Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Veronica Gaffey DG REGIO Evaluation Unit

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Veronica Gaffey DG REGIO Evaluation Unit"— Presentation transcript:

1 Veronica Gaffey DG REGIO Evaluation Unit
Monitoring and Evaluation – ERDF & CF A Stronger Focus on Results Veronica Gaffey DG REGIO Evaluation Unit

2 What is the problem? Current programmes are often just designed to spend. Objectives vague, How to recognize success or failure often not clear, Difference monitoring – evaluation not clear. Shortcomings in knowledge of evaluation methods Consequently, it is difficult to demonstrate value of the policy.

3 What is proposed? More Concentration
A focus on results (not only spending) Programmes with clear articulation of what they aim to change and how Better gathering of basic data on outputs Performance Framework and Reserve to incentivise performance Evaluation – more focused ex ante; evaluation plan obligatory, evaluation of the effects of each priority during the programming period; summary of evidence in 2020; ex post by Commission Draft Guidance: Concepts and Recommendations at

4 Result orientation – what is a result?
For each priority axis Each priority axis shall articulate what it wants to change. What motivates the policy? E.g., accessibility of a region, productivity of SMEs Express the dimension of change with a result indicator. Reduction in travelling time; productivity of SMEs in region or productivity of supported SMEs compared to regional benchmark Define baseline: situation before programme start. Target: Where does the region or MS want to be at the end of the period in relation to the result indicator? (quantitative or qualitative e.g., desired direction of change, range of values, objective description of situation –removal of obstacle)

5 II Result indicators: ex ante conditionality
Annex IV of CSF regulation – task for MS Existence of statistical system to undertake evaluations to assess effectiveness & impact of programmes Existence of an effective system of result indicators necessary to monitor progress towards results & to undertake impact evaluation Quality criteria: robustness, clarity of normative interpretation, responsiveness, timely collection, public availability. Identification of sources, establishment of targets

6 Intervention logic and outputs
What factors are likely to affect the result indicator? Road condition, traffic management system,… Select the factor(s) that the programme should influence – policy actions – what outputs will they produce? E.g., improved roads – measured in km No baselines (“zero”) Set the target

7 Requirements for Indicators
Programme Specific Indicators: Outputs – baselines zero, cumulative values, quantified targets Results – baseline and quantitative or qualitative target Common Indicators (mostly output): Baselines zero, Cumulative values, Quantified Targets

8 Common Indicators Objective: provide EU level (aggregated) information on achievements of Cohesion Policy Timing: information should be available at or shortly after finishing projects (selected and fully implemented) Simplicity: data from monitoring of implementation or operation Aggregation: “outputs” as much as possible

9 Common Indicators in Regulations
General Regulation: obligation to use common indicators Fund-specific regulations: specify relevant areas, name and measurement unit Guidance documents: provide broad definitions other information (type: result/output)

10 Performance framework I
Aims to support the progressive achievement of programme objectives Sets out milestones (interim steps) and targets for performance of programme priorities for 2016, 2018 and – in each OP & consolidated in Partnership Contract Milestones for 2016 to include financial indicators and output indicators Milestones for 2018 to include financial indicators, output indicators and where appropriate, result indicators (under the control of Managing Authorities – possibly common indicators) Milestones also for key implementation steps

11 Performance Framework II
Milestones should be: Relevant (to the objectives of the priority) Transparent (objectively verifiable targets and data sources identified and publicly available) Verifiable, without disproportionate administrative burden Consistent across OPs where appropriate Ex ante evaluation appraises all indicators (logic of intervention and appropriateness of targets) and the suitability of milestones for performance framework

12 Performance review Performance reviews in 2017 and 2019 and the disbursement of reserve in 2019 based on Performance Framework Information for the performance review in the AIRs and progress reports of the Partnership Contract Member States are expected to react to significant shortfalls in the achievement of milestones (measures to improve performance, reprogramming) In the absence of sufficient action, Commission can suspend payments Significant failure (to be defined in implementing acts) to achieve the targets set for 2022 in the performance framework can lead to a financial correction at the end of the programming period

13 Performance reserve 5% of resources set aside at the beginning of the programming period (exception for ETC) The performance reserve is established per CSF Fund, per Member State and per category of region – NB – no competition between MS The 5% reserve is allocated to each Member State following the performance review in 2019 Allocation can only be used for priority axes where performance has been satisfactory (milestones have been achieved) – based on Member State proposal

