002 on internal public audit;
Emergency Government Ordinance no. 63/1999 on managing

non-reimbursable Community funds distributed to Romania and
related co-financing funds, as amended and supplemented.
Emergency Ordinance no. 64/2009 on the financial management

of structural instruments and their use for the convergence
objective;
171
Order no. 673/13.04.2009 amending Order no. 752/2006 of the

Minister of Public Finances approving the procedure for the
issuance of the fiscal certificate for legal entities and individuals,
the budget obligations certificate, as well as the model and
contents thereof;
Local Public Administration Law no. 215/2001;
Law no. 220/2008 determining the system for promoting the

production of green energy.
Government Decision no. 218/2012 approving the

Methodological norms for enforcing the provisions of
Emergency Government Ordinance no. 64/2009 on the financial
management of structural instruments and their use for the
convergence objective.
Cohesion Policy Objectives
In view of financing the cohesion policy, a number of 3 (three) financing

structural instruments were set up, as follows:
1. The European Regional Development Fund (EFRD),
2. The European Social Fund (ESF) and
3. The Cohesion Fund (CF).
In their turn, these structural instruments finance the following objectives:
(i) The Convergence Objective
The convergence objective aims to economically develop regions that are

under-developed by performing investments in key areas such as:
infrastructure, human capital or the environment. The regions targeted by
the convergence objectives are the NUTS II regions (Nomenclature of
Units for Territorial Statistics), namely the ones registering a GIP/capita
172
of less than 75% of the Community average. Consequently, based on the

criteria mentioned above, the entire territory of Romania is eligible under
the convergence objective, taking into account that the GIP/capita in each
region is less than 75% of the EU-25 Community average3. At the same
time, apart from the above-mentioned regions, the Member States whose
GIP/capita is less than 90% of the EU-25 Community average are also
eligible for financing based on this objective.
(ii) Regional Competitiveness and Employment
In order to benefit from funding based on the regional competitiveness

and employment objective, it is mandatory for the targeted regions not to
qualify for funding based on the convergence objective. This objective is
financed though EFRD and ESF.
Referring to the activities that may be financed under this objective,

please note that it is mandatory that they refer to objectives such as: (i)
the development of competitive regions or (ii) employment.
(iii) European Territorial Cooperation
The purpose of this objective is to increase inter-regional cooperation, to

increase exchange of experience and, respectively, trans-border
cooperation based on joint programs conducted by neighboring regions.
For the financial period 2007-2013, the policys framework relates to the
fulfillment of objectives set out in the Lisbon Agenda4, as well as in the
contents of the Goteborg Agenda5.
3
UE-25 represents all 25 Member States of the European Union, which made up
the Union before the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.
4
The objectives of the Lisbon strategy, as re-launched on February 2, 2005, include:
supporting knowledge and innovation in Europe, the reform of state aid policies,
improving and simplifying the regulatory framework in which an enterprise operates
and creating an internal service market; eliminating obstacles as concerns the free
circulation in the area of transportation, labor and education; developing a common
173
2.4. Financial Instruments
Based on the three financial instruments, a third of the total budget of the
European Union for 2007-2013 was assigned, to be distributed among:
(a) The European Regional Development Fund (EFRD)
The European Regional Development Fund is the most important

structural fund as concerns the resources, aiming to reduce the gaps
among various regions of the European Union by granting financial aid to
under-privileged areas.
The amounts allocated by EFRD must mandatorily observe certain

criteria, namely: (i) to focus on objectives and regions, (ii) to determine a
partnership policy among the European Commission, Member States of
the European Union and local players, (iii) to have the intervention
scheduled and (iv) to be complementary to the Community contribution.
In addition, EFRD significantly contributes to increasing the economic

and social cohesion by supporting the development of regional economies
and reconstructing those regions facing industrial decline. Thus, EFRD
supports the priorities of the European Union, particularly strengthening
competitiveness and innovation, long-term employment and ensuring a
durable development.
(b) The European Social Fund (ESF)
The European Social Fund is the main instrument for implementing the
European Unions social policy, ensuring the financial support required
for professional training and reconversion, but also creating new
workplaces.
approach of economic migration; supporting efforts for approaching the social

consequences of economic restructuring.
5
The objectives of the Goteborg agenda for a durable development, as agreed by the
European Council in 2001 include: climate changes, transport systems, public health,
the responsible management of natural resources.
174
At the same time, the role of ESF is to contribute to the strengthening of

economic and social cohesion, in view of ensuring a high level of
employment rate and sufficient jobs, by improving the employment
opportunities of EU citizens.
Moreover, ESF also aims to support national employment policies, as

well as to ensure quality and productivity through the free access of
European Union citizens on the Community labor market.
(c) The Cohesion Fund (CF)
The major contribution of the Cohesion Fund is emphasized by

strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the European Union,
having as final purpose the promotion of a durable development of
Member States.
2.5. Structural and Cohesion Funds in Romania
Between 2007 and 2012, Romania was allocated6, based on the structural
and cohesion funds, a total amount of EUR 19.668 billion, of which (i)
EUR 12.661 billion represents the Structural Funds within the
Convergence Objective, (ii) EUR 6.552 billion are distributed through
the Cohesion Fund, and (iii) EUR 0.455 billion are allocated to the
European Territorial Cooperation Objective.
In Romania, the implementation of Structural and Cohesion Funds is

performed based on the following documents: (i) the Romanian National
Development Plan for 2007-2013 (RNDP), (ii) the National Strategic
Reference Framework for 2007-2013 (NSRF), (iii) the Operational
Programs (OP) and (iv) the Framework Implementation Documents
(FID).
6
As per the information available on
http://ec.europa.eu/romania./documents/press_releases/10_07_sinteza_csnr.pdf.
175
2.5.1. The Romanian National Development Plan for 2007-2013
RNDP 2007-2013 is a strategic and financial planning document,

approved by the Romanian Government, drafted in partnership with the
competent structures of the European Union, having as purpose the
economic development of Romania in accordance with the European
Unions cohesion policies. The strategy agreed together with the
European Commission regarding the use of structural instruments and the
OP implementing these funds was drafted in compliance with RNDP
2007 - 2013.
2.5.2. The National Strategic Reference Framework for 2007-20137
NSRF is the main document for programming Structural and Cohesion

Funds in Romania. The document is drafted by each Member State of the
European Union, as per the new Community acquis8 on the Cohesion
Policy. Nevertheless, please note that this document cannot represent a
management instrument, and it must be regarded as an instrument based
on which the intervention instruments for Structural and Cohesion Funds
between 2007 and 2013 are to be determined.
At the same time, NSRF provides details on the implementation

instruments for structural funds between 2007-2013, and the document
serves as a link between national priorities and European-level priorities
set up based on the 2007-2013 Community Strategic Guidelines9 on
7
Idem.
8
According to the new acquis concerning the European Unions Cohesion Policy, each
Member State prepares a National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF), as
reference document for scheduling Structural and Cohesion Funds.
9
The Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion 2007-2013 These orientations
prepared by the European Commission and adopted by the European Union Council
refer to enhancing of the amenity of Member States, regions and cities by improving
access, services and the environment, encouraging businesses, innovation and
economic growth, by consolidating innovation and research capacities and creating
new employment opportunities through the development of entrepreneurship,
176
cohesion and the 2005-2008 Integrated Guidelines of the European Union

for Economic Development and Employment10.
The framework for preparing NSRF was RNDP, as approved by the

Romanian Government in December 2005, while the purpose of drafting
NSRF was to consolidate the economic, social and regional policies of
Romania for their harmonizing with the European Commission policies,
required by the Lisbon Strategy; a document that represents the basis for
drafting the economic development policies.
In the end, the objective of NSRF is to reduce the economic and social
development inequalities between Romania and the Member States of the
European Union by generating an additional increase of 15-20% of the
GIP until 2015.
2.5.3. Operational Programs
OP are the documents approved by the European Commission in view of

implementing the sectorial and regional priorities mentioned in RNDP
and approved for financing, being the actual management instruments by
which the objectives of NSRF are achieved.
At the time of drafting this document, Romania is using a number of 7

(seven) OP under the Convergence Objective:
(i) The Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources

Development (SOP-DHR);
improving the adaptability of workers and companies and increasing investments in

human capital.
10
The European Council, convened in March 2005, re-launched the Lisbon strategy by
redirecting it on development and employment in Europe. Thus, it was decided that
the European Union and each Member State shall focus their attention on these
areas and shall take the measures required for promoting knowledge, attracting as
many people to the labor market and creating as many employment opportunities.
177
(ii) The Sectoral Operational Programme Increase of Economic

Competitiveness (SOP-IEC);
(iii) The Operational Programme Transport (SOPT);
(iv) The Operational Programme Environment (SOP-

ENVIRONMENT);
(v) The Regional Operational Programme (ROP);
(vi) The Operational Programme Technical Assistance (OPRA);
(vii) The Operational Programme for the development of

administrative capacities (OP-DAC).
Regarding the financing, please note that, except for SOP-

ENVIRONMENT and SOPT, each OP is financed through a single
instrument, and, at the same time, each OP is supplemented by a FID,
approved by the European Commission, based on which the information
regarding the projects and eligible expenses, potential beneficiaries, the
settlement methods of eligible expenses, but also the role of the
authorities within the entire process of granting European funds is shown.
Herein below you may find a short description of the main characteristics
of each operational program:
(i) The Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources

Development (SOP-DHR)
SOP-DHR is the operational program drafted in accordance with the

fourth priority of NSRF (namely the development and efficient use of
human capital in Romania through the Convergence Objective).
The main objective of SOP-DHR is to develop human capital and

increase competitiveness, together with ensuring improved opportunities
178
for further access on a modern, flexible and comprehensive labor market

for a number of 1,650,000 individuals.
The specific objectives of SOP-DHR are:
Promoting education and quality primary and continuous training,

including higher education and research;
Promoting entrepreneurship culture and increasing labor quality and

productivity;
Facilitating the long-term inclusion of youth and unemployed

individuals in the labor market;
Developing a modern, flexible and inclusive labor market;
Promoting the inclusion/re-inclusion of inactive individuals,

including those from rural areas, on the labor market;
Improving public employment services;
Facilitating the access of vulnerable groups to education and the

labor market.
To achieve these objectives funds are being directed to the following

Priority Axes:
Priority Axis 1 Education and professional training in support

of economic growth and social development
based on knowledge, entailing the development
of continuous flexible training paths and
increasing access to education and training by
providing a modern and quality primary and
continuous education, including higher
education and research.
179
Priority Axis 2 Correlation of continuous learning with the

labor market, representing the access to
education, increase of employment and the level
of education and professional training of human
resources by a continuous approach, in the
context of a knowledge based society.
Priority Axis 3 Increasing the adaptability of workers and

enterprises, by promoting entrepreneurship,
flexibility and adaptability by supporting
competent, trained and adaptable workforce and
enterprises.
Priority Axis 4 Modernizing the Public Employment Service, by

increasing the quality, efficiency and
transparency of employment services supplied
by the Public Employment Service (ANOFM).
Priority Axis 5 Promoting active employment measures, aiming

to facilitate the integration of young and long-
term unemployed individuals in the labor
market, to attract and keep a large number of
people on the labor market, including those
from rural areas and to support formal
employment.
Priority Axis 6 Promoting social inclusion, by facilitating

access to the labor market for vulnerable groups
and promoting an comprehensive and cohesive
society for the purpose of ensuring the well-
being of all citizens.
180
(ii) The Sectoral Operational Program Increase of Economic

Competitiveness (SOP-IEC)
SOP IEC represents the main instrument for achieving the first thematic
priority of RNDP, namely the increase of economic competitiveness and
the development of a knowledge based economy. The general objective
of SOP IEC is to increase the economic productivity of Romanian
enterprises in order to reduce the gaps between the average productivity
of the European Union, the purpose being an average annual increase of
5.5% until 2015, this increase allowing Romania to reach approximately
55% of the European Union average.
The specific objectives of SOP-IEC are:
To consolidate and develop the manufacturing sector in accordance

with the principles of sustainable development. The main aspect of
this specific objective is to support the modernization and innovation
of existing enterprises and to create new ones, especially small and
average enterprises in the manufacturing sectors and the sector of
business services.
To capitalize and qualify production equipments in order to expand

the production basis, to innovate the production processes and
equipments and to support the adaptation to international standards
leading to the development of the product range. The main aspect of
this specific objective is that of creating a favorable framework for
the development of entrepreneurship, thus aiming to reduce
constraints from the failed market areas (access to funding, financial
instruments, access to infrastructures and business services - in order
to create new enterprises and develop existing ones).
Achieving these objectives is ensured by targeting funds to the following

Priority Axes:
Priority Axis 1 An Innovative and eco-efficient production system;
Priority Axis 2 Competitiveness through research, technological

development and innovation;
181
Priority Axis 3 Technology of information and communications for the

public and private sectors;
Priority Axis 4 Increase of energy efficiency and security of supply in

the context of fighting against climate changes.
(iii) The Sectoral Operational Programme Transport (SOPT)
SOPT is the Romanian program document determining the priorities,

objectives and targets to be reached for the implementation process of the
structural instruments in the transport sector between 2007 and 2013.
As compared to the other OPs, SOPT has certain particularities which

considerably set it apart in implementation, namely:
a) the small number of eligible beneficiaries - SOPT implies the

managers of national transport infrastructures which are mostly
under the authority/coordination of the Ministry of Transport;
b) all axes and technical intervention areas are similar from the
point of view of the investment structures, the difference
depending on the general objective of the investments, and,
consequently, the applicants guide is the same for each of the
technical priorities comprised by SOPT;
c) SOPT eligible projects are known ever from the elaboration stage
of SOPT strategy;
d) transport investment projects have a long term preparation

period which includes drafting the pre-feasibility study, the
technical projects for the tender documentation and obtaining the
required approvals, a period that can last up to 5 years.
182
The specific objectives of SOPT are:
to modernize and develop the TEN-T11 priority axes, by applying the

necessary measures for protecting the environment;
to modernize and develop the national transport networks, in

accordance with the principles of sustainable development;
to promote rail, sea and inter-modal transport;
to support the development of sustainable transport, by minimizing

the negative effects of transport on the environment and to improve
the safety of traffic and human health.

Priority Axes:
Priority Axis 1 To modernize and develop the TEN-T12 priority

axes in view of developing a durable transport
system and to integrate within the European
Union transport networks;
Priority Axis 2 To modernize and develop the national

transport infrastructure outside the TEN-T
priority axes for the purpose of creating a
sustainable national transport system;
Priority Axis 3 To modernize the transport sector in view of

increasing environmental and public health
protection and the safety of passengers;
Priority Axis 4 Technical assistance.
11
In Romanian - Reteaua Trans-Europeana de Transport.
12
This priority axis refers to TEN-T no. 7 the development of the motorways network,
TEN-T no. 18 regarding sea transport by navigable ways and TEN-T no. 22
modernizing the rail infrastructure from the perspective of inter-operability.
183
(iv) The Sectoral Operational Programme Environment (SOP-

ENVIRONMENT)
The Sectoral Operational Programme Environment sets the priorities for

the Structural and Cohesion Funds interventions (between 2007 and
2013) and the strategy for allocating European funds. SOP-
ENVIRONMENT was drafted by the Ministry of Environment and
Sustainable Development, under the coordination of the Ministry of
Economy and Finance, as coordinator of the preparatory process of
Romania for accessing Structural and Cohesion Funds between 2007 and
2013.
SOP-ENVIRONMENT is the most important operational programme

from the perspective of financial allocation and represents the most
important financing source for the environment sector, the program being
financed through EFRD and CF.
The general objective of this OP is to improve the life standards and the
environment standards, contributing, at the same time, to the fulfillment
of Romanias obligations as concerns environmental protection arising
from its EU membership.
The specific objectives of SOP-ENVIRONMENT are:
To improve access to public utilities in the water and used water

sector by ensuring the water supply and sewage systems in most
urban areas by 2015 and to determine the management structures of
the water/used water services at a regional level.
To optimize the waste management systems by improving the waste

management infrastructure and reducing the number of historically
polluted areas from at least 30 counties until 2015.
184
To reduce the negative impact on the environment and to reduce the

climate changes effects caused by urban heating systems in the most
polluted localities until 2015.
To protect and improve bio-diversity and the natural patrimony by

supporting the management of protected areas, including the
implementation of Natura 200013 network.
To reduce the risk of natural disasters that affect the population, by

implementing preventive measures in the most vulnerable areas until
2015.
Achieving these objectives is ensured by directing funds to the following

Priority Axes:
Priority Axis 1 Extending and modernizing the water and

used water infrastructure (a total of
approximately EUR 3.3 billion, of which the
EU grant is of EUR 2.8 billion14).
Priority Axis 2 Developing the integrated waste

management systems and rehabilitation of
the historically contaminates areas (EUR 1.2
billion, of which the EU grant is of
approximately EUR 1 billion15).
13
Natura 2000 network is a European network of natural protected areas that
comprises a representative sample of wild species and natural habitats of
Community interest. The network was created not only for protecting nature, but
also for preserving these natural habitats on the long term, to ensure the resources
necessary for social and economic development.
14
As per the data supplied by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on its official
website www.mmediu.ro/...europene/01...europeana/02.../stadiu_proiecte.doc.
15
http://www.fonduri-
structurale.ro/Document_Files//mediu/00000029/h7748_Rezumat_POS_Mai_2007.p
df.
185
Priority Axis 3 Rehabilitating the municipal heating plants

in view of reducing pollution (EUR 458
million, of which the EU grant is of EUR
229 million16).
Priority Axis 4 Implementing appropriate management

systems to protect nature (EUR 215 million,
of which the EU grant is of EUR 172
million17).
Priority Axis 5 Developing the infrastructure for preventing

natural risks in the most endangered areas
(EUR 329 million, of which the EU grant is
of EUR 270 million18).
Priority Axis 6 Technical Assistance (EUR 174 million, of

which the EU grant is of EUR 130 million19).
The programme refers to the period 2007 and 2013, but unlike the other
OP, its objectives also refer to Romanias development needs after 2013,
by setting the basis for a sustainable economic development.
(v) The Regional Operational Programme (ROP)
ROPs objective is to support and promote a sustainable and territorially

balanced economic and social development for all the regions of
Romania, with a focus on supporting the sustainable development of
cities (potential urban development poles), improving the business
environment and infrastructure for the purpose of transforming the
regions of Romania into attractive locations for labor, living and leisure.
16
http://eufinantare.info/stiri/iul2007/declaratie-ministru-mediu.html.
17
Idem.
18
Idem.
19
Idem.
186
The specific objectives of ROP are:
To improve the general level of attractiveness and accessibility of

regions;
To increase competitiveness between regions as business locations;
To increase the contribution of tourism to the development of

regions;
To increase the economic and social role of urban centers.
Achieving these objectives is ensured by focusing funds to the following

Priority Axes:
Priority Axis 1 Supporting the sustainable development of

cities potential growth poles.
Priority Axis 2 To improve the regional and local transport

infrastructure.
Priority Axis 3 To improve the social infrastructure.
Priority Axis 4 To support the development of the regional

and local business environment.
Priority Axis 5 The sustainable development and promotion

of tourism.
Priority Axis 6 Technical assistance for supporting the

implementation of ROP.
(vi) The Operational Programme Technical Assistance (OPTA)
The Operational Programme Technical Assistance (OPTA) aims to

ensure an implementation process for structural instruments in
accordance with the principles and rules set out among the Member States
187
and the European Commission, in compliance with the provisions of (EC)

Council Regulation no. 1083/2006 on EFRD, ESF and CF.
Thus, in view of ensuring the most efficient method of using structural

instruments, each Member State has the obligation to monitor, evaluate
and control expenses from structural instruments, as well as to inform and
promote financial assistance and the implementation system. For this
purpose, OPTA supplements the priority axes for technical assistance
within the operational programms and represents an important instrument
for the coordination of the Cohesion Policy.
The priority axes for technical assistance within each operational program
shall provide specific assistance for the process of preparing, monitoring,
evaluating and assessing projects, as well as for the communication
activities ensuring proper promotion, in accordance with the specifics of
each OP.
The Management Authorities20 may receive support from OPTA in view

of implementing the operations useful to the parties involved in two or
more operational programs. At the same time, OPTA may offer increased
support for the coordination process and the financial and audit control
system.
The global objective of OPTA is to ensure the necessary support for the
coordination process and to contribute to an efficient and transparent
implementation and absorption of structural instruments in Romania.
The specific objectives of OPTA are:
To ensure the support and the appropriate instruments in view of an

efficient and effective coordination and implementation of structural
instruments between 2007 and 2013 and to prepare for the future
programming period.
20
The Management Authorities are authorities appointed by Romania as being
responsible for the management of Operational Programs.
188
To ensure a coordinated dissemination at national level of general

information regarding structural instruments and to implement the
ACSI Action Plan21 for communication, in accordance with the
National Communication Strategy22 for structural instruments.

