NAO Office
Accrediting the IPARD Management and
Control System in TURKEY
Dr. Mustafa DURAN
Head of NAO Support Department
13 April 2011
Brussels
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Launch of the Preparations for the
Establishment of IPARD Structures
 First meeting with the Commission about IPARD – SAPARD
held in April 2005.
 Negotiations with DG AGRI started in March 2007,
 Second round of negotiations took place in May 2007 in Ankara,
 The third round took place in June 2007 in Brussels.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Enactment of IPARD
Legal Basis

The IPA Framework Agreement approved by the Parliament and published in
the Official Gazette in December 2008,

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) was assigned as MA in
May 2006,

The Law on the Establishment of ARDSI has been published in May 2007,

PM Circular designating IPA bodies was published in December 2009,

The Sectoral Agrement was signed and came into force in July 2010,

IPARD Programme was approved:
 by Turkey in December 2007,
 by the Commission in February 2008.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
MoU
 Memorandum of Understanding between IPARD
bodies:
 MoU b/w ARDSI and MA signed in December 2009,
 MoU b/w NAO, ARDSI and MA signed in April 2010.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Preparation of Working and
Procedural Arrangements
 Technical assistance and twinning project of ARDSI started
in March 2007,
 TA Project for the IPARD preparations of NAO Office started in
December 2008,
 TA Project for IPARD preparations of MA started in October
2008.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
DG AGRI Fact-finding
Missions
 IPARD audit/fact-finding missions by DG AGRI
 7 - 11 May 2007,
 14 - 24 September 2008,
 28 September - 7 October 2009,
 January 2010.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Completion of
the Accreditation Packages
 After the performance of self-assessment by the Internal Audit
Unit of MA, MA accreditation package has been completed and
submitted to the NAO in January 2010,
 After the self-assessment exercise conducted by the Internal
Audit Unit of ARDSI, ARDSI accreditation package has been
completed and submitted to the NAO in April 2010,
 NAO/NF accreditation package has been completed in April
2010.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Accomplished
 10.000 pages of procedures has been prepared,
 1.000 staff have been recruited,
 100 training programmes have been delivered,
 20 PCUs have been established,
 20 Protocols with other institutions have been signed,
 2 MoU have been signed.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Compliance Audit
 IPARD Compliance Assessment Audit conducted by a
private audit company:
 Started on 27 April 2010,
 Ended on 16 July 2010.
 According to the Final Compliance Audit Report;
All IPARD structures subject to accreditation,
including all PCUs, comply with the accreditation
criteria.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
National Accreditation
 After the reception of a positive Compliance Audit
Report:
 The CAO accredited the NAO / NF on 20 July 2010,
 The NAO accredited the ARDSI and the MA on 21 July 2010.
 The accreditation package has been submitted to the
Commission and an application for conferral of
management was made as of 21 July 2010.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Assessment Meetings on
the Accreditation Package
 After the submission of the accreditation package to
the Commission, two waves of assessment meetings
have been organized in Brussels;
 In September - October 2010,
 In March 2011.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Verification Audit
 Verification audit by the Commission auditors has
been planned on four stages:
 1st stage: b/w 6 - 10 December 2010 over the central
bodies,
 2nd stage: b/w 10 - 28 January 2011 over the central
bodies and 9 PCUs,
 3rd stage: b/w 4 - 21 April 2011 over the central bodies
and 5 PCUs,
 4th stage: b/w 16 May – 1 June 2011 over the central
bodies and 6 PCUs.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
As of Today
 The third verification audit, which will
take three weeks, is currently being
conducted by the DG AGRI J.5 audit team
in Turkey.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Dates Originally
Envisaged & Realisation
Activity
Date envisaged in May
2008
Date of realization
April 2011
Finalization of the accreditation
preparations of the NAO services
April 2009
April 2010
(delay: 12 months)
Submission by MA and ARDSI to NAO
of IPARD Acc. Pack.
National accreditation by CAO and
NAO to EC for CoM
Verification Audit
Conferral of Management Decision
April 2009
April 2010
(delay: 12 months)
July 2009
July 2010
(delay: 12 months)
September 2009
June 2011
(delay: 15 months)
January 2009
June 2011
(delay: 18 months)
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Reasons for the Delay in
Accreditation Process (1)
 12 month delay due to Turkish Institutions,
 6 month delay due to the Commission.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Reasons for the Delay in
Accreditation Process (2)
 From J.5 Auditors’ point of view:
 The IPARD Programme is too big,
 Some PCUs and some measures are not sufficiently ready,
 There is still room for improvement and fine-tuning in the
working and procedural arrangements.
 From Turkish Authority’s point of view:



The preparation period took much more than originally foreseen,
The number of J.5 auditors assigned for the verification audit is
insufficient,
More guidance by the Commission is needed in this process.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Possible Date
for Conferral
 We expect the conferral decision to be
taken by June 2011.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Risks Arising
from Further Delay
 De-commitment risk for 25 m. Euros in 2011,
 The trust for the IPARD Programme will weaken,
 The rationality of the Programme will start to be questioned,
 Motivation and enthusiasm of the staff working in the system
will be down,
 The potential positive (incentives) impacts of the Programme on
the economy might turn into negative (disincentive) real impact.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Lessons learnt (1)
 The bigger the country (programme) is, the longer the
accreditation process is,
 The accreditation process requires a strong political
and institutional commitment,
 TA is a need during this process, but if the entities are
not involved adequately in the works being carried
out, the procedures may not be at the desired quality
at the end of the TA project.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Lessons learnt (2)
 More supervision and more involvement for
the preparation of the procedures is needed,
 The NAO Office should be ready long before
other institutions for the effective
management of the process.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
Lessons learnt (3)

Close cooperation and communication between stakeholders,

Close cooperation and communication with the Commission,

Leave enough time for resolving difficult issues,

Make use of the experience of other countries,

Do not be impatient,

Be open and trustworthy during the negotiation,

The key of success:
 more preparation,
 more practices.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
In the future
A system which is,
 Less paper-based,
 Less centralized,
 More dynamic,
 More flexible.
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11
NAO Office
THANK YOU!
Dr. Mustafa DURAN
Head of NAO Support Department
13 April 2011
Brussels
N A O O f f i c e 2 0 11