Examples of using Monitoring and evaluation systems in English and their translations into Bulgarian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Monitoring and evaluation systems 40.
This concerns the design of the OPs as well as of the monitoring and evaluation systems.
Monitoring and evaluation systems are designed to provide information at 3 levels: output, result and impact.
Shortcomings were found in the design of the operational programmes and in the monitoring and evaluation systems.
A description of the common selection criteria and the monitoring and evaluation systems as well as the composition of the monitoring committee;
Whereas the Commission states in its mid-term review that it is difficult to measure the overall effectiveness of the instruments in meeting their objectives,partly because of the difficulty in defining appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems at the instrument-level(p.10);
For example, we concluded that the monitoring and evaluation systems used by EuropeAid did not provide adequate information on results achieved.
Avoiding ROM when an evaluation is to take place was already a principle before the ongoing reform of monitoring and evaluation systems(as men- tioned also by the Court).
Require Member States to design monitoring and evaluation systems able to measure and explain at appropriate intervals the progress towards all target values set;
In line with the general evolution of the ESI Funds,the co-legislators and the Commission have considerably reinforced the monitoring and evaluation systems to strengthen the result-orientation of the EMFF.
VIII The Court also found that monitoring and evaluation systems both directly related to the CAPand those providing more general data did not provide the information necessary to fully inform policymaking as regards pressures on water coming from agricultural activities.
During the manufacturing and packaging process,Mylan uses advanced monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure products meet specifications.
In order to assess the extent to which the Initiative contributed to mitigating CBRN risks from outside the EU, we looked at the risk management approach,the Initiative's implementation in partner countries and the monitoring and evaluation systems.
The following are some examples. Examples: Weak focus on results In our audit of EuropAid,we concluded that the monitoring and evaluation systems in place did not provide adequate information on results achieved(Special Report No 18/2014).
While our earlier audit concentrated on the set-up of the Initiative, this time we broadened the audit scope to include an assessment of the risk management approach,the Initiative's implementation in partner countries, and the monitoring and evaluation systems.
Description of monitoring and evaluation systems constructed on the basis of the common list of output, result, baseline and impact indicators included in Annex VIII to the Regulation and additional indicators reflecting national and/or regional needs 14.
We found that the Commission generally assessed the capacity of partner countries by examining the main elements of their monitoring and evaluation systems, as required by its budget support guidelines.
The ECA also found that monitoring and evaluation systems, both directly related to the CAPand those providing more general data did not provide the information necessary to fully inform policy-making as regards pressures on water coming from agricultural activities, though noting some useful initiatives.
The Commission and Member States are unable to assess the overall effectiveness of the Funds in supporting the integration of third-country nationals because Member States have not set up effective monitoring and evaluation systems to report on the achievement of the programmes.
CAP monitoring and evaluation systems are of limited value in measuring progress towards the water objectives set out in the CAP regulations 68 EU law57 requires Member States to submit an annual report to the Com- mission containing‘the results of the controls relating to cross- compliance'.
Whereas the Commission states in its mid-term review that it is difficult to measure the overall effectiveness of the instruments in meeting their objectives,partly because of the difficulty in defining appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems at the instrument-level(p.10);
The monitoring and evaluation systems set up by Member States following Annex IV of Commission Implementing Regulation(EU) No 808/2014(the rural development implementing act) could be a useful tool to assess the reasonableness of costs in the light of the outputs, results and impacts achieved and/or planned.
It will be grounded on the developed common strategy for sustainable cross-border cooperation, clear legislative and institutional frameworks, holistic ecosystem approach, integrated and updated database,coordinated monitoring and evaluation systems and active stakeholder participation.
Reasons for this are that:(i)CAP monitoring and evaluation systems are of limited use as re- gards water- related information;(ii) water policy monitoring arrange- ments were set up late and are incomplete; and(iii) no other existing information system is capable of providing the data needed to link water qual- ity and quantity with agricultural practices.
The Commission and Member States should learn the lessons from the three previous Leader programming periods to ensure that efficient and effective monitoring and evaluation of the Leader approach is in place for the 2007- 13 period.Implementation of Axis 4 has started without key elements of the monitoring and evaluation systems being in place 113.
The Commission did not conclude on the countries' capacity to produce data needed for indicators 39 The EU Delegations are asked to provide an overview of the partner country's monitoring and evaluation systems(for the country in generaland for the particular sector for SRPC), assessing whether the country's public policy is in line with the EU objectives and whether institutional capacity is considered sufficient to implement the policy.
To answer this question, we addressed three sub-questions:(a) Have the Commission and the EEAS adopted an adequate risk management approach?(b) Has the Initiative been satisfactorily developed in partner countries?(c)Have effective monitoring and evaluation systems been established to identify, assess and report on the Centres of Excellence Initiative's results?
Objectives The monitoring and evaluation system shall aim to.
This is foreseen in the Monitoring and Evaluation system for the post-2013 CAP.
The 2014-2020 monitoring and evaluation system incorporates a number of improvements.