Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
OBLIGATIONS OF REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
• Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC
• Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption
achieving the prescribed water quality in terms of microbiological indicators on
public water supply systems in 70 identified water supply zones by the end of
2018
• Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment
construction of drainage and wastewater treatment systems in 281
agglomerations with a load of more than 2,000 ES with completion of all works
by the end of 2023 with transition deadlines by 2018 and 2020 depending on the
size of the agglomeration and receiver sensitivity
• Revised implementation plan for water utilitiy directives
an integral part of the documentation of the EU accession negotiations in
Chapter 27. Environment. Transitional periods have also entered into the Treaty
of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
• Multi annual program of construction of municipal water facilities
2
CURRENT STATUS OF APPROVAL – 6ii
STATUS OF APPROVAL 2014-2020
(SUMMARY)
50 Total 43
45
40 8
35
30
Total 23
25
27
20
15 13
10
5 8 8
0 2
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Number of
Total eligible expenditure (EUR) EU GRANT (EUR) % ALOCATION
projects
APPROVED PROJECTS 1.394.961.738 984.947.014 35 93,86 %
IN APPROVAL PROCEDURE 436.065.378 300.864.377 8 28,67 %
TOTAL 1.831.027.116 1.285.811.391,20
43 122,54 %
3
CURRENT STATUS OF APPROVAL – 6ii
Transition
No. Project Total eligible expenditure (EUR) EU Grandt (EUR)
deadline
1 2020 Petrinja 45.384.510,46 32.223.000,51
2 2018 Rovinj 29.455.640,53 21.129.672,72
3 2020 Krk 67.225.428,55 48.570.876,32
4 RVS Osijek – faza 2 9.822.103,55 7.345.919,21
5 2018 Osijek – faza2 26.405.228,55 19.299.977,89
6 2023 Poreč – faza 2 37.702.993,03 27.903.796,62
7 2018 Virovitica – faza 2 17.345.613,14 12.179.167,89
8 2018 Županja – faza 2 7.475.971,84 5.316.188,26
9 2018 Vukovar – faza 2 41.334.776,45 29.189.135,92
10 2018 Nova Gradiška – faza 2 16.514.204,22 11.605.862,47
11 2023 Vodice – faza 2 11.083.419,13 8.184.882,91
12 2018 Varaždin 90.087.389,61 64.307.750,39
13 2023 Varaždinske Toplice 6.537.463,55 4.660.876,45
14 2018 Rugvica – Dugo Selo 22.773.672,37 15.992.384,87
15 2018 Donja Dubrava 24.879.032,89 17.849.001,90
16 2020 Mursko Središće 23.918.067,11 16.943.939,20
17 2020 Jastrebarsko 17.817.593,61 12.873.246,53
18 2018 Vinkovci 50.600.125,28 35.807.109,87
19 2018 Đakovo 28.138.371,98 20.034.389,14
20 2020 Pleternica 18.608.788,43 13.039.355,66
21 2018 Požega 22.602.261,43 16.374.321,31
22 2018 Lipik – Pakrac 20.203.474,79 14.524.884,13
23 2018 Valpovo - Belišće 35.734.074,74 24.942.251,84
24 2020 Nin-Privlaka-Vrsi 41.812.641,89 29.601.887,02
25 2018 Velika Gorica 52.485.542,24 35.366.863,55
26 2018 Šibenik 52.240.143,42 35.790.013,88
27 RVS Zagreb Istok 93.040.560,79 63.678.137,50
28 2018 Zabok-Zlatar 62.957.808,98 42.283.679,27
29 2018 Rijeka 231.784.666,05 165.335.326,32
30 2023 Betina-Murter 16.406.764,87 11.269.131,00
31 2020 Novska 13.013.819,43 9.224.463,35
32 2018 Umag-Novigrad-Savudrija 58.599.404,03 41.685.565,05
33 2018 Vrbovec 19.918.896,07 13.359.481,51
34 2023 Novi Vinodolski 48.373.194,25 34.357.837,77
35 2023 Novalja 32.678.090,75 22.696.636,29
UKUPNO: 1.394.961.738,01 984.947.014,51
4
CURRENT STATUS OF APPROVAL – 6ii
Transition Total eligible Approval
No. Project EU Grant (EUR) Status
deadline expenditure (EUR) (assesment)
Kaštela-
1 2018 122.602.268,59 82.567.949,47 Call for proposal sent in April 2018 1Q 2019.
Trogir
71.973.825,00 50.606.447,37 Call for proposal sent in May 2018. Beneficiary is 1Q 2019.
2 Zaprešić 2018
ammending the application (becoming MP)
39.824.973,86 27.843.432,40 Call for proposal sent in July 2018. IB1 and IB2 4Q 2018.
3 Sinj 2018
delivered comments on initial application.
7 Đurđevac 2023 33.479.869,08 23.581.798,55 Call for proposal sent in October 2018 4Q 2018.
