7.2 Overview of (the execution of) competences in the policy-making process
7.2.2 The delivery system for implementing LEADER (in Romania)
7.2.2 The delivery system for implementing LEADER (in Romania)
Policy-making around LEADER and the NRN in Romania 133 Authority settled within the MARD is responsible for implementing all rural development measures funded under the NRDP. It also retains responsibility for the efficiency and correctness of management if it delegates tasks (EC/2005/1698, Art. 75).127 Directly sub-ordinated to the Managing Authority are the Rural Development Departments within the DARDs at the county level, hereafter referred to as DARDs (Figure 7.1). In the context of LEADER, DARDs primarily have a permanent advisory function. Further, the Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fisheries (PARDF), which evolved from the former SAPARD-Offices and is the pivotal actor for administering most NRDP measures, is involved. The PARDF has subordinate organisations in the eight development regions, as well as in the 41 counties and the municipal of Bucharest. The selected LAGs become a firm part of the delivery system when they select regional projects of the final beneficiaries funded from their budget and partly administer the projects’ implementation and evaluation. Formed by actors from several organisations, the earlier mentioned Monitoring Committee and the LAG-Selection Committee, both appointed by the Managing Authority, are also part of the LEADER delivery system. The Selection Committee is composed of central and local authorities, scientific organisations such as universities and other experts. Its president is elected from the State Secretaries and the directors of the DG for Rural Development of the MARD. Observers of the selection process are representatives of civil society and/or of social and economic partners.
Figure 7.1: Organisations involved in the implementation of the LEADER measures
National Level
Regional Level 8 PARDFs 8 NNU offices
County Level 42 PARDFs 42 DARDs Local Level
Note: DARD = Directorate for Agriculture and Rural Development MA = Managing Authority MARD = Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development NNU = National Network Unit PARDF = Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fisheries
Source: Own design.
The NRN, which is not an integral part of Romanian public administration, is also an inherent part of the LEADER delivery system, e.g. by providing technical assistance in cooperation projects. Further organisations external to the agricultural administration selected through public tender are involved in delivering Phases 1 and 2 of LEADER Measure 43.1. All these organisations have different responsibilities in the delivery of each LEADER measure (Table 7.1).
127 Only major features of the delivery system are described from the micro-perspective at this point. For instance, some organisations, such as the Certification Body, which fulfils back-office tasks for all NRDP measures, are not introduced in this chapter. For details, see EC/2005/1698, Art. 73-75, and NRDP 2010. The Paying and Intervention Agency for Agriculture (PIAA) might become involved in LEADER affairs if LAGs decide to realise area-related Axis-2 measures. As it had no stake in the preparatory LEADER measure investigated in this study, it does not receive further consideration.
Different delivery systems for implementing the LEADER Axis
LEADER in Romania is delivered in three measures with sub-measures (in one case further divided into phases). The objectives of these components have been introduced (Section 3.5;
Table A.3.2). The delivery systems related to the individual components can be grouped into six categories in terms of main administrative steps in the course of implementation:
1) LEADER Measure 43.1, Phases 1 and 2, which offer training to potential beneficiaries, are primarily executed by third-party organisations selected through public tender;
2) LEADER Measure 43.1, Phase 3, in which potential LAGs are the final beneficiaries and can partly decide on their own how to use financial resources for capacity-building for participating in LEADER; administrative steps are similar to the standard delivery of EAFRD measures (Table 7.2);
3) LAG initial selection, in which applications are processed, but no funds are provided, is no EAFRD measure as such, but an important administrative process, which complements the administrative processes of Measures 41, 42 and 43.2;
4) Measure 41 (Main LEADER measure), under which LAGs’ regional projects are funded, follows only some of the administrative steps outlined in Table 7.2; some administrative tasks such as project selection are delegated to the LAGs, which serve the final beneficiaries;
5) Measure 42, under which transnational and inter-territorial cooperation projects are supported, is administered similar to Measure 41 in the major steps, but might require collaboration with agencies in other administrative units and Member States;
6) Measure 43.2, under which LAGs’ running costs are funded and the LAGs are the final beneficiaries, closely follows the administrative steps of a standard delivery of EAFRD measures (Table 7.2), but does not require eligible checks and initial controls.
During the investigation period of this study only groups 1-3 came into play. For them, further differences between the delivery schemes in terms of involved organisations are overviewed in Table 7.1. As the fourth category, the delivery system of Measure 41 can be seen as the core LEADER measure, and allows comparison to other Member States (at least in terms of the formally institutionalised delivery system), it is also included in Table 7.1.
