1 / 16

Result orientation challenges – the Polish approach Urszula Romańska

Result orientation challenges – the Polish approach Urszula Romańska Department for Coordination of Development Strategies and Policies Ministry of Infrastructure and Development. Result-orientation in the partnership agreement.

cree
Télécharger la présentation

Result orientation challenges – the Polish approach Urszula Romańska

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. Result orientation challenges – the Polish approach Urszula Romańska Department for Coordination of Development Strategies and Policies Ministry of Infrastructure and Development

  2. Result-orientation in the partnership agreement Extensiveuse of ex anteevaluation of the PA • Participatory model – the process went hand in hand with programming of the PA and OPs. • Intervention logic was at the centre of our attention – correct identification and definition of desired results taking into account the Europe 2020 strategy. • Standardised approach to defining the desired results – started from the specific objectives of the PA within thematic objectives, defining the internal and external factors influence the final result: • how should a TO be used to achieve the results?  specific objectives of the PA • linking the EU targets and priorities with the PL strategic documents • creating a matrix of logical intervention for each thematic objective • strengthening the links between the diagnosis and the specific objectives  intervention logic  defining the input of cohesion policy to the desired results

  3. NEEDS ACTIONS(IPs) RESULTS OBJECTIVES 8.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ENDOGENOUS POTENTIAL INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT INDICATOR: 1) AGE 20-64 W / M: 57,6%/72,1%  65,2%/82,6% 2) AGE 55-64 W / M 31,0%/51,3%  32,5%/65,2% 3) RURAL AREAS: 50,3%  57,9% 3% EDUCATION SYSTEM DOES NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF THE LABOUR MARKET 8.5. 28% IMPROVEMENT OF CHANCES FOR EMPLOYMENT OF THE UNEMPLOYED AND JOB-SEEKERS 8.6. 25% 8.7 22% INCOMPLETE USE OF LABOUR MARKET RESOURCES INCREASE IN ADAPTABILITY OF PROFESSIONALLY ACTIVE PEOPLE AND ENTERPRISES 8.8. MORE EFFICIENT USE OF LABOUR MARKET RESOURCES 1% 8.11 6% IMPROVEMENT IN THE HEALTH CONDITION OF LABOUR MARKET RESOURCES 8.9 10% 8.10. 6%

  4. Result-orientation in the partnership agreement A coherentapproach to resultindicators in the PA • A three-step system of indicators: • 10 development indicators in the PA – macroeconomicindicators (GDP p.c., debt), human development index, etc. + E2020 targets relating to employment, higher education and drop-outs; without baseline values, only milestones for 2020 and target for 2023 • 19 strategic result indicators in the PA – the other E2020 targets and other strategic results indicators stemming from the national strategies, • 1-2 per TO (e.g. World Bank’s ease of doing business for TO11) • with baseline values (2010, 2012 2013 depending on the data availability) and targets for 2020 and 2030 • an estimated input of ESIF (ranging from 0,46% up to 93%) • „STRATEG” – an open digital system of strategic result indicators, based on public statistics as well as some data from the national and regional OPs • Strategic result indicators in the operational programmes – usuallytaken from the PA, in the regionalOPs not limited to the impact of thatparticular OP. • COM forced us to regionalise the Europe 2020 targets– to be finalised in 2015

  5. TO 1 PA strategic result indicator: GERD relative to GDP ESI Funds’ intervention in 2014-2020 should result in an increase in growth rate of expenditure on R&D (esp. In the private sector)

  6. TO 1 PA strategicresultindicator: GERD relative to GDP the ROPs’input to the PA target is only 1,36% PKB instead the 1,96% set in the PA

  7. Result-orientation in the partnership agreement Translating the PA approach to the national and regional OPs • Participation of national and regional authorities in the process of ex ante evaluation of the PA • Regular information on the progress in negotiations of the EU legislative package and about, their implications, actions to be taken by the ministry, workshops, etc. • Analysis of coherence between the strategic result indicators in the PA and regional OPs (as a part of the PA’s ex ante evaluation process) • Analysis of coherence and consistency of performance frameworks across all OPs • Explanatory and guiding materials: • a handbook on programming and implementation of cohesion policy 2014-2020; • the ministry’s commentary to the OP template – guidance how to fill it in; • a common list of key indicators;

  8. Common list of key indicators (CLKI) Challenges to be addressed in 2014-2020 period • 2007-2013 – lack of coherence across the OPs: • the same actions/changes measured by different indicators • indicators divergent in terms of definition, names, estimation methods, lack of historical data etc.: • limited scope for aggregation of data • limited process of institutional learning • limited possibilities to present the evidence of policy’s effectiveness • too many of them and insufficient link with the actions taken • 2014-2020 – new challenges: • programming documents more result-oriented • the EU list of common indicators • performance framework and reserve • = a more rigorous approach to indicators much needed.

