Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020 Presentation at the Monitoring Committee 16 May 2013.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020 Presentation at the Monitoring Committee 16 May 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020 Presentation at the Monitoring Committee 16 May 2013

2 1 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Contents Introducing KPMG Ex ante evaluation ■Role of ex ante evaluations ■Scope of ex ante evaluation Approach and methodology Timeline Initial findings ■Overall judgement ■‘Thermometer of appropriateness' ■Conclusions and recommendations

3 2 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Introducing KPMG KPMG International KPMG is a global network of professional services firms providing Audit, Tax and Advisory services in 145 KPMG country offices worldwide with total 135,000 employees. KPMG operates in the following regions: ■Americas ■Asia Pacific ■Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMA) KPMG in the CEE KPMG provides the following Public Sector Advisory related services: ■Evaluation and monitoring services ■Compliance audits, certification work ■Advisory services for Government institutions –Strategy formulation –Operational Improvement ■Preparation of Thought Leadership documents related to EU Funds implementation in the CEE

4 3 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Role of ex ante evaluations Mandate Member States shall carry out ex ante evaluations to improve the quality of the design of each programme. (Article 48 of CPR) Task To provide an independent and objective assessment of the operational programme in order to arrive at a comprehensive, coherent and feasible programme taking into account the Commission guidelines Deliverable Ex ante evaluation report that shall be submitted to the Commission along with the programme.

5 4 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Socio-economic context Scope of ex ante evaluation (1) Programme strategy Situation analysis NeedsObjectivesMeasures InputsOperationsOutputsResults Impacts Europe thematic objectives National Reform Programme Commission’s Position Paper National strategies Other EU programmes State support schemes Community legislative proposals

6 5 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Scope of ex ante evaluation (2) According to article 47 of the CPR, ex ante evaluations shall appraise: ■the contribution to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, having regard to the selected thematic objectives and priorities, taking into account national and regional needs; ■the internal coherence of the proposed programme or activity and its relation with other relevant instruments; ■the consistency of the allocation of budgetary resources with the objectives of the programme; ■the consistency of the selected thematic objectives, the priorities and corresponding objectives of the programmes with the Common Strategic Framework, the Partnership Contract and the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4) of the Treaty; ■the relevance and clarity of the proposed programme indicators; ■how the expected outputs will contribute to results; ■whether the quantified target values for indicators are realistic, having regard to the support from the CSF Funds envisaged; ■the rationale for the form of support proposed; ■the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of the programme; ■the suitability of the procedures for monitoring the programme and for collecting the data necessary to carry out evaluations; ■the suitability of the milestones selected for the performance framework; ■the adequacy of planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and to prevent discrimination; ■the adequacy of planned measures to promote sustainable development. ■the requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment set out in implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the Environment.

7 6 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Approach and methodology Work done: –Macroeconomic analysis –Internal workshop –Document analysis –Stakeholder interviews –Consistency matrix –Intervention logic analysis –Indicator assessment –Expert panel To be carried out: –Delphi survey –Comparative analysis –Multi-criteria analysis –3C assessment –SEA

8 7 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Timeline Jan 2013FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSep 25 March 2013 Kick off February 2013 Contract awarded 4 July 2013 Submission of the first draft to EC 30 April 1st draft of OP 16 May 2013 Monitoring Committee Oct 30 May nd draft 10 May st draft 1 July 2013 Final draft 30 October 2013 Final report 27 March 2013 Key strategic document provided to the evaluator Programme preparation has commenced in time, allowing sufficient time for the submission of a well underpinned programme strategy, efficiently supported by the ex ante evaluation As of today, the first draft of the programme has been elaborated and initial conclusions and recommendations of the ex ante evaluation have already been formulated

9 8 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Overall judgement 1.The first version of the programme document already reflects a clear strategic approach to programming 2.Generally, there is a clear linkage between the thematic objectives, investment priorities and the specific objectives chosen 3.In most cases the Operational Programme is consistent with the National Development Plan and the recommendations of the Commission Position Paper

10 9 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Thermometer of appropriateness Should be improved Fully appropriate Horizontal principles Consistency of programme objectives Internal coherence Intervention logic Appropriateness of indicator system Administrative capacity Consistency of financial allocation Contribution to EU 2020 strategy

11 10 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Main conclusions and recommendations (1) Main conclusionsStrategic recommendations 1 The programme strategy is driven by the 11 Europe 2020 objectives, covering all of them in the form of 9 priority axes, which makes most axes multi-funded and diverse in its objectives. Consider explaining the reason for defining the 9 priority axes, especially when merging multiple thematic objectives under one priority axis (priority axis 3, priority axis 5, priority axis 7, priority axis 9) 2 The strategy to achieve Europe 2020 objectives and the linkage between the current situation, strategic objectives set by other policy documents, and the programme strategy chosen is not always comprehensively, or appropriately formulated. The ministry shall continue applying a rigorous approach for programming, especially as regards the explanation of logical linkages of programme interventions, i.e. the links between background policy documents, needs identified, thematic objectives, investment priorities, specific objectives and the intended results. 3 In case of 5 out of 51 specific objectives, the link to the respective investment priority is less straightforward and might need further elaboration, reformulation, omission or reallocation within the programme: Development of business environment (first under priority axis 3) Environmental monitoring system (second under priority axis 5) Development of Riga metropolitan region (third under priority axis 6) Increasing environmental awareness (first under priority axis 8) Promoting youth employment (sixth under priority axis 8) Consider further explaining, reformulating, omitting, or reallocating the 5 specific objectives referred within the programme. 4 Thematic objective 5 is not covered in a separate section by the situation analysis. However, this area is included in the programme strategy. A standalone section should be included regarding the analysis of thematic objective 5 (‘Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management’).

12 11 © 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. Main conclusions and recommendations (2) Main conclusionsStrategic recommendations 5 ‘Urban development’ is a cross-cutting priority and its specific objectives are partially overlapping with those under other priorities: priority axis 6 (e.g. specific objective of developing Riga metropolitan area) priority axis 3 (e.g. infrastructure developments under the first specific objective, touristic and cultural developments) Consider revising specific objectives partially or closely related to cultural investments and transport developments, and ensure synergies and delimitations with other priority axes. 6 The intervention logic at the level of specific objectives is generally established. However, it provides moderate information on the intended results to be achieved by the outputs of individual interventions. Continue specifying details of the planned interventions and be more specific regarding the narrative description of the intended outputs and results of interventions, and the explanation of the theory of change. 7 For 38 out of 51 specific objectives result indicators have been set. However, some measures are not assigned output indicators to and the OP does not always use common indicators. Define one to two results indicators for each specific objective and apply all compulsory output and result indicators for all selected specific objectives. 8 The setting of certain indicator target values is still ongoing, the performance framework is not yet ready. Continue specifying the target values for result and output indicators and the baseline values for result indicators and elaborate the performance framework. 9 The justification of the financial allocations could be further elaborated. Consider providing further justification of the amount of funds allocated to each priority axis. 10 The OP, following the structure required by Commission’s guidelines, does not provide sufficient information on the planned institutional system and the monitoring and evaluation framework. Provide cross-reference in the OP to documents specifying the details of the institutional system.

13 © 2013 KPMG Advisory Ltd., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”). Contact: Gábor Cserháti Director T E András Kaszap Manager T E


Download ppt "Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020 Presentation at the Monitoring Committee 16 May 2013."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google