Priority Axes:
Priority Axis 1 Support for the implementation of structural

instruments and coordination of programs;
Priority Axis 2 Continuous development and support for the

operation of the Sole Management System
for information;
Priority Axis 3 Dissemination of information and promoting

instruments.
(vii) The Operational Program for the Development of the

Administrative Capacity (OP-DAC)
The Operational Program for the Development of the Administrative

Capacity is financed from ESF and aims to develop the administrative
capacity, as well as to support the efforts for the modernization of the
public administration in Romania. OP-DAC benefits from a total
financing of EUR 246,014,081, of which EUR 208,002,622 is the
contribution of the European Union, and EUR 38,011,459 is the
contribution of the Romanian state.
21
The Authority for Coordinating Structural Instruments.
22
The National Communication Strategy for Structural Instruments was prepared for
the promotion and coordination of structural interventions in Romania, given that a
central coordination system was required for the structural instrument
communication activities, so that the communication process to be coherent and
balanced, to avoid overlaps and contradictory information and to cover the
communication gaps, to observe the principle of a sole voice when communicating.
189
OP-DAC has a general objective and two specific objectives. The general
objective of OP-DAC is to create a more efficient and more effective
public administration for the social and economic benefit of the
Romanian society.
The specific objectives of OP-DACare:
To obtain a structural and process improvement of the management

of the public policy cycle in the central and local public
administration
To improve the quality and efficiency of the public services, with an

emphasis on the decentralization process.
These two specific objectives are found in the two priority axes, each of
the two priority axes being organized on intervention areas.
Apart from these two thematic priority axes, there is also a less extended
third priority axis, which provides ensuring technical assistance for a
better development of the OP-DAC management.
To achieve these objectives funds are directed to the following main

Priority Axes:
Priority Axis 1 To improve the structure and process of the

management of the public policy cycle.
The first priority axis aims to develop the

administrative capacity both at central and at
local level, by structural improvements
aimed to support the strategic management,
as well as by optimizing this process in view
of modernizing the performance related to
methods, instruments and procedures.
190
Priority Axis 2 Improving the quality and efficiency of the

public services provided, with an emphasis
on the decentralization process.
The second axis comprises two major
intervention areas focusing directly on the
public services provided, with an emphasis
on the decentralization process.
2.5.4. Framework Implementation Documents (FID)
FID is the document drafted for the implementation of the strategy and
priority axes of the OP, containing detailed elements of the OP at the
major level of intervention23. FIDs are drafted by Member States and
reviewed by the monitoring committees, according to the proposal of the
Management Authorities.
In order to speed up the procedures, FID may be forwarded together with

the draft OP. Irrespective of the circumstances, the Management
Authority must adopt a FID no later than 3 (three) months after the EC
decision approving an OP.
2.7. Institutional Framework
The institutions that are responsible for the coordination, implementation

and management of Community financial assistance, as well as the
missions entrusted to each of these institutions jointly represent the
national framework for European fund accessing mechanisms.
Therefore:
1. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the authority coordinating

structural instruments, being responsible for coordinating the
23
The major intervention area is a subdivision of the priority axes that make up each
Operational Program, which classifies in a more detailed manner the guidelines for
the financing granted in the said priority axes.
191
implementation of Community assistance through structural

funds.
2. The Ministry for Regional Development and Tourism is

appointed as the Management Authority for ROP, being
responsible for the management, implementation and
administration of the financial assistance allocated to this
programme.
3. The Ministry of Public Finance is the Managing Authority for

OPTA and SOP-IEC, being responsible for the management,
implementation and administration of the financial assistance
allocated to this programme.
4. The Ministry of Transport is the Managing Authority for SOPT,

being responsible for the management, implementation and
administration of the financial assistance allocated to this
programme.
5. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development is the

Managing Authority for SOP-ENVIRONMENT, being
responsible, like other management authorities, for the
management, implementation and administration of the financial
assistance of the programme.
6. The Ministry of Labour, Family and Equality of Chances is the

Management Authority for SOP-DHU, also being responsible for
the management, administration and implementation of the
financial assistance allocated to this programme.
7. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administrative Reform was

appointed as the Management Authority for OP-DAC.
In view of ensuring the Ministry for European Affairs coordinating role

of structural instruments, the Authority for Coordinating Structural
192
Instruments was incorporated, being subordinated to the same ministry. In

addition, according to Council Rules no. 1083/2006 on the general
aspects referring to EFRD, ESF and CF, the Implementation System of
the OP in Romania includes the following authorities:
The OP Monitoring Committee;
The Management Authority;
Intermediary Bodies;
The Certification and Payment Authority;
The Audit Authority.
2.7.1. The Authority for Coordinating Structural Instruments (ACSI)
The Authority for Coordinating Structural Instruments, established under

the Government Decision no. 128/2006 (repealed by Government
Decision no. 457/2008), has the following (main) responsibilities:
to update the legislation concerning the institutional and procedural

framework for the coordination and implementation of structural
instruments, after consulting the authorities having responsibilities in
the area and formulate points of view and proposals for amendment
regarding the legislation having an impact on the management
process of structural instruments;
to coordinate, monitor and support the development of the

administrative capacity of all structures involved in the management
of structural instruments, drafting and updating, in this respect, action
plans and reporting annually to NCC on the progress registered in the
implementation thereof;
to draft guides and guidance for the development of the management

procedures of structural instruments, ensuring a unitary approach of
193
the procedural framework, and to analyse and formulate

recommendations for improving the implementation procedures of
operational programs;
to coordinate the process of drafting and updating the NDP, as the

basic instrument for drafting the NSRF, as well as to draft and amend
the NSRF;
to coordinate the process of drafting and amending operational

programs and related FID, ensuring their correlation, as well as their
conformity with Community regulations and NSRF;
to analyse the opportunity of reallocating funds between OP;
to approve the documents drafted by the management authorities in

view of substantiating the budget scheduling of resources
representing non-reimbursable external funds received by structural
instruments, as well as of the resources allocated from the state
budget for pre-financing, co-financing and financing non-eligible
expenses;
to monitor and support the development by the management

authorities of the project portfolio relating to the OP;
to ensure harmonization between the legal and procedural framework

for the operation of the monitoring committees of operational
programs and to participate as member in the meetings thereof;
to prepare standard guides and evaluation guides for the interventions

financed by structural instruments;
to coordinate the process of formulating Romanias position as

regards the policy and Community regulatory proposals in the field
of structural instruments.
194
2.7.2. The Monitoring Committees of Operational Programs

(MCOP)
The Monitoring Committees of Programs are incorporated for each OP,

following the decision to approve the relevant OP, after consulting the
European partners and the relevant MA.
These committees are responsible for supervising the entire coordination

of the OP, ensuring the coordination of structural instruments, as well as
monitoring the efficiency and quality of the implementation of
Community assistance, the use and impact thereof.
The specific duties of MCOP are, mainly, the following:
to analyse and approve the selection criteria drafted by the MA

(at most within 6 months from the approval of the relevant OP),
as well as to approve any amendments thereto;
to periodically analyse the progress registered in achieving the

program objectives based on the documents received from the
MA;
to propose the MA to update the OP;
to analyse and approve the proposals for amendment of the

financial allocations of the OP, in MIA, among priority axes, as
well as among regions.
2.7.3. The Management Authorities(MA)
The Management Authorities are the bodies responsible for ensuring the
efficient implementation of the programs financed from structural funds.
In accordance with Council Regulation no. 1083/2006, each MA is
responsible for the efficient management and implementation of the OP
they manage.
195
Thus, each MA has the following main duties24:
to efficiently use the OP funds;
to develop and promote partnerships at all levels of public

administration;
to coordinate and harmonize the institutional framework together

with the development of the administrative capacity;
to inform the interested parties in relation to the development of the

operational programs.
2.7.4. Intermediary Bodies (IB)
IB fulfils all duties assigned by MA and the Certification and Payment

Authorities on a contractual basis, the MA is responsible for fulfilling the
tasks assigned in relation to ensuring financing from structural funds. The
assignment of duties is performed in compliance and observance of the
regional character of the OP, but also the actual capacity and experience
of the IB.
2.7.5. The Certification and Payment Authority (CPA)
The Ministry of Public Finance is the authority appointed to fulfill the

role of CPA for all OPs, being responsible for certifying the statements on
incurred expenses and the payment claims prior to forwarding them to the
Commission.
Each EU Member State, including Romania, has assigned a separate unit

to operate as a CPA, a body responsible for (i) receiving all payments
from the European Commission relating to EFDR, ESF and CF, for all
24
Government Decision no. 457/2008 on the institutional framework for the
coordination and management of structural instruments (published in Official
Gazette no. 346/20.04.2004).
196
OPs, and for (ii) operating payments from Community resources to

beneficiaries (direct payments) of to the Payment Units within the
ministries having the role of MA (indirect payments).
2.7.6. The Audit Authority (AA)
In Romanias case, a body associated with the Court of Auditors was

appointed as AA for all OP. Please note that AA is independent from MA
and CPA.
2.7.7. The Certification Process
The certification of payments for structural funds is subject to a process

carried out in 4 (four) stages, as follows:
Verification Stage I the so-called ex-ante evaluation is

ensured by the beneficiary, by verifying
the accuracy and eligibility of expenses.
Subsequently, the beneficiary submits
the payment request to the attention of
MA/IB along with the supporting
documents.
Verification Stage II is performed at the level of the IB by

internally verifying the documents
submitted in this respect by the
beneficiary.
Verification Stage III is ensured by the MA, like in the case of

the IB, by internally verifying the
documents.
The Last Verification Stage relates to the CPA, which, after making
the required verifications, submits the
intermediary payment requests and their
197
certification to the European

Commission.
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR OBTAINING

STRUCTURAL FUNDS
3.1. General Considerations
The issue of accessing Community funds and, especially, the issue of new
European Union Member States accessing these funds represents a major
concern at Community level25. Thus, taking into account that Romania is
part of the last group of states to access the European Union, the issue of
accessing European funds is all the more important at least considering:
1. the consequences of an insufficient absorption affect Romanias

long term interests;
2. Romania needs a high level of non-reimbursable Community

financing absorption, at national level, to fight against the effects
of the pressure exercised by the global economic and financial
crisis.
In this context, we must not disregard the fact that, within the process of
negotiating the following financial perspective at Community level (i.e.
2014-2020), Romania is interested in remaining a net beneficiary,
meaning that, insofar as it is a Member State of the European Union it has
the obligation to contribute to the European Union budget, thus it would
be beneficial for it that the European funds entitled to receive, to be
effectively spent by the beneficiaries, in order to ensure an advantageous
balance between the contribution of Romania to the European Union
budget and the actually absorbed structural funds.
25
Ctlina Constantin, Andreea Florina Radu, European Advisor magazine no.
9/2009, http://www.dae.gov.ro/admin/files/Consilier%20European%20Nr%209.pdf
198
In this respect, the multiannual financial plan proposed by the President

of the European Council, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy severely affects the
least developed regions of the European Union, so that the poorer
Member States (among which, Romania) having the lowest financing
capacity would lose the most, following the enforcement of the
multiannual plan, and, in this respect, one of the very purposes for which
the European Union was created is reduced, namely: reducing the
development disparities.
At the same time, the proposal concerning the multiannual financial plan
introduces a new condition for allocating budgets - depending on the
absorption capacity between 2007 and 2013. Thus, it is well known that
in the above-mentioned period, Romania has had the lowest absorption
rate in the European Union, a fact that obviously, by applying the
provisions of the multiannual plan, will lead to more disadvantages for
Romania, by the funds made available for absorption being dramatically
reduced.
On the other hand, it is well known that accessing non-reimbursable

funds is not an easy process, but when the potential beneficiary is
informed from the standpoint of the place where it may obtain the
information it requires, the proceedings for accessing funds may become
more facile.
In order to obtain European financing, the first step that must be

performed by an applicant is to identify the OP in which the envisaged
investment is included, namely to analyse the FID related to the said OP
in order to identify the MIA in which it is eligible as an applicant. Aside
from the means above, the beneficiary shall have to study the Applicants
Guide (the Applicants Guide) available for each MIA and operation
therein, in view of preparing the project that the European funds are
required for.
In addition to the above, potential beneficiaries of non-reimbursable

funds must take into account that, beside the possibility of performing an
199
investment with a relatively low financial effort (given the fact that the
accessed funds are non-reimbursable), the latter also has certain
responsibilities which, in principle, arise after the conclusion of the
selection of the projects by the MA/IB and the execution of the financing
agreements between the AM/IB and the beneficiary. Thus, reviewing the
section Beneficiarys obligations from the Applicants Guide is
recommended in order to acknowledge all the beneficiarys duties, which
are mandatory undertaken.
In view of successfully obtaining European funds, a potential beneficiary

must go through the following stages:
Stage 1: identify the project idea;
Stage 2: identify the OP where the project idea is included;
Stage 3: provide information on the existence of an open request

for projects in this respect, followed by
Stage 4: the initiation of the actual procedures for accessing the

available funds.
In addition, the applicant must ensure that it meets the eligibility

conditions, that the application file is complete, respectively, that it meets
all the conditions provided under the Applicants Guide.
3.2. Applicants Eligibility Criteria
First, the potential beneficiary must ensure that it fulfills all the specific
conditions provided by the MA at the time the request for projects is
initiated, in order to be deemed as eligible beneficiary.
In general, in order to receive non-reimbursable financing based on an

OP, the applicant must be:
200
an organization legally incorporated in Romania, respectively a

public or private legal entity, with or without patrimonial purpose,
located in Romania;
an association or foundation incorporated in accordance with

Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations,
as subsequently amended and supplemented;
a syndicate or union incorporated in accordance with the legislation

in force;
a cult institution acknowledged as per Law no. 489/2006 on religious

freedom and the general regime of cults.
At the same time, the beneficiary must be responsible for the

management of the proposed project.
3.3. Project Eligibility Criteria
In general, all financing applications received under the request for

project proposals shall be evaluated and selected based on the selection
criteria approved by the monitoring committee, prepared in accordance
with the provisions of applicable (EC) Council Regulations. Nevertheless,
in order for the project to be accepted, it must fulfill the following
mandatory criteria:
the project must be developed and implemented on the territory of

Romania;
the project must be relevant in relation to the specific objectives of

the applicable priority axes;
the project budget must comply with the limits provided in the
request for project proposals, and the project must be included in the
list of eligible activities specified in the Applicants Guide;
201
the project, its duration and the value of the requested financing must
fall under the limits provided in the request for projects.
3.4. Co-financing required for projects developed by structural funds
From the total cost of the project, the beneficiary must cover the non-
eligible expenses, as well as the co-financing. Co-financing may also be
represented by the contribution in kind of the applicant, as presented in
the guide concerning the eligibility of expenses and the Applicants
Guide.
Eligible expenses for each project shall be determined by the MA in

accordance with the national eligibility rules, so that, at the time a
request for projects is initiated, the MA discloses the list of eligible
expenses for these projects.
3.5. Stages in Obtaining Financing
The stages to be followed by the applicants in obtaining non-reimbursable

European financing can be summarized as follows:
Stage 1: the eligible beneficiary fills in the financing request and

the annexes requested by the MA;
Stage 2: the financing request is sent/submitted by/to the IB/MA

(as the case may be);
Stage 3: the administrative compliance of the financing request is

verified, in accordance with the internal procedures of
each MA;
Stage 4: after the administrative compliance is verified, the

project eligibility is verified next (the project eligibility
criteria are available in the Applicants Guide);
202
Stage 5: the technical and financial evaluation of the project is

conducted;
Stage 6: the selection of the project in accordance with the

criteria approved by the monitoring committee is
performed
Stage 7: the project is approved and the negotiation procedures

are initiated and the financing agreement is signed.
IV. MAIN DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTING

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS
4.1. General Considerations
The policies of the EU Member States, applicable throughout Unions

territory, are based on a fundamental principle of the European structure,
namely the principle of solidarity and cohesion. The objective of the
European regional policy is to achieve the solidarity of the European
Union by economic and social cohesion, reducing the gaps between the
development levels of various regions.
The regional development policy thus becomes, for Member States,

either old or new, one of the most important development tools. A special
role in achieving this objective is Romanias capacity to develop and
implement sustainable development projects, by attracting funds from
European financial instruments. Evidently, the efficiency of the
absorption level thereof is conditioned by the administrative capacity of
the beneficiary state, in this case, Romania.26
26
9/2009, http://www.dae.gov.ro/admin/files/Consilier%20European%20Nr%209.pdf
203
Although Romania was among the first states of the European Union to
have its OPs approved by the European Commission, the concrete start
was slower, in terms of implementing the approved strategy. In this
respect, beneficiaries faced relevant problems and the resolution of these
matters demands significant amount of time and effort, something to be
expected from a newly created system, which is only just beginning the
structural and cohesion funds process of implementation.
According to the data provided27 by the Romanian Government, as of

