1 / 8

Discussion on the quality of the quantification reporting in the Strategic reports / AIR 2011

Discussion on the quality of the quantification reporting in the Strategic reports / AIR 2011. John Walsh Alida Staicu Evaluation and European Semester Unit - DG for Regional and Urban Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14-15 March 2013. Headlines ….

trowlands
Download Presentation

Discussion on the quality of the quantification reporting in the Strategic reports / AIR 2011

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. Discussion on the quality of the quantification reporting in the Strategic reports / AIR 2011 John Walsh Alida Staicu Evaluation and European Semester Unit - DG for Regional and Urban Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14-15 March 2013

  2. Headlines …. • Core Indicators are being used on a pilot / voluntary basis … a practice run for 2014-2020 ! • Not all OPs report when they could … underreporting of 20% - 50% ! • no coherence with the project selection data (MS allocating money but not reporting against the relevant core indicators); • data reported for one OP only, missing the figures for other OPs using the same indicator; • reported data for the ERDF only, CF figures not included. • Lack of (plausibility) checks of what is input • significant differences between the SR and AIR data for same period (SR data lower in most of cases, in some SR additional indicators used)

  3. Use of Indicators … Part 1 Inconsistent reporting / use linked to • Different national / regional definitions / practices in relation to indicators i.e. jobs • Lack of consistency in related indicators – ie • jobs created total … and the relationship with • Jobs created in SMEs • Research Jobs

  4. Use of Indicators … Part 2 Inconsistent reporting / use linked to • Inconsistent measurement units – i.e. energy (MWh or KW used instead of MW), transport time savings, • Reporting Contracted vs achieved outputs / results • "Problems" with target setting … no targets, too high or too low targets …

  5. Example … Renewable energy • What is it comparing? • share of total all EU financing allocated to projects by end 2011 • Share of reported MW of generation capacity completed (excludes project under way … so preliminary picture). • What does it say? • Many that are investing have not reported core indicator achievements • strong assymetries between volumes allocated and added capacity

  6. Example … Gross job creation • What is it comparing? • share of total all EU financing – 2007-2113 • Share of reported jobs created (normally excludes jobs safeguarded, temporary jobs and project under way … so a preliminary picture). • What does it say? • Some important beneficiaries have reported very low or zero jobs created … • There are strong assymetries between volumes allocated and jobs created … only partly explainable by reporting lags or differences in the composition of programmes (i.e. ration of business support vs infrastructure)

  7. Conclusions • Big improvements since 2010 Exercise, but • "Much needs to be done" • … starting now for 2012 Annual reports …..

  8. Thank you for your attention!

More Related