Performance framework review and reserve

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Programming period Strategy and Operational programmes DG REGIO – Unit B.3.
Advertisements

Financial Instruments under the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds MS expert meeting 17 June 2013.
Planning and use of funding instruments
1 Flat-rates for indirect costs Ex-ante assessment by DG Employment, Social affairs and Equal Opportunities and DG Regional Policy Myrto Zorbala- DG Regional.
Final Report Anton Schrag REGIO D1
Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation
Regional Policy Draft Guidance on ex-ante conditionalities Ad hoc expert meeting 6 March
Performance Framework
1 European Union Regional Policy – Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Commissions proposal for incentives and conditionality in Open Days.
Ex-ante conditionality – General guidance Workshop on strategic programming, monitoring and evaluation Ilse De Mecheleer, DG EMPL Madrid, 22 February 2013.
1 W ORKSHOP ON S TRATEGIC P ROGRAMMING, M ONITORING AND EVALUATION F OCUSING ON P ERFORMANCE AND RE SULTS Madrid, 22 February 2013 Ines Hartwig DG Employment,
Regional Policy Draft Implementing Act Consistent approach to determine the milestones and targets in the performance framework and to assess the attainment.
EUROPEAN COHESION POLICY AT A GLANCE Introduction to the EU Structural Funds Ctibor Kostal Sergej Muravjov.
Regional Policy Managing Authorities of the ETC programmes Annual Meeting W Piskorz, Head of Unit Competence Centre Inclusive Growth, Urban and.
Draft model for the Annual and Final implementation report under the Investment for Growth and Jobs goal Marko Prijatelj Directorate General for Regional.
1 INTERREG IIIB “ATLANTIC AREA” Main points of community regulation 438/2001 financial management and control systems EUROPEAN COMMISSION SPAIN.
SEMINAR on the EEA Financial Mechanism THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE- GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Brussels 13 June 2005 Control and Audit Nicholas Martyn.
Reformed Partnership and Multi-Level Governance Ana Maria Dobre Political Administrator General Council Secretariat
Guidance notes on the Intevention Logic and on Building a priority axis 27 September 2013.
Regional Policy Major Projects in Cohesion Policy Major Projects Team, Unit G.1 Smart and Sustainable Growth Competence Centre, DG Regional and Urban Policy.
Template and guidance for the content of the Partnership Agreement 24 May
Regional Policy EU Cohesion Policy 2014 – 2020 Proposals from the European Commission.
EU European Territorial Cooperation Legal Package - State of play Vicente RODRIGUEZ SAEZ, DG Regional Policy, European Commission Deputy Head.
Regional Policy Veronica Gaffey Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011 Budapest 26 th September2013.
ACP S&T Programme - Stakeholder conference October Implemented by the ACP Secretariat Funded by the European Union EDULINK - ACP Science and.
Regional Policy Result Orientation of future ETC Programes Veronica Gaffey Head of Evaluation & European Semester 23 April 2013.
SFC2014 and Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) management
Agriculture and Rural Development SFC2014 and Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) management Petr Lapka DG Agriculture and Rural Development Unit "Consistency.
"The challenge for Territorial Cohesion 2014 – 2020: delivering results for EU citizens" Veronica Gaffey Acting Director EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DG for Regional.
Results orientation: audit perspective Jiri Plecity, Head of Unit H1, Relations with Control Authorities, Legal Procedures, Audit of Direct Management.
Regional Policy Performance framework review and reserve Jan Marek Ziółkowski Evaluation and European Semester Unit DG for Regional and Urban.
EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Budgetary Control Committee of European Parliament Budgetary Control Committee of European Parliament Brian Gray DG BUDGET Workshop.
EN DG Regional Policy & DG Employment, Social Affairs & Equal Opportunities EUROPEAN COMMISSION Luxembourg, May 2007 Management and control arrangements.
Indicators – intervention logic, differences ( vs programming period, ESF vs. ERDF) Piotr Wolski Marshall’s Office Zachodniopomorskie.
Croatia: Result orientation within the process of preparation of programming documents V4+ Croatia and Slovenia Expert Level Conference Budapest,
Ministry of Finance Compliance assessment of the management and control systems of the managing authorities under the Operational programmes. Conclusions.
Regional Policy Requirements and application of ARTICLE 55 Lisbon, 19 April 2013 Michaela Brizova DG REGIO.F1: Operational Efficiency.
EN Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Information and Publicity in programming period
The 6th Framework Programme
REVĪZIJAS IESTĀDES JAUNĀ LOMA – REZULTĀTU UN IZPILDES RĀDĪTĀJU AUDITS Olga Guza, vecākā eksperte, ES fondu revīzijas departaments, Finanšu ministrija.
Structural Funds Financial management and Control, Romania
Structural Funds Financial Management and Control, Romania
Workshop on Strategic Programming, Monitoring and evaluation Focusing on Performance and REsults Madrid, 22 February 2013 Ines Hartwig DG Employment,
Draft Guidance on ex-ante conditionalities
Evaluation : goals and principles
Veronica Gaffey & Antonella Schulte-Braucks
Ex-ante conditionality – General guidance
Common Monitoring and Evaluation System for Rural Development
ESF Technical Working Group Brussels, 10 October 2016
Performance Framework
Ex-ante conditionality
Delegated and Implementing Acts Cohesion policy
ESF and Social Partners
Use of SCOs in the ESI funds: Survey of OPs 2017
ESF Technical Working Group Brussels, 5 October 2017
Draft Implementing Act Consistent approach to determine the milestones and targets in the performance framework and to assess the attainment of the milestones.
Financial Instruments under the ESF State of Play & Implementation
Cohesion Policy: Where to find interesting data?
TÓTH Gábor DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
The partnership principle in the implementation of the CSF funds ___ Elements for a European Code of Conduct.
Amending the Performance Framework
Helene Skikos DG Education and Culture
Monitoring & evaluation in
PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Draft Delegated Act Financial corrections linked to the performance framework (Art. 20 of CPR) As amended after expert meeting on October 24, 2013 Veronica.
Future Monitoring and Evaluation: Focus on results Antonella Schulte-Braucks Ines Hartwig ESF Evaluation Partnership Brussels 17 November 2011.
DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Where do we stand with the Structural Funds?
ESF monitoring and evaluation in Draft guidance
Evaluation of Youth Employment Initiative
Presentation transcript:

