twinning project ro 2003/ib/spp/05 task 2 planning and programming structural funds 2007-2013 silke...

Twinning ProjectRO 2003/IB/SPP/05

Task 2

Planning and Programming Structural Funds 2007-2013

Silke N. HaarichTimisoara, 31 January/1 February 2006

2

Points to be touched

1. Framework: Requirements of the Structural Funds

2. Programming Process and relevant actors – tasks and responsibilities

3. Programme Management and Monitoring Systems

4. Project Development, Appraisal and Selection

5. Evaluation, Control and Feedback

3

1. EU Structural Funds

2007-2013 Structural Funds: For EU-25 + 2. ERDF, ESF, Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development. former Objective 1 = ‘Convergence’ regions former Objective 2 = ‘Regional competitiveness

and employment’ regions former INTERREG+EQUAL = ‘Territorial

cooperation’ objective EU co-funding and investments based on

Regional Development Plans

4

1. Framework: Requirements

Programming and Projects based on regional needs and development priorities

Requirements of the Structural Funds Multi-annual Programming Structural Fund administrative regulations and

financial control Additionality – Co-financing Partnership principle EU horizontal priorities

Sustainability and Environmental Protecion Equal Opportunities

5

1. Programming Framework

National Strategic Reference Framework Operational Programmes (sectoral and

regional) Rationale, Objectives, Strategy, Indicative

Actions, Contribution to Horizontal Objectives More detailed OP Complements

For each measure: objective, implementation issues, eligible activities, beneficiaries (as project developers), target groups, selection criteria, quantified targets and objectives

6

1. Programme Delivery Cycle

Project Appraisal and

Selection

Programme developmen

t

7







8

2. Programming Process

1st Phase: Elaboration of the NDP and Regional Development Plans

Socio-economic description Needs, analysis and perspectives

Priorities and large interventions foreseen. 2nd Phase: Negotiation – National Reference Framework

Objectives and Financial Resources Approval of the EU Commission necessary

3rd Phase: Regional Programming (ROP) according to CSF

Activities and projects Financing and Partnership

4th Phase. Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation.

9


Base: Regional Development Plan Focussed on socio-economic development Articulated in Operational Programmes

(Sectoral and Regional) Priorities for Development in Region Vest

OP: Infrastructure Business Support Tourism Urban and Local Development

10


Organization of the Programming Process: Division of responsibility (National, EU,

Regional) Managing Authority Intermediate Body Creation of Working Groups Plan Teams Use of External Consultants Consultation Process

11

2. Relevant Actors Managing Authority / Intermediate Body

Responsible for elaborating detailed procedures covering the various stages of Operational Programme implementation.

Define and assure the correct selection of projects to be supported, based on objective criteria.

Check correct delivery and use of goods and services which have been co-financed.

Assure the use of an information system which allows and supports control of payments, control of results, audits and evaluations.

Guarantee the elaboration of evaluations and the compliance with EC rules (accountability, information, state aid, etc.)

Guides the work of the Monitoring Committee Submits to the EU Commission annual and final reports.

12

2. Relevant Actors

Managing Authority / Intermediate Body Should draw up a detailed multi-annual strategy for

implementing Technical Assistance Measures Where Managing Authorities and (depending on delegation

arrangements) Intermediate Bodies are in the position of Beneficiaries as well as managers of OP Measures and Technical Assistance, a clear separation of functions in their organisational structures will be essential.

Different tasks may be delegated to separate departments in the Managing Authority, or to other bodies, by the Certifying Authority and Competent Body for Payments depending on the Operational Programme and its management structure

13

2. Relevant Actors

Certifying Authority, Competent Body for Payments

certifies declarations of payments and eligible expenditure

Guarantess and supervises the coorect verification of payments and declarations

Submits to the EU Commission the certificates Organises an electronic register of all payments Supervises the complinace with the n+2 rule.

14

2. Relevant Actors

Monitoring Committee The Monitoring Committee is the main co-ordinating and

decision-making body of the OP. It is responsible for the quality and effectiveness of

implementing the programme. The Monitoring Committee will be set up within three

months of the Commission Decision approving the OP. The Monitoring Committee is set up in accordance with

the Member States institutional and legal arrangements, traditionally in the framework of partnership between national, regional and local authorities.

