1

Implementation of the EU Implementation of the EU Cohesion PolicyCohesion Policy

II.II.Thematic topics & questionnaireThematic topics & questionnaire

Pilsen, Czech Republic 18 – 20 April 2011

2

Content

1.1.Financial and physical progressFinancial and physical progress

2.2.n+3/ n+2 rulen+3/ n+2 rule

3.3.Thematic topicsThematic topicsMajor projects implementationMajor projects implementation

Financial engineering instrumentsFinancial engineering instruments

Operational programmes Modifications/RevisionsOperational programmes Modifications/Revisions

EvaluationEvaluation

3

Financial and Financial and pphysical progresshysical progress

Total allocation and number of OP’s

4

State of implementation

5

6

Approved projects

Indicators – comparison of NMS’s

• How NMS’s treat the project indicators:- a list is provided in the applicant guides to be selected for each project: CZ, EE, HU, LV,

LT, MT, SL- each beneficiary can also define its own indicators: BG, CY, PL

• The aggregation of the indicators from project to program level is done automatically by the management and information system in all 10 NMS’s

• Approach to measuring progress on the physical level of the NSRF :- from the statistical indicators: MT- aggregation of the project indicators: LV- mixed approach: BG, CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, PL, SL

• Indicators which have already achieved their target values – BG, CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, PL, MT, SL (NOT – CY)

• Indicators which have already achieved their target values because of wrong adjustment – CZ, EE, LV, PL

7

No. of indicators on the level of OP’s/Priority Axis vs. No. of OP’s

8

Planned changes of the indicators in the OP’s

TARGET VALUES DEFINITION OF INDICATORS

TYPE OF INDICATORS

ADDING/REMOVING

NEW/EXISTING INDICATORS

OTHER

BULGARIA X X

CYPRUS X X X X

CZECH REPUBLIC X X

ESTONIA X X X

HUNGARY X X X

LATVIA X

LITHUANIA X X X

MALTA X X

POLAND X X X X

SLOVENIA X X X X

9

AIR and Annex 23

10

Most of the NMS monitor Annex 23 in detail "incoming", "outgoing" and "new" for all groups:•YES: BG, CY, EE, HU, LV, LT, MT•NO: CZ, PL, SL

Do you monitor Annex 23 for priority axis technical assistance?•YES: EE, LV, MT•NO: BG, CY, CZ, HU, LT, PL, SL

Most of the NMS had some problems with the approval process of OPs annual implementation reports in recent year.- Annex 23 and Contents of the AIR

11

n+3/ n+2 rulen+3/ n+2 rule

Certified expenditures

13

Thematic topicsThematic topics

14

Major projects implementationMajor projects implementation

15

State of play in the Czech Republic

Implementation of major projects concerns three Operational Programmes:

Source: The Managing Authorities, March 2011

Indicative plan for submission of major projects to EU by the end of 2011:

OP Transport 15 major projects

OP Environment8 major projects

OP Research and Development for Innovations All 6 planned major projects were already submitted to the Commission.

35

8 8

33

7 6

18

7 664

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

OP T OP E OP RDI

Num

ber o

f maj

or p

roje

ct

Submitted to MA Approved by MA Submitted to EC Approved by EC

Coordination and support of major projects preparation in the Czech Republic

• NCA monitors process of MP’s preparation and approval,• Coordinates and facilitates the MP’s preparation and negotiation, • Provides methodological guidance to MA’s and beneficiaries,• Ensures exchange of experience and best practices btw. OP’s,• Guarantees effective communication btw. EC services/JASPERS and Czech

authorities.