2007 and until October 2012, the status of European fund absorption was
as follows:
Financing Payments to
Operational Submitted Approved Agreements/ beneficiaries
Program Projects Projects (total million
Decisions RON)
SOPT 145 90 82 1,884.76
SOP-
626 352 338 3,474.60
ENVIRONMENT
ROP 8,162 3,525 3,216 6,040.77
SOP-DHR 10,224 3,006 2,465 5,083.24
SOP-IEC 14,545 3,617 2,466 2,510.53
OP-DCA 1,371 420 387 217.35
OPTA 129 110 103 135.48
TOTAL 35,202 11,120 9,057 19,346.73
27
http://www.gov.ro/absorbtia-fondurilor-structurale-si-de-coeziune-proritate-zero-
a-guvernului- romaniei__l1a109210.html
204
A detailed status28 of the European fund absorption between March and

October 2012 is available in Annex no. 1 hereto.
Referring to a summary of the absorption indicators, one can note by

analysing the table below29 that, at the level of 2011, Romanias
percentage as concerns the absorption of European Funds was much
lower than the one of the neighboring states, this percentage being lower
by as much as 6.7% as compared to Bulgaria, a country accessing the
European Union at the same time as Romania.
Absorption of structural funds comparison with other EU Member States
Total
distributed
Payments Total
March 2012 Absorption Total distributed payments
Country 2007 2013
rate capita/Euro
(billion Euro) capita/Euro
(billion
Euro)
Estonia 3.4 1.6 46.8% 2,540 1,190
Latvia 4.5 1.7 36.4% 2,032 740
Poland 67.2 26.4 39% 1,759 690
Czech 26.5 7.0 26.5% 2,520 667

Republic
Bulgaria 6.7 1.6 24% 889 209
Romania 19.2 3.3 17.3% 897 155
28
coeziune/
29
Annual report for 2011, Developments and macro-economic and budget
perspectives. http://www.wall-street.ro/files/131509-255.pdf
205
Hungary 24.9 8.8 35.3% 2,496 881
Lithuania 6.8 3.3 48.0% 2,088 1,002
Slovenia 4.1 1.6 38.3% 2,000 767
Slovakia 11.5 3.2 27.8% 2,116 587
Analysing the data provided in the table above, one can only predict that,
at the end of the financial period 2007 2013, Romanias status will also
be at the bottom of the top, mostly given to the large disparity registered
by Romania in the last 6 (six) years since its accession to the European
Union, which evidently, despite the measures taken in this respect by the
central and/or local administration, would not make up for the lack of
activity, accuracy and consistency of Romania in term of projects and
attracting European funds.
4.2. Measures for improving the absorption level
4.2.1. Measures taken by Romanian authorities
Taking into account the difficulties occurred in the course of actually

implementing the legislative framework and ensuring the correspondence
between the legislative and institutional frameworks, Romania has
brought certain amendments to the procedure of accessing these funds,
for removing, to the possible extent, the negative effects of a limited
absorption. Among the measures30 taken by Romanian authorities in view
of improving the European funds accession and absorption levels are the
followings:
30
structurale (Are we on schedule? 2010 the first balance using structural funds),
published in issue 7/February 2010 of the Policy Memo magazine, under the aegis of
the Romanian Center for European Policies
206
1. introducing the possibility of granting significant percentages of

the eligible value of the project as pre-financing. This measure
has aided public entity beneficiaries, by ensuring the funds
required for the initiation of procurement agreements. In the case
of private beneficiaries, although the initiative of the authorities
was helpful, obtaining pre-financing entailed a complex
procedure conditioned, in most cases, not supplying a letter of
bank guarantee, which evidently could not be obtained by small
business owners, since their financial resources were not
significant enough to represent the guarantees required by banks.
2. Providing, during contracting stage, of certain documents,

required by this amendment was introduced in the financing
request submission stage, represented an initiative that was
appreciated by applicants, but, nevertheless, in most cases, this
form of support also entailed comparable conditioning which, in
general, disadvantaged the beneficiaries (i.e. even if providing
the documents was not mandatory, the beneficiaries submitting
the documents in question had an advantage compared to the rest
of the beneficiaries). In order to improve the absorption level, in
certain cases, it was decided to waive the requirement concerning
certain documents at the time the project was submitted, by
replacing them with affidavits from the applicant and the
obligation to provide the said documents in the contracting stage.
3. making the criteria referring to the applicants debts to the state

budget more flexible was performed by an order issued by the
Ministry of Public Finance31, which stipulated that the companies
31
Order no. 673/13.04.2009 amending Order no. 752/2006 issued by the Ministry of
Public Finance, approving the issuance procedure for the fiscal certificate for
individuals and legal entities, the budget obligations certificate, as well as the model
and contents thereof (published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 355/27.05.2009).
207
having such debts could be eligible provided that they comply

with the restrictions stipulated by each ministry, in the
Applicants Guide. At the same time, an order issued by the
Ministry of Public Finance stipulated that the debts cannot
exceed 1/12 of the total payment obligations in the case of the
certificate issued by A.N.A.F. or 1/6 of the payment obligations
for the last quarter in the case of the fiscal certificate issued by
local authorities.
4. the amendment of certain criteria and documentation required

from potential beneficiaries by MA.
5. connecting certain stages of the evaluation process, respectively:

(i) the administrative verification and (ii) the verification of the
eligibility have partially reduced the evaluation terms, but such a
reduction did not have a significant impact on the evaluation
terms.
Simplifying the procurement guidelines did not actually lead to a

simplification of the European funds accession process, a series of issues
remaining unsolved (i.e the inflation of unjustified documents required by
the authorities/officers) even if an attempt was made to include certain
more clear instructions in the Applicants Guide on preparing the project
budget and covering the unfavourable exchange rate differences arising as
a result of the current economic situation. In this respect, it must be
mentioned that national law comprises cases in which the potential
beneficiaries, whose financing requests were dismissed, have invoked, in
the course of the trials initiated for this reason, the misinterpretation of
the provisions under the Applicants Guide, a fact that eventually resulted
in the dismissal of the requests32.
32
Decision no. 3515 dated 24.06.2009 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice,
Administrative and Fiscal Litigations Division;
208
In addition to the above, beneficiaries have been severely affected by the

extremely prudent crediting policy of banks, especially in the context of
the global financial crisis and the high financing costs33.
As a result of the aforementioned, it is obvious that there is need for

strong institutional structures, able to ensure the enforcement of public
policies, implementing national programs and increasing the
implementation capacity, which can only be achieved by strengthening
the partnership between local administrations and private structures,
especially given that the financial and economic crisis has had a major
impact on the issue of absorbing European funds.
Consequently, the only means to fight against the effects of the economic
crisis is to improve the absorption capacity, which, in Romania, has been
very low so far, mainly due to:
the inefficiency of specialized institutions corroborated with the low

level of information and experience of beneficiaries in executing
projects, but also due to the complex process of training the staff
managing EU funds;
low level of information of potential beneficiaries on the enforcement

and operation conditions of European funds.
At the same time, the low percentage of applicants which used the
specialized services of European fund consultancy companies has
resulted in poor quality projects and, implicitly, to a lack of financing.
In addition to the above, there is also a lack of predictability of the

legislative and institutional framework (repeated amendments have
discouraged potential beneficiaries); as well as the dissolution of the
National Administration Institute, a fact that reduced the number of
experts in central and local public administrations.
33
http://www.inforegionordest.ro/documente/noutati/publicatii/studiu_privind_impl
ementarea_por_in_regiunea_nord_est_decembrie_2010.pdf
209
Ultimately, increasing the VAT level in Romania and the influence of the
RON/EUR exchange rate in the past years has caused potential
beneficiaries to mostly give up the planned projects taking into account
that the business plan could no longer be fullfilled as a result of the
changes in the financial market.
According to the European Advisor magazine, at the level of

local/regional authorities, including the level of MA and IB, the following
must be taken into account as specific clauses:
a reduced reaction capacity in relation to the size of the fund

absorption process, as effect of the insufficient staff assigned for
these procedures, facts which led to the delay of the project
evaluation process and, consequently, to a smaller number of
financed projects; respectively
the continuous amendment and update of the eligibility conditions

referring to the beneficiary or the projects, these amendments being
operated during the submission session, which, in most cases,
determined the amendment of the project or even led to the
impossibility to submit the project or to the non-compliance of the
project, in the cases when the project was already been submitted34.
Thus, Romanias issues in the process of absorbing European funds are

mostly determined by the delayed implementation which is also
incompliant with the applicable European regulations, at the level of
national legislation, as well as by the manner in which the public
authorities chose to apply the said rules.
At the same time, another reason for the low absorption level is the lack
of financial resources for ensuring the co-financing of projects by the
beneficiaries. It worth noting, in this context, the fact that the courts of
34
9/2009, http://www.dae.gov.ro/admin/files/Consilier%20European%20Nr%209.pdf.
210
law have come across cases that raised the issue of the beneficiaries not
observing the obligation to ensure the national co-financing required for
the implementation of the project35.
This failure to ensure co-financing was mostly determined by budget

constraints (in the case of public law beneficiaries), respectively the
liquidities required in the case of private law beneficiaries.
Despite the facts mentioned above, one should mention that potential
beneficiaries also have the responsibility to increase their own capacity of
attracting and implementing the projects financed by structural
instruments, by showing interest in being continuously informed in this
respect. Among the tools available for beneficiaries to train themselves on
accessing European funds, we mention the following:
being continuously informed on the funds that fall in the scope of

their own activity field, participating in seminars, conferences
dedicated to funds and their accessing;
focusing their attention on the professional/specialized training of

internal staff, in order to be able to prepare projects or to use the
professional services of relevant consultancy companies;
relying on the support offered by a banking institution in order to

identify the co-financing solutions of projects represents an
efficient manner of settling issues relating to the co-financing
required by the beneficiary, while for major investments it is
recommended to perform an initial pre-feasibility study in view
of identifying the exact suitability of the investment, as well as to
35
Please see Civil Decision no. 2177 dated May 26, 1999, rendered by Bucharest
Court of Appeal, Administrative and Fiscal Litigations Division (although the
European financing which was the subject matter of the said case was from PHARE
funds, we deem it is relevant for the issue at hand, especially since it dates from
1999 and it appears it has not yet been truly settled).
211
avoid wasting time and funds which are required within the
process;
last but not least, agreeing with local actors (administrative-

territorial units, partners, association structures) on a convention
for guaranteeing the legislative framework over a political cycle
longer than 4 years.
According to the above, the main way of action for fighting against the
effects of the economic crisis aimed, and shall continue to be focused on
speeding up the absorption of these funds. Thus, over the last period,
Romanian authorities have focused on identifying the measures that can
counteract the immediate effects of the economic crisis having a direct
impact on the pace of implementing the approved strategy. In this respect,
among the adopted measures, we mention the following (i) facilitating
the access of potential beneficiaries to the financing lines36and (ii)
supporting the beneficiaries in implementing already approved projects.
The measures considered the experience accumulated at the funds
management level during the first implementation years, as well as the
main difficulties faced by applicants upon submitting the projects or by
beneficiaries during the implementation process.
Taking into consideration the need to include the resources distributed

with the operational programs as soon as possible, the authorities have
also implemented other measures for simplifying the process of
submitting projects, without affecting the selection procedure and the
requirements provided by the authorities and Community regulations.
Therefore, in order to support potential beneficiaries, the competent

authorities have taken the following measures:
36
f- page 81, last paragraph
212
increasing the pre-financing share for beneficiaries from 15% to 30%

of the eligible value of the financing agreement37;
introducing pre-financing for the beneficiaries whose projects fall

under state/minimis aid, in amount of up to 35% of the grant value;
introducing the possibility for beneficiaries to pledge/mortgage assets

financed by the project for obtaining loans exclusively for ensuring
the implementation of the projects.
In addition, in view of settling the beneficiaries financing issues,

discussions were continued with financial banking institutions in view of
identifying other support measures. As regards co-financing from the
state budget, Romanian authorities have declared this aspect to be top
priority at the level of the Ministry of Public Finance, and, moreover, in
order to avoid the existence of any shortages in ensuring public co-
financing, in March 2011 discussions were held about increasing the
amount to be lent by the European Investment Bank from EUR 400
million to EUR 800 million, part of this amount aiming to ensure co-
financing from the state budget for investment projects concerning
transport infrastructure, environment and energy.
Moreover, Romanian authorities have engaged significant efforts to

simplify and speed up the absorption of structural instruments, as an
important element in the fight against the crisis. At the same time,
speeding up the use of these funds is one of the main recommendations of
PERE38, the implementation of which also entailed a series of specific
measures, divided into three categories:
(i) measures not requiring the amendment of Community

regulations;
37
MFP Order no. 2.359/2011.
38
European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP).
213
(ii) measures which require the amendment of Community

regulations and which were regulated in 2009;
(iii) measures requiring the amendment of Community regulations

and which are to be regulated.
An analysis of the above-mentioned categories39 shows that, at the level

of the operational programs implemented in Romania, the following
specific measures of PERE and the Commissions Communication
Cohesion Policy: Investing in the real economy40 were enforced:
using the possibility to increase the Community contribution per

operation up to 100%;
introducing the possibility, for actions financed by ESF and

EFRD, having as key activities implemented directly by the
beneficiary/partner, for the indirect operation costs to be declared
as a flat rate;
using ESF as an instrument for counteracting crises consequences

on the labour market (without requiring program amendments);
using the accelerated procedure of public procurement;
39
Please see the National Strategic Report for the Implementation of Structural and
Cohesion Funds prepared in January 2010 and available on the internet at
f
40
Cohesion Policy - Investing in the real economy represents an important expression
of European solidarity and focuses the support on the most disadvantaged European
citizens. Between 20072013, the cohesion policy shall invest EUR 347 billion to
stimulate growth and shall contribute to the economic and social cohesion.
214
continuing the use of JASPERS41 as support for preparing major

projects.
Thus, Romanian authorities undertook a limited number of measures

stipulated in PERE, the main reasons being as follows:
certain measures do not apply or are not required in Romanias case

(e.g. rescheduling at the level of operational programs);
other measures are relatively difficult to fulfill in relation to

Romanias fundamental financing needs and the capacity/experience
of beneficiaries and the programs management structures;
since some of the measures entail taking certain risks at the level of
the management and control systems, Romanian authorities did not
deem advisable to undertake these risks at the moment.
In view of counteracting the impact of the economic crisis on structural

instruments, in accordance with the specific objective of PERE,
Romanian authorities have continued to identify internal measures for
simplifying and clarifying the implementation procedures of the OPs in
the context of the relevant national legislative framework.
Nevertheless, despite the above, the main obstacles were represented by

difficulties in preparing the project portfolio and launching the requests
41
JASPERS is a partnership between the European Commission (the Regional Policy
General Directorate), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for
Recovery and Development (EBRD) and Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (KfW).
The partnership is a technical support instrument for the twelve (12) countries which
accessed the EU in 2004 and 2007. By this instrument, the Member States in
question are offered the support required to prepare important high-quality
projects, which are to be co-financed by EU funds. The consultancy provided by
JASPERS may cover: (i) preparing the project (e.g. analysis of costs and benefits,
financial analysis, environmental aspects, planning procurements), (ii) verifying the
documentation (e.g. feasibility studies, grant requests etc.), (iii) consultancy on
compliance with EU legislation (e.g. environmental, competition etc.).
215
for projects, delays in the evaluation of projects, difficulties in the

projects being implemented by beneficiaries, but also institutional issues.
Consequently, a large part of the submitted projects have difficulties in

accessing Community funds or have implementation issues, which, in
most cases, are the result of errors comprised in the project concept.
4.2.2. Case Study: the example of Poland in drawing in European funds
Unlike Romania, which may be an example of inefficiency in drawing in

