Structural Funds Evaluation A VIEW FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

1. Structural Funds EvaluationA VIEW FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Anna Burylo, DG Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit

2. PRESENTATION 1. Evaluation of Structural Funds (2000-2006) 2. Evaluation Capacity Building 3. Programming and the Evaluation Life Cycle 4. Ex Ante Evaluation • Mid Term Evaluation • Ex Post Evaluation 7. Ongoing Evaluation

3. EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS (2000-2006) Set out in Regulation 1260/1999 on General Provisions on the Structural Funds: • Ex Ante Evaluation (Art. 41) • Mid Term Evaluation (Art. 42) • Ex Post Evaluation (Art. 43) Also important: • Quantification (Art. 36) • Cost Benefit Analysis - Major Projects (Art. 26) • Performance Reserve (Art. 44)

4. EVALUATION CAPACITY BUILDING • Objective – the capacity to produce high quality evaluations for learning (how to achieve greater impact) and accountability (what have we achieved with public money) • Evaluation as a management tool • Linkage to the monitoring system • Challenges • Having a mandate and an Evaluation Plan – clarity of role • Appropriate numbers of qualified staff • Institutionalising evaluation

5. PROGRAMMING AND EVALUATION LIFE CYCLE Evaluation Life Cycle ongoing evaluation EP EAMTEAEPMTEAEP Program- ming Period 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Key: EA: ex ante, MT: mid-term, EP: ex post

6. EX ANTE EVALUATION – ROLE & AIMS • Serves as a basis for preparing Plans and Programmes • Provides the rationale for the intervention and financial allocations across priorities • Evaluates anticipated socio-economic results and impacts • Assesses the quality of implementation, monitoring and evaluation arrangements

7. EX ANTE EVALUATION - ORGANISATION • Responsibility of those preparing Plans and Programmes • Should be an interactive process • Working Paper of the Commission (No. 2) – to be updated for 2007-2013 period

8. MID TERM EVALUATION - ROLE AND AIMS • To improve the quality and relevance of programming through • examination of any changes in the programme environment and programme performance to date, and • making any necessary changes required to maximise the impact of the programme • For 2007-2013, mid term evaluation will become ongoing evaluation

9. The Mid Term Evaluation Update - 2005 • For current Member States - an update – not full review of strategy, themes, etc. • New Member States to be involved also • Focus on Outputs, Results, Impacts • Opportunity to include some evaluation questions on issues arising in the programme, if necessary • Preparation for ex ante evaluation 2006 and ex post evaluation 2009Draft working paper for discussion in June

10. EX POST EVALUATION – ROLE & AIMS To establish: • Effectiveness, efficiency and impact in relation to economic and social cohesion • Factors contributing to the success or failure of implementation and the achievements and results, including sustainability (1999 Regulation – for ex post to be carried out by end 2009)

11. EX POST EVALUATION - CHALLENGES FOR CURRENT PERIOD • To be complete by end of 2009 – but expenditure continues to end 2008. • Evaluations across 25 very diverse Member States • How to involve the Member States • One contract per Objective? (not required in the regulation)

12. EX POST EVALUATION – CURRENT THINKING • Link update of Mid Term Evaluation to requirements of Ex Post • Work with Member States from 2005 onwards • Split contracts into thematic areas Draft working paper for discussion later in 2004

13. Ongoing Evaluation – the Evaluation Plan • Current thinking – to replace mid term evaluation in 2007-2013 • Evaluation Plan – to be agreed by Monitoring Committee and be adapted to needs – reviewed each year • Plan should include organisation (who is responsible), resources (human + financial) and draft list of evaluation projects • For 2004-2006, one or two evaluations each year, focused on systems issues, themes or measures • 2005 – start ex ante evaluation process