Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Cohesion Policy Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 REGIO B2 – Evaluation and European Semester.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Cohesion Policy Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 REGIO B2 – Evaluation and European Semester."— Presentation transcript:

1 Cohesion Policy Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation REGIO B2 – Evaluation and European Semester

2 Cohesion Policy Key points The 2013 report is based on 27 national strategic reports (NSRs). Key messages CP is making important contributions to growth and jobs and towards the objectives set Implementation has accelerated without important outputs The policy has shown a capacity to adapt to changing needs Significant outputs and results are still expected … but need redoubling of delivery efforts as there are risks in some MS and some Themes

3 Cohesion Policy Focus of NSRs 2012 I.Assessing impact of the economic and financial crisis on the programmes and response II.Contribution to Europe 2020 and Growth Compact III.Programmes implementation – evidence on the performance and effectiveness IV.Conclusions and input to the next round


5 Cohesion Policy Crisis Impacts - I Timing and severity of shocks vary in the EU27 … "… crisis has emphasised previous structural weaknesses …" Divergent views on relevance for Cohesion policy Northern MS (RCE): CP provides useful, stable and strategic platform; strategy still relevant EU12: Main challenge is delivery of unprecedented investment programmes Southern MS: Macro economic imbalances dominate, with CP seen as essential support to investment Signs of increasing regional disparitites

6 Cohesion Policy Crisis Impacts - II Decreasing demand/delivery: Innovative SME measures, size of projects reduced, longer delivery periods, ICB and TA Increasing demand: Labour Market measures, access to finance, RTD Infra (EU12) Stress on capacity in administrations to deliver Conflicts / uncertainties / delays arising linked to changing framework conditions, structural reforms and austerity programmes

7 Cohesion Policy Crisis responses Thematic reprogramming: 2012 Youth / SME Action teams (8 MS) National mid term review (FR) National Performance reserve (PL) Italy – Cohesion Action plan 2011 Crisis responses – PT, EL Anti-Crisis measures Reduced national co-financing

8 Cohesion Policy Thematic reprogramming overview 2007 – Dec bn reallocated formally by MS / Commission between 86 themes (10.3% of all 3 funds) By FUND ERDF/CF – 30.2 bn out of 270 bn % ESF – 5.5 bn out of 76.6 bn - 7.1% It is comprised of Transfers within major themes … i.e. between different RTDI categories And between major themes … transfers from "Human capital" to "Labour Market "

9 Cohesion Policy Thematic reprogramming by sector

10 Cohesion Policy Thematic reprogramming by MS

11 Cohesion Policy Anti-crisis measures Increase EU advance payments 2009 welcomed; Expenditure declaration related to unapproved Major projects; Simplification of national / progrmame procedures: i.e. payment of advances to projects Reduction in National public co-financing (last resort) – Top up for programme countries

12 Cohesion Policy Co-finance reprogramming reduction of National effort Starting point: 347 bn EU bn National public National public now 128 bn at end bn lower (-10.6%) Concentrated mainly in MS in EL, ES, IT, IE, LT, LV, PT, RO - countries severely affected by the crisis Objective is to secure with Cohesion policy investment with lower national co-financing (Separately, results of the mid-term verification of additionality COM(2013) 104 – based on data Link)Link

13 Cohesion Policy Rates of reduction in National Public co-financing – end 2012

14 Cohesion Policy II. Contribution to Europe 2020 and Compact for Growth

15 Cohesion Policy II. Contribution to Europe 2020 and Compact for Growth In their reports MS recognise the importance of Cohesion Policy in support of growth and jobs across multiple fields, i.e. ESF support for essential labour market responses during crisis and other structural reforms Libson earmarking exercise: is still relevant under the Smart and Inclusive pillars of Europe 2020 Compact for Growth: Several reports refer explicitly to the Compact and many more to importance of Cohesion Policy for growth and job creation.

