Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
evaluation). Nevertheless, there was still need for improvement as regards coordination
between Ministries and the quality of indicators used. Access to EU funding is reported to
have had significant indirect effects by establishing a new programming and planning
approach for the whole cycle of spending public money, involving more targeted - and so
more effective – support of activities for fostering economic development, and by
stimulating the formulation of national and regional development strategies.
• In Estonia, the main emphasis was on putting suitable institutions in place, which left
limited time and resources for reviewing the projects undertaken and assessing their
effects. A strong financial control system was put in place and a sufficient number of staff
were recruited and trained. Cohesion policy is reported to have contributed to better
coordination of policies between different Ministries and more of a focus on longer-term
planning, partnership and evaluation.
• In Hungary, substantial improvements were made in the procedures for project selection,
monitoring, reporting and evaluation over the period. However, the existence of dual
procedural requirements for cohesion policy and domestic policy created an extra
administrative burden for financial planning and staff management. Nevertheless,
progress was made in building the necessary institutions and in spreading a new culture
of cooperation among the various parties involved in domestic policy-making.
• In Latvia, priority was accorded to financial management and the establishment of welldefined
procedures, though focused more on ensuring financial correctness and on
monitoring and reporting spending than on physical outcomes. There were shortcomings
in other aspects too, in the form of lengthy procedures and insufficient flexibility, which
were partly overcome during the programming period. The requirements of cohesion
policy led to more transparency and accountability, increased involvement of stakeholders
in the decision-making process, more strategic planning at the national level and
enhanced cross-ministerial cooperation. There were also signs of an evidence-based
approach to policy-making beginning to emerge in other policy areas.
• In Lithuania, a centralised administrative system was established for the management of
cohesion policy. This proved capable of reacting quickly to problems and deficiencies in
procedures (e.g. in project selection). Cohesion policy had a tangible effect in initiating a
culture of transparency and accountability in public administration and led to increased
interest in strategic planning.
• In Malta, a number of important reforms to establish accountability, openness and
transparency had already been introduced prior to EU accession. A significant challenge
was the small pool of civil servants and the lack of project management skills. Cohesion
policy helped to put in place more efficient arrangements for contracting and making
payments and to establish a monitoring and evaluation system, both of which could be
introduced into other policy areas.
• In Poland, considerable progress was made in establishing an effective management and
implementation system for cohesion policy. However, the system was created and
operated in isolation from the national administration system, which was still not fully
compliant with EU standards of public management and governance. The effectiveness of
cohesion policy was accordingly undermined. The major challenges remaining at the end
of the programming period were to improve coordination, financial management and
monitoring. Nevertheless, cohesion policy enforced the modernisation of public
administration, in the form of multi-annual strategic planning, task-oriented budgets and
141