Upload
ronald-hodges
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Annual Implementation.Reports (AIR) 2013
… on 7 years of activity
DG REGIO B2-European Semester & Evaluation
1
Outline
1. Annual Implementation Reports (AIR) process
2. Categorisation - Tracking the inputs 3. Core Indicators – measuring the outputs 4. Next steps & Conclusions
2
1. 2013 AIR process (ERDF) still incomplete & slower that 2012 !!
3
• Approving AIRs … 2 month slower than last year … • @January 2015
• 200 / 249 – Accepted 81%• 18 - 7% - With DG REGIO • 31 – 12% - With MA (Interrupted or rejected)
• Overlapping with 2014-2020 preparations.• Not all interruptions are linked to data.• Stats exclude ESF and ETC programmes.
AIR 2013 treatment – MA/REGIO
4
2. Project Selectionannual aggregate trends
Date EUR Billion % allocated
09/2009 93.4 27.1%
12/2009 90.8 26.4%
12/2010 181 52.2%
12/2011 244 70.4%
12/2012 291.5 83.9%
12/2013 317.9 91.6%
Total Budget decided (2012)
346.7 100%
Project selection – 2013"Gross" and capped at 100% of OP
6
Project selection – 2013
Main Messages •91.8 % of total volume allocated to projects is to low !!•Varies from 53% to over 150% by MS
Still some data reliability issues •Mis-allocations / reporting …
ES – Payment based not proejct selection ?NL – ESF problem … not cumulative?
•Over programming in some programmes => dormant project
7
Turning project selection to spending … (2013 selection vs 2014 spend)
8
Turning project selection to spending … (2013 vs 2014 expend Declarations)• AT & ES appear to report on payments only - not
project selection• Project selection is not a guarantee of spending:
some projects naturally take longer to mature and spend
• Capacity is a real problem in many important programmes
Co-financing - Administrative and techncial capacity - Beneficiaries
• Significant N+2/3 decommitments have started (400 m€ in 2014)
9
Project selection by major theme – relative progress
10
Project selection by major theme
• At this aggregate level differences between rates of project selection still persist
• Delays in Rail – Energy • Others are well ahead of average:
Roads, Social Infrastructure – Tourism culture – Generic Business Support
11
12
13
3. Core Indicators - measuring outputsERDF/CF
• Delayed finalisation of 20% of OP AIR !!! • Plausibility checked by REGIO • Manual corrections & analysis still done by REGIO• WP zero also checking
- Consistency of definitions / Measurement units
- AIR text vs SFC data
14
3a. Improved data but certain limitations
Key weaknesses:•Core Indicators not collected/used when relevant (i.e. several FR, DE programmes)•Inconsistent definitions and practices (Jobs, Km road, rail )
•Reporting "contracted" not "completed" (Significant corrections in GR, ES, and other specific OPs)•Units of measure (MW, Km², ...) •Quality control in certain OPs or Nationally
15
4. Next Steps
Ex-Post 2007-2013 •Work Package "zero" being finalised•All other thematic packages launched – Deadline end 2015/ early 20162014 AIR: •Will MAs integrate WPzero corrections? •Present consistent trend in outputs? Final IR (2017): •reconcile categorisation data with final declaration•Final statement of outputs achieved
16
Conclusions • Better data … but not perfect • In certain programmes … still slow progress on
project selection … growing absorption concerns• Outputs growing steadily as projects are
completed – but uneven reporting
• OPEN Data platform will be updated in Feb 2015 with 2013 data (excel files online also for researchers)
• 2013 data will be the basis for ex-post 2007-2013• Important input to the impact assessment post-
2020.
17