Core Indicators during Latvia Iruma Kravale Head of Strategic Planning Unit, European Union Funds Strategy Department, Ministry of Finance DG Regio evaluation network Meeting June 26, 2008

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 2 Agenda  Overall structure of the indicator system (national and OP level)  Indicators which can be considered as a good practice with regard to their definitions, collection methods and/or use  Indicators which raise some difficulties  Development work to further improve the indicator system

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 3 Overall structure of the indicator system (national and OP level) – 1  National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) level  OP level  OPC (national) level

National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) : - macroeconomic indicators, - indicators for monitoring of horizontal priorities OP 1 core indicators on Priority level OPC 1 result or output indicators on activity level OP 2 core indicators on priority level OPC 2 result or output indicators on activity level OP 3 core indicators on priority level OPC 3 result or output indicators on activity level EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 4 Overall structure of the indicator system (national and OP level) – 2

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 5 Overall structure of the indicator system (national and OP level) – 3  NSRF indicators were initiated by the MA and ministries responsible for implementation of the horizontal priorities (HP). Monitoring by HP ministries and MA.  OP and OPC level indicators were initiated by Responsible Bodies (RB)-ministries and agencies. Monitoring by RB and MA.  Process of definition according to the EC core indicators (Indicative Guidelines on Evaluation methods: Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators) MA supervisory function at the national level LV indicators in many cases more detailed, but mostly correlate to EC core indicators.

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 6 Good practice of indicators definitions, collection methods and/or use – 1  Improvement and new facilities of MIS:  Data collection and monitoring;  Quick reports / cumulative calculation at the OP and national level/ cross-cutting data analysis available;  Quarterly progress reports from the Responsible bodies ( Regulation of Cabinet of Ministers No. 483,Art.2-6) :  information about the progress of particular measure/objective implementation,  analysis of the fulfilled indicators and the detected problems,  suggestions for further improvement of EU Funds implementation system.

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 7 Good practice of indicators definitions, collection methods and/or use – 2  Clearly defined indicators for monitoring of 6 horizontal priorities (in comparison to poor previous period experience of HP monitoring):  Balanced territorial development (Territory development index)  International competitiveness of Riga City (GDP per capita in Riga as % of average GDP per capita of Baltic Sea region capital cities)  Macroeconomic stability (GDP growth)  Equal opportunities (Employment level)  Sustainable development (Proportion of renewable energy resources in balance of primary energy resources )  Information society (Internet availability in households as % of total number of households)

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 8 Indicators which raise some difficulties  In accordance with conclusions of the State Audit Office report, Managing Authority (MA) should provide both result and output indicators individually per each activity of the OPC.  However previous period experience showed that detecting both result and output indicators for each activity made all system of indicators very complicate for monitoring.  MA is in the process of discussions how to fulfill the requirements of the State Audit Office.  Main problems to be faced– to collect and analyse individual activity indicators by regards to the main core indicators.  Experience of this programming period:  first projects have been approved only this year,  No information about data collection difficulties (in the quarterly progress reports from the Responsible bodies ).

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 9 Development work to further improve the indicator system – 1  Reorganisation of MA ( ):  Independent MI monitoring department;  Accomplishment of improving MIS system;

EU SF Managing Authority– Ministry of Finance 10 Development work to further improve the indicator system – 2  Evaluation of the EU Funds monitoring system and its indicators (incl. definition of the monitoring indicators and compliance with OP objectives, MIS, on-the-spot checks, risk assessment system etc.):  Objective - to ensure a high quality evaluation of the priorities, measures and activities of the programming documents with the aim of establishing the effectiveness of their evaluation (incl. definition of the monitoring indicators and compliance with OP objectives, MIS, on- the-spot checks, risk assessment system etc.) and to provide conclusions and recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the monitoring of EU Funds and indicators during each stage of the process of implementing projects financed from the EU Funds.

Thank you!