  9. Common list of key indicators (CLKI) Whatis the CLKI? • Common list of key indicators – a coherent set of indicators, complementary to the strategic results indicators of the PA and OPs: • Indicators which are gathered from projects and aggregated at the OPs’ level and the PA level using the system of electronic data exchange • All EU common indicators for the ERDF, the CF and the ESF + other commonly used indicators: • direct result indicators– tobe used in tables 3 & 4 of the OP template • output indicators – to be used in table 5 of the OP template • Each indicator with an extensive fiche (name, unit, type, other linked indicators, IP/IPs, definition and measurement method, interpretative notes,category of intervention) • = ca. 350 indicators, • A template for each OP on choice and methodology for estimation of all indicators used in it – for internal use only, not to be presented to COM.

  10. Result and output indicators in the OPs Indicatorsat a priorityaxislevel • Its description should clarify how the envisaged types of actions (+ main target groups & areas) will lead to achieving the specific objectives and result indicators. • result indicators (tables 3 & 4) – quantifying specific objectives, coherent with the PA, max 1-2 per priority axis. Two types: • strategic result indicators – from public statistics/evaluations, baseline 0 • direct result indicators – from the CLKI, OP’s monitoring system, baseline can’t be 0 • + for the ESF – from the CLKI,either a direct result indicator or a long-term result indicator • output indicators (table 5) – quantifying the actions to be taken and the expected change/needs: • a majority of projects covered by a given IP should generate the output indicators included in that table. • derived only from the CLKI, obligatory use of the EU common indicators. • COM forced us monitor the number of jobs created by each project.

  11. Performance framework • Implications of performance framework and reserve should be taken into account when designing the internal structure of an OP  limiting the number of thematic objectives on a priority axis • Three elements in the performance framework – an ideal solution •  adding an extra (controllable!) KIS to have the three elements • Strike the right balance between performance and minimising the risk • 50% of financial allocation: on the IP level or types of projects within IP? • How to use of KIS?  the link with the output indicator is not compulsory • A moving target – the draft national OPs were sent to COM in January 2014; changes in the final Partnership Agreement = changes in the national and regional OPs Construction of a performance framework Challenges:

  12. Settingmilestonevalues for financialindicator: Performance framework

  13. Performance framework • Using the method proposed for setting milestones but slightly modified: • In point 1 we take simply 100% EU allocation for a given OP instead of the long formula • Next we go through points 2-4 • MAs are advised to decrease the target value on each priority axes by few % because in 2024 expenditures can still be certified. The decrease below 100% has to be based on historical data regarding absorption level at the end of programming period for a given type of investments. • Making ends meet – programming teams and financial management teams; • Lack of historical data to estimate milestones and targets; • IPs with one or few projects – what should be done with the reserve? Setting target values for financialindicator: Challenges:

  14. Performance framework • Only output indicators from the CLKI and only those presented in the table 5 • Ensuring a causal effect: • between milestones and targets of a given output indicators • between output indicators/KIS and financial indicator (?) • Ensuring consistency acrossprogrammes: • whichlevelisappropriate? – IP ortype of projects? The financial indicator relates to the whole allocation of a priority axis BUT the output indicators and KIS relate to more than 50% of the allocation • whichelementsshould be consistent? – thetype & name of the indicator, EUR exchange rate, estimation methods (unit costs), price dynamics, financial instruments, state aid intensity: • ERDF/CF fully implemented operations vs. partially implemented in the ESF • Lack of data at regional level (esp. ESF indicators) Settingmilestone and target values for outputindicators: Challenges:

  15. Performance framework Additional PL actions: • A template to present the methodologyin a standardised manner: • the necessary data required by the CPR and the IR 215/2014 • the additional information required by the ministry: • on practical implementation mechanisms which will ensure that the implemented projects will lead to achievement of milestones and targets; • on possible external factors that may influence the estimation of milestone and target values  Article 5(6) of the IR 215/2014 • itwill become an official annex to the OPs. • Additional annual milestones for 2016, 2017, 2019-2022 • schedule for the OP implementation: • monitored on a regular basis • underperformance leads to an explanation and an action plan • On-going evaluation for reallocation of the performance reserve – to be completed in a coordinated manner by all MAs in the 1st quarter of 2019

  16. Thankyou for yourattention

More Related