Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020 Presentation at the...

Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020

Presentation at the Monitoring Committee

16 May 2013

2© 2013 KPMG Tanácsadó Kft., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

Contents

Introducing KPMG

Ex ante evaluation

■ Role of ex ante evaluations

■ Scope of ex ante evaluation

Approach and methodology

Timeline

Initial findings

■ Overall judgement

■ ‘Thermometer of appropriateness'

■ Conclusions and recommendations


Introducing KPMG

KPMG International

KPMG is a global network of professional services firms providing Audit, Tax and Advisory services in 145 KPMG country offices worldwide with total 135,000 employees.

KPMG operates in the following regions:

■ Americas

■ Asia Pacific

■ Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMA)

KPMG in the CEE

KPMG provides the following Public Sector Advisory related services:

■ Evaluation and monitoring services

■ Compliance audits, certification work

■ Advisory services for Government institutions

– Strategy formulation

– Operational Improvement

■ Preparation of Thought Leadership documents related to EU Funds implementation in the

CEE


Role of ex ante evaluations

Planning

Implementation

Interim evaluations

Ex ante evaluation

Ex postevaluation

Mandate

Member States shall carry out ex ante evaluations to improve the quality of the design of each programme. (Article 48 of CPR)

Task

To provide an independent and objective assessment of the operational programme in order to arrive at a comprehensive, coherent and feasible programme taking into account the Commission guidelines

Deliverable

Ex ante evaluation report that shall be submitted to the Commission along with the programme.


Socio-economic context

Scope of ex ante evaluation (1)

Programme strategySituation analysis

Needs Objectives Measures

Inputs Operations Outputs Results

Impacts

Europe 202011 thematic objectives

National Reform Programme

Commission’s Position Paper

National strategies

Other EU programmes

State support schemes

Community legislative proposals


Scope of ex ante evaluation (2)

According to article 47 of the CPR, ex ante evaluations shall appraise:

■ the contribution to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, having regard to the selected thematic objectives and priorities, taking into account national and regional needs;

■ the internal coherence of the proposed programme or activity and its relation with other relevant instruments;

■ the consistency of the allocation of budgetary resources with the objectives of the programme;

■ the consistency of the selected thematic objectives, the priorities and corresponding objectives of the programmes with the Common Strategic Framework, the Partnership Contract and the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4) of the Treaty;

■ the relevance and clarity of the proposed programme indicators;

■ how the expected outputs will contribute to results;

■ whether the quantified target values for indicators are realistic, having regard to the support from the CSF Funds envisaged;

■ the rationale for the form of support proposed;

■ the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of the programme;

■ the suitability of the procedures for monitoring the programme and for collecting the data necessary to carry out evaluations;

■ the suitability of the milestones selected for the performance framework;

■ the adequacy of planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and to prevent discrimination;

■ the adequacy of planned measures to promote sustainable development.

■ the requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment set out in implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the Environment.


Approach and methodology

Work done:

– Macroeconomic analysis

– Internal workshop

– Document analysis

– Stakeholder interviews

– Consistency matrix

– Intervention logic analysis

– Indicator assessment

– Expert panel

To be carried out:

– Delphi survey

– Comparative analysis

– Multi-criteria analysis

– 3C assessment

– SEA


Timeline

Jan 2013 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

25 March 2013Kick off

February 2013Contract awarded

4 July 2013Submission of the first draft to EC

30 April1st draft of OP

16 May 2013Monitoring Committee

Oct

30 May 20132nd draft

10 May 20131st draft

1 July 2013Final draft

30 October 2013Final report

27 March 2013Key strategic document provided to the evaluator

Programme preparation has commenced in time, allowing sufficient time for the submission of a well underpinned programme strategy, efficiently supported by the ex ante evaluation

As of today, the first draft of the programme has been elaborated and initial conclusions and recommendations of the ex ante evaluation have already been formulated


