Assistant: Jelena Petkovic, Project Assistant, SEMAK NGOJelena Petkovic, Project Assistant, SEMAK NGO

1. Instrument for Pre AccessionInstrument for Pre Accession
[IPA][IPA]
IPA CBCIPA CBC && IPARDIPARD
SEMAK Team, 2015SEMAK Team, 2015

2. IPA is an integrated Pre-Accession Instrument to assist candidate and
potential candidate countries and it ensure:
− Higher level of coherence and co-ordination of EU Assistance and
− better preparation for Structural, Cohesion and Rural development
Funds through progressive emulation of EU funds rules
It replaces 5 different programmes and instruments:
Phare, ISPA, SAPARD, CARDS and Turkey pre-accession instruments
Financial envelope allocated for the period
2007–2013 was 11,565 billion €

3. IPA II (2014-2020) € 11.7 billion

Prepared in partnership with the beneficiaries, IPA II sets a new framework
for providing pre-accession assistance for the period 2014-2020.

The most important novelty of IPA II is its strategic focus. Country Strategy
Papers are the specific strategic planning documents made for each
beneficiary for the 7-year period. A Multi-Country Strategy Paper will
address priorities for regional cooperation or territorial cooperation.

IPA II targets reforms within the framework of pre-defined sectors. These
sectors cover areas closely linked to the enlargement strategy, such as
democracy and governance, rule of law or growth and competitiveness. This
sector approach promotes structural reform that will help transform a given
sector and bring it up to EU standards.

4. IPA is the financial instrument for the European Union pre-accession
process for the period 2007-2013 with regard to IPA I, and 2014 –
2020 to IPA II.
Assistance is provided on the basis of the European Partnerships of the potential
candidates and the Accession Partnerships of the candidate countries, which means
the Western Balkan countries, Turkey and Iceland.
The beneficiary IPA countries are

Albania,

Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Croatia,

the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

Iceland,

Kosovo,

Montenegro,

Serbia, and

Turkey.

5. The beneficiary IPA countries

6. The aim of the IPA is therefore to enhance the efficiency and coherence of aid by
means of a single framework in order to strengthen institutional capacity, cross-
border cooperation, economic and social development and rural development.
Pre-accession assistance supports the stabilisation and association process of
candidate countries and potential candidate countries while respecting their specific
features and the processes in which they are engaged.
ACTACT
Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-
Accession Assistance (IPA)Accession Assistance (IPA)

7. The IPA is made up of five components:
1. the “support for transition and institution-building” component, aimed at
financing capacity-building and institution-building;
2. the “cross-border cooperation” component
3. the “regional development” component, aimed at supporting the countries'
preparations for the implementation of the Community’s cohesion policy ,
4. the “human resources development” component/ European Social Fund;
5. the “rural development” component

8. Status of Implementation of IPA financial assistance per country at 31st
December 2013 against total funds committed (2007 – 2013):
IPA I Allocated Contracted Paid Percentage
Contracted
Percentage
Paid
Albania 512,037,790 340,129,252 208,188,304 66.43% 40.66%
Bi H 516,518,116 340,463,959 235,929,768 65.92% 45.68%
Croatia 254,165,147 241,139,563 167,873,568 94.88% 66.05%
Macedonia 248,191,651 134,902,876 94,954,199 54.35% 38.26%
Iceland 34,837,163 10,033,958 3,620,572 28.80% 10.39%
Kosovo 644,160,000 488,139,427 364,426,588 75.78% 56.57%
Montenegr 165,170,940 122,489,195 106,817,828 74.16% 64.67%

9. Republic of Macedonia in Annual EU report for the financial assistance 2013
The management of IPA funds under the Decentralised Implementation System remained
challenging for the national authorities throughout 2013 due to understaffing and
insufficient managerial capacities in key institutions. Thanks to concerted efforts of the
national authorities and the Commission, the loss of funds from Component I was
reduced to EUR 3.3 million from a potential loss of around EUR 15 million.
With the finalisation of the programming and revision of all programmes under the
different IPA Components in 2012, the year 2013 was dedicated to the preparation of
the IPA II Indicative Strategy Paper 2014-2020.

10. Assistance under the IPA can take,the following forms:

investment, procurement contracts or subsidies;

administrative cooperation, involving experts sent from the Member States;

participation in Community programmes or agencies;

measures to support the implementation process and management of the
programmes;

budget support (granted exceptionally and subject to supervision).

