Concepts and Recommendations Update

1. Concepts and RecommendationsUpdate Kai Stryczynski DG Regional and Urban Policy Brussels, 10 March 2014 Cohesion Policy

2. Updating the legal references • Reference to articles in CPR adapted to final version • If you find any errors in guidance or CPR , please tell us until end of March (pending corrective act)

3. Additional paragraph: "Recognition" of other evaluations • 3.4 Evaluation during the programming period (page 14) • It is a task of the managing authority to ensure that such evaluations are carried out. The managing authority can also meet these obligations when evaluations are carried out under other requirements, for instance if required by Commission decisions on State aid schemes co-financed by the ESI Funds. Such evaluations should be mentioned in the evaluation plan and must be subject to the follow-up required by the CPR, e.g. they must be examined by the monitoring committee and sent to the Commission.

4. Commission guidance on evaluation (art. 54.3)and Declaration of Commission on indicators guidance (OJ C375, 2013) • DG REGIO believes it has met its obligation by the Concepts and Recommendations paper. • …but of course this network will continue to discuss evaluations, good examples and working papers !

5. Good examples of specific objectives, result indicators and outputs (I) ++ clear result indicator including quantification, target range represents optimistic and pessimistic scenarios ++ good intervention logic (objective-change-actions) ++ smart specialisation strategy, specific sectors

6. Good examples of specific objectives, result indicators and outputs (II) ++ clear result indicator including quantified baseline/target, good intervention logic ++ 4 year average because of strong annual changes ++ actions (e.g. grants to students, fund, technology start-up centres) contribute to objective

7. Good examples of specific objectives, result indicators and outputs (III) ++ clear result indicator including quantified baseline, good intervention logic

8. Good examples of specific objectives, result indicators and outputs (IV) ++ clear result indicator including quantified baseline, good intervention logic

9. Examples which need further improvement (I) -- clear result indicator including quantified baseline and target, BUToutput indicators do not seem to correspond to the described actions which do not seem to be those to deliver reduced municipal waste

10. Examples which need further improvement (II) -- Baseline said to be zero, but actions refer to extending forecasting and warning service system so there must be municipalities already connected; therefore baseline ≠ zero.

11. Bad examples • Specific Objectives not specific • Result indicators relating only to supported entities • Result indicators too distant from policy • Only common indicators used – specificity of the actions not captured • Long lists of vague actions with a lack of clarity on how they might contribute to change in the result indicator