Particularities of governance structures formed by the delivery systems
Having broken down the responsibilities of these delivery systems as presented in Table 7.1, the approach suggested by Mantino et al. (2008) for assessing governance structures/
distribution of decision-making power in delivery systems can be applied. Mantino et al.
(2008) came up with four categories of delivery systems following their two dimensions of centralised/decentralised, and driven by sectoral administration/by multiple actors. The approach is applied to the Romanian LEADER measures and compared with delivery systems for other EAFRD measures, and with the situation in other Member States in Marquardt (2012b). Summing up the major findings for Romania, one can note that apart from the main LEADER Measure 41, which is by definition decentralised and multi-sectoral, the delivery systems of all other LEADER measures fall into the category “Centralised and driven by the sectoral administration”. Aside from some exceptional steps where the Selection and the Monitoring Committee are involved, decision-making does not go beyond the agricultural administration (Table 7.1; Table 7.2); and despite responsibilities being decentralised, major decision-making power is kept at the national level within the agricultural administration.
Only Measure 43.1, Phase 3 follows the standard delivery scheme of EAFRD Measures, and can therefore be compared with other EAFRD measures delivered in Romania or other Member States. The delivery systems of all comparable measures (e.g. 121, 123, 125, 312, 313 and 322) funded under the Romanian NRDP fall into the category “Centralised and driven by the sectoral administration”; this also applies to the majority of delivery systems of
Policy-making around LEADER and the NRN in Romania 135 measures across the first three EAFRD Axes across the EU-27 (Mantino et al. 2008). In this delivery scheme, the Romanian Managing Authority has delegated the reception and approval of applications, as well as contracting, payment-, monitoring- and evaluation-related activities to the PADRF (Table 7.1). The Romanian Managing Authority maintains – apart from the involvement of the Selection Committee – decision-making power in the LAG selection, which determines the course of subsequent LEADER measures.128 Despite the PARDF being responsible for payment-related issues for most NRDP measures, but also for the collection of applications, verifying their eligibility and scoring them (if applicable) for the selection of LAGs, these latter steps have been directed to the Managing Authority or the DARDs.
Generally, the Managing Authority loses less influence if tasks are performed by the directly subordinate DARDs than if it delegates tasks to the PARDF, to which it is related only on the basis of formal agreements, but to which it cannot direct further commands.
Table 7.1: Distribution of decision-making power in the delivery systems of LEADER measures in Romania
Delivery phases with crucial decision-making
Measure 43.1 Phases 1 and 2a
Measure 43.1 Phase 3
LAG Initial Selection
Measure 4.1
Selection criteria
Managing Authority, fixed in NRDP
Managing Authority, fixed
in NRDPb
Monitoring Committee
MA and LAGs
Application forms, guidelines and calls
Managing Authority
Managing Authority +
PARDF
Managing Authority
LAGs
Assessment and scoring of applications
Managing Authority
County PARDF Managing
Authority (DARDs)
LAGs (DARDs function as observers) List of eligible
applications
Managing Authority
Regional PARDF
Managing Authority
LAGs/ Regional PARDF Formal approval
(of selection) and Financial Commitment
Managing Authority +
Selection Committee
National PARDF
Selection Committee +
Managing Authority
Regional PARDF
Note: a The data in this column refers to the selection of the direct beneficiaries,that are the organisations which deliver the training to the final beneficiaries, the local actors.
b For Measure 43.1, as it will be discussed below, it is not clear in the NRDP whether only eligible criteria or also selection criteria are applied.
DARD = Directorate for Agriculture and Rural Development
MARD = Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development NNU = National Network Unit PARDF = Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fisheries
Source: Based on an idea of Mantino et al. 2008.
Furthermore, a comparatively high level of centralisation in administering Measure 41 calls one’s attention: for most NRDP measures, the main criteria for distributing the tasks between the PARDF offices at the different administrative levels are the value of projects. Considering
128 Mantino et al. (2008) have not analysed a representative sample of RDPs in terms of governance structures of the LAG-selection process, which is in fact no measure in its own. Nevertheless, across the EU Member States it can be observed that by trend, besides the obligatory involvement of the Monitoring Committee, more actors than the Managing Authority are involved. For example, the involvement of other organisational lines beyond the sectoral administration, such as bodies from the field of regional development, can be found.
that the PARDF is represented at the county level and that LEADER projects are mostly of smaller-scale nature, it is intriguing that the responsibility for receiving the payment dossiers and the payment authorisation for LAGs’ projects was directed to the PARDF at the higher regional level. Delivery systems are not only designed by calculating the responsibility and the influence the involved organisations possess. - It should rather be assumed that administrative issues have also been considered. Yet, obviously, across major components of the LEADER Axis, the Managing Authority pulls the strings.