Performance framework review and reserve 2014-2020 Jan Marek Ziółkowski Evaluation and European Semester Unit DG for Regional and Urban Policy 5-6 December 2013, Brussels RegionalPolicy

Results Orientation vs. Performance Framework Interlinked but distinct: Results orientation is wider and locates the programme in its context Performance Framework is about efficient implementation of the programme and it will not answer the impact question

Challenges for Performance Frameworks Keeping it as simple as possible (minimise number of indicators) Coverage of the Priority Axis Setting realistic milestones and targets Consistency within a MS for similar priorities (should be described in Partnership Agreement) Regional Policy 3

Building blocks Indicators (priority level) Milestones (intermediate targets) – to be achieved end of 2018 – formally reviewed in 2019 – reserve excluded Targets – to be achieved end of 2023 – formally reviewed in 2025 – reserve included Financial Must be included Total amount of eligible expenditure entered into the accounting system of the certifying authority and certified (except for EAFRD) Output Chosen from among indicators already selected for the programme Limited number (majority of resources allocated)

Building blocks Indicators (priority level) Milestones (intermediate targets) Targets Result To be used where appropriate Different approach fund by fund (ERDF, CF, EMFF – not recommended, EARDF – excluded, ESF – immediate only) Key implementation steps To be used when necessary (no or insignificant outputs) Should not be used as outputs must be delivered by then

Information to be recorded… …should allow for verification if the criteria are met and include, but not limit itself to: Criteria as set out in Annex II of the CPR Information realistic and achievable data or evidence used to estimate the value of milestones and targets and the calculation method transparent, with objectively verifiable targets and the source data identified and, where possible, publicly available verifiable, without imposing a disproportionate administrative burden

Information to be recorded… Criteria as set out in Annex II of the CPR Information capturing essential information on the progress of a priority rationale for selection of output indicators, as well the method applied to calculate the share, which must exceed 50% of the financial allocation consistent across programmes, where appropriate information on how the methodology and mechanisms to ensure consistency were applied in line with the Partnership Agreement Relevant and consistent with the nature and character of the specific objective of the priority  intervention logic

Complex priorities For priorities which concern more than one ESI Fund or more than one category of region, indicators, their milestones and targets, and actual values have to be broken down by Fund or category of region. The representativeness of output indicators and achievement of milestones and targets are assessed independently for each Fund and each category of region within such a priority. The reserve is allocated and suspension of payments and financial corrections may be applied independently for each Fund and each category of region within such a priority.

