1 / 20

Background information

MINISTRY OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DG “PROGRAMMING OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT” Mid-term evaluation of Operational Programme “Regional Development” 2007-20 13 Brussels, 14-15 April 2011 www.mrrb.government.bg www.bgregio.eu. Background information.

dholloway
Download Presentation

Background information

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MINISTRY OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKSDG “PROGRAMMING OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT”Mid-term evaluation of Operational Programme “Regional Development” 2007-2013Brussels, 14-15 April 2011www.mrrb.government.bgwww.bgregio.eu

  2. Background information • Managing Authority:Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, DG “Programming of Regional Development” • OP “Regional Development” 2007-2013 • total amount 1 601 274 759eur. • ERDF - 85%, national co-financing – 15% • Priorities: • Priority Axis 1: Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development – 859 067 973 eur. • Priority Axis 2: Regional and Local Accessibility - 400 318 689eur. • Priority Axis 3: Sustainable Tourism Development - 198 093 623 eur. • Priority Axis 4: Local Development and Cooperation- 89 671 387 eur. • Priority Axis 5: Technical Assistance - 54 123 087 eur.

  3. Background information • Regulation 1083/2006 (article 47, 48 and 49) • evaluations area partof the wholeprocessof management and implementation, as toolfor assessment of advisability, effectiveness andеfficiencyof the grants awarded and of effect andsustainabilityofachievedresults • Although not compulsory for the current programming periodit is provided for inOPRD, the Manual for management and implementation and OPRD Evaluation Plan; • Main arguments: • limitedexperience inStructural Funds implementation; • analysis of themid-term indicator values ofthe programme; • the global financial and economic crisis.

  4. Objectives Main objective: • to support the overall management of OPRD and if needed – propose changes as well as to provide information for its implementation. Specific objectices: • To evaluate the compliance and relevance of the OPRD strategy and implementation results; • To assess the quality of implementation and montioring of OPRD; • To perform a review of effectiveness and efficiency of OPRD; • To carry out an assessment of the impact of OPRD implementation on the environment. Contract information • Total sum of the contract: ~ 190 000eur. • Consultant: KPMG Bulgaria and KPMG Advisory Hungary Consortium • Contract period – 30.08.2010 – 28.02.2011

  5. Structure of main activities Evaluation of the relevance of the OPRD Evaluation of the OPRD implementation Assessment of the impact of OPRD on the environment Sub-activity 2.1Analysis of the previous evaluations results Sub-activity 3.1Quantification of objectives– outputs, results and impacts Sub-activity 4.1Evaluation of the environmental impact of OPRD Sub-activity 2.2Validity of the SWOT analysis Sub-activity 3.2Evaluation of the effectiveness and expected socio economic impacts and the financial allocation Sub-activity 2.3Relevance and consistency of the strategy Sub-activity 3.3Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of OPRD monitoring and implementation system Recommendations for the next period 2014-2020 Sub-activity 2.4Key issues for the programming of the next period Sub-activity 3.4Community added value

  6. Main findings: Annual budget allocation by priority axis

  7. Main findings: Progress by priority axis

  8. Main findings: Split of approved grants by PA / Operation

  9. Main findings: Regional split of contracted grants by priority axis

  10. Main findings: Regional split of contracted grants by priority axis Contracted grant (2007-31.12.2010, BGN) / GDP (2007) by region (% of 2007 GDP, BGN) Contracted grant / capita by region (BGN)

  11. Territorial distribution Territorial distribution of contracted grant Contracted grants in growth poles (mBGN)

  12. Prognosis of progress (approved grant, paid grant)

  13. Main conclusions (1) Progress • The OPRD is one of the best performing and most popular SF funded programme in Bulgaria; • Achieving the non-financial indicators by the end of the implementation period might be at risk; • The volume of payments carried out amounts to 12% of the total allocation up to 31.12.2010; SWOT analysis • The SWOT is still relevant. A few minor amendments are needed in order to reflect changed external factors. Continuous relevance • The new operations and amendments in OPRD correspond to the new targets which resulted from the new socio-economic factors. With a few exceptions, the rest of the targets identified during the programming period continue to be relevant • It is a significant step towards a more focused and more demand-driven regional policy that integrated urban development plans are being elaborated with OPRD support.

