1 / 8

Results and suggested simplifications Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 2nd April 2009

Reviewing Core Indicators in Operational Programmes. Results and suggested simplifications Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 2nd April 2009. Discussion at Last Meeting. ERDF/CF core indicators give unreliable information Difficulties Use of core indicators varies and ambiguous

marissas
Download Presentation

Results and suggested simplifications Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 2nd April 2009

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. Reviewing Core Indicators in Operational Programmes Results and suggested simplifications Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 2nd April 2009

  2. Discussion at Last Meeting • ERDF/CF core indicators give unreliable information • Difficulties • Use of core indicators varies and ambiguous • Different interpretation of baselines and targets • Features of IT system

  3. OP Screening for Core Indicators • DG REGIO desk officers went through 229 Objective 1 & 2 programmes (97% of ERDF/CF OPs excl. TA) • Results: • In 71% of cases OP uses core indicator when relevant • Only 42% of core indicators are encoded in SFC2007 as core indicators • Different measurement units are used for the same core indicators across different OPs

  4. Suggestions for Data Transfer • Simplify data requirements: only ask what is essential • Structured data transfer focuses on core indicators (only core indicators to be aggregated) • One baseline data for the period (can be zero) • One target data for the period • Annual achievement for every reporting year • Improve IT system

  5. How Can This Work? • Use of core indicators need to improve • Cover areas with significant financial allocation • Rigorous use of core indicators, esp. measurement units! • Indicators “very similar” to core indicators • 2009: Year for improving and testing • Annual Implementation Reports submitted as normal with all information (including indicators) • No structured reporting of indicators • 2010 onwards: reporting as normal

  6. Working Document No.7 • Draft, will be finalised when SFC2007 improvement is finished • Focuses on practicalities of reporting indicators in SFC2007 • Annex contains recommended definitions • Refinement of core indicators • Reflect discussion and agreements of last network meeting

  7. Main Messages of WD7 • Only one baseline for the period • Can be zero • Not attached to a specific year (beginning of period) • Only one target • Does not include baseline • Not attached to a specific year (end of period) • Annual achievements reported every year • Achievements are not cumulative • Standard use of measurement units is essential

  8. Thank you for your attention

More Related