European funds, the case of Poland may easily be deemed an example of
success and efficiency in this respect. Although the success of drawing
the funds is mostly attributed to the Ministry for Regional Development,
led by Elzbieta Bienkowska, the success of such a proceeding could not
have been achieved without constant support from local authorities and,
evidently, with no cases of corruption in the local or central public
administration.
In an interview42 offered by the Minister for Regional Development, on

the targets set by the Polish Government in this area, the latter stated (...)
we have decided to set an objective as regards drawing in European
funds. In 2009, we have successfully reached our target: drawing in and
spending four billion Euro was a project deemed by experts as being
ambitious. Since 2010, we raised the stake and we wanted to obtain 6.7
billion, but we managed to come close to nine billion. The objective for
2011 was ten billion Euro and it was most likely exceeded. The success
lies in the seriousness and good training of the persons in charge of this
area. The political support and that of local administration is implicit,
there is no doubt about it, the need for experts has stopped being a
problem for some time, we have trained ourselves to benefit from this
money before accessing the European Union and it shows. When we
started having access to the money, we already had a team of people in
Brussels and another in Poland, who knew everything there is to know.
42
http://m.rfi.ro/articol/stiri/social/polonia-modelul-atragerii-fondurilor-europene
216
On the other hand, in Romania, drawing in European funds is more likely

not a success. Only five years after accessing the European Union did
Romania set up a Ministry for European Affairs. Moreover, if in the case
of Poland, out of the two thousand communes, only 30 did not undergo
projects, in Romania the percentage is reversed.
The above-mentioned facts are the result of the fact that, in Poland, the
Ministry for Regional Development coordinates the entire procedure
concerning Community funds, all OPs passing though this ministry, and,
in addition, the representatives of the administrative units are evaluated
depending on the manner in which they strive to obtain European funds.
At the same time, as regards making the appointed officers responsible,

having in view that between 2004 and 2006, the staff of the Ministry for
Regional Development was changed every six months, the Polish
Government decided to increase the income of employees, so that the
salary would be competitive as compared to the salaries on the market, so
that, in this manner, they would ensure a continuity of expertise in the
public sector and avoid the migration of experts, which, as seen in
Romanias case led to a change in the formal requirements concerning
the required documents, but also to a lack of coherence in verifying the
files.
4.3. Preparation by MA of the Project Portfolio
One of Romanias main concerns consisted in preparing a project

portfolio able to ensure quick access to European funds, immediately
after the approval and launch of the relevant OP. At the same time, the
limited capacity of the public authorities in respect of identifying and
preparing investment projects represented one of the key causes that
prevented the achievement of the above-mentioned actions.
Nevertheless, in order to support potential beneficiaries, various financing

sources for the required technical assistance were identified, namely: pre-
217
accession programs (ISPA43, PHARE44), foreign loans and national

budget. Consequently, in certain sectors (e.g. water supply and waste
water infrastructure) a significant project portfolio was generated, which
at moment even exceeded the allocations available from structural
instruments45.
In addition, Romania used JASPERS instrument for technical assistance,

made available by the European Commission to compensate for the
beneficiaries lack of expertise. In this respect, the (public entity)
beneficiaries benefited from technical assistance in preparing the
applications for major projects. Moreover, the JASPERS support was also
used for technical assistance in preparing a methodology guide for
conducting a cost-benefit analysis for the investment projects financed
from structural instruments in certain sectors.
In certain fields (i.e. water supply and waste water sector), the delay in
setting up the Intercommunity Development Associations (IDA)
represents a major cause of delay in the process of preparing and
submitting the projects.
43
The ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession) Program is one of the
three non-reimbursable financing instruments of the European Community and it
was established through Regulation of the European Union Council no. 1267/1999 in
order to assist the candidate countries from Central and Eastern Europe in the
preparation for accession to the European Union. It provides assistance to achieve
economic and social cohesion among States, for infrastructure projects in the fields
of environment and transport.
44
The PHARE (Poland Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy) Program is one
of the three pre-accession instruments financed by the European Union to assist
candidate countries from Central and Eastern Europe in their accession to the
European Union. Initially created in 1989 to support Poland and Hungary, the PHARE
program covers ten countries: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, as well as Bulgaria and Romania.
45
Study on SOP Environment prepared by the Romanian Government, available for
consultation on the website www.fonduri-ue.ro/.../Raport_strategic_national_ 2009
_RO.pdf.
218
At the same time, difficulties in identifying the land plots for building
major investment targets continue to represent a significant challenge that
needs to be overridden in the project preparation process, despite the fact
that MA informed in advance the potential beneficiaries of the conditions
to be fulfilled.
4.4. Major concerns in the process of attracting funds and launching

project requests
As already specified hereinabove, the quick approval of OP did not

determine the immediate launch of the finances approved, in certain
cases, the delays far exceeded the initial foreseen deadline.
Thus, among the concerns46 directly connected with project launching,

there are:
A. Concerns prior to launching project requests:
unknown calendar for launching project requests;
This concern could be settled by ACIS publishing an

informative calendar corresponding to the project launches
for the following period.
deferring the launch of certain project requests, beyond the

announced deadlines, which often led to expiry of the
validity of the documents prepared by the applicants, of the
approvals and the amendment of the business plans in order
to adjust them to the market demand.
46
the Romanian Center for European Policies - http://www.crpe.ro/library/files/
crpe_policy_memo_7_ro.pdf.
219
As a possible solution to this concern, the launches calendar

could be taken into consideration, as well as establishing
concrete deadlines.
B. Concerns subsequent to launching the project requests:
delaying the deadlines for submitting the projects, which in

respect of their assessment determined the delay in the
deadlines.
As a possible solution to this concern, it is recommended to

keep the announced deadlines.
permanent amendment of the necessary documentation,

namely implementing numerous changes (i.e. corrigenda) in
the Applicants Guide.
As a possible solution to this concern, the possibility for

certain changes to apply exclusively to the projects to be
launched after the change occurrence date could be taken
into consideration.
the celerity with which MA prepared the first generation of

Applicants Guides. The intention of the authorities was to
prepare the guides as very detailed and comprehensive
documents. Detailing the provisions mentioned in the
documentation, obviously implied a detailed analysis of the
provisions in the relevant domestic and EU laws, which
required an extended period. At the same time, the limited
experience and the large workload of the personnel in charge
with preparing the guides from the competent structures,
added up as obstacle against the efficient performance of the
first generation of guides, which proved to be incomplete in
most cases.
220
the lack of national strategies led to delays in implementing

the interventions and, obviously in approving the projects.
The primary measures taken by AM in order to foster the

process of completing such strategies consisted either in
contracting specific technical assistance for preparing the
relevant documents, or in intensifying the dialogue with the
structures in charge of preparing such strategies.
4.5. Preparation of Projects by the Beneficiaries and their

Classification
4.5.1. Eligibility Criteria
The applicant eligibility criteria, in particular the superficial assessment

thereof, is one of the causes that led to a significant number of projects
being rejected from a very early stage. Thus, the criteria stipulated in the
Applicants Guides, such as (i) the form of incorporation, (ii) seniority,
(iii) profitability, (iv) the activity for which financing is requested and
(vi) no debts, need to be fully observed, otherwise the project will be
rejected from the very first stage.
A particular importance is also given to the fulfillment of the projects

eligibility criteria, starting with the method of reaching the targets of the
financing program, the conditions referring to the immovable assets
contained in the project or the operational and financing capacity of the
potential beneficiary, as well as those referring to the project
implementation period and the compliance with the minimum scoring
conditions, have to be fully observed in order to make sure that the
project qualifies in the group of projects that are deemed eligible and in
order to obtain the necessary financing.
In addition, upon preparing the project, one should neither disregard the
administrative conditions of the project and of the applicant, as well as
221
the time, method, respectively the costs for obtaining the necessary
permits, certificates and approvals.
As a conclusion to the considerations above, we deem that full

compliance with the eligibility criteria and conditions, as they are
mentioned in the financing guide, will lead, in most of the cases, to
avoiding the rejection of the project in the compliance and eligibility
assessment stage.
4.5.2. Superficial Analysis of the Assessment Grid
Most applicants pay no attention to the assessment grid of the financing

program prior to its commencement. A preliminary analysis of the
assessment grid could help the potential beneficiaries to estimate the
minimum and maximum scoring that could be received by their project.
Thus, it is recommended to carry out a self-assessment during the
development of the project, by means of the assessment grid, so that the
potential beneficiary gets an objective outlook on the projects chances of
success. This self-assessment may lead to the identification of the project
weaknesses and the implementation of ways to improve them.
4.5.3. Setting Inadequate Targets
Most potential beneficiaries made the error of starting a project without

the prior determination of adequate targets, and this entailed a significant
influence in the structure, content, activities and scoring granted by
evaluators.
Thus, in order to prevent the rejection of the project, it is recommended

for the project targets to be (i) specific, meaning that the project should
indicate specifically what it is intended to achieve, (ii) quantifiable, (iii)
actually achievable by project implementation, and (v) clearly determined
in time.
222
The beneficiary complying with these requirements could have a positive

influence on the application of certain assessment criteria, such as:
relevance of the project for the targets of the financing program, quality
and coherence.
4.5.4. Specification of Incomplete, Unclear Activities and/or Not

Correlated with the Project Targets
Planning the activities to be performed throughout the project caused

difficulties to most applicants. Thus, in many cases, the potential
beneficiaries omitted to include or detail in the project they propose
certain key and mandatory activities, such as organization of tenders,
procurement of goods/services, etc. At the same time, in certain cases,
even if specified, the unclear description thereof and their lack of
correlation with the project targets were decisive for the rejection of the
project. Consequently, in order to avoid such difficulties, it is
recommended to make a detailed planning of the activities, clearly
described and correctly estimating the performance time, in close
correlation with the targets of the project submitted for approval.
4.5.5. No Project Substantiation and Presentation Details
The studies carried out in the field revealed the fact that a large part of
the applicants do not focus enough on substantiating the project. Thus,
they deal superficially with the sections in the financing request
corresponding to the business plan, supporting memorandum or a
feasibility study. Although this is not a mistake that could render the
project ineligible, it could have a negative impact on the scoring grid
granted to certain elements, as well as on the evaluators ability to
understand the project, thus leading to major difficulties in the
implementation process and in achieving the proposed targets.47
47
http://antreprenor.money.ro/topul_greselilor_in_accesarea_fondurilor_europene_
cum_le_poti_evita-84297.html
223
In this respect, it is recommended for the beneficiaries to grant special

attention to the requirements for setting up the documentations, by
providing details substantiation and presentation details for the
information contained in the project.
4.6. Project Assessment
The period when the projects are assessed is a major problem for all
OPs. Thus, in most cases, there is a period of ranging between 6 and 10
months from the submission of the project until the notification of the
assessment result to the beneficiary.
The main causes for these delays in the assessment of the projects are:
Insufficient personnel, as compared to the number of projects

received or delays in contracting outsourced evaluators;
A simultaneous launch of several operations within the same priority

axis, which led to the delay of the time when certain projects were
assessed;
The applicants lack of experience in preparing the projects, in

particular in the case of small and medium-sized companies, and this
is related to the complexity of the documentation requested, which
determined the extension of the assessment and selection process.
In addition to the considerations above, there are other types of concerns

that bear a negative impact on the absorption process, namely the
registration of a large number of projects in the last days before the
submission deadline, which led to the delay in the assessment and
selection process of the submitted projects or the rejection of a relatively
large number of projects.48
48
224
Another difficulty was generated by the significant depreciation of the

domestic currency as compared to EUR lately. This depreciation affected
the beneficiaries who submitted projects requiring expenditures in foreign
currency and whose budget was estimated by the relevant beneficiaries in
RON, at the exchange rate valid on that date. The considerations above
made certain financing applicants to give up the implementation of the
project or led to subsequent difficulties in the overall achievement of the
project targets.
Although the delayed assessments were felt from the very beginning of
the EU fund accessing period, the representatives of the Government
were reticent to acknowledging that there were delays in processing the
files. Another factor, in addition to these delays, was the large number of
projects, their poor quality and the lack of skilled personnel to deal with
their assessment. Thus, the delay occurred from the rather late launch of
most of the project requests was augmented by the delayed assessments,
which generated an entire range of subsequent delays. Thus, the delayed
execution of the agreements caused delays in initiating the projects,
which, in their turn, determined delays in the submission of the settlement
requests for expenses and actual payments.
In practice, there were cases where the potential beneficiaries waited for
the assessment results for more than half year, and certain agreements
were concluded even later than one (1) year as of project submission49.
Another cause that had a negative influence on the assessment delays was
(and still is) the fact that the number of individuals in charge with
the Romanian Center for European Policies
49
the Romanian Center for European Policies - http://www.crpe.ro/library/files/
crpe_policy_memo_7_ro.pdf.
225
assessment is too small, as compared to the large number of projects.

Thus, in accordance with the publicly available information, in most
cases, the delay is caused by the understaffed assessment department (e.g.
within MA SOP HRD there were, at a certain point in time, only three (3)
evaluators for approximately 1,400 projects). Similar deficiencies were
found with MA ROP, although in 2008, for one IB, an additional 30 jobs
had been approved. Nevertheless, despite a remarkable progress in this
sector, all new employment was stopped due to the implementation of the
policy of downsizing budget expenses. In addition to the considerations
above, the reform of the budget staffing also impacted on the departments
in charge with the management of EU funds, this been indirectly
confirmed by the authorities through the redundancy plans prepared and
enforced in this respect.
At present, this blockage was partially resolved by using more outsourced

evaluators. Nevertheless, such a settlement is only partial because, at any
rate, most of the project management is made internally, by the
employees of State authorities with competencies in the field.
Direct solutions: considering that, the priority of the Government is to

increase the absorption degree for EU funds, it is recommended to
exclude from the restructuring list the departments in charge of EU funds.
As possible complementary solutions, we suggest to conclude more

cooperation agreements with outsourced evaluators, respectively to create
a data base with independent evaluators.
4.7. Project Implementation by the Beneficiaries
In reference to the project implementation degree, it can be noticed that

the level of payments to beneficiaries, as well as the reimbursements
performed by the European Commission, is still low, thus revealing the
existence of major concerns and difficulties among beneficiaries, as
regards implementation.
226
The main causes are determined by:
1. difficulties in performing the public procurement procedures.

Thus, there were delays in the process for awarding public
procurement agreements, because of factors such as:
no information and/or good practice guidelines;
delays in preparing the awarding documentations;
the beneficiaries reduced or even lack of experience in

promoting and implementing investments;
lack of concrete interpretations of the various legislative

issues in the field of public procurement;
lack of sectorial procurement agreement models in

certain key domains;
large number of complaints in the case of public

procurement procedures;
resumed procurement procedure further to changed

criteria or cancellation of tenders.
With a view to remedying certain of the concerns pointed to by the

beneficiaries, in 2009, the laws on public procurement was
amended in the meaning of downsizing the tendering periods and
increasing the flexibility of the process, allowing for the possibility
to use an accelerated tendering procedure. Nevertheless, there are
still major difficulties in conducting the public procurement
procedures.
However, despite the legislative amendments operated,

irregularities in the public procurement procedure were among the
reasons that caused difficulties in implementing the projects. Thus,
227
referring to the difficulties generated by the public procurement

procedure, in the case of projects financed through SOP IEC, the
Compendium of irregularities/fraud cases at the level of the
Sector Operational Program Increase of Economic
Competiveness conducted by DLAF50 and made public51 in
November 2012, revealed reasons relating to the breach of the
procedures referring to public procurement, as the main causes in
using European funds and, implicitly, the implementation of
projects for which such funds were obtained.
2. difficulties in providing the financial resources necessary to initiate

the projects or the own contribution for project financing, in
particular because of the effects of the economic recession.
3. lack of experience and ability of the beneficiaries in the central and

local administration to appropriately prepare and implement
projects, the main deficiencies being largely due to the lack of
sufficiently skilled personnel;
4. lack of concrete action plans; respectively
5. low competences in key sectors (i.e. project management or the

field of public procurement);
In order to prevent these issues from occurring, ACIS, as well as the

MAs undertook various initiatives mainly envisaging the attendance of
specific training courses for the beneficiaries of the financing agreements.
Furthermore, in respect of the particular SOP HRD case, MAs completed
the preparation of a users manual to implement the projects, as well as a
guideline on the partnership between various public and private law
entities.
50
Anti-Fraud Control Department.
51
http://www.capital.ro/fileadmin/fancybox/Compendiu_POS_CCE_noiembrie_2012
_11141555.pdf
228
Another relevant aspect in the context of the difficulties occurring during

the implementation of the projects, is the beneficiaries failure52 to
comply with the financing requests and even with the documentation they
submitted (such as feasibility studies or technical projects submitted by
them together with the financing request), an aspect that generated
corrections imposed by the competent authorities and, subsequently, even
proceedings in court53.
4.8. Legislative Barriers Impacting on the Absorption Rhythm
There were legislative barriers in all stages of the EU fund absorption

process. Thus, the most significant legislative deficiencies derive from the
laws on domestic budget, containing a series of provisions likely to
impair the efficient and swift implementation of projects.
In accordance with a report issued by the Government of Romania54, the

deficiencies were partially settled with the approval of Emergency
Ordinance no. 64/2009 on the financial management of structural
52
Please see Sentence no. 22/F/CA/2008 of the Court of Appeal of Alba Iulia-
Administrative and Fiscal Litigation Division, where the court held the fact that the
claimant (a family association) agreed, in signing the financing agreement, with the
clauses contained therein. Consequently, the court of law decided that the claimant
had to fully comply with the substantiation memorandum attached to the financing
request whereby the beneficiary of the agreement (i.e. the claimant) undertook to
purchase a 8 + 1 (and not 7 + 1, as the one purchased by the claimant) transportation
mean, also undertaking to ensure the performance of the project in accordance with
its description and to implement the project, obligation undertaken in a binding and
irrevocable manner, undertaking the risk that the support granted would be
recovered if the financed targets were not used in compliance with the intended
purpose, as per the clauses of the financing agreement.
53
Please see Civil Sentence no. 374 of 2008 of the Court of Appeal of Craiova,
Administrative and Fiscal Litigation Division;
54
National strategic report on the implementation of structural and cohesion
funds, available on the website: http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/res/filepicker _users/
cd25a597fd
f
229
instruments and their use for the convergence objective. This enactment
was intended to increase the smooth the financial-budgetary flows in the
operational programs financed from structural instruments and, implicitly,
increase the absorption degree.
Nevertheless, there are regulations on the management of public funds

that hinder the implementation of projects. Thus, among such regulations
there are also the provisions of the law on public finance and of the law
on local public finance.
In addition to the legislative burdens referred to hereinabove, MA and the

beneficiaries faced a series of difficulties also relating to specific
legislations, such as:
lack of enforcement rules for Local Public Administration Law

no. 215/2001;
lack of enforcement rules for Law no. 220/2008 determining the

promotion system for the use of energy from renewable sources;
domestic laws in the waste management sector;
laws on public utility services and water supply and sewage

services;
the legislative void together with the inactivity of the supervisory

authorities have led to the phenomena of dedicated tenders
being generalized;
ANRMAP orders based on which the authority to intervene in

the settlement method of challenging tenders.
Nonetheless, despite the facts mentioned above, we cannot help noticing

that most sectorial legislative issues referred to by the MA as generating
difficulties were amended or are undergoing amendments in order to
settle the deficiencies ascertained during the implementation.
230
4.8.1. Issues at the level of the National Authority for Regulating and
Supervising Public Procurements (ANRMAP)
So far, fraud or conflicts of interest in public procurement, having a

