ipa ii trainer manual
DESCRIPTION
IPA II Trainer ManualTRANSCRIPT
IPA II - The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 2014-2020A Practical Manual for Trainers
IPA II REGULATIONproject implementation
evaluationac
tion
doc
umen
ts
enla
rgem
ent
sector approach
Euro
pean
Reg
iona
l Pol
icy
coun
try
stra
tegy
pap
er
prog
ram
min
g
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
instrument for pre-accession assistance
PRAG guidelinesproject proposallogical framework approach
procurement procedures
IPA II - The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 2014-2020A Practical Manual for Trainers
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1 Before You Start – Information for the Trainer ............................................................................................................................. 101.1 Structure of the Training Manual ...................................................................................................................................................................... 101.2 Objectives of the Training Manual .................................................................................................................................................................... 101.3 Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101.3.1 Learning Objectives of Each Chapter ............................................................................................................................................................... 111.4 Tips and Tools for Your Teaching ........................................................................................................................................................................ 111.4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 111.4.2 Feed-back and Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
2 European Regional Policy ................................................................................................................................................................... 142.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 142.2 History of EU Regional Policy .............................................................................................................................................................................. 142.3 Reform of Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: Refocusing on Growth and Jobs ....................................................................................... 172.3.1 Legal Basis for the Period 2014-2020 ................................................................................................................................................................. 172.3.2 Common Rules, Objectives and Allocation ................................................................................................................................................... 182.4 European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) ...................................................................................................................... 192.4.1 The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) ................................................................................................................................ 192.4.2 The European Social Fund (ESF) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 202.4.3 The Cohesion Fund (CF) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 212.5 Notes for the Trainer ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 242.6 Suggested Readings ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
3 IPA II - The Pre-accession Financial Instrument for 2014-2020 ................................................................................................ 263.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 263.2 Political Framework of Pre-accession Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 273.3 Lessons Learnt from IPA I ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 283.4 IPA II – Key Elements ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 303.5 The Sector Approach and its Application ....................................................................................................................................................... 313.5.1 Sector Definition ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 313.5.2 Institutional Setting and Capacity .................................................................................................................................................................... 323.5.3 Sector Budget and Mid-term Financial Planning ...................................................................................................................................... 323.5.4 Sector Performance Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................................................... 323.6 Strategic Planning and Programming of IPA II Assistance .................................................................................................................. 333.6.1 The Strategic Planning and Programming Documents ......................................................................................................................... 333.6.2 Programme Options under IPA II ...................................................................................................................................................................... 333.6.3 The Process of Programming IPA II Assistance .......................................................................................................................................... 363.7 Notes for the Trainer ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 383.8 Suggested Readings .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
4. From an Idea to a Convincing Project Proposal............................................................................................................................ 404.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 404.2 PCM – Guidelines for Project Planning and Management ................................................................................................................... 404.2.1 The Stages of Project Cycle Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 404.2.2 Stage 1: Programming .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 41
6
4.2.3 Stage 2: Identification ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 414.2.4 Stage 3: Formulation .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 414.3 The Logical Framework Approach ..................................................................................................................................................................... 414.3.1 The Analysis Phase – Getting to Know Problems and Priorities ....................................................................................................... 424.3.1.1 Analysing the Stakeholder .................................................................................................................................................................................... 424.3.1.2 Analysing the Problem ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 434.3.1.3 Analysing the Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 454.3.1.4 Analysing the Strategies ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 454.3.2 The Planning Phase ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 474.3.2.1 Defining the Project Description (First Column) ....................................................................................................................................... 484.3.2.2 Defining the Project Assumption (Fourth Column) ................................................................................................................................ 494.3.2.3 Defining Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) of Achievements (Second Column) .......................................................... 494.3.2.4 Defining Sources of Verification (Third Column) ...................................................................................................................................... 504.3.2.5 Finalizing the Draft Logframe Matrix: The Logic Check ...................................................................................................................... 514.3.2.6 Activity, Resource and Cost Schedules ........................................................................................................................................................... 514.4 Notes for the Trainer ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 524.5 Suggested Readings ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
5 From a Convincing Project Proposal to a Successfully Implemented Project ........................................................................ 545.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................545.2 How is IPA Assistance Managed? .........................................................................................................................................................................545.3 Stage 4: Implementation...........................................................................................................................................................................................555.4 PRAG Guidelines for Implementing and Managing IPA Actions .......................................................................................................565.4.1 General Procurement Principles .........................................................................................................................................................................565.4.2 Contract Forms .............................................................................................................................................................................................................575.4.3 Procurement Procedures .........................................................................................................................................................................................585.5 Stage 5: Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................................................................................595.6 Notes for the Trainer ..................................................................................................................................................................................................615.7 Suggested Readings ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 62
A1 Sources of Information .............................................................................................................................................................................................64A2 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................................................................66A3 Glossary of Terms .........................................................................................................................................................................................................69
7
Introduction
At the beginning of the 21st century, enlargement pol-icy was considered one of the most important and most successful foreign policy instruments of the European Union (EU). The successful expansion from six members to twenty-eight has extended a zone of security, political stability, peace and economic well-being to a great portion of Europe. For the EU, enlargement is a major challenge and a historic opportunity at the same time.