Improved monitoring system based on monthly reporting from MA’s preparing MP’s for submission to the EC – better, more reliable forecasting

Regular meetings on the NCA/MA’s level on various issues related to MP’s implementation – stronger coordination

More frequent meetings with EC representatives – better communication of expectations and problem solving oriented approach, informal consultations

Tripartite meeting (autumn 2010)

Findings from questionnaireFindings from questionnairessMajor projects appraisalMajor projects appraisalCountry Estimated in country Submitted to EC Approved by EC

  number

value of EU co-finacing (EUR mln) number

% of the total number of estimated projects

value of EU co-

financing (EUR mln) number

% of the total number of estimated projects

value of EU co-

financing (mln EUR)

Bulgaria 25 2431 9 36 1218,7 4 16,00 541,9

Cyprus 5 250 0 0 0 0 0,00 0

Czech Republic

59 6443,5 33 56 2954,7 10 16,95 481,8

Estonia 10 500 9 90 441 8 80,00 405

Hungary 39 5371,9 27 69,23 3750,8 21 53,85 2852

Latvia 7 548,1 7 100 548,1 5 71,43 412,4

Lithuania 10 417,2 10 100 417,2 0 0,00 0

Malta 7 355 3 42,85 144 3 42,86 144

Poland 264 27759,9 91 34,47 11993,9 33 12,50 3529,5

Romania 111 8463,5 27 24,32 1788,5 19 17,12 1324,3

Slovak Republic

43 2870 6 14 635,3 3 6,98 420,9

Slovenia 20 1062 8 40 395 8 40,00 395

18

Share of MPs submitted and EC approved from the total number of applications estimated in 2007-2013

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app sub app

Bulgaria Cyprus CzechRepublic

Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania SlovakRepublic

Slovenia

submitted/approved rest

Major Major projectsprojects

19

Main questions and comments frominterruption letters

• Environmental impact assessment (e.g. SEA, status of the development consent)

• Protection of NATURA 2000 sites

• CBA assumptions and justifications (financial and socioeconomic analysis, demand prognosis)

• Feasibility study clarifications

• State aid

• Project description and the scope of work

• Questions of technical nature (updating calculations)

20

Length of the approval processLength of the approval process

• Appraisal of MP by the EC services lasts from 3 to 12 months (incl. time needed to answer Interruption letter).

• Different issues raised in the second and following Interruption letters (lack of coordination within the EC).

• Rather administrative exercise without real impact on MP’s structure (projects in operation).

• Need to evaluate the added value of each interruption.

21

Implementation problems encounteredImplementation problems encountered

• Delays in a construction phase (a land acquisition, on site archeological research, complaints on public procurement)

• Cost overruns (deficiencies in a project design and cost estimation)

• Weak project management

22

Examples of measures takenExamples of measures taken

• CZ: Pay attention to each project, reporting monthly progress, tripartite meetings and seminars for sharing experience.

• PL: Special monitoring and control system in place – monthly reports detecting the main risks causing delays and progress in MP preparation, workshops for beneficiaries.

• HU: Quality check of the public procurement documents, modification of public procurement act

• CY: Additional projects approved–overcommitment makes up for the gap due the delays.

23

Proposed amendments to legal environmentProposed amendments to legal environment

• MP’s appraisal should be streamlined and simplified (one set of comments from the EC, not raising the same issues already clarified with JASPERS) – CZ, PL.

• Less micromanagement from the EC and orientation on ex post evaluation of results (PL).

• MP’s threshold to be raised to 200 mil. EUR (PL).

• CBA guide expansion and Art. 55 modification (CY, CZ, MT, PL).

• MP’s should be entirely assessed by MS in next programming period (EE).

24

Financial engineering Financial engineering instrumentsinstruments

State of play in the Czech RepublicState of play in the Czech Republic

JESSICA implementation

Evalution Studies (EIB):

• ROP Moravia-Silesia (also additional study)

• ROP South-East

• ROP North –East

• ROP Central Moravia

• JESSICA implementation in region Moravia-Silesia: EIB Holding Fund (20 mil. EUR)

Jeremie implementation Jeremie implementation in the Czech Republicin the Czech Republic

• OP Enterprise and Innovation – Programmes Start, Progress, Guarantee

• Another (national) way of supporting SME – directly by managing authority (intermediary institution)

• Pilot project – seed fund in OPEI

Financial engineering instrumentsFinancial engineering instruments

Implementation or plan to implement Financial Engineering Instruments:

• JESSICA – LT, BG, HU, SL, PL, CZ

• JEREMIE – LT, BG, HU, SL, PL, CY, MT, LV

• JASMINE – none of New Member States

BUT

Some of the New Member States (EE, PL, CZ) have established FEI on repayable forms of financial assistance with Structural Funds directly provided by Managing Authorities or intermediate body.