The Managing Authority establishes, chairs and provides secretariat to the Monitoring Committee.

15

2. Relevant Actors

Monitoring Committee – Functions: it considers and approves the criteria for selecting the

operations financed within six months of the approval of the OP and approve any revision of those criteria in accordance with programming needs;

it periodically reviews progress made towards achieving the specific targets of the OP on the basis of documents submitted by the Managing Authority;

it examines the results of implementation, particularly achievement of the targets set for each priority axis and the of evaluations of the OP; ....

16

2. Relevant Actors

Monitoring Committee – Functions: it considers and approves the annual and final reports on

OP implementation; it is informed of the annual control report, or of the part of

the report referring to the OP concerned, and of any relevant comments the Commission may make after examining that report or relating to that part of the report;

it may propose to the Managing Authority any revision or examination of the OP likely to make possible the attainment of the Funds’ objectives, or to improve its management, including its financial management;

it considers and approves any proposal to amend the content of the Commission decision on the contribution of the Funds.

17

2. Relevant Actors

Monitoring Committee – Members: The composition will vary from OP to OP:

National members (Chairperson, Head of MA for OP, Certifying Authority /Competent Body, Competition Council, National Agency for Environment, National Agency for Equal Opportunities, Intermediate Bodies)

Regional members (Regional / Local Authorities (as appropriate)) Non-governmental members (Higher education, Vocational

training sector, Business development NGO, National employer association, National employee association–Trade Unions, Environmental NGO, Equal opportunities NGO)

EU Members (consultative role) (European Commission, European Investment Bank / European Investment Fund (invited))

18

2. Relevant Actors

Regional Coordinating Committee The establishment of a Coordinating Committee in each of

the 8 Development Regions has been proposed by the Romanian authorities, in the spirit of partnership embodied by Article 10 of the General Regulation.

These Regional Coordinating Committees are intended to ensure coherence at the NUTS II regional level between all interventions financed under the SOPs and the ROP, as well as the Rural Development Programme and Fisheries OP.

In this context, the Regional Coordinating Committees will be expected to provide input into the project selection process for all OPs and to undertake monitoring of progress in relation to the Regional Development Plan for each region.

19

2. Relevant Actors Regional Coordinating Committee – Possible Members:

Presidents of the County Councils Head of RDA Representatives of Local Councils Higher education sector Local Chambers of Trade and Industry, Other business

development NGO Employer association, Employee association – trade unions Regional Employment Agency Regional Environmental Protection Agency (REPA) Environmental NGO Equal opportunities NGO Representatives of MA of ROP and other Sectoral OP

20

2. Relevant Actors

Regional Coordinating Committee: The Secretariat for the Regional Coordinating Committee

should be a Directorate based in the Regional Development Agency with independent funding and reporting –lines, which co-ordinates preparation of documentation on progress made in relation to the Regional Development Plan.

As a minimum, the Regional Coordinating Committee will meet twice a year, but more often as business demands.

Ensuring the transparency of Regional Coordinating Committee business will be an important component of the Secretariat’s work.

Costs of members’ participation in Regional Coordinating Committees, as well as all secretariat tasks in relation to the Regional Coordinating Committee will be eligible for support under Technical Assistance.

21

2. Relevant Actors

Additional Partnership Groups: Working Groups, sub-committees Any additional partnership groups established will be set

up under the auspices of the Monitoring Committee. The most important additional partnership groups are

likely to be project selection groups (see later section on project selection).

Other partnership groups might be set up, for example, to help develop aspects of programme strategy, to review indicators and targets of achievement under programme measures, or indeed to prepare future draft programming documents.

22

2. Relevant Actors

Technical Assistance Technical Assistance resources are available to support

preparatory, management, monitoring, evaluation, information and control activities of OPs together with activities to reinforce the administrative capacity for implementing the Structural Instruments.

In Romania there will be an overarching national OP for Technical Assistance, as well as Technical Assistance Measures under a separate Priority in each mainstream OP.

