Implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy II. Thematic topics & questionnaire

1. Implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy II. Thematic topics & questionnaire Pilsen, Czech Republic 18– 20 April 2011 1

2. Content Financial and physical progress n+3/ n+2 rule Thematic topics Major projects implementation Financial engineering instruments Operational programmes Modifications/Revisions Evaluation 2

3. Financial and physical progress 3

4. Total allocation and number of OP’s 4

5. State of implementation 5

6. Approved projects 6

7. 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

8. No. of indicators on the level of OP’s/Priority Axis vs. No. of OP’s 8

9. Planned changes of the indicators in the OP’s 9

10. AIR and Annex 23 • 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 10

11. n+3/ n+2 rule 11

12. Certified expenditures

13. Thematic topics 13

14. Major projects implementation 14

15. State of play in the Czech Republic Implementation of major projects concerns three Operational Programmes: Indicative plan for submission of major projects to EU by the end of 2011: OP Transport 15 major projects OP Environment 8 major projects OP Research and Development for Innovations All 6 planned major projects were already submitted to the Commission. Source: The Managing Authorities, March 2011 15

16. 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)

17. Findings from questionnairesMajor projects appraisal

18. Major projects 18

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) 19

20. Length 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. 20

21. Implementation 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 21

22. Examples 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. 22

23. Proposed 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). 23

24. Financial engineering instruments 24

25. Stateof play in theCzechRepublic • 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)

26. Jeremieimplementationin theCzechRepublic • 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

27. Financial 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.

28. JESSICA AND JEREMIE

29. JESSICA • 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

30. JEREMIE • 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 Modifications/Revisions 31

32. Coordination of the OP Modifications in the Czech Republic • 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; 30April, 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 32

33. 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 modificationis 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).

34. Length of the approval process of the modification of approved OPin the Czech Republic

35. OP revisions – conclusions based on the Czech Republic experience • 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. 35

36. Findings from questionnairesNumber 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 fundsBUTPL, 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

37. 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

38. 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, CCU HU – The Coordination Managing authority CY – The Planning Bureau LV – High level working group PL – 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. Evaluation 39

40. 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

41. Realisation of the evaluations

42. Ex-post evaluations – 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.

43. Mid-term evaluation–areasof recommendations • 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.

44. On-going evaluations 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 attention! 45