Agreeing the Performance Framework Partnership Agreement the methodology and mechanisms to ensure consistency in the functioning of the performance framework across programmes and ESI Funds (and information on the allocation related to the performance reserve) Operational Programmes a table including information on the priority axis concerned, the indicator and its measurement unit, its milestone and target values (broken down by ESI Fund and category of region where relevant) Basis for selection of indicators and setting milestones and targets Brief information to be provided in the OP; full information available at request

Examination by the European Commission: based on the information on the selection of indicators and setting of milestones and targets, recorded by the managing authorities; carried out by the desk officers and units negotiating the programmes; to verify if appropriate indicators have been selected and check if both the milestones and targets meet their criteria. Insufficient evidence that the milestones and targets meet the criteria - the Commission will ask for additional explanations and may ask for more indicators to be selected and milestones and targets to be adjusted.

Performance review examines the performance of the programmes at the level of priorities against the milestones set for the end of 2018 carried out in 2019, based on the data input by the managing authorities into the SFC2014 system (no scope for negotiations) within two months from the receipt of the annual implementation report for 2018 (end of June 2019), the Commission adopts a decision, by means of implementing act, to determine for each Member State and ESI Fund, the programmes and priorities which have attained their milestones (by ESI Fund and by category of region for complex priorities).

Allocation of performance reserve Reserve = 6% of the resources allocated to the ESI Funds, with the exception of the ETC goal, the Youth Employment Initiative (and some other categories) and between 5 and 7% of the allocation to each priority with the exception of TA and SMEs initiative. Allocated definitively to successful priorities after the review. The reserve linked to priorities that failed to achieve the milestones to be re-allocated to successful priorities, based on the MS request to amend programmes. The EC has two months to approve the amendment request and may make observations only in limited cases.

No performance framework or no reserve? Category of resources Performance framework Performance reserve European Territorial Cooperation goal Yes No Youth Employment Initiative and matching ESF funding Technical assistance No* SMEs initiative

What is the serious failure? A priority, whose performance framework includes will be deemed to have… if... no more than 2 indicators seriously failed to achieve the milestone or the target any of these indicators has failed to attain by the end of 2018 at least 65% of milestone value or by the end of 2023 at least 65% of the target value more than 2 indicators at least two of these indicators has failed to attain by the end of 2018 at least 65% of milestone value or by the end of 2023 at least 65% of the target value If a priority concerns more than one ESI Fund or more than one category of region, the assessment has to be carried out by Fund and by category of region within that priority.

Suspension of payments The EC may suspend all or part of an interim payment of a priority of a programme if the following conditions are jointly met: a serious failure to achieve the milestones (only financial and output indicators, and key implementation steps) due to clearly identified implementation weakness. The EC has communicated previously to the managing authority this clearly identified implementation weaknesses and the MS has failed to take the necessary corrective action to address it.

Financial corrections At the end of programming period, the EC may apply financial corrections if the following conditions are jointly met: a serious failure to achieve the targets (only financial and output indicators, and key implementation steps) due to clearly identified implementation weakness. the EC has communicated previously to the managing authority this clearly identified implementation weaknesses and the MS has failed to take the necessary corrective action to address it. no socio-economic or environmental factors, significant changes in the economic or environmental conditions in a Member State or force majeure seriously affecting implementation of the priorities concerned

Level of financial corrections based on flat rates Level of the achievement/absorption coefficient to indicate appropriate flat rate. The coefficient equals an average of the final achievement rate for all output indicators selected for the performance framework under a given priority divided by the final achievement rate of the financial indicator (all achievement in excess of 100% counted as 100%). The external factors contributing to the failure, will be considered on case by case basis, and may be a justification for a lower rate of correction than set out above. In such situations the rate of correction may be lowered by up to 50%, depending on the importance of contribution of these factors.

Flat rates for financial corrections achievement/absorption coefficient Rate of financial correction Not less than 65% Below 65% but no less than 60% 5% Below 60% but no less than 50% 10% Below 50% 25% The flat rate financial correction will be applied to all expenditure charged to the ESI Fund under the priorities concerned, after deduction of the amounts refused further to any prior financial correction.

In the pipeline: Updated Guidance on Performance Framework (to be translated - FR and DE – and made available on InfoRegio) Implementing Act covering 4 areas: Information to be recorded on the establishment of milestones and targets; Requirements for different types of indicators; Ensuring that milestones and targets are realistic and achievable; Verification of the attainment of milestones and targets. Delegated Act on setting the level of financial corrections

Reference documents - Guidance Monitoring and Evaluation for ERDF/CF Performance Framework & Reserve – under preparation Ex ante evaluation (ERDF, ESF, CF) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/evaluations/guidance_en.cfm#1 RegionalPolicy