14 Indicator and measurement unit, where appropriate Milestones for 2016
Priority axis Indicator and measurement unit, where appropriate Milestones for 2016 Milestones for 2018 Target for 2022 Enhancing R&I infrastructure and capacities to develop R&I excellence and promoting centres of competence Expenditure (EUR million) 60 180 420 Size of developed infrastructure completed (m2) 100 1000 1500 Researchers employed in enhanced infrastructure Promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new firms 3 9 22 Number of New Enterprises supported 450 Gross jobs created in assisted SMEs 540 1400 Developing comprehensive high quality and interoperable railway system 5 250 Feasibility studies completed and contracts for construction concluded Yes Length of rail completed (km) 20 50

15 What should be in AIR? Result indicators: Progress towards targets
Output indicators: Selected projects, Fully implemented projects Actions taken to fulfil ex ante conditionalities 2017 & 2019: performance framework and progress towards achieving objectives of the programme 2019 and FIR: contribution to EU2020 objectives

16 Evaluation: when? Ex ante evaluation: MS During the period: MS
Based on obligatory evaluation plan Adopted by monitoring committee Ex post: Commission

17 Evaluation: what? Impact evaluations – at least once during the period for each priority axis Does the intervention work? Why and how does the intervention work (or not)? Implementation evaluations (roughly what has been done so far) Guidance on methods: EVALSED

18 Next steps Concepts and recommendations discussed with MS, later adaptation to agreed regulations. MS have asked for guidance on ex ante evaluation and performance framework Work with MS / geographic units in 2012 on result indicators.

19 Example of result indicators – Annex 2 of Concepts and Recommendations Paper

20 Result indicators Example: support to enterprise

21 Region x has a problem…

22 … and a solution Grants to SMEs (capital equipment, modernisation, etc) Let’s assume the project runs well, the money is absorbed, there are outputs (no. of firms, etc) Is this enough? Do we know it has worked? This is very standard, >half of support to enterprise and innovation This is normal too. Budgetary constraints common, but also limits deadweight. 4. Can we all go home now? =)

23 How do we know it works? Need a result indicator. Let’s try 2 classics: Jobs created in assisted projects/firms? But jobs created not the main effect of grants Change in regional GDP/head? But long (and possibly unclear) link to measure More fundamentally: Neither of these was the policy target 1. We have a growing body of evidence which says jobs are not the main effect of grants

24 Regional SME productivity (defined as GVA/worker)
This an appropriate result indicator Not rocket science, but how common in practice? Set a target: 80% => 85% of national average Source: regional statistics (note time lag)

25 In sum We’re asking regions to develop a clear causal chain:
Identify a problem Implement a possible solution Monitor an appropriate result indicator Seems obvious, but new in practice Still need evaluation to assess policy contribution to the result (ie “impact”)

26 Result indicators Example: road network construction

27 Better accessibility wanted
The baseline for the infrastructure programme as a whole is the value X of the road accessibility index – known from a existing transport model The MS aims to reduce the index value for the 3 most lagging regions by about 15% within the programming period (the target for the result indicator). Impact on what? - Road accessibility index This is very standard, >half of support to enterprise and innovation This is normal too. Budgetary constraints common, but also limits deadweight. 4. Can we all go home now? =)

28 … and how to get it Expansion of highway network, including the construction of a last missing project in the trans-European network. 2 out of 3 TEN-T highway projects are completed, 70% of the envisaged road length. Envisaged output: 200 km of new highway + access roads

29 Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring of outputs - Km in selected projects + actually built Monitoring of result indicator - The accessibility index will be modelled in years 4 and 8. Evaluation. The evaluation plan comprises: Use of sectoral model. The models allows to isolate the effect of key projects financed under the programme on the accessibility index. ex post cost benefit analyses for key projects co-financed in the previous programming period; Data required Road transport data, collected by regular national and regional surveys This is very standard, >half of support to enterprise and innovation This is normal too. Budgetary constraints common, but also limits deadweight. 4. Can we all go home now? =)

Download ppt "Veronica Gaffey DG REGIO Evaluation Unit"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google