Overall judgement

1. The first version of the programme document already reflects a clear strategic approach to programming

2. Generally, there is a clear linkage between the thematic objectives, investment priorities and the specific objectives chosen

3. In most cases the Operational Programme is consistent with the National Development Plan and the recommendations of the Commission Position Paper


Thermometer of appropriateness

Should be improved

Fullyappropriate

Horizontal principles

Consistency of programme objectives

Internal coherence

Intervention logic

Appropriateness of indicator system

Administrative capacity

Consistency of financial allocation

Contribution to EU 2020 strategy


Main conclusions and recommendations (1)

Main conclusions Strategic recommendations

1The programme strategy is driven by the 11 Europe 2020 objectives, covering all of them in the form of 9 priority axes, which makes most axes multi-funded and diverse in its objectives.

Consider explaining the reason for defining the 9 priority axes, especially when merging multiple thematic objectives under one priority axis (priority axis 3, priority axis 5, priority axis 7, priority axis 9)

2

The strategy to achieve Europe 2020 objectives and the linkage between the current situation, strategic objectives set by other policy documents, and the programme strategy chosen is not always comprehensively, or appropriately formulated.

The ministry shall continue applying a rigorous approach for programming, especially as regards the explanation of logical linkages of programme interventions, i.e. the links between background policy documents, needs identified, thematic objectives, investment priorities, specific objectives and the intended results.

3

In case of 5 out of 51 specific objectives, the link to the respective investment priority is less straightforward and might need further elaboration, reformulation, omission or reallocation within the programme:• Development of business environment (first under priority axis 3)• Environmental monitoring system (second under priority axis 5)• Development of Riga metropolitan region (third under priority

axis 6)• Increasing environmental awareness (first under priority axis 8)• Promoting youth employment (sixth under priority axis 8)

Consider further explaining, reformulating, omitting, or reallocating the 5 specific objectives referred within the programme.

4Thematic objective 5 is not covered in a separate section by the situation analysis. However, this area is included in the programme strategy.

A standalone section should be included regarding the analysis of thematic objective 5 (‘Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management’).


Main conclusions and recommendations (2)

Main conclusions Strategic recommendations

5

‘Urban development’ is a cross-cutting priority and its specific objectives are partially overlapping with those under other priorities:• priority axis 6 (e.g. specific objective of developing Riga metropolitan

area)• priority axis 3 (e.g. infrastructure developments under the first

specific objective, touristic and cultural developments)

Consider revising specific objectives partially or closely related to cultural investments and transport developments, and ensure synergies and delimitations with other priority axes.

6

The intervention logic at the level of specific objectives is generally established. However, it provides moderate information on the intended results to be achieved by the outputs of individual interventions.

Continue specifying details of the planned interventions and be more specific regarding the narrative description of the intended outputs and results of interventions, and the explanation of the theory of change.

7For 38 out of 51 specific objectives result indicators have been set. However, some measures are not assigned output indicators to and the OP does not always use common indicators.

Define one to two results indicators for each specific objective and apply all compulsory output and result indicators for all selected specific objectives.

8The setting of certain indicator target values is still ongoing, the performance framework is not yet ready.

Continue specifying the target values for result and output indicators and the baseline values for result indicators and elaborate the performance framework.

9The justification of the financial allocations could be further elaborated.

Consider providing further justification of the amount of funds allocated to each priority axis.

10The OP, following the structure required by Commission’s guidelines, does not provide sufficient information on the planned institutional system and the monitoring and evaluation framework.

Provide cross-reference in the OP to documents specifying the details of the institutional system.

© 2013 KPMG Advisory Ltd., a Hungarian limited liability company and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”).

Contact:

Gábor CserhátiDirectorT +36 70 333 1410E [email protected]

www.kpmg.hu

András KaszapManagerT +36 70 370 1840E [email protected]

Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020 Presentation at the...

Documents

Transcript of Ex Ante Evaluation of Latvian Cohesion Policy Operational Programme 2014–2020 Presentation at the...