Transcript No Slide Title

Ex post evaluation of a sample of
projects co-financed by the
Cohesion Fund (1993-2002)
EEA Financial Mechanism, Brussels 13 June 2005
The Cohesion Fund
• Established in 1993
• Aim: to assist least prosperous Member
States (<90% EU average)
• Total support:
– 1993-1999: € 16 bn
– 2000-2006: € 18 bn
• 50% transport, 50% environment
• A project approach instead of programme
approach of ERDF
• Level of assistance 80-85%
The evaluation
• Required by regulation, however:
– more than just accountability
– learning experience just as important
The evaluation: 1993-2002
• Overall commitments under CF 1993-2002:
25 bln Euro
• Nearly 1400 projects, of which 1060 in
environment, 300 in transport
• Average budget per project:
– 11.5 mln Euro in environment
– 40 mln Euro in transport
• sample of 200 completed or almost
completed projects, with focus on first period
Evaluation on 6 evaluation aspects
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appropriateness
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Impact
Management and implementation system
Community value added
Appropriateness – National needs
• Three periods:
– Interim facility: lack of project pipeline; hastily
prepared projects
– First period 1994-99: projects increasingly
available; increasing fit with national strategies or
needs assessment
– Second period 2000-06: improved planning &
programming of projects
• Majority of projects fulfil national needs in general
terms. But the way in which are usually not made
explicit and the contribution of the projects are not
always quantified
Appropriateness – Community Policy
• The projects reviewed are generally in line with
Community policies
• Remarks:
– Some projects do not have a clear relation with
Community Policies (in the early period!)
– Some (road) project are part of TEN, but their
national impact is far more important
– Shift towards high speed passenger rail neglects
the rail freight sector, which deserves attention
from sustainable transport point of view
Appropriateness – National procedures &
criteria
• In beginning “maturity” and “eligibility” of projects were
most important criteria
• Over time these criteria have remained important, but
others have been added
• Still projects have been selected that were not ready
in terms of technical feasibility, or did not have highest
priority
• What is missing: problem descriptions, analysis of
alternative options
• CBA not always elaborate (or not carried out)
• Long delays in approval are result (up to > 1 year,
average 6-10 months)
Effectiveness – Outputs and Results
• Generally no quantified objectives were set ex ante for
results and goals
• Final reports lack quantified information
• In 50% of the reviewed projects outputs were fully
realized (30% no data)
• In 60/70% of the reviewed projects goals and results
(mostly not quantified!) are deemed to have been or
are expected to be realized
Effectiveness – Utilization, External factors
• For many sample projects not sufficient information on
utilization available
• Of those for which information is available, 65% of
projects are fully utilized
• External factors usually not identified ex ante
• Ex post there seems to be strong impact from external
factors in 17% of the cases (32% no data), in 41% of
the cases no or only small impact of external factors
• Main ‘external’ factors identified (not all are external):
– Public protest
– Archeological factors / habitats
– Weather conditions
– Economic growth faster/slower
– Land purchase
Efficiency – Time scale and costs
• Only 20% of projects more or less stick to
original time schedule, 30% show delay of
more than 2 years
• Reasons:
– Insufficient preparation of
projects/technical reasons
– External factors (sometimes foreseeable)
– Opposition from local population
– Lack of management capability
Efficiency – Cost deviations
•
•
•
•
•
Cost overruns appear on more than 50% of projects
In 20% of projects cost overruns are less than 10%
In 25% of cases overruns are more than 20%.
Average cost overrun 15-20%
Generally time delays are more frequent than cost
overruns (co-financing budget is constraining)
• Main causes for cost & time overruns are:
– Ill preparation of projects
– External factors
– Community oppostion
– Lack of managerial capability
Efficiency – Co-financing rate
• No clear criteria for setting co-financing rate (I.e. 80 or
85%), except for Spain: national level 85%, regional
level 80%
• Generally net revenues from projects have been taken
into account (user charges), but mostly maximum
level of co-financing used since fees are set/assumed
at level of operating and maintenance costs
• Full application of polluter pays principle is
discouraged by co-financing mechanism
• Ex post much more variation in co-financing due to
cost overruns
Impact – Ex post CBA
• Many difficulties in establishing ex post ERR (RERR)
– Lack of data (e.g. on output)
– Ex ante CBA weak or no existing (or only financial)
– Ex ante CBA’s not always clear in methodology
• RERR generally lower than ERR, but in most cases
acceptable; typical range for transport projects: 1025%; for environment projects 0-20% (avg 12%)
Impact – Economic impact
• At project level only info available on temporary
employment (direct and indirect), structural effect
usually not known
• At regional level impact can be substantial as seen
from model runs LSE. Long run additional
employment from larger projects can be up to 10,000
jobs
(exceptional case: 16,500 jobs of Tagus crossing!)
• Impact on regional growth differs considerably
between regions. Usually effect less than 1% of the
national or regional income.
Management and implementation
• Management and implementation systems similar
between countries: National managing authority with
MA at sector level; More centralization over time in
implementation bodies
• Monitoring system is similar with monitoring
committees and monitoring on the basis of physical
and financial progress indicators
• Administrative costs: difference between CF and SF
does not seem to be significant. However, different
timing of input, with more elaborate time needed at
programming stage in SF, during implementation in
CF
Community value added
• CF played key role in improving transport
infrastructure, drinking water supply,
wastewater treatment, solid waste
management in the CF4
• CF stimulated development of sector
strategy and focus in sector policies
• CF stimulated introduction of and
improvement of techniques during project
cycle management, from identification up to
monitoring
Recommendations – Managing authorities
and beneficiaries
• Select only mature projects!
–
–
–
–
–
Adopt multi-annual planning approach
Create pipeline of projects
Request active public consultation
Request fully developed technical studies
Apply technical quality assurance
• Offer methodological support to
beneficiaries!
CBA methodology, indicators
Recommendations – Managing authorities
and beneficiaries (2)
• Treat water supply, sewerage construction
and waste water treatment in an integrated
way!
– Use masterplans
• Request measurable and quantified goals,
results and impacts!
• Discuss projects with Commission before
submission, check information needs!
Recommendations – Managing authorities
and beneficiaries (3)
• Ensure adequate, professional management
of projects
– Establishment of clear managerial body
– Establish one managing body for groups of smaller
municipalities
– Give central assistance on administrative and
financial matters
• Central pre-funding system can greatly
facilitate start of projects!
Recommendations – Commission
• Additional (technical) quality assurance of
projects
• Offer overall methodological support
• Clustering of projects only if really integrated
• Address double “PPP” dilemma
• Address change of ownership (public to
private
• Improved reporting requirements w.r.t.
impacts (indicators!)