Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007 2013

Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007 -2013 REGIO B 2 – Evaluation and European Semester Cohesion Policy

Key points The 2013 report is based on 27 national strategic reports (NSRs). Key messages § CP is making important contributions to growth and jobs and towards the objectives set § Implementation has accelerated without important outputs § The policy has shown a capacity to adapt to changing needs § Significant outputs and results are still expected … but need redoubling of delivery efforts as there are risks in some MS and some Themes Cohesion Policy

Focus of NSRs 2012 I. Assessing impact of the economic and financial crisis on the programmes and response II. Contribution to Europe 2020 and Growth Compact III. Programmes implementation – evidence on the performance and effectiveness IV. Conclusions and input to the next round Cohesion Policy

I. IMPACT AND RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS Cohesion Policy

Crisis Impacts - I • Timing and severity of shocks vary in the EU 27 … • "… crisis has emphasised previous structural weaknesses …" • Divergent views on relevance for Cohesion policy • Northern MS (RCE): CP provides useful, stable and strategic platform; strategy still relevant • EU 12: Main challenge is delivery of unprecedented investment programmes • Southern MS: Macro economic imbalances dominate, with CP seen as essential support to investment • Signs of increasing regional disparitites Cohesion Policy

Crisis Impacts - II • Decreasing demand/delivery: Innovative SME measures, size of projects reduced, longer delivery periods, ICB and TA • Increasing demand: Labour Market measures, access to finance, RTD Infra (EU 12) • Stress on capacity in administrations to deliver • Conflicts / uncertainties / delays arising linked to changing framework conditions, structural reforms and austerity programmes Cohesion Policy

Crisis responses • Thematic reprogramming: 2012 Youth / SME Action teams (8 MS) National mid term review (FR) National Performance reserve (PL) Italy – Cohesion Action plan 2011 Crisis responses – PT, EL • Anti-Crisis measures • Reduced national co-financing Cohesion Policy

Thematic reprogramming overview 2007 – Dec 2012 • € 35. 7 bn reallocated formally by MS / Commission between 86 themes (10. 3% of all 3 funds) • By FUND • ERDF/CF – 30. 2 bn out of 270 bn - 11. 2% • ESF – 5. 5 bn out of 76. 6 bn - 7. 1% • It is comprised of • Transfers within major themes … i. e. between different RTDI categories • And between major themes … transfers from "Human capital" to "Labour Market" Cohesion Policy

Thematic reprogramming by sector Cohesion Policy

Thematic reprogramming by MS Cohesion Policy

Anti-crisis measures • Increase EU advance payments 2009 welcomed; • Expenditure declaration related to unapproved Major projects; • Simplification of national / progrmame procedures: i. e. payment of advances to projects • Reduction in National public co-financing (last resort) – Top up for programme countries Cohesion Policy

Co-finance reprogramming reduction of National effort • Starting point: € 347 bn EU + € 143 bn National public • National public now € 128 bn at end 2012 € 15 bn lower (-10. 6%) • Concentrated mainly in MS in EL, ES, IT, IE, LT, LV, PT, RO - countries severely affected by the crisis • Objective is to secure with Cohesion policy investment with lower national co-financing (Separately, results of the mid-term verification of additionality 2007 -2013 - COM(2013) 104 – based on data 2007 -2010 - Link) Cohesion Policy

Rates of reduction in National Public co-financing – end 2012 Cohesion Policy

II. Contribution to Europe 2020 and Compact for Growth Cohesion Policy

II. Contribution to Europe 2020 and Compact for Growth • In their reports MS recognise the importance of Cohesion Policy in support of growth and jobs across multiple fields, i. e. ESF support for essential labour market responses during crisis and other structural reforms • Libson earmarking exercise: is still relevant under the Smart and Inclusive pillars of Europe 2020 • Compact for Growth: Several reports refer explicitly to the Compact and many more to importance of Cohesion Policy for growth and job creation. Cohesion Policy

Examples of EUROPE 2020 contributions from MS - I Cohesion policy plays a central role for many MS in sustaining growth enhancing investments. ERDF has been instrumental in • Support to RTD and Innovation • Support to SME and efforts to improve access to finance • Sustainable Energy (energy efficiency esp. ) • Essential support to structural reforms in Rail, water sector, education and health. Cohesion Policy

Examples of EUROPE 2020 contributions from MS – II ESF has been a key tool to preserve employment and contain unemployment Specific examples from MS reports include • Youth unemployment • Supporting moderisation of education system • Reforms of active labour market policies • Supporting public administration reforms Cohesion Policy

Lisbon earmarking • Still applies … and themes featured are very relevant for growth and jobs • Commission is tracking it for all MS • In Convergence programmes the rate of selection of Lisbon earmarked projects is behind the rate for non-Lisbon – 67% vs 76% • In RCE programmes "Lisbon" project selection is ahead – 77% vs 75% Cohesion Policy

Convergence Obj. 2007 -11 Rate of selection of the Lisbon and Non Lisbon priorities Cohesion Policy

RCE Obj. 2007 -11 Rate of selection of the Lisbon vs Non Lisbon priorities Cohesion Policy

2012 Compact for Growth • European Council June 2012 emphasised the role of Cohesion policy in the context of growth and jobs • Nearly 55 bn € in 2013 installments have now been committed - all EU budget commitments now available to MS • Some MS still finalising project selection in 2013 • 2012 Youth / SME Action teams have helped 8 MS to accelerated & refocus on these (and other) themes • Overall thematic Reprogramming 2007 -2012 = 35. 6 bn € Cohesion Policy

