11 New Member States Conference on Cohesion Policy in Latvia EU FUNDS IMPLEMENTATION IN NEW MEMBER STATES April 2009

2 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

3 1.Progress and Crisis ( and ) 1.1. Update on financial progress 3

Structural Funds Implementation Progress ( ) 4

Cohesion Fund Implementation Progress ( ) 5

EU Funds Implementation Progress ( ) 6

ERDF Implementation Progress ( ) 7

ESF Implementation Progress ( ) 8

Cohesion Fund Implementation Progress ( ) 9

10 Extension of final date of eligibility of expenditures All 10 EU MSs who joined the EU in 2004 have extended the final date of eligibility of expenditures of programmes 10

11 Main reasons for extension of final date of eligibility of expenditures (I) 11  Mainly changes in the socio-economic situation and the labour market, attributable to the unprecedented global financial crisis (CY, MT, PL, SI) Depreciation of national currency that increased the funds’ allocation and as a result affected negatively the financial implementation of programmes (PL) Deterioration of financial liquidity of beneficiaries and contractors (PL)

12  To have longer time for administration of programmes and to be able to use the whole allocation (CZ)  There were unused funds (about 5 MEUR) (EE)  The inability to make payments on time (LT)  The conditions of the access to loans and the terms have become more severe in recent months including prefinancing of projects realized by the contribution of SFs (HU) Main reasons for extension of final date of eligibility of expenditures (II)

13 Main problems that affected the closure of SF programmes ( ) 13

Impact of the crisis 1.Progress and Crisis ( and ) 14

15 Economic crisis and programmes Impact of each of the problem listed on programmes 15

16 Economic crisis and programmes (II) Other effects on implementation of programmes 16  Delays in projects (MT)  Private beneficiaries cannot co-finance projects (PL)  Beneficiaries might be unable to sustain the project (CZ)  The cost of projects has been reduced due to the financial and economic crisis. Moreover, the continuing economic crisis and credit shortage might delay the timetable for implementation of some projects despite the efforts for speeding up the whole process. In particular, crisis in the construction sector might have an impact on the timely implementation (CY)

17 Positive effects of the crisis – any? BG, CY, RO: higher competition for the funding in some measures (and hence better projects) EE, LT, LV, PL, SK: prices are falling and the projects are becoming cheaper to implement CZ, HU, MT, SI: crisis has no positive effects on implementaiton of programmes 17

18 Measures taken to react to the crisis in the framework of EU programmes 18

19 Other measures taken to react to the crisis (I) 19  Priorities changes (LT)  Acceleration of public procurements (LT)  Application of financial engineering instruments (CY, LT)  New infrastructure projects that will facilitate the revitalization of the economy under the existing various Priority Axis of the Programme (CY)

20  Increased support to SMEs and especially in the sectors that are expected to be mostly affected (CY)  Extension of catalogue of beneficiaries who may obtain advances on projects’ implementation (PL)  Stimulating competition among programmes – those whose realisation is the quickest may obtain additional resources from the national performance reserve in 2011 (PL)  Introduction of principle of the settlement and certification to the EC expenditures incurred in the first phases of project’s realisation before it is formally approved – in case of major projects (PL) Other measures taken to react to the crisis (II)

21 Economic crisis and implementation of major projects In 7 MS (CY, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL) economic crisis has affected the plans to implement major projects In 6 MS (except HU) main problem – plans were affected by change of costs of projects In HU public procurement procedures ongoing after which the impact of crisis can be seen In CZ, SI, SK the crisis did not have an effect to the plans of major project implementation 21

22 1.Progress and Crisis ( and ) 1.3. Information on major projects for the programming period – submission, launch, spending 22

23 Major projects planned to be implemented under programmes 23

24 Number of major projects (MP) submitted to the EC and approved by the EC 24

25 Main comments of the EC regarding applications of MP 25 Revenue-generating projects, int.al. Funding-gap calculation CZ EIA HU; LV; MT; PL; CZ; SK CBA, int.al. co-finance rate, poor option analysis LV; MT; CZ; PL; HU Tariff policy, int.al. polluter-pays principleMT; HU SCF 2007 systemCZ Eligible and ineligible costsCZ; SI; PL

26 JASPERS expertise used in project applications CZ, HU, LT will use JASPERS expertise in all applications All 12 MS were satisfied with JASPERS expertise 26

27 Other problems regarding preparation and implementation of MP (I) 27 Financial contribution; cash-flow LT; HU; RO Lengthy preparation of application (delays) and procedure by the EC CY; HU; LV; MT; RO; CZ; PL; SI

28 Monitoring & control system of MP 10 MS do not have special monitoring and control system for MP In LT and PL there is a special monitoring and control system for MP 28

Amendments to the Operational programmes (OPs) and reaction of the European Commission (EC) 1. Progress and Crisis ( and ) 29

30 Amendments to the OPs proposed to the EC (I) BG, CY, EE, RO, SI, SK have not proposed amendments to the OPs HU amendments involve reallocation of funding between OPs CZ, LT, LV amendments involve reallocation of funding between priorities CZ, LT, MT, PL amendments involve modifications to the contents Only OP of LT has been approved by the EC; for LV – approved partially 30

31 Modifications to the contents 31

32 Specific amendments proposed as reaction to financial and economic crisis 32

33 Amendments and the opinion of the EC (I) 33

34 Amendments and the opinion of the EC (II) BGHULTLVPL DG Regio (for ERDF/CF OP amendme nts) did not support parts Has invited BG to propos e change s in the OPs The explan ation given was not satisfac tory Asked for clarity Possible implications for supporting large enterprises ;discussions regarding selection procedure for financial intermediaries for instruments Don’t have a formal approval yet but DG Regio expressed positive opinion on amendments informally DG Employ (for ESF OP amendme nts) did no support partsN/A The explan ation given was not satisfac tory Asked for clarity The amendments don’t concern ESF OP 34

35 Evaluations carried out before amending OPs 9 MS (BG, CY, HU, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK) did not carry out evaluations before amending OPs CZ applied evaluations to all OPs before amendments In EE evaluation in progress CZ, EE, HU outsourced evaluation experts 35