In theory, any programme partner organization (including the Managing Authority and Intermediate Bodies), at national, regional or local level, may apply for Technical Assistance resources under these Measures.

23

2. Relevant Actors

Technical Assistance – possible activities: Support for the costs of Monitoring Committees and other

partnership groups Programme evaluation Research into different strategic aspects of the OP (e.g.

quantification of indicators) Studies into how best to prepare certain types of projects

under particular Measures Support to MA / IBs for project appraisal and monitoring and

control (including ICT support, external consultants) Implementation of Communications Action Plan, other

publicity Training of personnel involved in implementing the OP, as

well as Beneficiaries.

24







25

3. Management of OP

OP phases Launch Implementation Mid-term evaluation End of commitment Programme closure Final Evaluation Redefinition of strategy Next Pogramming phase

26

3. Management of OP

Management involves: Clear Division of Responsabilities Communication procedures and links Relationships with the EU Commission Control Systems and Monitoring Systems Information and Publicity actions (EC rules) Technical Support (ICT, data bases, electronic

application, project information management) Technical Assistance (on-going, puntual)

27

3. Management System

Management Information Systems: Problem: how to ensure standard

implementation and comparable information on SF interventions across regions, sectors and different institutions?

Solution: Specific national guidelines and manuals Computerised information systems Need for training and technical support Need to create unified systems for the

different Funds

28


Annual Implementation Reports: For Community financed assistance, Annual and Final

Implementation Reports are fundamental tools for measuring the advancement of an OP.

They serve as a basis for communication between the Managing Authority and the European Commission.

The reports allow the Monitoring Committee to have a comprehensive view of the achievements and shortcomings of the programme implementation in order to decide major adjustments to its priorities, measures or instruments.

29


Annual Implementation Reports should contain: a) the progress made in implementing the OP and

priorities in relation to their specific, verifiable targets, with a quantification;

b) the financial implementation of the OP, detailing for each priority axis:

the expenditures paid out the corresponding public contribution, the total

payments received from the Commission. c) for information purposes, the breakdown of the

allocation of funds by categories.

30


Annual Implementation Reports should contain: d) the steps taken by the Managing Authority or the

Monitoring Committee with regard to monitoring and evaluation measures, including data collection arrangements; a summary of any significant problems encountered; the use made of technical assistance

e) the measures taken to provide information on and publicise the OP

f) a statement by the Managing Authority that, in so far as they are aware, community law has been complied with in the implementation of the operational programmes.

g) the progress and financing of major projects, etc.

31


Annual Implementation Review: Every year after the implementation report

is submitted to the European Commission a bilateral meeting between the Commission and the Managing Authority shall take place to review the main outcomes of the previous year .

The meetings are intended to analyse: the implementation reports of the previous year

and additional information, provided by the Romanian authorities.

32


Annual Implementation Review: The agenda of the implementation review

meeting includes: information about any major change in the

programme environment (socio-economic framework, sectoral or regional policy priorities);

an overall analysis of the updated OP implementation data, in financial and physical terms;

an assessment of the work carried out related to control and monitoring;

information about the use of technical assistance allocation, namely regarding publicity actions.

33







34

4. Project Development

Project Development, Appraisal and Selection: “Project selection using transparent selection

criteria” as one of the qualitative criteria to judge the quality of SF management.

Systems of Project Selection depend very much on decision-making circuits in the Member States.

Two general approaches for decision-making: Structural-Fund specific / differentiated NL, UK, Sweden Subsumed systems, single competent authority (SF and

national, regional policies) Germany, Austria, Spain

35


Advantages of larger projects: more visibility for the European funding, less administrative

work, less controlling work load in comparison with a series of many small projects.

Advantages of small projects: sometimes an important impact on the integration of new

priorities in traditional funding schemes. especially the smaller partners with less financial resources

such as local authorities, training centres have more possibilities to support activities within environmental, gender and training issues because of the European funding.

effective and innovative measures happened to be the ones with the local authorities involved.

less financial resources needed to have positive effects.

