Content of the p resentation

1

• Progress and Crisis (2004-2006 and 2007-2013)

• Closure & Reporting (2004-2006)• Systems and Simplification (2007-2013 and

post 2013) • Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)• Lessons learned and Future (post 2014) • Any Other Business and Conclusions

Content of the presentation

2

4. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)

4.1. Organisation of the ProgrammeMonitoring Committees (PMC)

3

Work of the PMCs organized in between the

meetings

3 (MT, SI, SK)3 (HU, PL, SK)

11 (all except HU)

2 (HU, SI)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Subcommittees Ad-hoc meetings Written procedures Other

• HU organizes general partnerships• SI organizes regular meetings

4

Percentage of the NGO partners in the PMCs

20

5

15

55

25

50

12

25

8

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

BG CY CZ HU LV MT PL RO SI SK

Perc

enta

ge

In EE and LT tis is 1/3 of the NGO partners in the PMCs

In HU it varies between 50-60% In PL varies between 10-15% In RO – 15-35%

5

Nomination of NGO representatives

in the PMCs

MT, SI

EE

PL

HU, RO

CY, LV, SK

BG

CZ, HU, LT, LV

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Government decree

Choice of the MA

Already established relationships

Through central Co-ordination Unit

Calls published in media

Sectoral (umbrella) organizations

Representatively

Number of respondents

6

4.2. Spending profile


7

Preparation of spending profile

All except EE, SI

BG, CZ, HU, LV, MT, SK

CY, LT, PL, RO

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Have prepared spending profile

Have prepared based on n+2/n+3 rule (accordingto regulations)

Have prepared based on n+2 rule (to pull ahead ofregulations requirements)

Respondents

8

Advance payments and de-commitment target

• 9 MS (CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, SK) count advance payments into de-commitment target

• BG, RO, SI do not use this approach

9

Approach used when preparing spending profile

• 6 MS (CZ, LT, LV, MT, PL, SK) have used top-down approach when preparing spending profile

• 4 MS (BG, CY, HU, RO) have used bottom-up approach

10

Level at which spending profile is prepared

BG, CY, LV CZ, HU, SK

PL, RO

MT PL LT

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Activity level Priority level Operationalprogramme

level

ERDF, ESF,CF level

Responsibleauthorities level

Intermediatebodies level

11

Level at which spending profile will be monitored

BG, CY, MT

CZ, HU

PL, RO, SK

LV

LV, PL

LT

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Activity level Priority level Operationalprogramme

level

ERDF, ESF,CF level

Responsibleauthorities level

Intermediatebodies level

12

4.3. Financial discipline


13

Methods on how spending profiles are enforced on

institutions

• In CY, LT, LV, MT, SI - reallocation of funding in case targets are not met

• In BG it is agreed on NSRF MC • In CZ - Political pressure • In HU - Monitor it and do reports on

monthly bases • In PL - Motivation system

14

Decision maker on enforcing financial discipline

BG, HU

CZ, EE, LT, LV, PL

RO

CY, MT, SI, SK

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Managing authority/-ies PMC The government Other

• In BG – Deputy Prime Minister responsible for EU funds• In HU - Head of National Development Agency (NDA); the minister responsible for NDA

15

Specific measures of enforcing financial discipline

on the beneficiaries

BG, MT

CY, EE

HU, LT, LV, PL, SI

CZ, RO, SK

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Penalties for delay of implementation

Only regarding beneficiaries that have receivedpre-financing

Others

None

Responses

16

Other mechanisms for the n+2/n+3 rule

CY Detailed N+3/N+2 monitoring system

CZ Payment predictions

EEConstant (monthly) monitoring of financial progress and reporting to thegovernment. Spending profiles will probably be prepared too.

HUAction plans covering two years ahead, treating issues on planned approval,payment rate

MT SFD monitoring

RO An early warning system is under preparation

SI Monitoring and reporting intervention

SK Financial system of management and control SF and CF

17

4.4. Management Information System(MIS)


18

Payment claims and Functionality to monitor spending profile in MIS

All except LT, LV

All except BG, LV, RO

All except LV

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Payment claims are processed via the system

There is a functionality to monitor “spendingprofile” in the MIS

There is a functionality to monitor budgetexecution for budget financed project applicants

(e.g. possibility to see planned and actually spentmoney every month)

Respondents

19

Triggers and notifications in MIS

• In CY, EE, HU, PL, SI, SK there are triggers and notifications in MIS (sections affected listed below in the table)

CY Triggers for time limits, thresholds on amounts of eligible expenditure

EE Triggers and alarms exist across the board

HUAll sections e.g.: application, approval, agreement, payment claims, on the spotchecks, irregularities

PL Agreements and payment claims

SIAgreement (value of the project, time schedule, verification of documents);Payment claims

20

Monitoring of indicators set in MIS

CY, EE, MT

BG, CZ, HU, LT, LV, PL, RO, SI

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Monitoring with MIS,indicators summ up to

higher level

Manual monitoringoutside MIS

21

MIS and detailed indicators

BG, CY, EE, HU, RO, SI, SK

LV, PL

CZ

LT

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

MIS contains not only indicators which are set inthe programme level, but also national indicators

which are set up at measure level

Also project indicators

Does not contain more detailed indicators

MIS contains more detailed indicators than thosethat are set in programming documents

