New Release 17/09/2018 SFC2014 FrontOffice

Transcription

1 New Release 17/09/2018 SFC2014 FrontOffice NEW FUNCTIONALITIES:... 1 COLLECTION OF SCO DATA... 1 REPORTS... 1 CHANGES:... 1 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (IGJ,ETC,IPA-CB)... 1 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (IGJ)... 1 RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (RDP)... 3 NATIONAL PROGRAMME (ISF)... 3 NATIONAL PROGRAMME (AMIF)... 3 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (IGJ,ETC,IPA-CB)... 3 QUARTERLY DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURE (EAFRD)... 4 ACCOUNTS (AMIF)... 4 DEFECTS FIXED:... 4 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (IGJ,ETC,IPA-CB)... 4 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (IGJ)... 4 RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (EAFRD)... 5 CONTROL DATA AND CONTROL STATISTICS (EAFRD,EAGF)... 5 EVENT REGISTRATION... 5 New Functionalities: Collection of SCO Data SCO AN3 (463139, ) - AN3: Annex 3 data collection (SCO) Module will allow requesting submission of different elements of Annex III. The first collection type to implement is for SCO and contains elements 53, 60, 65, 69 and 89 to be reported at Programme level. Reports VAL (470289) - In the print menu of all objects version there is now the possibility to create a Report with all the validation results of an object version. The report is called "Applied validation rules". Changes: Operational programme (IGJ,ETC,IPA-CB) OP IGJ ETC IPACBC (467948, ) Previously, only quantitative indicators could be used in the Performance Framework table for IGJ, ETC and IPACBC. However, there were a few ERDF Programmes where the Key Implementation Step Indicator could be qualitative. Therefore, to allow for Qualitative Key Implementation Step Indicator in the Performance Framework Table (=T6, 28 for IGJ, T5, 24 for ETC and T5, 25 for IPACBC), an extra checkbox "Qualitative" and an extra field "Qualitative final target (2023)" were added. When the "Qualified" checkbox is checked, the numeric target fields are disabled and the qualitative one is enabled. Also done in the print version. Operational Programme (IGJ) OP IGJ (460005) 2 new type of Priorities (Natural disaster and SME) added and validation rules for these type of priorities (rules 2.76, 2.77, 2.11, 2.18,2.24,2.29,2.30,2.67) added or modified:

2 New Validation Rules: 2.76 validate when Priority Axis is dedicated to natural disasters that it only covers ERDF (error) 2.77 validate when Programme contains a natural disasters Priority Axis that the total Union support on natural disasters over all Member State Programmes is <= 5% of the Total ERDF Union support over all Member State Programmes (warning) Modified Validation Rules: 2.11 validate that for each of the Categorisation Breakdowns (Tables 7-10 and 14-16), the total Union Support per Priority Axis and Fund equals the total Union Support (main+performance) per Priority Axis and Fund in Table 18a, and vice versa (error). For Table 11 the Total does not have to add up. This rule doesn't apply for SME Programmes and SME Priority Axes since they do not have Categorisation validate that there is at least one Indicator defined in the relevant Indicator Tables (error) T3 one record for each PA, IP, SO (Only for ERDF, CF)(Warning) T4 one record for each PA, IP (Only for ESF)(Warning) T4a one record for each PA, IP (Only for YEI) (Warning) T5 one record for each PA, IP (For all)(warning) T6 one record (For all, except for priority axes containing only YEI, for SME programmes and SME priority axes and for TA programmes)(error) T12 one record for each PA, SO (Only for ERDF, CF, ESF)(Warning) T13 one record for each PA (Only for ERDF, CF, ESF)(Warning) 2.24 validate that SME Programmes and SME Priority Axes only use Thematic Objective 3 (error) 2.29 validate that there is no Performance Reserve amount specified in Tables 17 and 18a for YEI Programmes and Priority Axes, nor for SME Programmes, SME Priority Axes and TA Programmes (error) 2.30 validate in Table 18a, that for non-ta priority axes, non-yei Priority Axes/Funds with a Union Support (A) > 0, the "Performance Reserve amount as proportion per Priority Axis (L)" is between 5% and 7%. Doesn't apply for SME Programmes, SME Priority Axes and TA Programmes. If the Union Support (A) in the current version decreased compared to the last adopted version then this rule is a (warning) else it is an (error) 2.67 validate for non-sme Programmes that the co-financing rate of each non-yei ProgrammePriorityPlan record in Table 18a doesn't exceed the maximum allowed co-financing rate The maximum allowed co-financing rate for a ProgrammePriorityPlan record and the severity level for the rule are determined as followed: IF NonTaPriorityAxisSfCf.unionFinancialInstruments is true or NonTaPriorityAxisSfCf.sme is true THEN set maximum co-financing rate = 100% (error); ELSIF ProgrammePriorityPlan.Fund = CF and (NonTaPriorityAxisSfCf.financialInstruments is true or NonTaPriorityAxisSfCf.localDevelopment is true) THEN set maximum co-financing rate = 95% (error); ELSIF NonTaPriorityAxisSfCF.naturalDisasters is true THEN set maximum co-financing rate = 95% (error); ELSIF ProgrammePriorityPlan.Fund = CF THEN set maximum co-financing rate = 85% (error); ELSE Get distinct maximum co-financing rate(s) from MaxCofinancingRateErdfEsf for CCI.Country/PriorityPlanSfCf.RegionCategory; IF it returns no value THEN no maximum co-financing rate (no validation needed); ELSIF it returns one distinct value THEN save it as maximum co-financing rate (error); ELSE (It returned a list of distinct values) get distinct maximum co-financing rate(s) from MaxCofinancingRateErdfEsf for CCI.Country/PriorityPlanSfCf.RegionCategory/NUTS for each NUTS region covered by the Programme (ProgrammeRegion); IF it returns no value THEN save highest rate from the previous list as maximum co-financing rate (warning);