8 Cres –Lošinj 2023 46.450.183,95 31.384.342,11 Call for proposal sent in October 2018 4Q 2018.
5
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
After field visits, it has been shown that even the most prominent projects have
some shortcomings such as:
obtaining opinions of the competent Ministry regarding the environment and the
status of water bodies,
obtaining missing building permits,
preparation of the required tender documentation,
an appropriate solution for sludge disposal,
the percentage of resolution of property and legal relations, as well as
agreements between Final Beneficiary with local government units to co-finance
the national component
6
INCREASE OF PROJECTS
COSTSEXISTING MAJOR PROJECTS
Project TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE (EUR) TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE
(EUR) assumption (EUR) increase
1 Zagreb Istok 93.119.508 114.429.617 21.310.109
2 Rijeka 231.784.666 282.808.696 51.024.030
TOTAL 324.904.174 397.238.313 72.334.139
Project TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE (EUR) TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE
(EUR) assumption (EUR) increase
3 Velika Gorica 52.485.542 70.450.978 17.965.436
4 Zabok 62.957.809 76.473.575 13.515.766
5 Umag 58.599.404 71.975.491 13.376.087
TOTAL 174.042.755 218.900.044 44.857.289
7
2018 AGGLOMERATIONS (NOT APPROVED)
Transition
No. Project Total eligible expenditure (EUR) EU Grant (EUR)
deadline
8
UWWTD FULFILMENT
TRANSITION TOTAL FINISHED In preparation (WWTP In implementation In approval In preparation
DEADLINE exist, sewerage system
upgrade necessary)
2018. 58 2 6 30 4 16
Čakovec, Karlovac, Koprivnica, Belišće, Crikvenica, Donja Kutina, Beli Manastir, Daruvar,
Županja Našice, Sisak, Dubrava, Đakovo, Krk, Lanterna, Zaprešić, Dubrovnik, Imotski, Ivanić
Slavonski Brod, Zadar Lipik-Pakrac, Nova Gradiška, Sinj, Grad, Kaštela-Trogir, Križevci,
Novalja, Novigrad Istarski, Osijek, Bjelovar Medulin, Metković, Opatija-
Petrinja, Poreč jug, Poreč sjever, Lovran, Pula-Centar,
Požega, Rijeka, Rovinj, Rugvica, Podstrana*, Rab, Samobor,
Savudrija*, Šibenik, Umag, Split-Solin, Zagreb
Varaždin, Velika Gorica, Vinkovci,
Virovitica, Vodice, Vrbovec, Vrsar,
Vukovar, Zabok
2020. 22 8 14
Jastrebarsko, Malinska-Njivice, Bibinje-Sukošan, Biograd,
Mursko Središće, Nin, Novska, Glavničica*, Ivanec, Jelsa-
Pleternica, Zlatar, Knin Vrboska, Krapina, Labin,
Makarska, Mali Lošinj,
Pirovac-Tisno-Jezera, Pula-
Sjever, Slatina, Vela Luka, Vir
* following FS agglomeration ceased to exist and the area was joined with other agglomeration
9
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT – CURRENT STATUS
35 projects approved:
- total eligible expenditure (EUR): 1.394.961.738 EUR
- EU grant: 984.947.014 EUR
10
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT – CURRENT STATUS
11
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT – CURRENT STATUS
(II)
Ex-post controls for 2014-2020 (Ground AA Findings)
37 Tendering procedures in re-performance (verified and certified)
(20 done, 17 on-going, open issues with MA)
5 Tendering procedures (verified but NOT cerified)
12
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN TEDERING
Fact that some Key Players are not part of EU funded projects structure
(SC)
13
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN
IMPLEMENTATION
Complaints in public procurement procedures (Petrinja, Rovinj, Donja Dubrava,
Rugvica - Dugo Selo ...);
Uneligible expenditures:
- Usually as a consequence of financial corrections (irregularities) as a consequence
of the control of public procurement (Poreč, Krk, Jastrebarsko, RVS Osijek, Petrinja),
- As a result of on-the-spot checks - incompatibility of quantity in the construction
book with quantities in the payment certificate, inadequate dimensions or quality in
relation to the prescribed technical specifications / bill of quantities
14
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN
IMPLEMENTATION
Osijek - probably the termination of the WWTP contract due to
bankruptcy of Contractor
Vukovar - probably the termination of the WWTP contract due to
bankruptcy of Contractor
Varaždin - 2 contracts for the sewage construction (A1 and A2) are
temporarily suspended on the basis of MA instructions to determine the
existence of conflicts of interest
Poreč - financial correction to the WWTP contract (reduction of 5% of the
grant contract by secondary contract)
Krk - reduction of the grant contract by secondary contract in the amount
of 10%. It is also expected that the work will be interrupted, where the
cable for the Internet will be pulled into existing works.