III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness Cohesion Policy

III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness • MS reports provide often detailed narratives of financial tracking / performance in National context • In addition to these qualitative assessments the Commission has looked at available measures of implementation that can be aggregated • • ERDF/CF Core indicators - ESF Beneficairy data Evaluation results Payment data Project selection data Cohesion Policy

III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness – Key messages • ERDF/CF: important increases in reported outputs / results in 2011 compared to previous years • ESF High number of participations – 15 million per year in 2010 and 2011 – covering all target groups • Interim payment declared amount to 42% of available credits (01/2013) • Selection of projects @end 2011 stood at 246 bn € - 71% (Latest estimate is 304 bn € - 88% at end 2012) Cohesion Policy

Core Indicators : Key Results – ERDF/CF Achieved (see Factsheets) Programmes accelerating, significant progress against nearly all core indicators in 2011 (2012) • Job Creation - 400 000 in 2007 -11 (187 000 in 2011 alone) of which 15 600 RTD jobs 167 000 jobs in SME • • • 53 240 RTD projects 53 160 Startups 1. 9 m served by Broadband 1 222 MW of renewable electricity 2. 6 m served by drinking water; 5. 7 m connected to waste water treatment 25 Cohesion Policy

Use of core indicators Cohesion Policy

Job Creation reported by MS Cohesion Policy

Job Creation commentary • "Direct, permanent jobs created (FTE) that led to increase in total N° jobs in beneficiary" • There are clear lags between selection, spending and a results such as jobs created … jobs normally realised / reported on project completion • This is a snapshot … next photo in June this year • Strong asymeteries in MS reporting … some MS report high job creation N°s … some under reporting? • REGIO expert evaluation network looking at MS practices to better understand help improve reliability Cohesion Policy

ESF: Progress Achieved • Key data on ESF support - based on Beneficiary data • • • Gender Employment status Education level Vulnerable groups Age • and evaluations 30 Cohesion Policy

ESF Supported participants – employment status Cohesion Policy

ESF : Education attainment of participants Cohesion Policy

Allocated (2007 -2011) vs Payments presented to Comm (to 01/2013) Cohesion Policy

Allocated vs Payments NB: The cut off dates are different – end-2011 vs 01/2013 • Translating allocations into spending is uneven: ratio • 42% of budget declared in interim payments • Strong variations across MS • With 32 Months left to end 2015 there are growing risks for some MS that spending will not take place and not result in benefits Cohesion Policy

1. Project Selection aggregate trends Date EUR Billion % allocated 09/2009 (2010 SR) 93. 4 27. 1% 12/2010 181 52% 12/2011 246 71% 12/2012 (est) 304 88% Total Budget decided (2012) 346. 7 100% Cohesion Policy

Allocated to projects 2010 - 2011 Cohesion Policy

Allocated 2007 -2012 ? ? Cohesion Policy

Project Selection 2011 - major themes Cohesion Policy

Project selection 2007 -11 – Inno &RTD Cohesion Policy

Project selection 2007 -11 – Inno &RTD Cohesion Policy

Project selection 2007 -11 – RAIL Cohesion Policy

Project selection 2007 -11 – Social Inclusion Cohesion Policy

Project selection 2007 -11 – Institutional capacity Building Cohesion Policy

Thematic trends • Data from end-2011 already 15 Months old … long time lag • Persistent sectoral delays in some MS clear Rail, Energy (renewables), Broadband, Capacity Building, Etc; • Growing signs of over / under programming not reflected in formal reprogramming; Cohesion Policy

III. Evidence of performance and effectiveness – conclusions : • A lot done … much yet to do !! • Important volume of project selection needed in some MS in 2012 -13 • Risks in certain MS in specific thematic areas, I&RTD, IT services, Rail, Other transport, Renewables, Inst. Capacity building • High focus still needed on implementation 2007 -13 – at risk with launch of new programmes? Cohesion Policy

13 Thematic factsheets - contents 1. Outline of activities supported under each broad theme (the themes approximate to some extent the Thematic Objectives 2014 -2020) 2. Examples of 70 projects on the ground across the 13 themes – 45 from the National Reports 3. Financial input … project selection by theme and code – EU average and National rates 4. Outputs and results … core indicators ERDF/ CF … Beneficaries of ESF … Cohesion Policy

13 Thematic Factsheets • • • (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) • • (10) (11) (12) (13) Innovation and R&D ICT Other SME and business support Energy Environment Rail Road Other transport Urban and territorial development (Urban dimension, culture, heritage and tourism ETC, Macro regional and transnational ESF) Labour market Social inclusion and social infrastructure Human capital Institutional capacity building Cohesion Policy

IV. Pointers for the future: conclusions - I Period 2007 -2013 • Clear potential and recognition of CP contribution • … and flexibility in context of the crisis • Growing evidence of delivery • Significant implementation effort still required … from projects, intermediate bodies, MAs • Delays in important areas in some MS to be addressed • Exceptional reductions in national co-financing could be considered where needed, - Targeting high priority areas - Earmarking released national resources on growth Cohesion Policy

IV. Pointers for the future: conclusions - I Period 2014 -2020 • Some MS draw lessons for future priorities and flexibility in context of the crisis • need to avoid delays in agreeing and launching new programmes • More evaluations needed of current programmes to help for future • ERDF /CF Core indicators are useful but not robustly used in all cases … AIR 2012 new opprotunity • Commission believes limitations of current programmes justifies key new elements in programming for the future Cohesion Policy

References • • Communciation Com (2013)210: Staff Working document SEC(2013)1 This Website : http: //ec. europa. eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en. cfm National reports 13 Thematic Factsheets: Excel tables Expert Evaluation Report 2012: LINK Cohesion Policy