16 Cohesion Policy Examples of EUROPE 2020 contributions from MS - I Cohesion policy plays a central role for many MS in sustaining growth enhancing investments. ERDF has been instrumental in Support to RTD and Innovation Support to SME and efforts to improve access to finance Sustainable Energy (energy efficiency esp.) Essential support to structural reforms in Rail, water sector, education and health.

17 Cohesion Policy Examples of EUROPE 2020 contributions from MS – II ESF has been a key tool to preserve employment and contain unemployment Specific examples from MS reports include Youth unemployment Supporting moderisation of education system Reforms of active labour market policies Supporting public administration reforms

18 Cohesion Policy Lisbon earmarking Still applies … and the themes featured are very relevant for growth and jobs Commission is tracking it for all MS In Convergence programmes the rate of selection of Lisbon earmarked projects is behind the rate for non-Lisbon – 67% vs 76% In RCE programmes "Lisbon" project selection is ahead – 77% vs 75%

19 Cohesion Policy Convergence Obj Rate of selection of the Lisbon and Non Lisbon priorities

20 Cohesion Policy RCE Obj Rate of selection of the Lisbon vs Non Lisbon priorities

21 Cohesion Policy 2012 Compact for Growth European Council June 2012 emphasised the role of Cohesion policy in the context of growth and jobs Nearly 55 bn in 2013 installments have now been committed - all EU budget commitments now available to MS Some MS still finalising project selection in Youth / SME Action teams have helped 8 MS to accelerated & refocus on these (and other) themes Overall thematic Reprogramming = 35.6 bn

22 Cohesion Policy III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness

23 Cohesion Policy III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness MS reports provide often detailed narratives of financial tracking / performance in National context In addition to these qualitative assessments the Commission has looked at available measures of implementation that can be aggregated ERDF/CF Core indicators - ESF Beneficairy data Evaluation results Payment data Project selection data

24 Cohesion Policy III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness – Key messages ERDF/CF: important increases in reported outputs / results in 2011 compared to previous years ESF High number of participations – 15 million per year in 2010 and 2011 – covering all target groups Interim payment declared amount to 42% of available credits (01/2013) Selection of 2011 stood at 246 bn - 71% (Latest estimate is 304 bn - 88% at end 2012)

25 Cohesion Policy Core Indicators : Key Results – ERDF/CF Achieved (see Factsheets) Programmes accelerating, significant progress against nearly all core indicators in 2011 (2012) Job Creation in ( in 2011 alone) of which RTD jobs jobs in SME RTD projects Startups 1.9 m served by Broadband MW of renewable electricity 2.6 m served by drinking water; 5.7 m connected to waste water treatment 25

26 Cohesion Policy Use of core indicators

27 Cohesion Policy Job Creation reported by MS

28 Cohesion Policy Job Creation commentary "Direct, permanent jobs created (FTE) that led to increase in total N° jobs in beneficiary" There are clear lags between selection, spending and a results such as jobs created … jobs normally realised / reported on project completion This is a snapshot … next photo in June this year Strong asymeteries in MS reporting … some MS report high job creation N°s … some under reporting? REGIO expert evaluation network looking at MS practices to better understand and help improve reliability

29 Cohesion Policy Core Indicators 2012: Progress Achieved Technical issues : Increased coverage but not all OPs reporting core indicators Reporting actual values (instead of contracted) has increased achievements are better reported … but not always consistent with targets set (also missing targets) Many technical problems have been resolved Decimals: dot vs. comma Typos or incomprehensible numbers But still significant work was needed to be able to expolit data 29

30 Cohesion Policy ESF: Progress Achieved Key data on ESF support - based on Beneficiary data Gender Employment status Education level Vulnerable groups Age and evaluations 30

