1. Operational Programmes 2014-2020 Selected Impressions from Negotiations
Cohesion Policy

2. Intervention logic, specific objectives, result indicators - 1
Major involvement of evaluation unit in improving specific objectives and result indicators.
Definition of result indicators and their baselines met the expectation to facilitate the definition of objectives.
Clearer picture of intended changes – see slide on pilot analysis.
All programmes found the task challenging.

3. Intervention logic, specific objectives, result indicators - 2
Substantial number of action plans on baselines for result indicators
(ERDF / CF, cut-off 12 January 2015).
4706 result indicators
Of which
686 with baseline issues (action plan, "zero baseline") – includes draft programmes!

4. Intervention logic, specific objectives, result indicators - 3 Tension between
Result orientation
Objectives are needed to make best use of public funding
Further discussion needed!
Integrated urban development, CLLD
The design of a participative process will lead to objectives.

5. Analysis of intervention logic – test by evaluation unit
- quality of intervention logic in support of change sought
- quality of objectives setting
- use of common indicators & categories of intervention
What trends/patterns emerge across MS & regions
Pilot for adopted OPs will be conducted on
- Thematic Objective 2 - ICTs
- Thematic Objective 4 - low-carbon economy
Cohesion Policy 5

6. Common output indicators
The concept works.
Teething problems … but no major problems.
Issues for reflection
Some indicators describe beneficiaries or input, not outputs. E.g. CI 37, population in areas with urban strategies. Not appropriate for performance frameworks!
Avoid crowding out of programme-specific indicators by common indicators, e.g. in enterprise support.
Cohesion Policy 6

7. Common indicators
P.M.
Common ERDF/CF indicators agreed over last 3 years
Obligatory to use and set targets when relevant
Not obligatory to use all (or only) common indicators in Performace framework
Targets set in systematically in adopted OPs
CO = Enterprises supported
CO = Enterprises/start ups/ jobs created in enterprises suported

8. N° Enterprises supported – REGIO adopted Ops (@ 9/1/2015)

9. TOTAL : enterprises
GRANTS 3 000
FIs:
Advice:

10. TOTAL : enterprises
Grants only: 2 000
FIs:
Grants & advice:
Advice only):

11. Total Enterprises / Startups / No Jobs created in Enterprises supported

12. Ex ante evaluations – some question marks
Are ex ante evaluations still justified given the emphasis of impact evaluations during the programming period?
Did ex ante evaluations deliver value for money?
Was result orientation understood?
Were evaluators critical enough?
Were findings used by programmers?
Governance (responsibility) optimal?

13. Ex ante evaluations – some question marks (2)
REGIO Evaluation Unit to write reflection paper
based on sample of evaluations
using expert reviews
draft before summer
consultation with the network