JESSICA AND JEREMIEJESSICA AND JEREMIE

JESSICA JEREMIE

Holding fund (EIB)

Plan Holding fund (EIB)

Holding fund – national FI

Without Holding fund

< 50 mil. EUR BG, CZ MT, HU, SL

CY, MT SL SL, LT

50 – 200 mil. EUR

LV LT

200 – 600 mil. EUR

PL, LT BG, LT PL

> 600 mil. EUR HU

JESSICAJESSICA

Risks and barriers of implementation

• The lack of the financial resourses – HU, PL

• The lack of the suitable projects – low absorption capacity – BG

• The limited timeframe for the implementation - PL

• The lack of the experiences of municipalities with managing projects within JESSICA – HU, PL, LT

• The legislative and procedural barriers – HU, PL, LT, CZ

• Insufficient interest of private sector - LT

JEREMIEJEREMIE

Main risks and barriers of implementation

• The lack of the suitable project - low absorption capacity - LT, LV, PL

• The limited timeframe for the implementation - LT, PL

• The lack of experience of SMEs - BG, PL, MT, HU

• The legislative and procedural barriers - CY, LT, PL, MT, HU

• Insufficient interest of the private sector - CY, LV, MT

31

Operational programmes Operational programmes Modifications/RevisionsModifications/Revisions

32

• EU level: Regulation 1083/2006; article 33; no specific guideline.

• National level: Guidance note on the modification of the OP 2007-2013 (issued by the NCA; 30 April, 2010).

The objective: To define the background and the procedure according to which the MA’s should proceed during the preparation and the approval process of the OP modifications. An agreement on the final text of the EC and the NCA (CZ).

Contents:- the legislative framework of modifications- categorization of the changes of the OP’s- recommended practices- recommended content and structure of the OP modification proposal experience

Coordination of the OP Modifications in the Czech Republic

OP Modifications in the Czech Republic - Summary

• OP revisions in the CZ are being prepared in accordance with a Guidance note, which sets out detailed procedures for preparing and approving the OP modifications.

• 11 modification have been submitted to the EC for approval (6 were approved, 5 remains in the approval process).

• The most common reasons for OP modifications: implementation difficulties and changes in regional priorities.

• The average length of the approval process of the OP modification is 156 calendar days.

• In the period from October 2010 to December 2011 – 15 OP’s plan to submit a request for OP modification (+ Article 17 Interinstitutional Agreement).

Length of the approval process of the modification of approved OP in the Czech Republic

112

211185

411

294

372

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

OP T OP EI OP CR-PL ROP CM ROP MS ROP CB

No.

of c

alen

dar d

ays

Total lenght of the EC Total lenght of the approval process

35

• Very demanding process with no exact framework on the EU level (new requirements emerge during the OP revision procedure).

• Every minor change of the OP text must be approved by the EC - too many details in the OP – cause huge problems when proposing changes.

• Lacking official definition of minor OP changes and fundamental OP changes, which would provide the possibility for a flexible reaction of MA’s in OP management (no chance for quick reaction to on-going evaluations findings).

• Very much time consuming process – time limits being often prolonged – considerably reduced possibility for reaction on urgent changes such as economic crisis.

• Requirement for SEA screening in case of all OP changes makes more administrative burdens – time consuming and costly.

OP revisions – conclusions based on the Czech Republic experience

Findings from questionnairesFindings from questionnairesNumber and types of OP’s modificationsNumber and types of OP’s modifications

• Except CY all asked MS’s have done OP’s modifications.• The most experienced MS in OP’s modifications area - LV (17 OP Modifications).

