1. Content of the presentation
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

2. 4. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)
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

6. 4. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)
4.2. Spending profile

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

12. 4. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)
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
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 ruleCY
Detailed N+3/N+2 monitoring system   CZ
Payment 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 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. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)
4.4. Management Information System
(MIS)

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) CY
Triggers for time limits, thresholds on amounts of eligible expenditure   EE
Triggers and alarms exist across the board   HU
All sections e.g.: application, approval, agreement, payment claims, on the spot
checks, irregularities   PL
Agreements 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

24. 4. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)
4.5. Evaluation plans

25. Organization of evaluation system

26. Evaluation plans for the NSRF, OP
10 MS (except CY, LT) have
evaluation plans for the NSRF, OP

27. Evaluations planned in 2009/2010BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK
No of
plans
1 (at
NSRF
level) 3
10 (at
4--5
34 (20
For
2004
06) 11
(2009); 12
(2008) 13 2
350
400
ev.
stuies 20
6 (2
Per
fund)
2 per
year

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

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. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)
4.6. Evaluations launched, types of evaluations by content

32. Steering groups coordinating evaluation activities’
11 MS (except LT) 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 MABG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK
Differs
for each MA 3
NSRF
level 2,
at each
Around
3  
1-1,5  7
6 (in
Coord.
Authority)   2
2 full
time
About
150 at
All
levels  
2-5 in
Each 5
Approx.
39  

36. Number of staff working with evaluation issues in other institutionsCY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI SK 3
at each MA
around 3   10
Part
time   25
at least 1
per
institution
Major
stakeholders  
about
150 at
all
levels  
Appr. 20
41 

37. 4. Monitoring & Evaluation (2007-2013)
4.7. Strategic report (SR)

38. Preparatory work for drafting SR
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

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 (2007-2013) 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