European fund financing component, have materialized in the preliminary
suspension/suspension of four operational programs, i.e. Transport,
Environment, SOPHRD and the Regional Operational Program, the
European Commission ceases to accept reimbursement requests for
projects in Romania.
In an attempt to prevent such blockages and to stop dedicated

procurements, ANRMAP has decided to verify the awarding
documentations before the tender takes place, the analysis of ANRMAP
focuses on the selection and qualification criteria stipulated in these
documentations, respectively on the aspects of the awarding
documentation that create a suspicion that such tenders are directed at
certain business operators. For instance, among the non-compliances that
have generated such a measure is the introduction in the procurement
and/or tender specifications data chart of certain restrictive criteria (these
documents have not so far been verified by ANRMAP, only the
announcement published in SEAP), as well as the manner of dividing the
agreements into batches, so that the resulting values allow the
performance of direct procurements, not tenders.
The legal framework the above-mentioned procedure is based on is

represented by the provisions of GD no. 801/2011, amending and
supplementing GD no. 525/2007 on the organization and operation of
ANRMAP (GD 801/2011). Thus, according to the provisions of GD
801/2011, prior to sending the participation invitation/announcement to
be published by SEAP55 ANRMAP has the obligation to assess the
compliance with applicable public procurement legislation of the
awarding documentation relating to the public procurement agreements
falling under the scope of the provisions of Emergency Government
55
Electronic System for Public Procurements
231
Ordinance no. 34/2006 on awarding public procurement agreements,

public works concession agreements and services concession agreements
(EGO 34/2006), this assessment being focused on the technical aspects
of the tender specifications.
Within maximum 14 days as of receiving the documentation, ANRMAP

has the obligation to send its acceptance in view of initiating the awarding
procedure, if the provisions of the awarding documentation comply with
the legal provisions concerning public procurement or to invalidate the
publication if it finds the incompliance thereof with legal provisions, as
well as to inform the contracting authority on the ascertained
incompliance found at the level of the awarding documentation and the
reason why this documentation is incompliant with the public
procurement legal provisions.
In order to provide reasons for the incompliance of the awarding

documentation with the public procurement legal provisions, the
president of ANRMAP issued Order no. 509 of 2011, on formulating the
qualification and selection criteria (Order 509/2011), providing
examples of situations where competition is restricted and the principle of
proportionality is breached by the qualification and selection criteria.
Based on this order, new legal presumptions were instated on restricting
competition and breaching the principles provided under art. 2 para. 2 of
EGO 34/2006.
The legal presumptions mentioned above are supplemented by the ones

concerning the breach of the proportionality principle, stipulated in art. 9
of Government Decision no. 925/2006, approving the enforcement of the
rules of provision referring to awarding public procurement agreements
of EGO 34/2006. Thus, given the new legal presumptions, it is sufficient
to show that the provisions of the awarding documentation fall under the
examples provided in Order no. 509/2011, for the said provisions to be
considered restrictive, without the need to provide evidence of why and
how competition is restricted.
232
As regards the manner in which the legal provisions concerning public

procurement are observed, please note56 that in the first two weeks as of
the enforcement of the provisions of GD no. 801/2011 only 49 awarding
documentations out of 1,550 were accepted by ANRMAP to be published
in SEAP.
Based on the above-mentioned facts, a warning sign may be drawn on

severe consequences in the case of controls concerning the lawfulness of
the public procurement procedures conducted prior to the entry into force
of GD no. 801/2011, taking into account the sanctions provided by EGO
34/2006 as well as the financial corrections applied by the control
authorities of the European Union in the case of projects carried out with
European financing.
4.9. Institutional Difficulties
4.9.1. General Institutional Difficulties
Despite the deficiencies of the Romanian institutional system, ever since

the accession to the European Union, the system assessments performed
by the AA and the European Commission by means of the missions
conducted between 2008-2009 resulted in the certification of the
management and control systems for all seven OPs. On the other hand,
institutional difficulties, in particular those relating to the procedure
complexity and bureaucracy and to staffing, still exist.
Thus, one of the major concerns referred to above in this Study consist of
the insufficient and financially unmotivated human resources of the
competent authorities.
The large workload and the high degree of responsibility imposed by the
activities conducted by the internal personnel led, in most cases, to a
fluctuation of the personnel trained in managing such funds, these
56
http://principiiachizitii.blogspot.ro/2011/11/consecintele-juridice-ale-ordinului.html
233
fluctuations being all the less recommended as, in the process of setting
up the fund management structures, particular care was given to the
recruitment process and the training of personnel in the field of structural
instrument management.
Among the already visible effects of this situation, there are:
delays in preparing the guidelines for applicants and in contracting

technical assistance;
delays in completing the preparation of key projects and their

approval by the European Commission;
delays in project implementation, with direct impact on the

absorption degree and potentially on the failure to fulfill certain
commitments undertaken through treaty for Romanias accession to
the European Union (e.g. SOP Environment).
In addition, the institutional difficulties have become worse since the

blockage in staffing the vacant positions as a result of the economic and
financial crisis that occurred in all the Member States of the European
Union, and among them Romania.
However, mention should be made that, once identified, the

implementation difficulties are dealt with by the competent authorities, in
order to find reasonable solutions57.
Another major concern was the bureaucracy at the time when the
documentation is requested and processed. Thus, although local
authorities want to remove shortcomings as swiftly as possible, they were
not successful in eliminating and/or removing the difficulty of
57
f, page 77
234
bureaucracy at the time when the documentation is requested and

processed.
Among the most famous cases in the sector, there are: the request to
apply an oval-shaped stamp; mandatory application of three stamps on
one document; inserting a table laid only on the length, and not the width
of the page; refusing a document containing a signature affixed in black
colour ink, etc.
Moreover, upon submitting the projects, administrative and financial

documents continue to be requested in excess of what is stipulated in the
Applicants Guide, which subsequent to their submission are removed
from assessment by the individuals who had previously requested them.
At the same time, notice should be made that the excessive bureaucracy
seems to have survived, even if less documents are requested upon
project submission at present, the remaining ones being necessary only
upon signing the agreements.
In addition, as concerns the interference of the politics in the EU fund

absorption process, we cannot overlook that the European Commission
repeatedly found through its audits irregularities or suspicions of
generalized corruption.
In this respect, mention should be made that, for a long period, Romania
failed to implement the proposals originating from the European
Commission in the sense of appointing a high public officer/minister with
competence in EU fund absorption and with political support. In addition,
the successive Romanian governments until the autumn of 2011 delayed
in an unreasonable manner the key actions and the action plan for the
sectors deemed by the European Commission as having significant
weaknesses. There was no inter-ministry political coordination and,
furthermore, the Romanian authorities failed to reply to the many
technical assistance offers made by the European Commission.
235
The delays and hesitations in amending the laws on public procurement,

associated with political interferences and awarding agreements to their
clientele considerably increased the distrust of the European Commission
in the seriousness of Romanias commitment regarding the reduction of
fraud in the case of using structural funds. As a result, the European
Commission ordered the payments in the Sectoral Operational Program
Infrastructure within EFRD to be suspended and generated the decision to
block payments to SOP-HRD in 2012. These measures had a negative
impact on the absorption capacity, already very low as it was.
The severity of this situation is confirmed by a relevant document in the

Romanian mass-media58, concluding that OLAF expressed severe
concern to the fact that the relevant Romanian administrative and
judicial authorities (i.e. the National Anti-Corruption Directorate,
payment agency, management authority, competent ministries) seem to
work in a coordinated manner with a view to obstructing the
investigations conducted by OLAF. These suspicions are based on similar
arguments provided in reply to OLAFs requests and on the indications
that certain documents are distributed among such authorities.
4.9.2. Difficulties relating to Infrastructure Projects
According to a study59 on analysing the absorption capacity of EU funds

in Romania, the transport infrastructure and environmental programs
account for approximately 60% of the overall EU funds allocated to
Romania. SOP Environment began rapidly because there was already a
significant portfolio of projects, prepared in advance through the ISPA
program. In practice, the Ministry of Environment was constant for
58
http://a1.ro/news/extern/ce-suspecteaza-dna-si-guvernul-ca-impiedica-
investigatiile-olaf-din-romania.html
59
Gheorghe Oprescu, Daniela Luminia Constantin, Florin Ilie i Dragos Pslaru Studiu
privind analiza capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor comunitare n Romnia (Study
on analyzing the absorption capacity of Community funds in Romania) published
under the aegis of the European Institute in Romania - http://www.ier.ro/
documente/studiideimpactPaisIII_ro/Pais3_studiu_1_ro.pdf.
236
approximately four (4) years in preparing, submitting, contracting and

initiating major environmental projects.
However, despite the large number of projects, the concern derives from
the large amount of time necessary to prepare all feasibility studies and to
obtain the necessary permits.
The difficulties referred to above are supplemented by the ones relating to

the public procurement procedure for signing the works agreement with
the contractor appointed for this purpose. Thus, we may notice that, since
the beneficiaries have chosen to abusively use the remedies and leverage
made available by the public procurement legislation60, the tender for
awarding such works may take up to one (1) year, because of the
complaints submitted by the candidates in the tender who, from one
reason or another, believe that they have been treated unfairly by the fact
that they were not declared winners or because of the unreasonable
extension in signing the agreement by the contracting authority.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF REMEDIES FOR THE
DIFFICULTIES REFERRED TO ABOVE
Despite the fact that the Government adopted, between 2011 and 2012, a
series of measures that should have entailed a significant impact on
attracting EU funds, the effects are still not visible, and EU funds are
relatively difficult to access and implement.
It is obvious that, under such circumstances, Romania is subject to major

risks, such as:
60
EGO no. 34/2006 on awarding public procurement agreements, public works
concession agreements and services concession agreements
237
the risk of neutralization, at the national level, for a significant

part of EU funds, with the consequence that they return to the
European Union budget and risking that, by doing so, Romania
becomes a medium-term contributor to this budget (i.e. of the
European Union), without having, at the same time, the capacity
of a beneficiary of the resulting funds (in other words, to
contribute to the European Union budget more than to receive or
use it), and
even when used, in the absence of clear-cut strategies, the impact

of funds on the development of the country and narrowing the
regional differences will be much lower than targeted.
In light of the considerations above, major deficiencies in the field of

accessing EU funds may be summarized as follows:
5.1. Determining National Strategies
The competent authorities did not provide for and dealt in advance with
the need to develop strategies allowing to create mechanisms for
attracting EU funds. In this respect, as also noticed by the author of a
study regarding the use of European funds61, in 2007 no public tender was
launched for projects financed from structural funds. It is true that, in the
first six (6) months as of Romanias accession to the European Union,
attracting European funds was impossible because the national plans had
to be subject to the analysis and approval of the European Commission,
however, it would have been preferable for such plans to be completed or
at least undergoing an advanced completion stage ever since the end of
2006, so that the State authorities, under a strong media attack as
concerns the incapacity to absorb EU funds, would not have performed a
61
the Romanian Center for European Policies - http://www.crpe.ro/library/
files/crpe_policy_memo_7_ro.pdf
238
series of national plans in haste, without a clear and thorough knowledge

of the relevant EU regulations.
5.2. MA Operation
Similar to the national development strategies, there was a delay in

setting up the MAs. Nevertheless, even after their setting up, their action
was limited by the difficulties caused by the undersized and under-skilled
staff.
Another problem of MA is the fact that, almost entirely, the management

of such authorities was appointed based on political criteria. As such,
considering that politics was a key criterion, it is obvious that the
amendment of the guides, respectively the investment directions, took a
lower priority.
Furthermore, the political interference at the level of competent

authorities increased the feeling of insecurity among the staff. That is
why, considering that the human resources from which the local
authorities benefit are one of the key elements for supporting their
capacity to prepare and draft projects, we believe importance lies both
with the general qualification level of the personnel in the local
administration, but in particular the specialization degree of the personnel
in the area of accessing European funds.
5.3. Continuous Change of Terms and Conditions
In accordance with the publicly available information, most applicants for

European funds believed that the change of eligibility criteria represented
a major obstacle in accessing financing. Thus, it is well-known that most
Users Guides were subject to frequent changes, causing confusion
among applicants, but also among consultants, such changes being due in
particular to the fact that MA were not ready, at the practical level, to
conduct project sessions (i.e. from the perspective of the selection or
procurement procedures), as a result, the need was felt to perform
239
adjustments to the Users Guides even as such calls were opened, which,
naturally, affected at least a part of the projects undergoing submission or
even assessment stages.
5.4. Changes to the Grid of Selection Scoring and Changing the

Project Launching Calendar
Project scoring was subject to continuous changes. Thus, at first, projects

were prepared so that to achieve a certain selection scoring, and
afterwards, close to the session being launched, the grid scoring was
changed. This led to confusion and uncertainty among the applicants, and
they even gave up applying for the necessary funds.
As regards the launch of projects, in practice, there were cases where

information existed that a certain session would be launched in a certain
month of the year, and in fact it was launched at a later date, that often
exceeded a time margin of three (3) months. These differences resulted in
the need to remake the documentation and obtain new approvals for the
projects to be submitted.
In this context, the calendar of tender launches seems to be an essential

document for the beneficiary, being necessary that the deadlines
indicated therein be concrete and fully observed by MA. Also, in the case
of requests for projects with continuous submission, it was necessary to
publish regularly (monthly, for example) information about the number of
approved projects and the remaining available budget.
In this case, it would be recommended to give up the changes to the

Applicants Guide (Corrigenda) that needs to be applied for the
ongoing projects requests, in particular changes imposed on the projects
already submitted.
240
5.5. Project Development under Time Pressure
In practice, most projects were developed under time pressure, largely

determined by the reasons described above (i.e. inappropriate operation of
MA, permanent change of terms and conditions, etc.). This led to an
additional pressure on the applicants shoulders which, in most cases,
determined a lack of quality in project drafting. This could be, to a certain
extent, the explanation for the fact that there are more projects rejected
than approved.
5.6. Procedure Transparency
The opinion among the majority of EU fund consultants, as deriving from

practice, is that an increased transparency of the procedure could lead to
an increased efficiency of the fund absorption process.
In this respect, it is recommended to hold meetings with the beneficiaries

and potential beneficiaries in order to underline and explain, if the case
may be, concrete aspects relating to project development. Moreover, in
order to promote transparency, accuracy of assessment and to prevent the
occurrence of conflicts of interests, it is necessary to clearly distinguish
the consultants that can be co-opted as individuals or legal entities to
assess the projects submitted to MA, on the one hand, from those
providing technical consultancy/assistance for the projects already
submitted or to be submitted, on the other hand.
To continue the considerations above, the organizations of the civil

society benefiting from expertise in the field should partake in project
monitoring and assessment. Thus, it is recommended that the
representatives of the social partners and the organizations of civil society
that were active in the period when EU fund accessing was prepared to be
found to a larger extent among the monitoring and assessment boards at
the national and regional level. In doing so, a balance could be
maintained and stricter control could be exercised over the assessment
and promotion of the best projects and initiatives co-financed from
European funds.
241
Creating an IT system enabling the applicants to check the stage and

conclusions of the assessment, respectively creating an appropriate virtual
space where to check, at any time, the stage of assessing the submitted
projects, would allow the applicants to access inclusively the scoring
granted and the weaknesses of the documentation. This would help not
only for a more transparent promotion in the assessment process in
respect of financing requests/projects submitted, but also to assimilate the
good practices deriving from correcting the imperfections that led to
such financing requests being rejected and their reiteration.
It is also recommended to draft a clear-cut technical protocol for

intermediary reports in order to promote an inter-institutional
communication system as precise and operative as possible among the
players implementing projects and IB/CPA/MA, whereby to determine a
clear-cut technical procedure to conduct periodic reports, starting from
good practices in the sector.
5.7. Information on Financing Opportunities
It is understood that information is an extremely important resource for

potential applicants in preparing and submitting projects for European
financing. Considering that, in the case of Romania, access to specialized
information is rather limited, it is recommended to create an official
portal, dedicated to each OP (with the same interface) for better access of
potential beneficiaries to the relevant information, also taking into
account that, although at present there are various websites in this area,
the information that they provide (although complete and relevant) lack
organization and cohesion for a potential beneficiary, beginner to
accessing European funds.
Thus, although the active search for information by requests submitted to

the competent institutions is widely spread among applicants, their
majority were only content to request basic information, which obviously
did not make up the entire panel of developing a financing project.
242
Consequently, communication needs to be improved by pro-active

communication of the amendments and news launched by the authorities
through press releases, together with their display in the dedicated
websites, so that the beneficiaries found out about the latest news in a
timely manner.
Although the Internet continues to be the most customary way to access

information, as the Internet is the main source of useful information
relating to European financing opportunities, this means of information is
apparently limited in rural areas, where the lack of modern means of
communication and/or the lack of computer literacy skills are major
obstacles against the access to information. Thus, the local authorities (in
cooperation with skilled personnel e.g. specialized consultants)
organizing regular meetings with potential beneficiaries could result in an
increased degree of information on the conditions and requirements
imposed for obtaining financing, together with the development of the
capacity, knowledge and interest of potential beneficiaries to access
European funds.
5.8. Contracting More Outsourced Evaluators. Motivating the

Officers
In practice, the beneficiaries wish for the number and expertise of the
personnel within the authorities involved in the procedure for accessing
European funds to improve. Thus, it is recommended to create a data base
with the consultancy companies/natural person consultants, respectively a
data base with independent experts, updated regularly and made available
to the potential beneficiaries for information and use.
243
5.9. Introducing Foreign Management in Key Positions (Bulgarian

Example)
Introducing foreign management in key positions of MA could be

deemed as a viable62 solution for increasing the absorption ratio of EU
funds in Romania.
In the case of Bulgaria, a neighbouring country, with problems similar to

those of Romania as regards the procedures and inefficiency in attracting
European funds, the Government, following repeated penalties imposed
by the European Commission and the official letters whereby Bulgaria
was notified of the fact that it would lose significant amounts that had
been allocated to it, decided in 2009 to set up a Ministry dedicated to
European funds (i.e. the Ministry of European Funds). Subsequently, in
2010, a cooperation agreement was concluded with the World Bank for
assistance in the field of European funds, based on which the Bulgarian
Government would use the expertise of the World Bank representatives to
attract and manage European funds.
Even if on December 2010, the President of the European Commission,

Jose Manuel Barroso, sent to the Bulgarian Prime-Minister a letter of
harsh criticism against Bulgarias poor results in absorbing European
funds (i.e. Bulgaria had an absorption rate of 6% of the overall European
funds allocated for the period 2007-2013), it specifies, nevertheless, that
the creation of the Ministry of European Funds was a positive step for
Bulgaria in the European fund absorption process. Subsequently, in
January 2011, because of the concrete steps undertaken by the Bulgarian
authorities in this respect, namely less than a year later, the Bulgarian
Government presented the results of setting up the Ministry of European
Funds. Thus, the Bulgarian minister in charge with the Ministry of
European Funds officially declared that the European funds absorption
rate is of 10%, when at the beginning of 2010 it was at a level of 1%, the
Bulgarian Government also announcing that their target for 2011 was an
absorption rate of 20%.
62
http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-9212496-facut-bulgaria-cand-aflat-impas-
fondurile-europene.htm
244
5.10. Guaranteeing Co-Financing and a Better Use of the JEREMIE

