1. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey THE “COMPLETAMENTI” PROGRAMME

2. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey LAWS FOR UNDER-UTILISED AREAS Central Administrations Completamenti Regions (mostly) + Central Administrations

3. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES TO INVESTMENT PRIORITIES (CIPE DECISION 70/1998) Infrastructures (2.324 M€) 1.808 M€ 516 M€

4. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey ALLOCATION OF INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMME AGREEMENTS RESOURCES TO rEGIONS (CIPE DECISION 70/1998) Total 1.808 M€ Southern Regions 1.549 M€ Central + Northern Regions 181 M€ Earthquake-struck Regions (Umbria-Marche) 78 M€ ~3% ALLOCATED TO COVER UP TO 50% OF COST OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES

5. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey Completion of works under commissioner’s management, upon condition of existing demand and readiness to start Other works needing completion, in order to make them fully operational Furthermore, “priority shall be given to projects co- funded with EC, regional, local or private resources” The CIPE decision 70/1998 set two criteria for the projects to be funded: THE BIRTH OF THE “COMPLETAMENTI” PROGRAMME

6. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey Ex ante PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT PATH In itinereEx post Evaluation and selection Monitoring and checks Efficiency and effectiveness

7. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey Partnership, as agreement of central, regional and local administrations on a strategic planning that leads to social and economic growth Evaluation, as identification and distribution of the selection criteria, in a prompt and transparent way Timeliness, as response to the demands of the territory for the acceleration of expenditure and the experimentation of the new procedures SOME KEYPOINTS OF THE SELECTION PROCESS

8. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey SELECTION PROCESS 1.Identification of candidate projects to be completed by central, regional and local administrations 2.Pre-selection of candidate projects by central and regional administrations 3.Sending of proposals to the Evaluation Committee, according to agreed format 4.Processing of proposals by the Evaluation Committee, definition of ranking and final CIPE decision

9. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey Works under commissioner’s management SELECTION PATHS Other works needing completion Selected by sectoral Ministry Regions/Ministries + Ranking

10. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey RANKING CRITERIA

11. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey PREMIUM SYSTEM In each macro-area (Centre-North, South): 70% of resources is allocated to regions according to agreed quotas, then to best projects at regional level; 30% of resources is allocated to remaining best project at national level, regardless of region. The premium system aims at rewarding the quality of projects, supporting regions where highest-score projects lie.

12. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey FINAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES: CENTRE-NORTH

13. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey FINAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES: SOUTH

14. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey FINAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES: NATIONAL MAP > 155 M€ 33,5 – 155 M€ 20 – 33,5 M€ < 20 M€ Amount of funding Source of funding Regional quota (70%) Premium quota (30%)

15. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey Time of start of the projects (works under commissioner’s management) Handover to contractor within 60 days of end of procurement Time-schedule of the start of the projects “UVER shall report to CIPE on critical issues, in order to facilitate the removal of constraints and to give a framework of knowledge for future allocations.” SOME KEYPOINTS OF THE CIPE FUNDING DECISION

16. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey RELIABILITY OF THE TIME-SCHEDULE Cumulative percentage of number of projects by year of start The actual curve does not reach 100% as some projects have been cancelled

17. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey UVER ACTIVITY 1999-2003 Documentation checks, on-the-spot checks, special focuses 2002- Monitoring (implementation, management and analysis) 2003- Support and assistance to selected projects / Forecasting 2005- Evaluation of effectiveness of completed projects / Support and assistance to all on-going projects

18. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey THE SELECTION OF PROJECTS FOR CHECKS Statistical sample Pros: Good representativeness Cons: Low number of projects, high variability Reasoning-based choice Pros: Selection on specific issues Cons: Poor representativeness The solution: A mixed approach - Representativeness of all sectors - More importance to greater projects

19. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey CHECKS VS MONITORING Monitoring provides an overall view on all the projects but may fail to report specific issues that affect the implementation of the single projects. On-the-spot checks provide very detailed reports on each project under observation, but they fail to give any insight on the rest of the programme.

20. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey MONITORING CONTEXT What: Projects and procurements (lots); project identity and articulation are replicated in monitoring forms. Who: Referees at implementing bodies (from a continuously updated database). How: Pre-filled form sent automatically by fax or email. When: 30 Apr – 31 Aug – 31 Dec until 2004; 31 Dec since 2005.

21. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey SPECIFIC ISSUES OF THE MONITORING Particular cases: Projects with more than one implementing body. Finalisation of the monitoring form: After prototype used in simulation during on-site checks. Data validation: Horizontal validation by experts, vertical validation by the system. Contact with referees: Inconsistent or missing data, form not returned, before monitoring.

22. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey Up-sides Data collected at production site. Atomic data. Only necessary data. Pre-filled form. Push mode. Exchange mode chosen by referees. Upgrade from prototype. Detailed instructions. Management of metadata. Quick response times. High coverage. Data used in reports to CIPE. No rule by law. MONITORING: UP-SIDES AND DOWN-SIDES Down-sides No shared use of the monitoring database. Manual data entry. Raw user interface. Costly validation process. Difficult management of projects with multiple lots.

23. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey MONITORING FORM, INSTRUCTIONS AND VALIDATION CHECKLIST The monitoring process is supported by: simple instructions to fill in the monitoring form a validation checklist on the collected data available on the internet. All the stakeholders are empowered to understand the utilisation of the data that they produce.

24. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey PERFORMANCES OF MONITORING Coverage Percentages by Monitoring PhaseMean Response Times by Monitoring Phase

25. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey MONITORING REPORTS Report to Interministerial Planning Committee DPS Annual Report Monitoring outputs are used for reports and proposals.

26. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey MONITORING: DATA REVISIONS When considering percentages of progress, both numerator and denominator can change!

27. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey STATE OF THE PROGRAMME 31 Dec 2006 estimate (amounts in thousand euros)

28. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey REGIONAL DYNAMICS OF PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE

29. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey FIRST CATALOGUE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (2003)

30. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey THE “COMPLETAMENTI” WEB PAGES

31. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey FORECASTING SYSTEM Region Cost Duration Year of start Sector Actual expenditure Forecast expenditure f(y t-1,x) A statistical model is used to gain information on: the importance of the effects future expenditure

32. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTS

33. Bilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey EXPENDITURE FORECASTS Progress forecast Expenditure forecast