Page 123 - Proceeding 2015

NICOLAE Ciprian FAMP
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RISKS IDENTIFIED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NON-
CCASP
REIMBURSABLE FUNDS IN ROMANIA IN 2007-2013

? the risk of establishing financial corrections by donors;

? the risk of low quality of financing (outputs, outcomes and impact of projects).

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11 TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
? some risks aren’t included in the risk registers (ex: there are no risks related to impact
assessment or quantification of projects effects), although it results from the obligations that
Romania has from applying European regulations on non-reimbursable funds management;

? in most cases, the risks are identified and organized at department level (directorate, service,

office), not at the operational program level;

? the human resources involved are few in number and largely without specific training in risk
management:

? 4.833 employees (reported by 42 authorities and institutions), of which:

? only 407 employees have risk management responsibilities;
30 th – 31 st October 2015 ”Strategic Management for Local Communities” Bucharest ? all the risks included in the risk registers have negative connotations (there is no risk as
? only 322 employees have attended a course on risk management.

opportunity).

4. FINDINGS OF THE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RISKS

As mentioned above, the study focused on the qualitative aspects of the risks included in the risk registers
submitted by the 35 state authorities and institutions and covering the structural and cohesions funds
(convergence objective) and the national state aid funds dedicated to SMEs.

The first finding of the analysis is that the risk registers does not refer to objectives, results or activities,
the risks are just divided into categories / departments. In this respect, some risks can be clearly related
to a compartment activity (ex: inadequate and continuously changing national legislation, with direct

implications for the work carried out within the Economic and Financial Department).

The second finding of the analysis is that the classification of the risk does not follow a certain formula.
Thus, some risks appear to be related to departments (e.g. procurement department), some to activities

(e.g. checking and control) and others to procedural elements (e.g. irregularities).

The third finding of the analysis is that the definition of risk is poor, with no specificity or quantification.
Only a few of them had the impact annexed, while more that 74% had to be lost in the redefining process.

121