11. Instrument for Pre AccessionInstrument for Pre Accession
Cross-border co-operation programmesCross-border co-operation programmes
IPA Cross-border co-operation programmes 2007-2013 represent the framework for
rapid economic integration, aiming at reducing the existing differences between the
levels of development of the cross-border regions, as well as improving the overall
cultural, social and scientific cooperation between the local and regional
communities. Involving the representatives from both sides of the border, who set up
a joint programme, which is governed by a single set of rules, good neighbourhood
relations are developed.

12. The Cross-border Cooperation Operational Programmes 2007-2013 are development
programmes jointly designed by two bordering countries to tackle common problems
and exploit shared potentials.
Macedonia is connected trough four NUTS III cross-border Euro-regions:

13. As far as geographical eligibility is concerned, the same rules apply as under
the Structural Funds European Territorial Cooperation Objective (Objective
3). Eligible regions are NUTS III (or equivalent) regions along land and
maritime borders between Member States and adjacent (potential)
Candidate Countries as well regions along the maritime borders separated
by max. 150 km
Main three priorities of the programmes are:
1) Economic and Social Development
2) Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
3) Technical Assistance.

14. Macedonia & Albania
The territory of the eligible area for the
cross-border program between the
Republic of Macedonia and Albania
covers 19 969 km2, with a total
population of 1 524 674 inhabitants.
The overall borderline length is 191
km (land 151 km, river 12 km and
lake 28 km) with four frontier posts
operating permanently and one
frontier post operating occasionally.

15. Macedonia & Kosovo

17. The programme area has a border length of 246km (21km of lakes), covering
an area of 29,259 km² and a population of 2.222.629

19. The ultimate result should certainly be the
economic prosperity of cross-border regions,
political security and safety in the region, and
easier and rapid process of european integration.

20. IPA beneficiary countries have very different funding needs. IPA is designed to
meet these different needs flexibly, and provide a tailor-made funding
solution through the following five components of IPA: Transition Assistance
and Institution Building, Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC), Regional
Development, Human Resources Development and Rural Development.

21. “Sharing borders-growing closer” holds especially true within IPA CBC:

EU funds management knowledge and experience capacity building for
authorities in candidate countries

Knowledge and experience capacity building on preparation, application and
implementation of projects in line with EU regulations

Promotion and strengthening of cooperation between institutions from
neighbouring countries, both on central and local level

Promotion of the importance of EU accession and sharing the same values

Cooperation reinforcement for projects between public and private sector

22. IMPORTANT- SAME RULES OF IMPLEMENTING FOR ALL
All participating partners on all sides of borders use the same rules, implement
projects jointly, and manage budgets together. This enables the establishment of
long-lasting contacts between people, and joint cross-border activities to help
economic development, support small-scale infrastructure, protect the environment,
and foster research, culture, and education. It also increases the overall social
cohesion along EU external borders. Furthermore, through the process of project
identification, applying for funds and project implementation, partners from
candidate countries gain valuable experience in management of EU funds. “Sharing
borders-growing closer” holds especially true within IPA CBC

23. Instrument for Pre AccessionInstrument for Pre Accession
Rural Development Programme (IPARD)
IPARD aims to assist in policy development as well as preparation for the
implementation and management of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, Rural
Development Policy and other related policies.

24. What is IPARD?What is IPARD?
Instrument for Pre-acession Assistance for Rural Development
It will contribute to the:
- implementation of the acquis communautaire concerning the Common
Agricultural Policy
- sustainable adaptation of the agricultural sector and rural areas in the
candidate country

25. What are the Objectives of the IPARD Programme?

Contribution to sustainable modernization of agricultural sector,

Encouraging the improvement of EU acquis related food safety,
veterinary, phytosanitary and environment or other standards

Contribution to sustainable development of rural areas,

Preparing action plan concerning implementation of agri-
environmental measures and local rural development strategies.

26. Republic of Macedonia is a part of Western Balkans Countries. The condition
needs and problems in agriculture in whole Western Balkan are the similar.
The Republic of Macedonia as well as the whole Western Balkan Region
needs to improve the living conditions of villages and to find a way to create
jobs for the residents of those villages.
The primary reason to do this is to stop outward migration and to develop basic
food production processes.
The agriculture reforms can improve the whole situation, produce jobs in agriculture,
established farms as businesses- known as family farms, growing up food production,
stopped migration village- town, expanse export, increase GDP.

27. IPARD – Republic of Macedonia
Republic of Macedonia is one of only three countries which benefited from the use of
IPARD 1 (the others being Turkey and Croatia). Its national IPARD 1 Programme for
2007-2013 was approved by the European Commission in 2007, with a total indicative
budget of € 87.53 million.
In 2009, funding was authorized for three measures:
•Investments in agricultural holdings
•Investments in the processing and marketing of agriculture and fishery products
•Diversification and development of rural economic activities.
Since 2009, the government has issued nine public calls for applications to use IPARD
funds. To date, about 18% of the remaining IPARD 1 budget has been committed to
fund about 300 projects.

28. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management is prepared to
consumed IPARD 2 funds 2014 to 2020, which will have the same scope as
IPARD 1, plus forestry and advisory services.
For 2014, the European Commission (EC) allocated a 106 million Euro grant for
the development of agriculture in rural communes of Macedonia. The
program named IPARD 2 (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance for Rural
Development).

29. IPARD 2
1. Measure 101 Investments in Agricultural Holdings
2. Measure 103 Investments in Physical Assets Concerning Processing and Marketing of
Agriculture and Fishery Products
3. Measure 201 Agri- Environmental measures and organic farming
4. Measure 202 Preparation and Implementation of Local Development Strategies -
Leader Approach
5. Measure 302 Farm- Diversification and Business Development
6. Measure 303 Improvement of Training
- Consideration should be given to higher aid intensity for environmental investments.
- EU standard-compliant establishments should be still eligible for investments improving
their competitiveness.
- National minimum standards should be met "no later" than at the end of investments.
- Analysis of the national/EU standards and their enforcement could be included in the
sector analysis.

30. What the countries need to do?What the countries need to do?
- The countries should make an effort to start preparing for this measures due to its
important contribution to the environmental policy. Some countries have already made
an effort and started to prepare for this measure
- The countries should start with development of the environmental analysis and
identification of the problems that should be tackled by the programme.
- Measure should be developed on the pilot level and consist of a limited number of rather
simple sub-measures reflecting environmental needs of the countries.
- Baseline standards might seem to be difficult for the identification; however, in a first
instance the countries should select their relevant national standards for the purpose
of the measure. However, some new standards might have to be established- it will
depend on the sub-measures to be chosen by the countries.
- Calculation of the premium within sub-measures requires involvement of the national
institutions that will confirm its relevance.
- Involvement of the well trained advisors is crucial for the implementation of the measure.

31. - Some progress achieved with Leader implementation in some countries (particularly Serbia)
through either IPA I component or other international cooperation; many countries have
established national rural networks.
- When discussing a minimum size of LAGs territory (requested 5,000 inhabitants), the size of the
whole country should be taken in consideration.
- It was proposed to increase a level of aid rate to provide incentives for newly established LAGs.
Proposal was made to increase a value of small projects, (currently 1,000-5,000 euros).
- Managing Authorities have better competency to evaluate and select Local Development
Strategies, therefore the whole process of LDS selection should be only the MA's responsibility
(currently shared with the Agency).
- Also some of this measures suffers from the lack of proof of ownership for land and buildings and of
lack of building permits, especially if national legislation provides for the respect of existing
"village development plans".

33. - As regards location of projects, it was proposed that an investment should be located
only in rural areas; however ownership of a project should be accepted also from
urban areas.
- Micro and small enterprises should be eligible under all sectors.
- It was proposed to add new sectors: forestry and wood processing.
- Definitively a simplified Business Plan for small projects should be eligible.
The funds also can be used for infrastructure and for irrigation. This project supports
equal regional development and the development of rural countries. The project is in
line with the priorities of the government and the priorities of the European agenda for
equal regional development.
But, infrastructure is only focused on the improvement of the condition of rural
areas. This is good investment since it offers the people a good reason to stay
and live in villages.

34. CONCLUSION
However, economically we still need direct activities which will produce jobs to keep the
people in villages. These jobs should be directly connected with food producing.
Our focus and our plan to work toward the solution to the problems of food production
and agriculture, is on one side and to also focus on private sector promotion, local
entrepreneurs, loans and energy efficiency, as the other side of activities.

35. Thanks for your attention and interest!
Klaudija Lutovska, Specialist of Strategic ManagementKlaudija Lutovska, Specialist of Strategic Management
President, SEMAK NGOPresident, SEMAK NGO
Collaborator/ Expert:Collaborator/ Expert:
Irving Leif, Ph.D.Irving Leif, Ph.D.
Founder and Director at Viroqua Free University,Founder and Director at Viroqua Free University,
Worker-Share at Small Family CSA Farm at Viroqua, WisconsinWorker-Share at Small Family CSA Farm at Viroqua, Wisconsin
Technical assistance:Technical assistance:
Biljana Atanasova, Vice president, SEMAK NGOBiljana Atanasova, Vice president, SEMAK NGO
Aleksandra Simonovic, General Secretary, SEMAK NGOAleksandra Simonovic, General Secretary, SEMAK NGO