36


Decentralised Programming: No specific EU requirements, only EU regulation for:

Rates of Assistance to be given to project Rules for Eligibility of Expenditure To assure that Funds have been used according to the agreement at

project approval

Member State / Managing Authority in charge of project selection (exception: major projects > 25, 50 Mill. EUR)

Monitoring Committee’s task to “consider and approve the criteria for selecting the operations financed under each measure within six months of approval of the assistance”. (EC regulation for 2000-2006).

37


Building the project pipeline: Information of potential applicants

a) the administrative formalities to be completed; b) the procedures for examining applications for funding; c) the criteria for selecting and assessing the projects; d) names of persons or contact points at regional or local

level. Project Generation

Open Calls, pro-active, local action plans, project packages, Outsourcing.

38


Project Elaboration – necessary to define: Its justification in the context of the development need, Its objectives, as well as measurable indicators to attain

these objectives, The best methods for reaching the goals, on the basis of

different alternatives, The detailed list of tasks to be implemented, The time table of implementation, The responsible person or organisation, The detailed financial plan, The human and organisational resources necessary, The external conditions necessary for the success of the

project.

39


Projects have to fit to: The funding priorities of ERDF, ERDF regulation and eligibility rules (material, staff, travel,

etc.) Regional Development Programme and the specific

requirements of its priorities and measures, Financial requirements:

Time framework (annual or multiannual budgeting) Assured co-financing Are aware of the Structural Fund financial mechanisms and be

able to pre-finance total investment until receiving EU funding Respect EU horizontal priorities and general policies (equal

opportunities, environment, rules of competition)

40

4. Project Development - Example

Basic requirement of major projects are cost-benefit analyses (definition, appraisal, selection, ranking).

CBA or parts of it help to establish the priority of projects. 1. projects have to be viable and feasible, 2. priorize feasible projects with higher benefit or

with less costs (financial, social, environmental). 3. establish possible risks and influence of

external factors.

41


Proposals shall contain: a) the body to be responsible for implementation; b) the nature of the investment and a description of it, its

financial volume and location; c) the timetable for implementing the project; d) cost-benefit analysis including financial costs and benefit,

a risk assessment and informations on the economic viability of the project;

e) plus: - in the case of investments in infrastructure: the analysis of the costs and the socio-economic benefits of the project, including an indication of the anticipated rate of use, the foreseeable impact on the development or conversion of the region concerned, and the application of Community rules on public contracting; - in the case of investment in production facilities: the analysis of the market prospects in the sector concerned and the anticipated return on the project; ......

42


f) the direct and indirect effects on the employment situation, as far as possible in the Community;

g) information allowing an evaluation to be made of the environmental impact and the implementation of the precautionary principles;

h) information needed to assess compliance with competition rules, inter alias rules on State aids;

i) an indication of the influence of the contribution of the Funds on whether the project will be implemented;

j) the financing plan and the total financial resources expected from the contribution of the Funds and any other sources of Community finance.

43


Neccesary requirements for Project proposal elaboration:

Objectives definition Project identification Feasibility and options analysis Financial analysis Economic analysis Multicriteria analysis Sensitivity and risk analysis

44


Frequent Errors in Objectives definition: Socio-economic variables should be measurable, such as per

capita income, rate of employment, consumption value per capita, etc. a vague statement that the project will promote economic

development or social welfare is not a measurable objective; hectares of new forest are easily measurable, but they are not

themselves a social objective: they are project outputs, not outcomes.

per-capita GDP within a given region is a measurable social objective, but only very large projects, probably those of interregional or national scale may have a measurable impact on it; only in such cases may it be worthwhile to try to forecast how aggregate regional GDP will change in the long term with and without the project.

45


Check list for objectives definition: Does the project have a clearly defined objective in terms of

socio-economic variables? Are these socio-economic benefits attainable with implementation

of the project? Are the objectives connected logically? Are the overall welfare gains arising from the project worth its

cost? Have all the most important direct and indirect socio-economic

effects of the project been considered? If it is not possible to measure all direct and indirect social

effects, have all proxies related to the objective been identified? Are the means of measuring the attainment of objectives

indicated? Is the project coherent with the EU objectives of the funds?