22

MIS and horizontal indicators

EE, PL, RO, SK

CY, LT, MT

BG, HU, LV

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

In preparation

Outside MIS

Inside MIS

Respondents

23

Rate of performance of MIS

CZ

MT, SI

LV

BG, CY, HU, PL

EE, LT, RO, SK

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Scal

e

24

4.5. Evaluation plans


25

Organization of evaluation system

BG, CY, CZ, MT, RO, SI, SK

EE, LV, PL

HU

LT

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Coordinating authority organising andcoordinating the evaluation

Central evaluation unit is responsible for theorganization and can procure evaluations in

close cooperation with the managing authorities

Many institutions are responsible for theorganisation of the evaluations and can procure

evaluations

MA who is responsible for the organisation of theevaluations

Respondents

26

11 MS (except CY) haveevaluation plans for the NSRF, OP

Evaluation plans for the NSRF, OP

27

Evaluations planned in 2009/2010

BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK

No ofplans

1 (atNSRFlevel)

310 (atNSRFlevel)

4--5

34 (20For

200406)

11(2009);

12(2008)

13 2

350400ev.

stuies

206 (2Per

fund)

2 peryear

28

Type of evaluations planned in 2009/2010

• 5 MS (BG, CZ, EE, LT, LV) plan to carry out strategic evaluations

• 7 MS (CY, HU, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK) plan to have Operational evaluations

29

Topics of evaluations planned 2009/2010

CZ, HU, LT, LV, PL, RO, SI, SK

EE, HU, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK

LV, MT, PL, RO

CY, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK

LV, PL, RO

CY, CZ, EE, LT, MT

0123456789

30

Other topics of evaluations planned in 2009/2010

• CY - gender mainstreaming• CZ - indicators set up • EE - evaluation of indicators and sme sectoral

evaluations, plus the evaluation of OPs in light of the economic changes (in progress)

• LT - evaluations, related to SPD ex post evaluations

• MT - quality and relevance of monitoring

31

4.6. Evaluations launched, types of evaluations by content


32

Steering groups coordinating evaluation

activities’

• All 12 MS have steering groups that coordinate evaluation activities’

33

Financing planned for the organisation of the

evaluation(% from the max available TA)

N.B. For MT it is 16% for OP I and 11% for OP II

10

24.7

1.4

27

3

7

3.4

18.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CY HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK

Perc

enta

ge

34

Evaluations

• 11 MS (except CZ) have not carried out evaluations linked to the monitoring of the operational programmes where monitoring reveals a significant departure from the goals initially set

• All 12 MS have used external expertise in carrying out evaluations

35

Number of staff working with

evaluation issues in MA

BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK

Differsfor each

MA3

NSRFlevel 2,at each

MAAround

3

1-1,5 7

6 (inCoord.Authorit

y)

22 fulltime

About150 at

Alllevels

2-5 inEachMA

5 Approx.39

36

Number of staff working with evaluation issues in

other institutions

CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI SK

3

at each MA

around 3

10Parttime

25at least 1

perinstitution

at least 1

perinstitutio

n

Majorstakehold

ers

about150 at

alllevels

Appr.20

Appr.41

37

4.7. Strategic report (SR)


38

• 5 MS (CZ, LT, PL, RO, SI) have started making preparations for drafting the SR

• 5 MS (CY, CZ, EE, LT, RO) have elaborated a time-frame for consulting, drafting and approving the SR

Preparatory work for drafting SR

39

Structures to be used for consulting, drafting and

approving SR

CY, RO, SK

EE, PLCZ, HU

BG, LT, LV, MT, SI

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Yes, the existingMonitoring Committee

dealing with all theOP`s

Yes, other supra OPCommittee

No, the MA will draft onits own

Other

• CY - MC plus other partnership mechanism• RO - Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments is responsible for consulting and drafting the SR. The National Coordination Committee of SI (at ministers level) approves the SR • SK - not started yet

40

Plan for the content of the SR

SI

BG, CZ, EE, PL, SI

CY, HU, LV, MT, RO, SK

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Will follow the proposal of the EC to focus onaddressing the crisis with the SF/CF

Will focus not only on crisis

Do not have a plan for the content of the SR

41

Additional guidance received on drafting and

content of the SR

• It is only PL who has received guidance from EC (DG Regio)

42

Satisfaction with an open mandate offered by the EC

SK

CY

PL

CZ, HU, LT, MT

BG, EE, LV, RO, SI

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Has not dealt with it

There is a risk involved since there are noinstructions for the basic outline of the SR

It`s both previous versions

Not satisfied and have an opinion that it`s a threatthat EC will ask for repetitive improvements

Satisfied with mandated and think that it`s anopportunity to provide strategic feedback

43


4.8. The Environmental Report as per Directive 2001/42

44

Requirements of the Directive into national

legislation

• In 7 MS (BG, CY, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI) requirements of the Directive are taken over in full into national legislation, including monitoring and reporting

• In 5 MS (CZ, EE, HU, LT, SK) are taken over partially – only as far as the assessment is concerned; monitoring and reporting are not mandatory

45

Environmental monitoring

• 10 MS (except LV, SK) will undertake the environmental monitoring within regular monitoring actions on the NSRF and the OP`s

• LV, SK will complement regular monitoring with a mid-term monitoring report

46

Institution undertaking the environmental monitoring

BG, CY, EE, LT, MT, SK

CZ, LV, SI

HU, PL

RO

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

MA in-house MA within outsourcing Ministry of Environment orother environment

monitoring body in-house

Ministry of Environment orother environment

monitoring body in-housewithin outsourcing

Documents

Content of the p resentation