1 Brussels, 27 June 2008 The Evaluation of Structural Funds in Spain

2 Evolution of Structural Resources Allocated to Spain Million of Euros * (estimat ed) Total Structural Funds 4,82218,70741,08049,95928,293142,268 Cohesion Fund 9,57412,3223,25025,329 Total4,82218,70750,65461,89031,543172,419

3 NSRF Strategic Reports To be carried out in 2009 and 2012, To be carried out in 2009 and 2012, By the AGE (General Administration of the State) By the AGE (General Administration of the State) Document on Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes Document on Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes Evaluation of the Communications Plan Included in the common elements Included in the common elements To be attached as an annex to the evaluation made in 2010 To be attached as an annex to the evaluation made in 2010 A separate report will be attached, if no assessment is made A separate report will be attached, if no assessment is made A final evaluation is to be made in 2013 A final evaluation is to be made in 2013 Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes

4 Evaluation Plan The organization of the evaluation system in Spain must be explained in detail The organization of the evaluation system in Spain must be explained in detail Evaluation Consultation Committee, General Sub-directorate for Evaluation, Evaluation Resources of the Autonomous Communities and Cities Evaluation Consultation Committee, General Sub-directorate for Evaluation, Evaluation Resources of the Autonomous Communities and Cities It is not a binding document It is not a binding document This plan is not subject to the Commissions approval This plan is not subject to the Commissions approval It offers guidelines that may be modified throughout the period It offers guidelines that may be modified throughout the period It is necessary to link operational Evaluations to Annual reports It is necessary to link operational Evaluations to Annual reports Define a control and follow-up proceeding for the quality of the data Define a control and follow-up proceeding for the quality of the data Periodical system of revisions to avoid absurd data Periodical system of revisions to avoid absurd data It should be stated whether or not evaluation-based Training will be conducted by Technical Assistance It should be stated whether or not evaluation-based Training will be conducted by Technical Assistance Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes

5 Strategic Evaluations (by the AGE): In 2009 In 2009 Strategic thematic evaluation regarding R+D+i of ERDF and ESF OPs Strategic thematic evaluation regarding R+D+i of ERDF and ESF OPs R+D+i and Information Society; the ERDF convergence axis 2 is excluded from competitiveness R+D+i and Information Society; the ERDF convergence axis 2 is excluded from competitiveness Strategic Environmental Evaluation of all ERDF and ESF OPs Strategic Environmental Evaluation of all ERDF and ESF OPs Item included in all Environmental Reports Item included in all Environmental Reports Evaluation of the equal opportunities principle from the strategic point of view Evaluation of the equal opportunities principle from the strategic point of view In Cohesion Fund, ERDF and ESF OPs In Cohesion Fund, ERDF and ESF OPs In 2012 In 2012 Strategic thematic evaluation regarding immigration in ESF OPs Strategic thematic evaluation regarding immigration in ESF OPs The common evaluation elements document shall contain the contribution requirements to be met by the Autonomous Communities in relation to thematic evaluations The common evaluation elements document shall contain the contribution requirements to be met by the Autonomous Communities in relation to thematic evaluations Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes

6 Operational Evaluation: Two methodological guides will be defined: Two methodological guides will be defined: One for ERDF and CF, and another one for ESF in order to be able to carry out said evaluations quickly and according to the characteristics of each Autonomous Community One for ERDF and CF, and another one for ESF in order to be able to carry out said evaluations quickly and according to the characteristics of each Autonomous Community These will be compiled in the annual report These will be compiled in the annual report Each authority will be responsible for evaluating the OP sections falling under its responsibility Each authority will be responsible for evaluating the OP sections falling under its responsibility Modifications implying the transfer of resources from one authority to another will be made jointly Modifications implying the transfer of resources from one authority to another will be made jointly This only applies to ERDF and CF (and not to ESF) This only applies to ERDF and CF (and not to ESF) Mandatory at OP level, but not at NSRF level Mandatory at OP level, but not at NSRF level Whenever a modification of the OP is proposed Whenever a modification of the OP is proposed A modification of the OP includes the transfer of financial amounts amongst OP axes A modification of the OP includes the transfer of financial amounts amongst OP axes Whenever a significant deviation occurs in relation to expected goals Whenever a significant deviation occurs in relation to expected goals Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes

7 Operational Evaluations will be mandatory when a significant deviation is caused in relation to expected goals: The term significant means a change of mentality in relation to the evaluation system used in the period The term significant means a change of mentality in relation to the evaluation system used in the period The goal is that operational evaluations are used as a management tool for OPs The goal is that operational evaluations are used as a management tool for OPs They should make it possible to detect potential execution problems as soon as possible They should make it possible to detect potential execution problems as soon as possible It has been proposed to define a set of Warning Indicators that may help detect irregularities in the OP, should they exceed a specific threshold It has been proposed to define a set of Warning Indicators that may help detect irregularities in the OP, should they exceed a specific threshold If said indicators exceed a specific value, managers may think of performing an Operational Evaluation If said indicators exceed a specific value, managers may think of performing an Operational Evaluation The decision lies on the managers; The Commission will not impose any criteria The decision lies on the managers; The Commission will not impose any criteria Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes

8 Warning Indicators must be a subset of the Core Indicators that have already been defined by axis for each OP Warning Indicators must be a subset of the Core Indicators that have already been defined by axis for each OP These can be financial or physical These can be financial or physical It is the duty of the managers and the persons responsible for the evaluation to define them. They need not be the same for all OPs It is the duty of the managers and the persons responsible for the evaluation to define them. They need not be the same for all OPs Proportionality Proportionality Proportionality shall be applied to the extension and degree of detail of the analysis and the evaluation report Proportionality shall be applied to the extension and degree of detail of the analysis and the evaluation report Common Elements to the Strategic Follow-Up of the NSRF and the Evaluation of the ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund Programmes

9