(pursuant to Art. 25 Reg. 1260/1999) and with the EU objectives specific to the sector of assistance?

46

4. Project Appraisal

Project Appraisal: Eligibility test – represents the first stage of project

appraisal. If a project is found to be ineligible, it will not proceed to a technical appraisal.

In general, the following criteria should be assessed for all projects:

occur within the eligible area; take place within the permitted time-scale; match the activities defined in the relevant OP Priority /

Measure / Call for proposals; are submitted by applicants as defined in the call for

proposals have necessary co-financing resources in place.

47


Project Appraisal: Completeness test – checks primarily the

appropriate filling in of the application form and the submission of the required documents .

Technical and financial appraisal: In many places, appraisal is carried out by advisory

groups or technical secretariats, which give out recommendations to a regional Monitoring or Steering Committee, which eventually decides;

Appraisal methods include: Use of detailed selection criteria Strategic allocation Scoring methodology

48

4. Project Appraisal Project Appraisal:

Core selection criteria are: contribute to one or more of the socio-economic objectives of the

OP; have measurable outputs and detail clear, attainable and verifiable

targets; have a funding package in place which identifies both own funds of

the applicant and the source of co-financing; demonstrate the principle of additionality; are economically viable; Integrate aspects of environmental protection and equal of

opportunities ; ensure compliance with EU rules on state aid and public

procurement; linkage with other projects financed by EU or national funds; are supported by external conditions (e.g. connected projects will be

implemented).

49


Project Appraisal: Financial assessment includes:

value for money against projected outputs and results (e.g. No. of jobs or firms created);

check of eligibility and necessity of costs; profitability and returns in case of income generating projects.

Technical assessment: whether the project is in keeping with the objectives of the call

for proposal; whether the project is built on clear concepts, harmony between

the planned activity and the expenditures and incomes; whether the project has some unique characteristics

(distinction, novelty, partnership); whether the project should be considered as strategic (from

point of view of the applicant or the sector / region)

50







51

5. Evaluation, Control, Feedback

What is Evaluation? The objective assessment of activities (or a whole

programme), establishing the relation between initially planned objectives and actual results, taking into account the resources (financial, especially) and the implementation mechanisms used.

Evaluations aim ... to improve the quality, effectiveness and

consistency of assistance from the Structural Instruments and the implementation of Operational Programmes.

52


From Monitoring to Evaluation: Monitoring permits to follow the development of

direct operational outcomes, direct assessment of expenditure and direct relation between input (money spent) and outcomes (results, jobs, firms).

BUT: Evaluation, that means, qualitative and wider analysis (through interviews with managers, surveys to beneficiaries, socioeconomic analysis), is necessary

to learn about socio-economic effects and impacts changes in general competitiveness, employment,

quality of life, regional wealth, cohesion.

53

Why Evaluation? Control and Accountability – what have they done with

all the money? Knowledge about results – what are the effects of the

activities and measures? Did we really achieve what we wanted to achieve?

Learning – what went well, which things went wrong, why did we (not) achieve the objectives? How can we improve working in the future?

Support of cooperation under external guidance – evaluations add a new, objective perspective to the programme implementation, they can indicate better than programme managers need for changes, they can initiate cooperation and mediate between involved actors.


54

From Evaluation to Programming: Evaluation will give new insights on how to

improve programming (management, indicators, working methods, etc.)

Evaluation will give you information on which measures work (e.g. training measures) and which don’t (e.g. Business start-ups), so you can eliminate ineffective measures or change their design accordingly.

Evaluation gives the public and the EU Commission a prove of what you have done and achieved, and legitimise for what you do at regional level.


55

Evaluation of Structural Fund Programmes: Evaluation is a programme-level activity carried

out before (ex ante), during (mid-term) and after (final or ex post) the programming period.

All evaluation should be carried out by independent persons – usually professional evaluators hired on the open market – although Member States may establish specialist evaluation units independent of the operational directorates of the Managing Authorities.