  14. Main conclusions (2) Consistency of objectives • The high level objectives of OPRD are still fundamentally valid, relevant and compatible with the rationale and strategy of the programme; Indicator system • Application of less, but better defined indicators, that are easier to collect and monitor should be considered; • Indicator based progress is lagging behind the interim target values for 2009 Programming • In planning for the next programming period it is necessary to identify more precisely the municipalities that will act as engines for the country's development in the coming years. • A regional quota system could be considered as regards budget allocations for next programming period; • The following practices should be considered: implementation of global grants, direct award (no need to compete), no division of beneficiaries by ownership, strong regional offices which run the projects at regional level

  15. Main conclusions (3) Capacity and capability • The current level of MA capacity has been adequate so far to carry out its tasks. However, in the final period of OPRD implementation, i.e. 2012-2015, it is anticipated that implementation of the current period and programming of the next period will run in parallel, which is likely to place a significant burden on the MA in terms of capacity. Lead time • The average total lead time was 118 working days with OPRD applications (more than Hungary, less than Romania; Impact of OPRD • Next OPRD should have a more integrated view and approach to regional development, rather than removing obstacles;

  16. Main conclusions (4) Impact of the crisis • As a result of the global economic crisis, OPRD became the main source of funding investments for the municipalities • The management and implementation system provided various solutions to the crisis: financial re-allocations were made within the OP, and new approaches, such as FLAG financial instrument and JESSICA initiative have been introduced • It is among the positive effects of the crisis, that it has made the beneficiaries more active and ambitious in absorption of funds. Management and control • The management and control system of OPRD designed and operated by the MA is fundamentally effective and is adequate in promoting the achievement of the OPRD objectives and mitigating the relevant risks. • Acceleration of payment is key to ensuring absorption by the end of the implementation period • The cost involved in control, in terms of human resources and time, is not always tailored to the financial risk involved in the enforcement of applicable rules and regulations; Environmental impact assessment • The environmental impact of all completed projects for the period 2007 – 2010 is positive • In general, the proposed amendments of OPRD will have a positive effect compared to the original version of OPRD.

  17. Main recommendations (1) Progress • Rate of payments should accelerate through motivation of public sector entities to seekreimbursement, and a thorough assessment of post-contractual issues Continuous consistency • Shift in OPRD focus from removing obstacles to active promotion of development is neeed. • A checkpoint should be introduced in the process of designing new schemes forchecking consistency with higher level objectives. Programming • In the next period there should be secured budget allocations for regions, alsoconsidering the different characteristics, needs and capacity of each region; • For the next period, municipalities acting as engines to development should be selected, witha clear definition of the growth pole concept; • The next OPRD should be based on the integrated urban development plans and otherpreliminary surveys, studies on development plans and capacities of the potentialbeneficiaries;

  18. Main recommendations(2) Indicator system • Less but better defined indicators should be used for monitoring progress. • An indicator handbook should be designed for beneficiaries, proving clear definitions and guidelines on how to measure and calculate indicators • Some indicators shall be linked to all of the interventions so that they can be cumulated at Priority and OP level. This can be achieved by including the following “necessary indicators” into all schemes: “Nr. of jobs created”; “Nr. of projects implemented”; “Nr. of facilities improved”; “Nr. of people directly benefiting”; “Population benefiting” Efficiency • For the next programming period, it is recommended that the MA should introduce a system capable of acting as baseline for the assessment of efficiency of implementation . Impact of OPRD • More focused approach to setting investment priorities, with a greater emphasis on the concentration on major project and projects of strategic importance.

  19. Main recommendations(3) Project selection • Administrative requirements of the calls should be scaled to the potential risk of the interventions, thus a categorisation to simple, normal and complex calls is recommended, with corresponding set of requirements and procedures. Information and publicity • Introduction of model projects to guide applicants and for communication purposes Additionality • Priority should be given to strategic projects that are complementing the on-going implementation of national policies and/or municipal development initiatives Environment impact assessment • The MA should coordinate amendments of the current programme with the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MOEW)

  20. MINISTRY OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DG “PROGRAMMING OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT” Thank you for your attention! Ivan Popov Acting Head of “Programming and Evaluation” Department ipopov@mrrb.government.bg WWW.BGREGIO.EU

More Related