EU funds’ evaluation plan 2007-2013 , Latvia

1. EU funds’ evaluation plan 2007-2013, Latvia Iruma KravaleHead of Strategic Planning Unit EU Funds StrategyDepartment, Ministry of Finance, Latvia April 2, 2008

2. Evaluationenvironment • Parties involved in the evaluation process inLatvia : • Managing Authority (MA), • Monitoring Committee (MC), • EU funds inter-institutional evaluation working group (WG) -(includesImplementation Bodies (IB) and other institutions involved in EU funds administration) • Independent experts. Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

3. Legal background on national level • Documents containing information on evaluations of EU funds: • NSRF • Each OP • Law on Management of EU SF and the CF • Cabinet of Ministers regulation No.483 of 10 July, 2007 “Procedure for monitoring and evaluation of EU funds implementation” Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

4. Objective and content of the evaluation plan • Objective: • to describe the mechanisms for EU funds evaluation in Latvia • Content: • Definitions regarding EU funds evaluation; • Description of the objectives of EU funds evaluation; • Legal background on EU and national level; • The roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in evaluation planning, carrying out evaluations and implementation of the results on EU and national level; • Identification of the evaluation topics and preparation of the evaluation plan; • Information about financial resources that are available and required for EU funds evaluation Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

5. Preparation of the evaluation plan • Evaluation plan is prepared by the MAto all NSRF. • Reviewed annuallyby the WGandthe MC. • Evaluation topics are stated in the table of Appendix 1 of the evaluation plan. • In the initial stage only those topics are included in the plan, which are planned to be carried out during the next year or with a certain frequency. • Review of the evaluation plan can be proposed by any member of the MC or by the member of the WG, or by the MA. Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

6. Identification of the evaluation topics • Evaluation topics can be proposed and approved according to such criteria : • Evaluation ensures monitoring of the implementation and performance of the planning documents. • Significant departure from the goals initially set. • Evaluation is to be held before making amendments to the planning documents (approve necessity of the amendments) • Evaluationresult - the increase of the effectiveness of implementation of the OP activities. • Necessity to analyse the results of the implemented OP activities. • Evaluation will list and analyse failures and imperfections of the OP activities. • Evaluation topic derives from an evaluation conducted by the EC. Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

7. Implementationof evaluation - the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved (1) • Managing Authority • Ensures organization of evaluation process • Prepares evaluation plan and amendments it (e.g. with other institutions` plannedresearches in the framework of the OP activities) • Prepares terms of references, monitors the external experts` work • Participatesin the procurement committees of the planned research works. • Informs about evaluation process and publishes the evaluation results on www.esfondi.lv • Establishes WG. Head of the working group is representative of the MA. • Lists and summarizes recommendations into therecommendation implementation plan and monitorsits practical implementation Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

8. Implementationof evaluation - the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved (2) • Monitoring Committee: • reviews the results of the evaluations carried out (MA provides info on a regular basis): • evaluations that have been planned, are ongoing and have been carried out, • the objectives and results of the evaluations carried out, • the practical use of recommendations of evaluations. • The members of the Monitoring Committee may propose evaluation topics. Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

9. Implementationof evaluation - the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved (3) • EU Funds interinstitutional evaluation working group – IB and other bodies engaged in the management of the EU Funds, including planning regions: • Approves the rules of procedure at its first meeting and operates in accordance with them. • Involved in carrying out evaluations from the planning stage to the implementation of recommendations in practice • Maypropose evaluation topics. • Atthe invitation of the Managing Authorityparticipate in evaluation working groups established by the EC. • Invitea representative from the MA to help draw up the terms of references and participate in the procurement committee (iforganise researches forspecificOP activities) Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

10. Recommendation implementation (1) • Recommendation implementation plan: • Recommendation implementation plan (RIP) lists recommendations + their essential value, responsible institution, deadline for implementation (if possible), state of play and planned actions, implementation status and result. • In 2004-2006 RIP has been supplemented by about 400 recommendations of 21 accomplished researches. • About 30 recommendations of the 2004-2006 evaluations are still useful for this period. Evaluation working group decided upon the terms of implementation (mostly year 2009) • RIP is updated in accordance with the information provided by institutions involved in EU SF administration once in a half year before MC. Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

11. Recommendation implementation (2) • At the moment in Latvian legislation is stated, that members of EU funds thematic evaluation consultative working group review conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation and research reports, and monitor their implementation. • According to conclusions of the State Audit Office report: • MA will propose Amendment to the corresponding regulations to clearly define responsibilities of the institutions involved in EU Structural Funds administration to implement those recommendations, which the working group members admit as useful. Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance

12. Strengthening capacity • The main risks of MS: • insufficient human resources, • time-consuming public procurement procedures • question of the quality of the monitoring system + access to data. • The main risks of experts: • undeveloped range of external evaluators. • MA plans: • to train employees in matters relating to evaluation (capacity building seminar in 2006, December 2008and in September 2009), different courses and exchange of experience among the members of the working group and colleagues from other MS. Managing authority of the EU structural funds – Ministry of Finance