56

Ex ante Evaluation : carried out under the responsibility of the Member State

as part of the programming process. Ex-ante evaluation aims to optimise the allocation of

budgetary resources under operational programmes and improve programming quality. It shall identify and appraise medium- and long-term needs, the goals to be achieved, the results expected, the quantified targets, the coherence, if necessary, of the strategy proposed for the region, the lessons drawn from previous programming and the quality of the procedures for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and financial management.


57

Mid-term Evaluation: also under the responsibility of the Member State should be carried out no later than 2010 to appraise

the progress of programming in relation to the commitments taken at the beginning of the period, to the integration of the Community strategic guidelines, and to the national strategic reference framework.


58

Ex post Evaluation: is carried out under the responsibility of the Commission

in cooperation with the Member State and managing authorities, who shall provide for the gathering of the necessary data.

It shall examine the extent to which resources were used, the effectiveness and efficiency of Structural Fund programming, the socio-economic impact and the impact on the Community’s priorities.

It shall identify the factors contributing to the success or failure of the operational programme, including in terms of sustainability, and identify good practice.

Ex-post should be completed by 31 December 2015.


59

Ad-hoc Evaluations: may be carried out by the Member State during the

programme period where monitoring reveals significant departure from the goals originally set and where proposals are made for revision of the programme.

The evaluation may have a specific focus on a sector, theme or horizontal priority (environment, equal opportunities, R&D, Local Development, Rural Development), focussing on various Ops and/or regions.

The Commission may also carry out ad hoc evaluations, at its own initiative or in partnership with the Member State.


60

To carry out an evaluation of SF programmes you need: Monitoring Data (Indicators) Intervention logic, well defined programme

objectives Evaluation methods (interviews, surveys, studies,

document review, etc.) Participative evaluation approach Useful Evaluation Reports Use of Evaluation Results


61

Units of analysis for Evaluations: Operational, direct outcomes = direct

beneficiaries, project managers after implementation

Medium-term results, indirect and secondary effects = related stakeholders (regional, local authorities, business organisations, employers, trade unions, environmental NGO, etc.)

weeks and months after implementation Long-term impacts = Local and Regional

Economy, National Competitiveness years after implementation.


62

Common Problems during Evaluations: Availability of data (relevant spatial unit) Heterogeneity of monitoring data Gross <-> Net effects: deadweight, displacement,

induced positive effects and supply linkages Time Lags Intangible benefits Secondary, negative effects Attribution Influence of management, information and

diffusion Regional economic structure and performance


63

For Indicators to be used should be defined: Definition Purpose Unit/Numerator/Denominator Measurement tools What it measures How to measure it Strenghts and limitations Analysis and interpretation


64

Indicators should be: Valid Reliable Relevant Sensitive Specific Cost-effective Timely


65


Monitoring through indicators: 4 types of indicators:

Examples of Indicators for Different Sectors Intervention Resource Output Result Impact Construction of a road between A and B

Cost of construction

Length built Reduction in journey time between A and B

Reduction in congestion costs

Subsidy/grant to SME

Amount of subsidy/grant

Number of enterprises assisted

Private investment leveraged in assisted enterprises

Number of gross jobs created after 2 years in assisted enterprises

Renovation of a rundown urban area

Amount of grant/subsidy

Number of housing units renovated or built

Numbers buying or renting housing units

% Change in area unemployment rate Change in average price of housing unit

66


Monitoring through indicators: Need for context and performance indicators:

Programme Indicators and Context Indicators

Programme Indicators (relate to programme and its direct and indirect effects)

resource

indicators

output indicators

result indicators

impact indicators

Performance Indicators

Context Indicators (relate to sector or population: context in which the programme occurs)

67

Thank you for your attention!

Silke N. [email protected]

Bilbao, Spain

68

GUIDE TO COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide02_en.pdf

A GUIDE FOR PROJECT M&E: www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/toc.htm

GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC – PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (PPP):

http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/ppp_en.pdf

RESOURCE BOOK ON PPP CASE STUDIES: http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/

guides/pppresourcebook.pdf

Recursos en Internet

twinning project ro 2003/ib/spp/05 task 2 planning and programming structural funds 2007-2013 silke...

Documents

project development

programming structural

local development slide

requirements programming

regional programming

regional priorities

socioeconomic development

feedback slide