Program
Identifying a co-financing guarantee system for private companies and, if

need be, preparing a State aid scheme should be taken into consideration
by all the players of the financing process, in order to improve Romanias
poor ratio of accessing European funds.
Thus, using the facilities provided by the JEREMIE program by co-

interesting banks in Romania which, lately have introduced financing
offers, specialized crediting programs to guarantee co-financing, may be a
way to increase the European fund accessing degree.
In light of the arguments set forth above, amending the conditions under
which SMEs can access financing and fastening the procedures
comprised in the JEREMIE program, may help, in real terms, the
beneficiaries (companies), by supporting their access to credit. Thus, the
JEREMIE program is a set of actions having as their objective to increase
SMEs access to financing, the program being organized in Romania by
means of the European Investment Fund, the manager of the funds made
available by EFRD. The investment credit granted to a potential
beneficiary through the JEREMIE program is aimed to finance
investments developed in eligible sectors. In this respect, the banks
participating in the program grant a credit intended to cover day-to-day
expenses resulting from the investments, through the JEREMIE operation
capital credit. Nevertheless, in order to obtain financial guarantees
through the JEREMIE program, the beneficiary companies need to
cumulatively meet the following conditions:
to have less than 250 employees;
to have an annual turnover of less than EUR 50 million (RON

equivalent);
to operate in the fields of trade, production and services;
245
to be registered in Romania;
to be up to date with the payment of taxes and levies at the time

when they receive financing;
not to fall under the scope of any recovery order issued by the
European Commission for structural funds accessed before by
the company;
not to receive assistance through another EU fund program

referring to the assets and expenses financed through JEREMIE;
to qualify for the de minimis aid limit established by law.
In addition to the considerations above, reference should be made to the

publication in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 193/23.03.2012 of
Government Decision no. 218/2012 approving the Guidelines for
enforcing the provisions of Emergency Government Ordinance no.
64/2009 on the financial management of structural instruments and their
use for the convergence objective.
The enactment takes over most of the regulations of Order no. 2548/2009
of the Ministry of Public Finance (repealed by Government Decision no.
218/2012), however, it introduces new provisions aimed to improve the
financial flows at beneficiary level, as well as make them assume
responsibility, in respect of complying with the project implementation
deadlines, as undertaken in the reimbursement request submission
calendar corresponding to the financing agreements.
To this end, the enactment mainly introduces the following regulations:
to reduce the pre-financing recovery rate of the reimbursement

requests submitted, from 30% to a rate at least equal to the one
pursuant to which pre-financing was granted for the project;
246
beneficiaries falling under the scope of the State aid/de minimis,

who have to provide guarantees in order to obtain pre-financing,
will be able to downsize the guarantee as the pre-financing is
recovered;
to increase the maximum rate of pre-financing from 10% up to

20% for the projects benefiting from fully non-reimbursable
financing and for the projects having an eligible value under
RON 1 million;
to establish the obligation for the beneficiary to undertake,

through the financing agreement/decision, a calendar/schedule
for submitting the reimbursement requests throughout the project
implementation period, a calendar that may be amended no more
than three times.
5.11. Continuing the implementation of measures comprised in the

Draft System Audit Report of Operational Program
2007RO051PO001 Development of Human Resources (DHR) A-
Rep No. 2012-1445/20.06.2012
According to the Progress Report concerning the action plan for the
fulfillment of the recommendations of the Draft System Audit Report of
Operational Program 2007RO051PO001 Development of Human
Resources (DHR) A-Rep No. 2012-1445/20.06.2012 issued following the
audit mission conducted during April 2 and April 6 and May 3 and May
11, 201263, until August 31, 2012 the following actions were carried out:
as regards ascertaining the approval of projects having non-

viable budgets, disproportionate salaries and unjustified
procurements, generated by an inappropriate assessment process
or the disregard of the evaluators opinion, the involved
63
http://www.romaniacurata.ro/ltfont-colorblackgtexclusivitate-arclt-fontgtltbrgt-
citeste-raportul-d-3369.htm
247
Romanian authorities have revised the Applicants Guide

General Conditions and the Evaluation and Selection
Methodology, the latter being introduced in the internal approval
circuit of MA SOP-DHR;
as regards the inconsistent guidelines provided by the MA to the

beneficiaries, the ambiguity of the national guidelines for the
distribution of funds and the use of resources required for the
implementation of the projects, consultations were held with the
supplier, as well as a review of the part of the financing request
entitled Project Activity Chart;
drafting verification instruments (i.e., an Activity Report and a

Scoring Chart), brought to the attention of the beneficiaries by
MA SOP-DHR by publishing them on the website represent only
part of the actions undertaken for the settlement of the issues
generated by the management verifications, which were
deficient as regards the methodology applied for sampling the
supporting documents, leading to a very limited number of
controlled supporting documents;
as regards the on-site controls, which, as per the ascertainments

of the audit report, did not cover the complementary insurance
elements (e.g., the actual performance of the activities and public
procurements), a visit plan was developed in accordance with the
new methodology for distributing risk and sampling and a
verification procedure was introduced for procurements
performed by the beneficiaries/partners which are not contracting
authorities;
as regards the public procurements identified by the MA as

being a risk area, since only a small part of the related expenses
were controlled and, moreover, there was no critical control
performed by the MA SOP-DHR concerning the public
procurement plan presented by the beneficiaries, MA SOP-DHR
248
approved the operational procedure verifying the reimbursement

requests;
finally, as regards the high risk of double financing and the

non-existence of a cross-control of the expenses of the
beneficiaries involved in multiple projects at the same time, MA
SOP-DHR approved the operational procedure On-site visits.
5.12. Case Study: Inefficient Absorption of EU Funds based on the

SOP-HRD Program. Solutions.
It is well-known that, as regards the level for accessing EU funds made

available based on the SOP-HRD program, Romania was faced with
significant difficulties, caused in particular by the incapacity of the
operation of the MA and CPA established especially for this OP.
In this respect, in the period April 2 May 11, 2012, the European
Commission performed, in accordance with the provisions of art. 72 (2)
of Council Regulation (CE) No. 1083/2006, a system and operation audit
meant to check the operability of the management and control system
established for SOP-HRD.
The audit outcome confirmed the suspicions of the European

representatives, in the meaning that the audit mission ascertained severe
deficiencies of the management and control system of SOP-HRD,
namely:
deficit relating to the guidance provided to the beneficiaries in

respect of eligible activities, target groups, indicators and
relevant eligible expenses;
deficit relating to the operation selection procedures;
deficit relating to the first-level verifications performed by MA;
deficit relating to CPA certifying the expense statements;

249
irregularities relating to the declaration of eligible expenses;
breach of the rules governing State aid.
Following the completion of the audit mission, the Ministry of Labour,

through the SOP-HRD Management Authority, initiated a series of key
and expediency measures meant to remedy the system deficiencies found
by the auditors by implementing an action plan in this respect.
Thus, in accordance with the action plan agreed with the European
representatives, the Romanian authorities undertake to:
1. revise the operation assessment and selection guidelines in the

meaning of increasing the minimum thresholds corresponding to
the selection grid;
2. revise the operation assessment and selection guidelines in the

meaning of establishing more accurate eligibility criteria for the
applicants.
3. revise the financing request template, so that to allow an

objective/realistic assessment of the project budget and
resources, as compared to the proposed objectives (indicators)
and expected activities and stating whether the same activities
could be implemented in a more profitable manner, in
observance of the quality requirements;
4. implement certain measures referring to the beneficiaries strictly

complying, during implementation, with the applicable laws on
procurement, namely:
the purchase plan per project shall be sent by the

beneficiary to MA/IB SOP-HRD no later than 10 days
after the agreement was signed;
250
the purchase plan per project shall be examined by the

monitoring officer, in order to prevent departures from
the applicable laws (e.g.: in selecting the procedure) and
from the estimated project budget;
any subsequent amendment to the purchase plan needs to

be justified and shall be subjected to examination and
approval at the level of MA/IB SOP-HRD.
5. use the Technical Assistance facility;
6. prepare selection guidelines for the evaluators of draft projects,

so that to ensure specialized competence in the assessment
process.
7. provide detailed guidance to evaluators;
8. remove the possibility to transfer open issues from the

assessment into the contracting stage.
***
In conclusion, to the above, it may be said that, despite the reactivity,

however slow, of the authorities involved in providing European
financing, in taking measures to smooth access of potential beneficiaries
to financing lines, the concern relating to the low absorption degree of
European funds in Romania is still open and ongoing. In this respect,
notice should be made that the low absorption rate is due to all players
involved in this process, so that not only the issues intrinsic to the public
administration system generate such an effect, but also the legislative
inflation in the field and the lack of training of potential beneficiaries in
preparing and developing financing projects. Therefore, despite the
251
authorities recent efforts to take administrative, legal, institutional or

organizational measures in order to increase the absorption degree
corresponding to the budget period 2007-2013, no significant changes
were observed and are not expected to be observed, a fact which may be
equivalent to Romania losing funds of approximately EUR 10-15 billion
for the subsequent programming period. Nevertheless, provided that the
authorities involved in granting financing are open to a public dialogue
and/or to take into account the suggestions emanating from the civil
society, the premises could be laid to increase the absorption degree, at
least starting with the budget period 2014-2020, all the more that for that
budget period, it is expected that the multi-fund approach will be
implemented, for which the authorities need to make preparations in
advance. Nevertheless, please note that, if the multi-annual financial plan
is adopted in the form proposed by the President of the European Council,
Romania may continue to incur significant difficulties in implementing
the identified solutions, taking into account that the absorption rate of
European funds, according to the project, has been an essential condition
for determining the amount of funds to be allocated to each Member State
throughout the financial exercise 2014-2020.
252

Ctlina Constantin, Andreea Florina Radu, Introductory editorial in issue
9/2009 of the European Advisor Magazine,
http://www.dae.gov.ro/admin/files/Consilier%20European%20Nr%209.pdf;
National Strategic Report for Implementing Structural and Cohesion Funds

prepared in 2010 http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd-
62/Documente_Suport/Rapoarte_Strategice/Raport_strategic_national_200
9_RO.pdf;;
Study on SOP Environment, prepared by the Government of Romania,

available for consultation on the website www.fonduri-
ue.ro/.../Raport_strategic_national_2009_RO.pdf.
Ioana Morovan, Study Suntem n grafic? 2010 Primul bilan utilizarea

fondurilor structurale (Are we on schedule? 2010 the first balance using
structural funds), published in issue 7 of February 2010 of the Policy Memo
magazine, under the aegis of the Romanian Center for European Policies -
http://www.crpe.ro/library/files/crpe_policy_memo_7_ro.pdf;
Gheorghe Oprescu, Daniela Luminia Constantin, Florin Ilie and Drago

Pslaru Study on analyzing the absorption capacity of Community Funds in
Romania, published under the aegis of the European Institute in Romania -
,
http://www.ier.ro/documente/studiideimpactPaisIII_ro/Pais3_studiu_1_ro.pd
f;
http://antreprenor.money.ro/topul_greselilor_in_accesarea_fondurilor_euro
pene_cum_le_poti_evita-84297.html;
http://www.inforegionordest.ro/documente/noutati/publicatii/studiu_privin
d_implementarea_por_in_regiunea_nord_est_decembrie_2010.pdf;
coeziune/;
http://www.gov.ro/absorbtia-fondurilor-structurale-si-de-coeziune-proritate-
zero-a-guvernului- romaniei__l1a109210.html;
253
http://www.fonduri-
structurale.ro/Document_Files//mediu/00000029/h7748_Rezumat_POS_Mai_
2007.pdf;
Raportul anual pe anul 2011, Evolutii si perspective macroeconomice si

bugetare. http://www.wall-street.ro/files/131509-255.pdf;
http://www.romaniacurata.ro/ltfont-colorblackgtexclusivitate-arclt-
fontgtltbrgt-citeste-raportul-d-3369.htm;
www.fonduri-structurale.ro;
www.fonduri-ue.ro;
www.euractiv.ro;
www.posmediu.ro;
http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-9212496-facut-bulgaria-cand-aflat-
impas-fondurile-europene.htm;
http://ec.europa.eu;
http://a1.ro/news.
www.capital.ro
254
The budget of the

European Union and its
impact on the Cohesion
Policy
Cohesion Policy accounts today, in the period 2007-2013, for

over two thirds ( 347 billion out of a total of 976 billion) of the
European multiannual budget, the so-called Multiannual Financial
Framework (MFF). The reason for such a consistent package of the
overall budget to be devoted to this policy is quite easy to understand:
Cohesion Policy represents a key tool for the European Union, because
based on the principle of solidarity it aims at boosting investment and
growth in all regions of the Union, with a particular focus on the less
developed ones.
Therefore, it must be added that the economic situation of

Member States today is different from what it used to be at the time the
current MFF was adopted. And since Cohesion Policy, given its nature of
instrument to reduce disparities among Member States and regions,
obviously invests more in some countries and less in some others, the
situation at a time when the next MFF is to be adopted appears difficult
and full of question marks.
255
Under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, for the adoption of

the MFF for the years 2014-2020 there has to be first a proposal from the
European Commission, and then the Council should come to its own
position, to which the European Parliament has to give its assent.
However, Member States seem not to be able to find an agreement, as
they are split between net payers on the one hand, and net receivers on the
other hand. Just to clarify the situation, Member States that are net payers
are those contributing to the EU budget more than what they get back,
while the so-called net receivers Member States are the ones which after
contributing to the EU budget, get in return a higher amount of resources.
This differentiation has also brought to the creation, within the Council,
of two groups of Member States: Friends of Cohesion, constituted by net
receivers, and Friends of Better Spending, formed by net payers.
Since the Council has to adopt its position at unanimity, it is easy

to understand that an internal agreement is not simple to be achieved,
especially given the fact that negotiations focus not only on the total
amount of the MFF, but also on the shares to dedicate to each policy and
objective, and first and foremost to Cohesion Policy and the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP). In addition, other political factors have to be
taken into account, such as rebates wanted from some countries, which
have benefited from them in the past.
What should be emphasized is that those Member States wanting

to drastically reduce their contributions and therefore the overall size of
the multiannual budget of the Union do so, on the basis of arguments,
which are in fact essentially groundless. Several studies recently
undertaken show that the economic return for so-called net payer Member
States is much higher than their effective contribution to the EU budget.
The reasons are multiple, including for example the fact that
implementing big scale projects often leads to the use of contractors from
more developed and more advanced countries, which very often coincide
with net contributors.
256
The big problem of the lack of an agreement on the MFF is that,

for what concerns in particular Cohesion Policy but in fact not only that,
there is the need to get ready the legislative package which will regulate
the new programming period, which goes from 2014 to 2020. Moreover,
it is easy understandable that it is extremely difficult to work on a
legislative framework without knowing how much money will finally be
devoted to those objectives.
The European Parliament finds itself, from this point of view, in

the hard situation of deciding what to do in case an agreement is found in
the Council which foresees heavy cuts compared to the current situation.
It has always made clear that it will not accept any cuts to the initial
proposal of the Commission, which was already considered well below its
expectations. But at the same time it has to consider that a delay in
adopting the new MFF will also have an impact on the adoption of the
new Cohesion Policy package, where the legislative procedure to be
followed after Lisbon is the Ordinary Legislative one (ex co-decision),
which foresees the necessity of the Parliament and the Council to agree
on a common text for the different regulations involved. The so-called
trilogues, where Parliament, Council and Commission meet to negotiate
the text, have already started in the second half of 2012, but as explained
above a final agreement is subject to an agreement at MFF level.
Despite of this firm link between the budgetary issue and the
legislative procedure, the key elements and objectives characterising the
new Cohesion Policy are already quite clear. There might of course still
be some changes in the course of the negotiations, but not many
modifications should be major ones. It is therefore possible to draw a
picture of how the new policy will look like and of what will be the
guiding principles.
However, before analysing that more in depth, it is worth

explaining what are the funds composing Cohesion Policy, and who are
the recipients.
257
In the current programming period 2007-2013, three are three

funds used for the implementation of this policy. On the one hand, there
are the so-called Structural Funds, which are addressed to all the regions
in which Europe is divided. They are the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), which invests in the development of regions
through programmes related for example to infrastructure, research and
innovation, and also technical assistance; and the European Social Fund
(ESF), which supports education and professional training, employment
and job opportunities.
It is worth mentioning that also Romania is for the purpose of the

structural funds divided into different regions, despite of the fact that its
internal administrative system does not foresee until today the existence
of such administrative entities.
On the other hand, there is the Cohesion Fund, which is a fund

specifically designed to help economies of the less prosperous Member
States, through investments in the Trans-European Transport Network
(TEN-T) and in the environment.
The way money is then allocated to the different regions and

Member States varies depending on whether Structural Funds or the
Cohesion Fund is concerned. In the first case, there is a differentiation
between regions with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) above or below
75% of the EU average. Regions below this threshold, defined as
Convergence Regions, receive a considerably higher amount of funds.
In the case of the Cohesion Fund, Member States are considered

in their entirety and the criterion taken into account is the Gross National
Income (GNI). Countries benefiting from the support are only those with
a GNI below 90% of the EU average.
If this is in broad lines the situation of the current programming

period, what are the guiding lines and the changes for the next
programming period? We are definitely talking about a successful policy,
258
which has brought development and wealth in many regions, with some
top examples that are often referred to as best practices. Nevertheless, this
does not mean that it is a perfect policy. Cohesion Policy continues to
have shortcomings that need to be addressed, especially if we take into
account that it is implemented under the shared management principle.
What does this mean in practice? It means that Brussels decides the
legislative framework, which regulates the all policy, and then the
implementation at national and regional level is left to Member States. In
fact, the system could not be different, because a centralised management
of the European Commission would mean having an unthinkable number
of staff, without forgetting the lack of the unavoidable link with the local
territories.
For the new programming period 2014-2020 there is an

important opportunity offered by the Lisbon Treaty, namely the
introduction, as seen before, of the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (ex
co-decision) for the adoption of the new regulations. The meaning of this
can be better understood if we consider that before it was just the
Council, and therefore just the Governments of the Member States, to
decide on the content of the regulatory framework, with the European
Parliament relegated to the position of giving its assent to something that
had already been decided.
Today, with the equal footing of the two institutions, also those
problems encountered at regional and local level can be addressed by the
only institution that is not only aware about them, but also willing to
improve the situation. That institution is the new co-legislator, the
European Parliament.
From the very beginning of the talks on the new legislative

package, the Parliament has made clear what had to be the pillars of the
new system: continuity of the rules, where possible, in order not to create
problems to those people and bodies that then have to implement the
policy at national and regional revel; simplification to the maximum
259
possible extent of the rules, twinned with the their harmonization across
the different funds; solidarity to remain at the heart of the policy, with a
continued focus on the less prosperous regions; the so-called thematic
concentration, to concentrate resources on a limited number of objectives
so as to guarantee tangible results; a deeper involvement of regional and
local authorities all throughout the stages, from the moment the policy is
designed, to the very last moment of its implementation; the absolute
refusal of the so-called macroeconomic conditionalities, that is creating a
link between the economic performance of a Member State and the
support received from the Structural Funds; and finally, as said before,
sufficient resources to fulfil all the objectives. From this point of view,
the request of the Parliament was an increase of the resources compared
to the current situation, but we already had the opportunity to describe the
situation as it stands today.
The proposals made by the European Commission, and which

now form the basis to be modelled by Parliament and Council, only
partially respected the above mentioned claims. But, the amendments
tabled by the European Parliament, and its firm stance in the current
negotiations with its counterpart, seem to be fruitful and to allow many
positive elements to become reality for the next programming period.
What has to be considered a key change is certainly the idea of

having an umbrella regulation, the so-called Common Provisions
Regulation (CPR), which ensures the harmonization of the rules and
principles common to the various funds it covers. And the funds covered
by it are not only the Structural and Cohesion Funds (or, as they will most
probably be named at the end of the negotiations, the European Structural
and Investment Funds), but also other European Funds, namely the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). This is an important
achievement, which guarantees the simplification of the rules and
procedures to be followed by beneficiaries.
260
In terms of simplification, efforts have been made also from the

administrative point of view, with for example simplified rules, an easier
management system, and the foreseen introduction of the E-Cohesion,
which consists in the possibility for beneficiaries to submit information
electronically.
The proposal of thematic concentration on a limited number of

objectives, backed by the Parliament after constituting the heart of the
Barca Report (commissioned by the European Commission to the expert
Fabrizio Barca, then become Minister for Territorial Cohesion of Italy),
remains at the core of the new package. Same thing about the idea of a
deeper involvement of regional and local authorities, with the
introduction of the concept of partnership between the central
governments and the regional and local authorities at all stages. When
submitting to the Commission for approval the newly introduced
Partnership Contract, where the Member State will have to show the way
it intends to implement the policy at national level, it will also have to
demonstrate that it has conducted consultations with the local bodies. For
this purpose, also a Code of Conduct will be introduced, specifying the
way in which local authorities have to be involved.
A key novelty of the new Cohesion Policy package is represented

by the introduction of conditionalities. The main goal of them is ensuring
that investments supported by the policy are result oriented. Member
States will be obliged to demonstrate that they have in place all the
necessary ex ante conditions to fulfil the objectives of the programmes
they have chosen to undertake. In addition, where these conditions are not
yet in place, they will have a deadline to fulfil their obligations. Indicators
will then be in place to measure the results achieved by the programmes.
A type of conditionality always opposed by the Parliament but

nonetheless present in the Commission's proposal, is the macroeconomic
one, which does nothing else than punish regions (through the suspension
of all or part of the commitments and payments) in the event national
261
governments do not fulfil their obligations related to the economic

governance of the Union.
Such introduction by the Commission is unjustified, because the

