2011 Annual Reports EU Overview: Reporting and Evaluation Network

1. 2011 Annual reportsEU Overview reporting 23/11 – MS Evaluation NetworkREGIO B2 – Evaluation and European Semester J Walsh / A Abdulwahab

2. Key points • Focus of strategic reports / calendar • Data transfer • Indicators / evaluations - Core indicators (ERDF/CF) • Categorisation (inputs) – Dimensions • Next steps • Submisison / publication • COCOF presentations – early 2012 • End March Commisison summary • Inter institutional debates

3. Focus of NSRs 2012 • Clear picture on programme implementation and achievements of CP compared to its objectives – evidence on the performance and effectiveness • Assessing impacts of the economic and financial crisis on the programmes • Contribution to Europe 2020 and Growth Compact • A source of input to the next round of programming - good data quality important

4. Time Schedule • June 2012 • Submission of OP annual reports • July 2012 • Following the submission of the 2011 AIRs, the Commission will engage in quality checks and seek to correct with the programmes the clear inaccuracies – Deadline 30/9/2012 • October 2012 • Commission will present the MS with a harmonised analysis of the data from the AIR • Commission will provide each MS with an extract from its database on the financial implementation of the Ops • December 2012 • The body of the reports should be presented electronically through SFC, by no later than 31/12/2012

5. Core Indicators 2012: Progress Achieved • Results of 2011: • Programmes accelerating, progress against all core indicators • Reporting on targets have improved but achievements are still better reported • Increased coverage but not all OPs reporting core indicators • Reporting actual values (instead of contracted) increased • Many technical problems seem resolved • Decimals: dot vs. comma • Typos or incomprehensible numbers

6. Most Frequent Problems Much of the data in SFC is still of insufficient quality for automatic aggregation. Recurrent mistakes: • Not Cumulative (vs. annual) values • Incorrect Measurement units – i.e. measurement unit for induced investment (m€ vs €) • Missing target values • Baselines are included in target values • Quality of job creation indicator: completion vs. construction, double counting, men+women

7. Categorisation - introductory remarks • Categorisation … vital part of monitoring, transparency, strategic reports • An information system (not control / eligibility) for trackingfinancial inputs • Decided • Programmed • Reprogramming • Allocated to projects, by MS, Objective, themes • But not procured or spent • Progress, improvements in reliability

8. Overview Project selection data PriorityThemes By MS By themes Lisbonearmarking Reprogramming Form of finance Territorial dimension Economic Dimension Location – NUTS

9. 1. Project Selection - aggregate trends

10. 1 a) Allocatedreported by Member States 2009-2010-2011 • 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.

11. Allocated 2010

12. Allocated 2011

13. Allocated mid-2012 (informal @ 09/2012)

14. Allocated (2011) vs payments(09/2012)

15. MS trends NB: Differences in selectiondefinitions … but expectthat MS uses itowndefintionconsistently • Some MS have already front loaded – 100% selection(risk of dormant projects ? failure in implementation?) • Some MS have indicatedthat open selectionprocesseswillsoonsee full allocation (i.e. DE, PL, UK) • Other MS have still have to formalise significantselectionprocesses

16. 1 b) ThematicImplemenationby Objective

17. Project Selection 2011 - major themes

18. Components of "Rail"

20. Components of "road"

23. GR= 460%; DK = 570%

26. Components of ENV

27. Thematic trends • Data already 11 Months old … long time lag • Persistent sectoral delays in some MS clear • Rail, • Energy, • Broadband, • Capacity Building, Etc; • Growing signs of over / under programming not reflected in formal reprogramming;

28. Convergence 2007-2013 – AIR 2011 – rate of selection by Lisbon earmarks

29. RCE 2007-2010: 2011 AIRRate of selection by Lisbon earmarks CZ: 250% or over for Lisbon / non-Lisbon; GR: 216% for Lisbon earmarked

30. 1 d) Reprogramming • Can take different forms • Thematic reprogramming (see below) • Reprogramming co-financing • Increase co-financing within regulatory limits • Top up (programme countries) • Reprogramming to accelerate use flexibility within priority axes

31. 1 d) Decided thematic reprogramming – 28 billion € - 8% total EU NB : IE = 41%

32. Thematic reprogramming - Graph

34. Other Dimensions …

35. Form of finance - 2011

36. Territorial Dimension - 2011

37. Territorial Dimension Comments: • Improved ventilation: IT, UK NB: Rural = Mountains, Islands, sparsly populated, RUP and other rural Other = ex-Border regions, Cooperation (transnational, interrregional ..)

38. Economic Dimension – AIR 2011

39. Economic Dimension • Lessthan 20% of allocations to projects not allocated to economic end use; • … but very high rates of non allocation in UK, LU, FR, BE, IE, BG, DK and ETC; • Improvedreporting in SE; • Neary 60% allocated to service sectors - including 'public sector'.

42. PT = 50%

43. Labour Market measures (63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69) by economic sector – AIR 2011

44. Location (NUTS 2/3)

45. Next Steps • National reports – by end 2012 • Outputs / results / evaluations • Crisis response • EUROPE 2020 contribution • Future pointers / reprogramming / post2014 • COCOF presentations by delegations • Commission analysis • Report by 31/3/2013