3 ELSIF it returns one distinct value THEN save as maximum co-financing rate (error); ELSE (It returned a list of distinct values) save highest rate as maximum co-financing rate (warning); -- Determine if an increase must be applied to the maximum co-financing rate IF NonTaPriorityAxisSfCf.socialInnovation is true or NonTaPriorityAxisSfCf.financialInstruments is true or NonTaPriorityAxisSfCf.localDevelopment is true THEN add 10% to maximum co-financing rate, not exceeding 100%; Rural Development Programme (RDP) RDP EAFRD (462693) - In section 10.0 of the RDP Financial Plan (FP), the Member State can still select article 59(4)(g) but, in FP section 10.3 by measure, instead of a new column, the system will create new lines (the budget code displayed for this line will take into account 59(4)(g)) the applicable co-financing rate for these new lines has to be filled manually by the MS for the related DOE lines created based on these new FP 59(4)(g) lines, the MS can only declared irregularities (7,7'), no modifications to expenditure allowed. this modification does not impact past FPs and past DOEs (=a column for 59(4)(g)) National Programme (ISF) NP ISF (466228) - At the end of Table 1 ISF-Borders in the National Programme, the following phrase has been added: The amount under SO2 / NO6 includes an envelope of EUR to be spent in accordance with Article 64(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/2226. This specific allocation can support 100% of those costs (including costs of operating the system) and is provided exclusively for this purpose. It cannot be used to cover other needs/costs, including those referred to in subparagraphs a) to g) of article 64(2) and article 64 (3). This specific allocation shall not be taken into consideration in the calculation that determines the percentage of funding that may be used to finance operating support, according to Article 10 (1) of Regulation (EU) No 515/2014. National Programme (AMIF) NP AMIF (466351) In NP AMIF, a new relocation type "MS Relocation" was added and validation rule 2.7 was modified to cover MS Relocations: validate that only Special Cases Resettlement, Transfer, Relocation (2015/1523), Relocation (2015/1601), MS Relocation and Admission (2016/1754) are used in an AMIF Programme (implicit in web) (error). Implementation report (IGJ,ETC,IPA-CB) IR IGJ ETC IPACBC (467948) A change in the validation rule 2.62 was made and some Fields became mandatory depending on status validate that Table 12 on Major Projects contains all Major Projects (based on CCI) linked to this Programme and that based on the "Status of MP" the following fields are not null (Error): when "5 - Withdrawn and kept as a non-major project in the OP" or "6 - Withdrawn and taken out of the OP": Project, Status of MP

4 when "4 - Planned for notification/submission to EC": Project, Status of MP, Total investments, Total eligible costs, Planned notification/submission date, Planned start of implementation, Planned completion date, Priority axis/investment priority, Current state of realization financial progress (%), Current state of realization physical progress, Main outputs, Date of signature of first works contract when "3 - submitted" or "2 - approved" or "1 - completed": Project, CCI, Status of MP, Total investments, Total eligible costs, Planned notification/submission date, Planned start of implementation, Planned completion date, Priority axis/investment priority, Current state of realization financial progress (%), Current state of realization physical progress, Main outputs, Date of signature of first works contract. Quarterly Declaration of Expenditure (EAFRD) RDP/DOE (468929) - Paying Agency that have expired should not be copied from previous to new DOE Accounts (AMIF) ACC AMIF (466812) A new relocation type "MS Relocation" was added and validation rules 2.41, 2.42 & 2.43 were modified to cover MS Relocations: 2.41 validate for Relocation (R1, R2 and MS) and Transfer Pledges (ST) that the "From" column is different from the "To" column (error) 2.42 validate for Relocation (R1, R2 and MS) and Transfer Pledges (ST) that either the "From" or the "To" column is the country of the Programme (error) 2.43 validate for Relocation Pledges (R1, R2 and MS) that the "From" contains a "From" Country from the Relocation Quota for the specific Relocation Type and the "To" contains a "To" Country from the Relocation Quota for the specific Relocation Type (error) Defects fixed: Operational programme (IGJ,ETC,IPA-CB) OP IGJ ETC IPACBC (469857) - In Table 6 and Table 28, the values filled under Final Target 2023 and Qualitative target appeared under the same column. Now another column was added in the Table 6 so that the users can differentiate between the 2 fields. OP IGJ ETC IPACBC (471011) - Qualitative target value was added correctly to the tables 6 for IGJ, 5 for ETC and 5 for IPACB but it was not added to tables 28 for IGJ, 24 for ETC and 25 for IPA. Now the value is added to all tables. Operational programme (IGJ) OP IGJ (469857) - When using the compare mode, there were records missing for some Priority Axis in Table 2. This has now been fixed. OP IGJ (470564) - There were two text inconsistencies in the User s interface: the "Qualitative" checkbox was written as "Has Qualitative Target" and "Qualitative final target (2023)" was written as "Qualitative Target" in SFC2014. This has now been corrected.

5 Rural development programme (EAFRD) RDP EAFRD ( ) Error when 'Principles with regards to the setting of selection criteria' table of contents item is selected in section 8 when the user switched from grants to FI. This has now been fixed. Control data and control statistics (EAFRD,EAGF) CDS (470178) There was an error during the creation of a Control data and control statistics due to the fact that now it is possible to have more than one Paying Agency with the same code (but with different names). This has now been fixed. Event registration ER (462816) The Event Registration Administration Page did not reapply the changes to all subscriptions due to an error that was not shown on the screen. This has now been fixed.