Parliament has always pointed out that, there is no reason why regions
should face sanctions linked to an unhealthy central administration. It is
foreseeable that the firm position of the Parliament will produce its results
and make sure that, from this point of view, there will not be changes
compared to the current programming period.
One last remark for the purpose of a brief description of the main
regulatory changes relates to the distribution of the resources. Here the
change will entail the creation of a new category of regions, with a GDP
between 75% and 90% of the EU average. Categories will thus become
three, less developed regions with a GDP under 75% on which the
majority of the resources will be concentrated, transition regions with a
GDP between 75% and 90%, and more developed regions with a GDP
over 90% of the EU average.
From this point of view Romania will continue to be practically

all under 75% of the average, with the only exception of the region of
Bucharest Ilfov.
Apart from the Common Provisions Regulation, the new

Cohesion Policy package will consist of a number of Funds-specific
regulations, of which it is worth mentioning the one devoted to the
European Regional Development Fund, the one for Cohesion Fund, and
the one for the European Social Fund.
It is not easy to give a whole overview of the changes, but our

attempt will be drawing a picture of the most important elements of the
new framework, which relate to the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund.
The ERDF will of course focus its investments on the thematic

objectives set by the CPR, but what is important is that depending on the
262
development of the region in question a certain percentage of the funds

will have to be earmarked for certain objectives. The Commission
proposed that in more developed and transition regions 80% of the ERDF
resources would be allocated to energy efficiency and renewable
energies, research and development, and support to SMEs. At least 20%
of these earmarked resources would have to be devoted to energy
efficiency and renewable energies. In less developed regions, the
percentages would drop down to 50% and 6% respectively, so as to allow
resources to focus also on basic infrastructure, which is often still lacking
in such regions.
The negotiation on this issue is fluid, so it is difficult to say what

will be the outcome, but the position of the Parliament is that for the sake
of flexibility more developed regions should be able to concentrate the
80% of their ERDF allocation on one more objective than the ones
proposed by the Commission, while the percentage dedicated to energy
efficiency and renewable sources should be increased to 22%. As regards
transition and less developed regions, the percentages should be 60% and
22%, and 50% and 12% respectively.
The focus on energy efficiency and energy from renewable

sources is central in the Parliament's position, and this is made evident by
the attempt to double the efforts in some key sectors through a joint
support from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund.
Going into more detail, the idea of the Parliament is that in order
to meet the targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, that is 20% share of
energy consumption from renewable sources, 20% less CO2 emissions,
and 20% increase in energy efficiency, it is necessary to take drastic
measures. The proposal is therefore to make all buildings, no matter
whether they are public, private, or SMEs, eligible for support for energy
efficiency and the use of renewable energies. In addition, the support
itself would be available from both funds, ERDF and Cohesion Fund.
263
What needs to be underlined, is that these measures can have an

impact not only on the environment itself, but also on the SMEs that
would be involved and consequently on jobs, without forgetting the
savings of citizens in terms of energy bills, and an increased level of
energy security.
Finally, a few words on Cogeneration of Heat, Power and Cold,

and on District Heating. These systems are very common in some
Member States, in particular in Central and Eastern Europe, and in fact
they allow substantial energy savings compared for example to private
heating systems. But despite of being common, they are often outdated.
Moreover, both their upgrade and the construction of new plants require
significant investments whose price would have to be transferred to the
citizens.
Also in this regard, the Parliament has brought forward a

proposal that involves the support of ERDF and Cohesion Fund. It should
be noted that making eligible such systems is not as easy as it could
appear, because the EU has an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) with
which such support can clash. However, the Parliament has tried to table
its amendments in a way that allows their compatibility with the ETS,
ensuring at the same time the widest support for District Heating and
Cogeneration.
This way, plants under 20 MW would be fully eligible, whereas

plants above this threshold would have a single exception for funding,
their type of boiler. In addition, the distribution network would be always
eligible.
Drawing a brief picture of all the elements that are involved in

the reform of Cohesion Policy is not easy, but our hope is that the aim of
showing the complexity but yet the importance of this topic was
somehow achieved.
264
Regional reform in the

public debate
In June 2008, it was stressed The evaluation of the first year

and a half after the accession shows that in Romania, the weak
institutional capacity tends to be a major cause of the reduced absorption
of EU funds. Even though politicians speak out from time to time about
the need for a regional reform, this is not actually on the public and
political agenda1.
Despite warnings from Brussels and internal evidences, Romania

was at risk of widening the development gaps even at that time, gaps
which today have become almost unrecoverable and thus led to a
situation in which the growth rate is much lower than the potential one.
Concurrently it was also stated that the lack of a public and

political debate, as well as the weaknesses of the civil society have led to
a situation where the government is not the subject of the necessary
pressure in order to react and to promote regional reforms2.
1
2
Idem.
265
2012, however, brought an improvement in this regard, bringing

consistent debates on the need for carrying out this reform. Among the
most notable, we must mention the debate organized by the Academy of
Advocacy, where, during a public hearing held in Timisoara, entitled
"Regionalization Romania - Why?3" all interested parties were invited to
express their views and to offer arguments, providing answers to a series
of questions:
Does Romania really need to be regionalised? Why?

What type of decisions and competencies must be transferred to
the regional level?
How do we get organized for a sustainable and efficient
regionalization process?
How can regions increase the country's social, economic, and
territorial cohesion; and which are the risks that can undermine
it?
We reproduce in full the main conclusions and recommend our

readers to go through the depositions made by the participants.
The general aim of the public hearing "The Regionalisation of

Romania Why Do It?" was to reintroduce the topic of regionalization on
the public agenda starting from new premises, more exactly starting with
a public analysis and debate regarding the role, need, and appropriateness
of regionalising Romania. Only in the context of identifying and clearly
establishing the need, if any, can the public debate continue to discuss the
methods, criteria, stages, risks, and benefits.
The structure of the written opinions expressed by the political

decision makers shows a rather large spectrum of institutions and
3
Academia de Advocacy - Audierea public - REGIONALIZAREA ROMNIEI DE CE?,
http://advocacy.ro/, 20 februarie 2013.
266
decision levels, namely: local decision makers 12 statements, county

councils 7 statements, Ministries 3 statements, members of the
Romanian Parliament and of the European Parliament 8 statements,
followed by members of some political parties and candidates for
Parliamentary elections.
From the point of view of the position regarding the

appropriateness or inappropriateness of a possible regionalisation of
Romania, the analysis of the 251 written statements collected revealed the
following structure:
- 77.29%, namely 194 statements, were in favour of regionalization;
- 14.34%, namely 36 statements, were against regionalization;
- 8.37%, namely 21 statements were undecided or unwilling to take a

clear stand at this point in the public consultation.
The main arguments supporting the idea and the need of

regionalizing Romania, synthesized in the order of their importance,
based on the frequency with which they were mentioned in the
written statements collected and analysed, are:
- a more efficient public decision-making process and thus a better

management of public resources, as well as of all resources available,
generally limited and consistently insufficient compared with the needs,
an argument supported by a range of other subsequent specific arguments,
such as:
- reducing costs and bureaucracy in the public administration system in

general, by simplifying and optimizing public administration in the
context of regionalization;
- a correlation of the public decisions with specific needs and problems,

as well as with specific development opportunities, which are different
and diverse from one region to another;
267
- the need to support and even accelerate the decentralization from several
points of view:
- economic: a competent and motivated regional management, with a

suitable and flexible legislative instrument, should succeed in raising the
economic level of the region much better than the current organization
formula, which is limited to the national level by legislation and often by
decision factors;
- financial: near-complete regional management of the incomes and

expenditures, national centralization of only a portion of the national
revenues for supporting the operation of national institutions, the
elimination of financial losses caused by political decision to redirect part
of the revenues to unnecessary or inefficient institutions and entities;
- administrative: the current administrative mechanism is inefficient and

uses a lot of resources; the hierarchic structure of the Romanian
administration is not overly populated, but the operation is often
interrupted, inflexible, and perceived as costly; at the regional level,
efficient administrative apparatuses can be organized with a minimum of
human resources, but with a high level of technological equipment;
- ensuring transparency of the public decision-making process, as well as

increasing and improving access to public interest information, by being
closer than the national level to the citizens and their needs, which will
also lead to:
- better accountability of decision-makers;
- less corruption in public administration;
- the inability of the current administrative-political structures to

collaborate and cooperate at inter-county/regional level;
- higher absorption rate of the European funds, correlated with a more

efficient and effective use of these funds, by:
268
- making it possible to integrate small and unconnected local projects into

larger strategic projects at the regional level;
- extracting the lessons learned during 2007-2013;
- stimulating and supporting economic development in general, thereby

reducing inter-county and interregional economic disparities and gaps;
- from this point of view, the essential part is the general aim of human
resource development, promoting employment and social inclusion, as
the experience has shown that the local economy cannot meet the citizens'
expectations of diversity and specificity, whereas citizens know and
recognize their own ability of professional and geographic mobility and
use it as such, to the extent of the existing opportunities, mostly within
the boundaries of a regional area;
- simplifying access to resources in the domestic business environment;
- the need for a specific identity for each region, as well as notoriety,
which are essential to strengthening the feeling of belonging, confidence,
and solidarity of the population, all those contributing to an enhancement,
not a diminishing, of the national identity of the unitary Romanian state;
- it is important to facilitate socio-economic interactions at regional level.
The main arguments against the idea and the need of regionalizing
Romania are synthesized below, in the order of their importance,
based on the frequency with which they were mentioned in the
written statements collected and analysed:
- enhancing interregional disparities in the context of increased and

disproportional development of the large urban agglomerations and
regional capitals, to the detriment of the peripheral localities of the same
regions and to the detriment of smaller cities and rural areas;
269
- loss of jobs in the administrative institutions concerned with the

regionalization process;
- the high costs involved in the complex and long process of regionalizing
Romania, which will be paid from public resources, i.e. from the
taxpayers' money;
- the bad timing, firstly correlated with the current context of the global
economic crisis, but also from the perspective of planning the new
European budget cycle, the moment being viewed as tardy from this point
of view;
- the feasibility and even the appropriateness of disconnecting the goal of

decentralization from that of regionalization, arguing that a good
decisional decentralization is also possible outside the regionalization
process;
- increased bureaucracy, as a result of the many legislative changes

needed, as well as due to the indispensable stages of the transition from
the current form of the administrative organization to the regional one;
- the fear that Romania might turn into a federal country, of turning
certain areas of the country into enclaves, of losing the national and
historic identify, even of federalizing the EU, correlated with the
scepticism of some EU Member States and domestic politicians regarding
the topic of regionalisation;
- the lack of a solution to the issue of quality and efficiency of the

dialogue with the decision makers, even though they would be
geographically closer to the citizens in the event of regionalization
compared with the current national level.
The Recommendations made by the Experts Board
270
Based on the highlighted analysis and conclusions, the Committee of

Experts gives the following recommendations for optimal public decision
making on regionalism subject:
1. Establishing an interdisciplinary, neutral and independent working

group for studying the issue of regionalization in Romania from various
perspectives. The goal of this group would be to develop viable
alternatives of regionalization, including comparative, impact, cost-
benefits and risk analysis. These should be corroborated with the debates
organized on the already mentioned topic.
2. Pointing out how to minimize the risks of regionalisation versions

proposed by functioning bodies.
3. The transparent display of all analysis, existing studies on the

regionalization of Romania, the different bodies with responsibilities in
this field so that interested citizens can identify the advantages and / or
disadvantages in the process of regionalization;
4. Put into practice a wide information campaign regarding the

advantages and disadvantages of regionalization. The generation of
consecutive concentric debates that show the intermediate results in a
transparent way, accessible to all.
5. Continuing to organise public debates on the topic of regionalisation, in

order to identify the model accepted by general consensus, using practical
expertise
271

Academia de Advocacy - Audierea public - REGIONALIZAREA ROMNIEI
DE CE?, http://advocacy.ro/, 20 februarie 2013.

272
Conclusions
Is Romania predestined to remain the poorest country of the

European Union?
Six years after Romania's accession to the European Union, the

commitments undertaken by politicians, for a better absorption of the EU
funds, were blatantly contradicted by the records sent from Brussels,
along with the audits in relation to the suspicion of fraud and
subsequently, even the suspension of payments.
The fraudulent procedures or the failure to observe them,

dedicated auctions, politicization, corruption at the top of the
administrative apparatus and ignoring offers of assistance from the
European Union institutions to improve the situation, have negatively
influenced on the absorption rate of structural and cohesion funds, which
was already low.
The emphasized and meritorious speech for a fictional

accomplished absorption capacity cannot hide the throwing-away of the
biggest benefit of joining the European Union.
From a "zero priority" in successive government programs, to a

rate of about 10% of intermediary payments in January 2013, the
complexity of financial instruments, the level of training in the public
administration or the favourite arguments coming from PR people, can no
longer be invoked for the critical situation in which we find ourselves.
273
We are in a situation in which Romania will pay more for its

degree of poverty. The statement does not come from a socio-economic
theory of inequality but, it is dictated by the technocrats in their offices in
Brussels on the one hand and the opponents of Cohesion Policy and
advocates for budget cuts on the other hand.
When it comes to European funds, all actions and inactions have

financial implications. Although budgetary allocations for the next
programming period 2014-2020 will likely be maintained at the level of
the previous period (best case scenario), the criteria for accessing EU
funds will certainly change. The projects complexity changes to the
eligibility criteria, while co-funding amounts will change as well. Even
with the introduction of objectives and a framework for developing
projects that maximizes vertical and horizontal integration, along with the
ability to finance projects using multiple funds, most developing regions
in Romania do not have infrastructure, logistics, human resources and
even the legal and institutional framework to take advantage of the new
regulations.
Thus, new investments will be needed, the completion of projects

already underway will be required, new negotiations will be initiated and
consulting and execution companies with experience and which have the
necessary equipment and technology, will have to be hired. But even if
the answer to the question How many of these companies will have
Romanian capital? is obvious, the unfortunate turn of events is not in
this answer. For those who view the EU budget as an investment tool - a
large majority in the European Parliament, fortunately in reaching the
basic objectives of the Unions Treaty, the fact that through structural and
cohesion funds, some benefits return to the member states, having a net
contributor status, is itself a part of the founding principles of the Union.
Romania however has missed the opportunity to invest less in order to
reach the same goals and squandered the only resource that cannot be
borrowed, that cannot be negotiated and it cannot be created: time.
274
In six years, Romania has effectively absorbed 4 billion Euros

out of the 20 billion made available in 2007-2013, with an intermediary
payment rate of only 10%, being the last country in the EU. The counter-
performance of Bsescu - Bocs successive governments cannot be
matched by any other Member State. This fact, coupled with the results of
the investigations on irregularities found by the European Commission
puts our country in an uneasy position which jeopardizes the entire EU
Cohesion Policy, offering arguments in order to substantially reduce the
budget, to reduce financing rates for the less developed regions and
surprisingly, punish the regions that have a lower absorption rate.
In our opinion, at least in the final hour, those responsible for this
disastrous situation will have to face the administrative consequences and
criminal charges, not only the famous political responsibility. European
Funds do not represent virtual amounts; they belong to and are the legal
claim of Romania. The funds are the guarantees to reduce development
gaps, to increase welfare and living standards of Romanians. Irregularities
to be confirmed, the ignorance and the incompetence will have to be
imputed to dignitaries, who, despite the warnings, either watched
impassively or were accomplices. Even if the political will existed, then it
was overshadowed by widespread corruption in a serious act of betrayal.
Despite all the auspices, there are still solutions to partially

improve the absorption capacity in order for Romania to obtain at least a
good part of the allocation. In any other scenario however, Romania will
lose billions in European funding. The main benefit of joining the
European Union has turned into an exercise in which losses must be
minimized. Even though the first steps were taken, the efforts of the new
government might not be enough.
What to do then? In fact this is the perfect moment to redress the

situation, the European Parliament and the Council are negotiating the
new legislative package for the Cohesion Policy's programming period
2014-2020, and Romania needs to be able to adapt to the new framework
275
and to be ready for a serious implementation of the policy as of 2014. The

