INTERREG II C BSR Copenhagen, 28-29 May 2002Thomas WeberPage 1 Report about financial management of the INTERREG IIC BSR programme 1999 - 2001 Looking.

Copenhagen, 28-29 May 2002 Thomas Weber Page 1

INTERREG II C BSR

Report about financial management of the INTERREG IIC BSR programme

1999 - 2001

Looking at the work from a...

1. Programme level perspective

2. Time specific perspective

3. Country specific perspective

4. Measure specific perspective

5. Evaluating perspective


INTERREG II C BSR 1. Program level perspective






Programme composition

11381.564

583.439

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Minimal (#4422BALTICOM / Port

of Vaasa)

Average Maximal (#5301SEBTrans / Växjö

municipality)

ERDF budget in EUR by project partner (total 434 project partners)

161.000

529.263

1.350.000

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

Minimal (#86PROCOAST)

Average Maximal (#17 WUD)

ERDF budget in EUR by project (total 45 projects)


INTERREG II C BSR

CORRESPONDENCE with the CORRESPONDENCE with the projectsprojects

> 2.500 emails received/sent= 55.5 average per project (Thomas Weber of JFB only)

1. Program level perspective






Checking process


INTERREG II C BSR

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

100%

= C

omm

ittm

ents

ER

DF

Budget facing expenditures (on program level)

not requested

Payments

96,4%

3.6%

source: Database

total so far 1999 - 2001 18,994,638.88Rest 2002 - .... 3,022,318.86total 22,016,957.74







source: ERDF table, Bank statements

Payments


INTERREG II C BSR

Total elig. expenditures for the entire programme

Meetings, conferences,

seminars4%

Travel and accommodation

7%

Staff12%

Permanent staff20% Ext.

Experts/consultants35%

Temporary staff9%

Investments0%

General Costs3%

Material Investments

2%Others

1%

Accounting/audit0%Promotion and

publications7%







source: Database

Budget lines and spending pattern


INTERREG II C BSR

8.9

6 6 6

4.93.8

3.5 2.9 36

0123456789

Duration in months

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reporting Period

Average length of the Reporting Periods

source: Database

set standard







0

2

4

6

8

10

Num

ber

of r

epor

ts

cove

ring

this

dur

atio

n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 15 17 18 22

Time covered by the reports (in months)

Breakdown of the first period

Duration of the reporting periods


INTERREG II C BSR 1. Programme level perspective






Rest

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.00

millions

1999 2000 2001 2002 - ....

Value of payments

62

184

342

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1999 2000 2001 year

No. of paymentsexecuted

source: ERDF table

Payment intensity by year source: ERDF table

Distribution of payments by year


INTERREG II C BSR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

shar

e o

f to

tal s

pen

din

g

Germany Sw eden Finland Denmark

IV. Others

III. Accounting audit

10. Material investments

9. Promotion and publications

8. Meetings, conferences, seminars

7. Travel and accomodation

6. Permanent staff

5. Temporary staff

4. External experts/ consultants

3. General Costs

2. Investments

1. Staff

source: Database







Spending pattern by country






5. Evaluating perspective4. Measure specific perspective

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Measure 1.1 Measure 1.2 Measure 1.3 Measure 2.1 Measure 2.2

IV. Others

III. Accounting audit

10. Material investments

9. Promotion and publications

8. Meetings, conferences, seminars

7. Travel and accomodation

6. Permanent staff

5. Temporary staff

4. External experts/ consultants

3. General Costs

2. Investments

1. Staff

source: Database

Spending pattern by measure






5. Evaluating perspective5. Evaluating perspective

3. Validity of reporting

documents69%

1. Completeness of documents

25%

2. Deadlines and periods

6%

Composition of reporting mistakes







source: Programme Assessment Sheets

Accuracy level over the reporting periods

1.891.70

1.10 1.03

0.63

0.140.04 0.01 0.020

0.20.40.60.8

1

1.21.41.61.8

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Reporting period

Av

era

ge

nu

mb

er

of

err

ors

o

cc

uri

ng

pe

r P

P

How accurate the projects reported (by period)







Average throughput time (days) of progress reports from reception till payment

132

10187

54

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1999 2000 2001 I.half 2001 II.half

average number ofdays between reportreception andpayment

total average 1999-2001

Quality of the progress reports and/or co-operation between the projects and JFB/CS


INTERREG II C BSR

BSR INTERREG II C is still accessible on our homepage: http://www.spatial.baltic.net

INTERREG II C BSR Copenhagen, 28-29 May 2002Thomas WeberPage 1 Report about financial management of the INTERREG IIC BSR programme 1999 - 2001 Looking.

Documents

perspective slide

perspective quality

program level perspective

bsr interreg

c bsr copenhagen

country slide

measure slide

thomas weberpage