Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
For both the EU15 and the EU10 countries, the requirements of financial management,
particularly the de-commitment rule, led to a strong focus on financial absorption, with less
attention given in monitoring committees and other policy discussions to results and
achievements and how they could be further improved.
These findings are confirmed by the points summarised earlier in this chapter as regards policy
effectiveness in the different areas of intervention examined. In particular, evaluations
highlighted the need to improve the monitoring of policy effects in enterprise support, transport
and the construction of environmental infrastructure.
A further finding which emerged from the evaluation of management and implementation
systems is that there is evidence of positive spill-overs from the systems established into the
management of domestic policy, both in the EU10 and the EU15. In the EU10 countries, these
related, in particular, to managerial practices for policy design and implementation, the training
of staff and the development of institutions and procedures, including pressure for evidencebased
policy making.
The Performance Reserve
The performance reserve was an important innovation in the 2000-2006 programming period. It
was not covered by this evaluation because it was examined by the Commission and the Member
States in 2004 and a report on its impact was produced in the same year 37 . Under the performance
reserve, 4% of resources were held back at the initial programming stage for allocation at the midterm
to programmes considered to be performing well. The main conclusion of the report was that
its strength was in acting as an incentive for developing good management practices in relation to
the absorption of funding, the production of evaluation reports on time, the development of
monitoring and financial control systems and the introduction of more transparent project
selection procedures.
Nevertheless, significant weaknesses were also noted, particularly in the use of performance
indicators, with evidence of poor target setting (either too ambitious or too cautious), which made
it difficult to use these to assess performance. In addition, a variety of methods were employed
across Member States to determine how the reserve should be allocated. While there were
examples of good practice, such as in Italy, where a group of experts were appointed as advisors to
help assess performance, in others, more perfunctory methods were employed. Essentially, the
reserve enhanced compliance with the regulations rather than increasing the focus on results. The
obligatory performance reserve was replaced with an optional reserve for the 2007-2013 period.
In EU15 Member States, the evaluation found evidence of institutional innovations, the adoption
of new procedures, improved skills in carrying out tasks and the spread of more positive attitudes
towards evaluation. The spill-overs contributed to increased knowledge about policy outcomes
and the progress achieved by the programmes implemented as a result of better monitoring,
reporting and evaluation arrangements.
An interesting conclusion to emerge from the evaluation is that the learning effects from the
establishment and use of cohesion policy management and implementation systems tend to be
greatest in the second programming period, that it takes time for the full benefits to materialise.
In countries where the key principles embedded in the system are far removed from prevailing
practices, it can take longer still.
37 European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy (2004): A Report on the Performance Reserve and
Mid Term Evaluation in Objective 1 and 2 Regions
111