31 Cohesion Policy ESF Supported participants – employment status

32 Cohesion Policy ESF : Education attainment of participants

33 Cohesion Policy Allocated ( ) vs Payments presented to Comm (to 01/2013)

34 Cohesion Policy Allocated vs Payments NB: The cut off dates are different – end-2011 vs 01/2013 Translating allocations into spending is uneven: ratio 42% of budget declared in interim payments Strong variations across MS With 32 Months left to end 2015 there are growing risks for some MS that spending will not take place and not result in benefits

35 Cohesion Policy 1. Project Selection aggregate trends DateEUR Billion% allocated 09/2009 (2010 SR) % 12/ % 12/ % 12/2012 (est) 30488% Total Budget decided (2012) %

36 Cohesion Policy 1 a) Allocated reported by Member States Compare each MS to EU average.. why? Different selection procedures / definitions Different balances between Infrastructure and soft measures Remaining data weaknesses (+/- 8 bn corrections 2011): Annualised / non cumulative reporting; Some reports not based on selection but procurement, spending; Missing / incomplete / erroneous data.

37 Cohesion Policy Allocated to projects

38 Cohesion Policy Allocated ??

39 Cohesion Policy Project Selection major themes

40 Cohesion Policy Project selection – Inno &RTD

41 Cohesion Policy Project selection – Inno &RTD

42 Cohesion Policy Project selection – RAIL

43 Cohesion Policy Project selection – Social Inclusion

44 Cohesion Policy Project selection – Institutional capacity Building

45 Cohesion Policy Thematic trends Data from end-2011 already 15 Months old … long time lag Persistent sectoral delays in some MS clear Rail, Energy (renewables), Broadband, Capacity Building, Etc; Growing signs of over / under programming not reflected in formal reprogramming;

46 Cohesion Policy Territorial Dimension –

47 Cohesion Policy III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness – conclusions : A lot done … much yet to do !! Important volume of project selection needed in some MS in Risks in certain MS in specific thematic areas, I&RTD, IT services, Rail, Other transport, Renewables, Inst. Capacity building High focus still needed on implementation – at risk with launch of new programmes?

48 Cohesion Policy 13 Thematic factsheets - contents 1.Outline of activities supported under each broad theme (the themes approximate to some extent the Thematic Objectives ) 2.Examples of 70 projects on the ground across the 13 themes – 45 from the National Reports 3.Financial input … project selection by theme and code – EU average and National rates 4.Outputs and results … core indicators ERDF/ CF … Beneficaries of ESF …

49 Cohesion Policy (1)Innovation and R&D (2)ICT (3)Other SME and business support (4)Energy (5)Environment (6)Rail (7)Road (8)Other transport (9)Urban and territorial development (Urban dimension, culture, heritage and tourism ETC, Macro regional and transnational ESF) (10)Labour market (11)Social inclusion and social infrastructure (12)Human capital (13)Institutional capacity building 13 Thematic Factsheets

50 Cohesion Policy IV. Pointers for the future: conclusions - I Period Clear potential and recognition of CP contribution … and flexibility in context of the crisis Growing evidence of delivery Significant implementation effort still required … from projects, intermediate bodies, MAs Delays in important areas in some MS to be addressed Exceptional reductions in national co-financing could be considered where needed, - Targeting high priority areas - Earmarking released national resources on growth

51 Cohesion Policy IV. Pointers for the future: conclusions - I Period Some MS draw lessons for future priorities and flexibility in context of the crisis need to avoid delays in agreeing and launching new programmes More evaluations needed of current programmes to help for future ERDF /CF Core indicators are useful but not robustly used in all cases … AIR 2012 new opprotunity Commission believes limitations of current programmes justifies key new elements in programming for the future

52 Cohesion Policy References Communciation Com (2013)210: Staff Working document SEC(2013)1 This Website : -National reports -13 Thematic Factsheets: -Excel tables Expert Evaluation Report 2012: LINKLINK

Download ppt "Cohesion Policy Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 REGIO B2 – Evaluation and European Semester."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google