1 Progress and Crisis ( and ) Closure & Reporting ( ) Systems and Simplification ( and post 2013) Monitoring & Evaluation ( ) Lessons learned and Future (post 2014) Any Other Business and Conclusions Content of the presentation

2 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( ) 4.1. Organisation of the Programme Monitoring Committees (PMC)

3 Work of the PMCs organized in between the meetings HU organizes general partnerships SI organizes regular meetings

4 Percentage of the NGO partners in the PMCs  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

Spending profile 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( )

7 Preparation of spending profile

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

11 Level at which spending profile will be monitored

Financial discipline 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( )

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 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

16 Other mechanisms for the n+2/n+3 rule CYDetailed N+3/N+2 monitoring system CZPayment predictions EE Constant (monthly) monitoring of financial progress and reporting to the government. Spending profiles will probably be prepared too. HU Action plans covering two years ahead, treating issues on planned approval, payment rate MTSFD monitoring ROAn early warning system is under preparation SIMonitoring and reporting intervention SKFinancial system of management and control SF and CF

Management Information System (MIS) 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( )

18 Payment claims and Functionality to monitor spending profile in MIS

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) CYTriggers for time limits, thresholds on amounts of eligible expenditure EETriggers and alarms exist across the board HU All sections e.g.: application, approval, agreement, payment claims, on the spot checks, irregularities PLAgreements and payment claims SI Agreement (value of the project, time schedule, verification of documents); Payment claims

20 Monitoring of indicators set in MIS

21 MIS and detailed indicators

22 MIS and horizontal indicators

23 Rate of performance of MIS

Evaluation plans 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( )

25 Organization of evaluation system

26 11 MS (except CY) have evaluation plans for the NSRF, OP Evaluation plans for the NSRF, OP

27 Evaluations planned in 2009/2010 BGCYCZEEHULTLVMTPLROSISK No of plans 1 (at NSRF level) 3 10 (at NSRF level) (20 For ) 11 (2009); 12 (2008) ev. stuies 20 6 (2 Per fund) 2 per year

28 Type of evaluations planned in 2009/ 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

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

Evaluations launched, types of evaluations by content 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( )

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

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 BGCYCZEEHULTLVMTPLROSISK Differs for each MA 3 NSRF level 2, at each MA Around 3 1-1,5 7 6 (in Coord. Authorit y) 2 2 full time About 150 at All levels 2-5 in Each MA 5 Approx. 39

36 Number of staff working with evaluation issues in other institutions CYCZEEHULTLVMTPLSISK 3 at each MA around 3 10 Part time 25 at least 1 per institution at least 1 per institutio n Major stakehold ers about 150 at all levels Appr. 20 Appr. 41

Strategic report (SR) 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( )

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 - 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

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

43 4. Monitoring & Evaluation ( ) 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