• Types of modifications:- financial reallocations between priority axis (within OP) – all except CY, EE, MT

- financial reallocations between OP’s – only HU, LV, EE

- nobody has proposed financial reallocations between funds BUT PL, HU, BG, LV, EE are considering it

- only SL has introduced a new

priority axis

- PL, CZ have added a new

intervention area

- many technical changes

MS No. of OPs

No. of OP modifications MS No. of

OPs No. of OP

modifications

Poland 21 9 Latvia 3 17

Hungary 15 6 Slovenia 3 6

Bulgaria 7 8 Cyprus 2 0

Lithuania 4 10 Malta 2 1

Estonia 3 5 Czech R. 18 13

Reasons and duration of OP’s modifications

• most frequent reasons for OP’s modification:

(a) following significant socio-economic changes – 6 MS

(d) following implementation difficulties – 5 MS • duration of preparing OP’s modification

- up to 3 months – PL, MT, LT, LV

- up to 1 year – SL, HU, BG, CZ

- over 1 year – EE

General reasons for prolongation: evaluation of proposed changes, possible impact• duration of approval of OP’s modification by the EC

- up to 2 months – MT, HU

- up to 3 months – LV

- over 3 month – PL, BG, LT, CZ, EE (one modification not finished yet – 11 months)

- SL has no EC approval of OP modification yet

General reasons for prolongation: EC requests for additional information, new requirements, lengthy process

Coordination of OP’s modification

• only PL, CZ, LT and EE have a national guideline on OP modifications

• National coordination: LT – Co-ordinating institution

CZ – National Coordination Authority BG – Council for Coordination in Management of EU Funds, CCUHU – The Coordination Managing authorityCY – The Planning BureauLV – High level working groupPL – NSRF Co-ordination Committee, Strategic Institution and NSRF Coordination

Authority, Regional Operational Programs’ Coordination authority EE, SL, MT – managing authorities plus lead ministries

• additional approval of OP modification by national body (e.g. Government) besides managing authorities (MC) – HU, EE, SL, BG

• different approach of DG’s - EE, HU, LT, LV, CZ• positive experience with informal consultations OP modification with the EC before

submitting to the EC

39

EvaluationEvaluation

Evaluation in the Czech Republic

System of coordination

-Evaluation plan

-Evaluation units at level of MA’s and the NCA

-Working group for evaluation

Main evaluation activities

-Ex-post evaluation 2004 – 2006

-Mid-term evaluation 2007 – 2013

Realisation of the evaluationsRealisation of the evaluations

evaluation BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI sum

Ex-post N/A X X X X X X X 7

Mid-term X X X X X X X 7

On-going X X X X X X X X 8

Ex-post evaluations Ex-post evaluations – crucial findings– crucial findings

Some countries conducted only partial ex-post evaluations (of some areas, e.g. ESF/ERDF programmes).

The findings:

• identified problems with data/indicators collection and their comparability

• Cohesion Policy should be more oriented on objectives and results (PL)

• need to include evaluation into the decision-making process at all levels of governance (PL)

CZ is presently conducting Ex-post evaluation of CSF and SPD 2004-2006.

Mid-term evaluation Mid-term evaluation –– areasareas of of recommendationsrecommendations

In some countries, some partial mid-term evaluations were conducted by intermediate institutions/coordination authorities (including CZ).

Areas of recommendations:

• the improvement of management and control systems

• the improvement of Cohesion Policy effectiveness and efficiency

• the improvement of performance/drawing

• the financial sustainability of created infrastructure (i.e. HU)

CZ is presently conducting Mid-term evaluation of NSRF 2007-2013. Some managing authorities conduct mid-term evaluations of OPs under their supervision.

On-going evaluationsOn-going evaluations

reasons for realization areas of recommendations

integral part of decision making process

system of indicators of OP’s

preparing the next programming period

progress of OPs implementation

to improve utilization of EU structural support (administrative system, implementation‘s problems)

reaction to changes of conditions, funding of local initiatives, education, employment, environment, horizontal themes, largely funded areas

CZ – newly use it at NSRF stage: evaluations of effectiveness and efficiency, horizontal themes (firstly included in Mid-term evaluation)

45

Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention!!