European Parliament fights against these attempts, but it is worth
mentioning this in order to facilitate the understanding of the wider
repercussions that a bad management of the funds can produce even on
long term.
Apart from the budget issue, there will be changes that the
European deputies in charge of two of the regulations are trying to make
as simple, effective and beneficial for the European regions as possible.
Key factors will be an immediate adaptation to the new

provisions - which means to closely follow the on-going negotiations in
order to anticipate the changes - and then a good strategic planning with
the correction of all shortcomings and mistakes of the past and with the
preparation of programmes and projects, which can really make the
difference. Without forgetting that it must be assured that there are
enough national resources put aside for the national co-financing.
However, it cannot be forgotten that there are two key elements

which are kind of preconditions for all this: administrative and
institutional capacity on the one hand, and about the full involvement of
regional and local authorities and stakeholders on the other hand.
As to the first element, this is something absolutely crucial,

because the Romanian past experience and the examples coming from
other countries show that without people who are well prepared, able to
deliver concrete results, focused on objectives, stable in their posts
beyond political changes, and last but not least sufficiently rewarded from
the economic point of view it is not possible to make the most of the
European support. This is once again something on which the new
government needs to work hard in order to make sure that these
preconditions are fully in place at least for the new programming period.
Moreover, on this we are also working at the level of legislative
framework, with the creation of what are called ex ante conditionalities
aiming at obliging Member States to put in place what are considered to
276
be the key preconditions for each programme that the Member State
concerned wishes to undertake.
The second element has a high relevance for the simple reason
that regional and local authorities are the ones closest to the citizens, to
the territory, and the ones to best know their needs. Without a full
involvement of these actors at all stages it is impossible to design and
implement programmes with a real impact on the ground. Also from this
point of view we are pushing for measures that will oblige Member States
to act this way, and despite of the opposition of the national governments
there is confidence that a good compromise will be reached.
All what we mentioned until now can lead to a better use of the
EU funds in their multiple fields of action, from infrastructure (transport,
energy and digital) to research and innovation, from education and
employment to social inclusion, from enterprises to environment just to
name a few. Talking in particular about transport (Trans-European
Transport Network) and the environment, we need to underline that
Romania benefits from a very strong support from the Cohesion Fund.
In addition, if the two institutional areas of action of this fund are

the ones described, we need to say that the European Parliament is
working to make sure that all the investment priorities from ERDF and
the Cohesion Fund are improved. We refer especially to projects related
to energy efficiency and the use of renewable energies in the housing
sector - which the European deputies are trying to make eligible in the
same way as with public building and enterprises - and to the
cogeneration of power, heating and cooling as well as district heating,
which are widely present and very important in Central and Eastern
Member States like Romania.
We think that the support for plants and distribution network

construction and rehabilitation, even with certain limitations necessary to
avoid clashes with other EU sectorial legislation (the Emissions Trading
System), will improve in terms of efficiency of these plants, in terms of
277
environmental impact, and of course in terms of bills for the final users,
i.e. the citizens. Those same citizens that we hope can be able - thanks to
the simplification of the rules, to the readiness of the national
governments, and to a good information campaign - to benefit the most of
the Cohesion Policy and to feel the positive impact of the European
Union on their lives.
Romania is not fated to remain the poor country of the European

Union. European funds, as it is the case of Poland, may give our country
the necessary momentum that we could not hope for 10-15 years ago.
Important in this respect is that we know what we have to do, what
measures to implement and have the political will to turn things for the
future of Romania. All the measures listed in this study, a broad
agreement among civil society organizations and public authorities in
Romania in order to achieve a regional reform that will give legal identity
to regions, are all steps enabling the refocus of efforts and bring the
benefits of Cohesion Policy in our country.
278
Anexe
Annexes
279
Anexa 1/Annex 1
Rata plilor pentru statele membre ale Uniunii Europene pentru
perioada 2007-20131
Payment rate for the EU Member States in the period 2007-2013
Fondul de Coeziune / Cohesion Fund
Pre-finanare / Pli intermediare / Total pltit /

ara/Country Pre-Financing % Interim payment % Total paid %
Bulgaria 239,718,797 10,50% 401,231,929 17,60% 640,950,727 28,10%
Cipru 22,386,471 10,50% 77,474,930 36,30% 99,861,401 46,80%
Cehia 925,997,356 10,50% 2,158,345,017 24,50% 3,084,342,373 35,00%
Estonia 143,966,431 12,50% 413,272,796 35,90% 557,239,226 48,40%
Spania 265,740,976 7,50% 1,950,244,131 55,00% 2,215,985,107 62,50%
Grecia 277,287,065 7,50% 1,279,462,586 34,60% 1,556,749,651 42,10%
Ungaria 1,080,289,527 12,50% 1,950,739,369 22,60% 3,031,028,896 35,10%
Lituania 288,154,468 12,50% 1,089,499,195 47,30% 1,377,653,663 59,80%
Letonia 192,472,069 12,50% 466,560,507 30,30% 659,032,576 42,80%
Malta 29,835,227 10,50% 73,575,051 25,90% 103,410,278 36,40%
Polonia 2,328,517,146 10,40% 7,695,740,106 34,40% 10,024,257,252 44,80%
Portugalia 229,497,414 7,50% 1,113,600,273 36,40% 1,343,097,687 43,90%
Romania 819,052,878 12,50% 455,027,679 6,90% 1,274,080,558 19,40%
Slovenia 148,214,835 10,50% 315,043,269 22,30% 463,258,104 32,80%
Slovacia 409,367,549 10,50% 737,042,211 18,90% 1,146,409,760 29,40%
Total 7,400,498,210 10,60% 20,176,859,049 28,90% 27,577,357,259 39,50%
1
Conform datelor disponibile la 12.12.2012/ According to the data available on
12.12.2012
280
Fondul European pentru Dezvoltare Regional / European Regional
Development Fund

ara/Country % % %
Pre-Financing Interim payment Total paid
Austria 51,004,952 7,50% 218,889,542 32,20% 269,894,494 39,70%

Belgia 74,271,238 7,50% 397,245,414 40,10% 471,516,652 47,60%
Bulgaria 288,461,899 9,00% 882,438,777 27,50% 1,170,900,676 36,50%
Transfrontalier 648,164,562 8,20% 2,233,318,328 28,30% 2,881,482,890 36,50%
Cipru 25,151,522 9,00% 91,969,064 32,90% 117,120,585 41,90%
Cehia 1,233,815,456 8,90% 4,568,273,203 32,80% 5,802,088,658 41,60%
Germania 1,208,097,115 7,50% 7,564,078,329 47,00% 8,772,175,444 54,50%
Danemarca 19,109,147 7,50% 110,300,758 43,30% 129,409,904 50,80%
Estonia 167,419,000 9,00% 1,010,077,593 54,30% 1,177,496,592 63,30%
Spania 1,729,289,411 7,50% 9,615,172,066 41,70% 11,344,461,477 49,20%
Finlanda 73,305,149 7,50% 437,629,381 44,80% 510,934,529 52,30%
Franta 604,100,480 7,50% 2,916,887,353 36,20% 3,520,987,832 43,70%
Marea Britanie 406,201,480 7,50% 2,070,528,968 38,20% 2,476,730,448 45,70%
Grecia 911,197,513 7,70% 5,284,027,085 44,40% 6,195,224,598 52,10%
Ungaria 1,138,476,945 9,00% 5,163,160,295 40,80% 6,301,637,240 49,80%
Irlanda 28,152,178 7,50% 162,106,036 43,20% 190,258,214 50,70%
Italia 1,577,048,063 7,50% 3,861,422,172 18,40% 5,438,470,236 25,90%
Lituania 309,775,532 9,00% 1,890,552,387 54,90% 2,200,327,919 63,90%
Luxemburg 1,893,275 7,50% 11,527,183 45,70% 13,420,458 53,20%
Letonia 219,601,563 9,10% 943,209,638 39,20% 1,162,811,201 48,30%
Malta 39,958,023 9,00% 104,266,655 23,50% 144,224,678 32,50%
Olanda 62,250,000 7,50% 340,785,439 41,10% 403,035,439 48,60%
Polonia 3,000,449,090 8,60% 16,314,903,969 46,90% 19,315,353,058 55,50%
Portugalia 887,940,534 7,80% 5,898,857,280 51,60% 6,786,797,814 59,40%
Romania 807,881,946 9,00% 1,106,024,664 12,30% 1,913,906,610 21,30%
Suedia 70,090,555 7,50% 486,958,723 52,10% 557,049,278 59,60%
Slovenia 174,040,147 9,00% 1,045,242,000 54,10% 1,219,282,147 63,10%
Slovacia 536,605,041 8,80% 2,290,662,176 37,60% 2,827,267,217 46,30%
Total 16,293,751,813 8,10% 77,020,514,476 38,50% 93,314,266,289 46,70%
281
Fondul Social European / European Social Fund

ara/Country % % %
Pre-Financing Interim payment Total paid
Austria 39,330,942 7,50% 284,306,200 54,20% 323,637,142 61,70%

Belgia 80,491,320 7,50% 413,888,890 38,60% 494,380,209 46,10%
Bulgaria 106,691,388 9,00% 189,006,128 15,90% 295,697,515 24,90%
Cipru 10,779,224 9,00% 32,930,439 27,50% 43,709,662 36,50%
Cehia 339,706,929 9,00% 645,136,780 17,00% 984,843,708 26,00%
Germania 703,549,107 7,50% 3,961,429,745 42,20% 4,664,978,853 49,70%
Danemarca 19,109,146 7,50% 67,981,948 26,70% 87,091,094 34,20%
Estonia 50,897,253 13,00% 226,979,032 58,00% 277,876,284 71,00%
Spania 604,299,662 7,50% 3,368,710,520 41,80% 3,973,010,182 49,30%
Finlanda 46,392,305 7,50% 283,037,277 45,80% 329,429,582 53,30%
Franta 404,591,099 7,50% 1,680,728,195 31,20% 2,085,319,294 38,70%
Marea Britanie 335,618,830 7,50% 2,158,659,361 48,20% 2,494,278,191 55,70%
Grecia 327,285,030 7,50% 1,278,560,282 29,30% 1,605,845,312 36,80%
Ungaria 471,781,512 13,00% 917,707,284 25,30% 1,389,488,795 38,30%
Irlanda 28,152,178 7,50% 198,667,964 52,90% 226,820,142 60,40%
Italia 520,350,592 7,50% 2,265,330,184 32,70% 2,785,680,776 40,20%
Lituania 133,679,875 13,00% 468,665,227 45,60% 602,345,101 58,60%
Luxemburg 1,893,275 7,50% 7,330,376 29,00% 9,223,651 36,50%
Letonia 71,584,983 12,30% 340,694,842 58,40% 412,279,825 70,70%
Malta 10,080,000 9,00% 20,958,448 18,70% 31,038,448 27,70%
Olanda 62,250,205 7,50% 264,869,277 31,90% 327,119,483 39,40%
Polonia 873,645,840 8,70% 4,497,784,261 44,90% 5,371,430,101 53,70%
Portugalia 488,429,090 7,10% 4,003,053,782 58,50% 4,491,482,872 65,60%
Romania 478,939,190 13,00% 307,579,963 8,30% 786,519,153 21,30%
Suedia 51,866,337 7,50% 257,630,505 37,30% 309,496,842 44,80%
Slovenia 68,012,943 9,00% 298,515,731 39,50% 366,528,674 48,50%
Slovacia 134,964,284 9,00% 446,315,465 29,80% 581,279,749 38,80%
Total 6,464,372,538 8,40% 28,886,458,103 37,70% 35,350,830,641 46,10%
282
Toate fondurile / All funds
Pre-finanare / Pli intermediare Total pltit /

ara/Country % % %
Pre-Financing / Interim payment Total paid
Austria 90,335,894 7,50% 503,195,743 41,80% 593,531,636 49,30%

Belgia 154,762,557 7,50% 811,134,304 39,30% 965,896,862 46,80%
Bulgaria 634,872,084 9,50% 1,472,676,834 22,10% 2,107,548,918 31,60%
Tranfrontalier 648,164,562 8,20% 2,233,318,328 28,30% 2,881,482,890 36,50%
Cipru 58,317,217 9,50% 202,374,432 33,00% 260,691,649 42,60%
Cehia 2,499,519,740 9,40% 7,371,754,999 27,80% 9,871,274,739 37,20%
Germania 1,911,646,222 7,50% 11,525,508,075 45,20% 13,437,154,297 52,70%
Danemarca 38,218,293 7,50% 178,282,706 35,00% 216,500,999 42,50%
Estonia 362,282,683 10,60% 1,650,329,420 48,50% 2,012,612,103 59,10%
Spania 2,599,330,049 7,50% 14,934,126,717 43,10% 17,533,456,766 50,60%
Finlanda 119,697,453 7,50% 720,666,658 45,20% 840,364,111 52,70%
Franta 1,008,691,579 7,50% 4,597,615,547 34,20% 5,606,307,126 41,70%
Marea Britanie 741,820,310 7,50% 4,229,188,329 42,80% 4,971,008,639 50,30%
Grecia 1,515,769,608 7,60% 7,842,049,952 39,30% 9,357,819,561 46,90%
Ungaria 2,690,547,984 10,80% 8,031,606,948 32,20% 10,722,154,931 43,00%
Irlanda 56,304,356 7,50% 360,774,001 48,10% 417,078,356 55,60%
Italia 2,097,398,655 7,50% 6,126,752,356 21,90% 8,224,151,011 29,40%
Lituania 731,609,874 10,80% 3,448,716,809 50,90% 4,180,326,683 61,70%
Luxemburg 3,786,550 7,50% 18,857,559 37,40% 22,644,109 44,90%
Letonia 483,658,615 10,70% 1,750,464,987 38,60% 2,234,123,602 49,30%
Malta 79,873,250 9,50% 198,800,154 23,70% 278,673,404 33,20%
Olanda 124,500,205 7,50% 605,654,716 36,50% 730,154,921 44,00%
Polonia 6,202,612,076 9,20% 28,508,428,335 42,40% 34,711,040,411 51,70%
Portugalia 1,605,867,038 7,50% 11,015,511,334 51,60% 12,621,378,373 59,20%
Romania 2,105,874,015 11,00% 1,868,632,305 9,70% 3,974,506,320 20,70%
Suedia 121,956,892 7,50% 744,589,228 45,80% 866,546,120 53,30%
Slovenia 390,267,925 9,50% 1,658,801,000 40,40% 2,049,068,925 50,00%
Slovacia 1,080,936,874 9,40% 3,474,019,852 30,20% 4,554,956,726 39,60%
Total 30,158,622,560 8,70% 126,083,831,628 36,40% 156,242,454,188 45,10%
283
Anexa 2/Annex 2
Pli intermediare pentru statele membre ale Uniunii Europene
pentru perioada 2007-20132
(Grafice)
Interim payments for EU Member States in the period 2007-2013
(Charts)
Fondul de Coeziune / Cohesion Fund
2
Conform datelor disponibile la 12.12.2012/ According to the data available on
12.12.2012
284
Fondul European pentru Dezvoltare Regional /
European Regional Development Fund
285
Fondul Social European / European Social
Fund
286

1 UltimiiPasi AbsorbtiaFondurilorEuropene VictorBostinaru

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 UltimiiPasi AbsorbtiaFondurilorEuropene VictorBostinaru

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuprins

Evaluri repetate privind gradul extrem de sczut al absorbiei

Absorbia fondurilor structurale i de coeziune - 29

II. Descrierea fondurilor structurale europene 31

III. Condiiile generale pentru a beneficia de fondurile structurale 62

IV. Principalele dificulti n implementarea programelor

V. Concluzii i observaii. Recomandri privind modalitile de

Bugetul UE i impactul su asupra Politicii de Coeziune - 118

Reforma regional n dezbaterea public - 128

Constant evaluations of the extremely low

Conceptual framework - 163

The absorption of structural and cohesion funds - 166

I. Preliminary Considerations - 166

II. The description of European Structural Funds - 168

III. General conditions for obtaining Structural Funds - 198

IV. Main difficulties in implementing Operational Programs - 203

V. Conclusions and observations. Recommendations of remedies for

Regional Reform in the public debate - 265

Conclusions and recommendations - 273

Studiul Ultimii pai absorbia fondurilor structurale i de

n materie de incapacitate de absorbie, Romnia nu are

Momentul apariiei acestui studiu este marcat de ngrijorare dar i

Singurele sperane sunt alimentate de faptul c din vara lui 2012,

Leciile amare ale politizrii excesive a administraiei publice, cu

Studiul realizat de ctre prestigioasa companie de avocatur

Fondurile structurale i de coeziune sunt n opinia experilor

Studiul care continu preocuparea anterioar referitoare la

Romniei. i aici, m gndesc deloc ntmpltor la Polonia prieten, care,

La momentul apariiei acestui studiu, Parlamentul European

Prin amendamentele aduse de mine acestui fond, dar i prin

Va ti ara mea n sfrit s beneficieze de politica de coeziune?

Analize asupra capacitii de absorbie a fondurilor europene,

ns, n ceea ce putem numi tradiia administraiei publice

Prezenta lucrare nu-i propune s epuizeze subiectul absorbiei

Analizele se bazeaz pe cele mai recente date disponibile n

gradului de dezvoltare al Romniei, a incapacitii de recuperare a

Structura studiului urmrete n detaliu i i propune s explice

De asemenea, este vizat i dimensiunea conceptual a

Studiul i-a propus s serveasc unor obiective fundamentale

Cea de-a doua mare seciune a studiului este n termeni generali,

Capitolele din aceast seciune vor aborda att cadrul legislativ i

n etapa urmtoare sunt corelate cele dou cadre cu identificarea

n aceast seciune este supus analizei impactul cadrului

Aceast seciune caut s ofere rspunsuri la o serie de ntrebri

Ultimele dou capitole sunt dedicate dezbaterilor privind bugetul

Principalele concluzii care s-au desprins ca urmare a Consiliului

Parlamentul European a atras n mod repetat atenia asupra

n termeni absolui a bugetului Uniuni Europene pentru prima dat de la

n propunerea Consiliului, Romniei i-au fost alocai aproximativ

Urmrirea dezbaterilor la scar european i n special n

Pe de alt parte, schimbrile fundamentale care urmeaz s se

Oricare alt abordare, care nu ine cont de experiena teribil a

Concluziile i semnalele de alarm trase n toi aceti ani, sunt la

instituionale i s pregtim aceasta imens mainrie implicat n

Miza fondurilor comunitare disponibile pn n anul 2013 i-a

Evaluri repetate privind

Anul 2010 a accentuat n mod negativ capacitatea de absorbie a

De asemenea, s-a produs o destabilizare a sistemului de

Astzi, cnd evalum importana atribuit Politicii de Coeziune

Lansat la 1 Mai 2009, la iniiativa i sub coordonarea

La acea dat, studiul recomanda ca demararea reformei regionale

ct i din partea bncilor n ceea ce privete latura de cofinanare i

n ceea ce privete reducerea birocraiei, studiul Cartea alb a

i nu n ultimul rnd, se recomanda identificarea i promovarea