15
FINANCIAL DATA
1,400,000
123,17 %
1,200,000
1049340.216
94,35%
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
18,84 %
200,000
8,02 %
0
Alocation Call for proposal Approved Contracted Absorption
projects amount
16
FINANCIAL DATA
12,000,000,000.00
122,54%
10,000,000,000.00
1.285.811.391,19€)
93,86
8,000,000,000.00
9.772.166.573,11
(1.043.955.443,81 €)
(984.947.014,50 €)
7.485.597.310,26
7.934.061.372,97
6,000,000,000.00
63,83% 85,56%
4,000,000,000.00
702,485.410,42 941.627.294,57
(92.432.290,85€) (123.898.328,23€)
2,000,000,000.00 N+3 2018:
1.100.563.214,54
(144.810.949,28€)
0.00
Alokacija Ukupna vrijednost Projekti koji su pozvani. Iznos koji je moguće Očekivano certificiranje
odobrenih projekata (EU dio) certificirati do u 2018.
(EU dio) 03.10.2018.
*1€=7,6HRK
17
FINANCIAL DANA
- Performance framework PO6
3,500,000,000.00
3,000,000,000.00 2.910.372.964
2,500,000,000.00 (382.943.811,05€)
2,000,000,000.00
1,500,000,000.00 2.035.119.898,40
1,000,000,000.00 (267.778.934€)
500,000,000.00
38,06%
28,40% 54,43%
0.00
40,61% 1.107.796.817,14
e e 18 18
jen jen 826.453.424,02
.20 (145.762.739,09€)
20
e izm izm 0
(108.743.871,58€)
.1 TT
L
rij on 3 i
le j p RK ak i0 kov
n ov š
at H elj RK šk ro
it K
kaz zat H o
tr K n
o ka ni HR re HR
P Fp po r e ob
PF ob od
od no
no kup
kup U
U
*1€=7,6HRK
18
FINANCIAL DANA
- Performance framework PO6 – 6ii (proportional share)
2,000,000,000.00 1.851.632.165
1,600,000,000.00
(243.635.811,18€) 59,83%
85,56%
1,200,000,000.00
800,000,000.00 1.294.743.279,36 44,63% 1.107.796.817,14
400,000,000.00 (170.360.957,81€) 63,83% (145.762.739,09€)
0.00 826.453.424,02
e e 8
(108.743.871,58€) 8
jen jen 01 2 2 01
izm izm 0. TL
e n .1 T
prij ko 03 ov
i
lj a vi šk
te RK lj n K ko o
za H te HR š it
r
ka az
a tro K en HRK
po k ni HR r
PF po r e ob
PF ob od
od o
o pn
upn Uk
u
Uk
*1€=7,6HRK
19
AUDITS
Programming period 2014-2020 - Operational Programme Competitiveness and
Cohesion
In the programming period 2014-2020 IB2 has been a subject of the following audits:
In 2017
System audit of OPKK performed by the Audit Authority - final report issued on 14.02.2018.
Audit of the OPKK implementation effectiveness performed by the State Audit Office – final
report issued on 30.04.2018.
In 2018
Audit of operations performed by the Audit Authority – started on 27.08.2018., in progress
20
AUDITS
Findings
System audit of OPKK performed by the Audit Authority
Audit period: beginning of OPKK implementation – 30 June 2017
Subject of the audit: OPKK management and control system (all bodies)
Key requirements audited:
KR 1 Adequate separation of functions and adequate systems for reporting and monitoring where the
responsible authority entrusts execution of tasks to another body,
KR 2 Appropriate selection of operations
KR 4 Adequate management verifications
KR 5 Effective system in place to ensure that all documents regarding expenditure and audits are held to
ensure an adequate audit trail
21
AUDITS
Findings
12 finding identified (3 with financial impact):
Main site engineer – 15 years of general work experience – Type of irregularity No. 10
Provision of services – publicity and visibility experience on infrastructural projects requested –
Type of irregularity No. 9
Winning tender not completely in line with technical specification – Type of irregularity No. 13
General conclusion on management verifications (KR 4) requesting an Action Plan
Follow-up on 31.08.2018.
22
AUDITS
Programming period 2007-2013 - Operational Programme Environment – Open
issues
Audit of operations 2017 performed by the Audit Authority – final reports to be delivered
DG REGIO Mission no.: 2015/HR/REGIO/C2/1428/1 – Final Audit Report from 13/03/2017
Final position letter from 23/07/2018
Description of the remaining finding and Commission’s position
FINDING 1. Disproportionate selection criteria established in the contract notice – FIDIC
experience
Commission’s position: When such reference is used, the wording “or equivalent” must be used
FINDING 2. Disproportionate selection criteria related to the experience of the experts – 15 years
of general work experience and 10 years of specific experience
Commission’s position: The selection criteria need to be proportionate. Commission auditors are
of the opinion that they are disproportionate in relation to the complexity of the contract,
contradicting the spirit of national legislation.
23
Thanks for your attention
24