Even today, the map of the EU is not considered com-plete: The accession of Croatia in July 2013 is the imple-mentation of the promise made in Thessaloniki in 2003 and renews expectations of the remaining candidate countries in the Western Balkans to join the European Union within the next decade.
At present, Albania, Iceland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are official candidate countries. Turkey entered into accession negotiations already in October 2005, whereas the new-est addition to the circle of candidate countries is Albania which was granted candidate country status in June 2014. In addition, Montenegro and Serbia started their accession negotiations in June 2012 and January 2014 respectively. Adding to these six countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo* are potential candidate countries for EU acces-sion. These countries have clear membership prospects if the necessary requirements are met in time.
Even before formal accession, all countries of the West-ern Balkans had been progressively brought closer to the EU. Thanks to the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP), they already benefit from the Union’s pre-accession strategy as well as from free access to the European single market for almost all their exports. Necessary reforms of e.g. public administration and the applying domestic leg-islation are broadly supported by the EU Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).
This Training Manual which concentrates on the remake of IPA from 2014-2020 has been developed by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenar-beit (GIZ) GmbH and the Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP). The Manual has a twofold objective:
1. The focus of the Training Manual lies on the Euro-pean pre-accession strategy that provides the neces-sary framework and instruments for preparing appli-cant countries for membership. The Manual specifi-
cally concentrates on informing the reader about the “new” Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) II. Being the key tool of the Commission’s pre-acces-sion funding activities for the period 2014-2020, IPA II supports both candidate countries and potential can-didate countries in their efforts to join the EU. They are led to an alignment on EU standards and prepared for management of EU rural, cohesion and structural development funds.
2. The Manual shall provide the trainer with specificknowledge in the above-mentioned areas as well astraining material for further independent work. Forthis purpose, the book presents methods and tech-niques for the presentation of facts and the transferof know-how. Finally, the Manual shall support thetrainers in the preparation of EU-related training ofadministrative staff and other multipliers.
Keeping the specific needs of prospective EU trainers in mind, the Manual combines background information on IPA II, including its political and financial framework, with information of practical relevance concerning IPA programming and management.
We wish you a successful training with sustainable results and hard-working participants – have fun!
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.
8
9
In this chapter you will find:
ä an introduction to the structure and content of this Train-ing Manual on the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assis-tance (IPA II)
ä material that will help you prepare your courses, such as a sample lesson plan
01CHAPTER
Before You Start – Information for the Trainer
IPA II REGULATIONproject implementation
evaluation
acti
on d
ocum
ents
enla
rgem
ent
sector approach
Euro
pean
Reg
iona
l Pol
icy
coun
try
stra
tegy
pap
er
prog
ram
min
g
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE
PRAG guidelinesproject proposallogical framework approach
procurement procedures
10
1 Before You Start – Information for the Trainer
1.1 Structure of the Training Manual
The Training Manual on the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) II consists of five chapters and is organ-ized as follows:� Chapter 1: For the trainer� Chapter 2: European Regional Policy� Chapter 3: IPA II - The pre-accession financial instru-
ment for 2014-2020� Chapter 4: From an idea to a convincing project proposal� Chapter 5: From a convincing project proposal to a suc-
cessfully implemented project.
Chapters 2 to 5 cover all essentials that you need for planning and conducting your seminars. Each chapter is divided into a number of units which build on each other. This enables you to quickly consult a specific topic. Each chapter contains: � Text to serve as the basis of your seminar; you may
choose to photocopy the text and distribute it to the course participants,
� Learning objectives (box at the beginning of each chap-ter) describing and summarizing what course partici-pants will know after having worked through the chap-ter,
� Exercises, possible activities or case studies (at the end of each chapter) that you can do with the course par-ticipants. These exercises relate to the subject matter of the chapter and are meant to reinforce newly acquired knowledge about the EU,
� Suggested readings: For course participants who are interested in further reading, additional literature and specific internet links are listed at the end of each chap-ter. In the annex you can find the sources of information and abbreviations used in the Training Manual. Addi-tionally, a glossary of terms explains the most impor-tant terms related to the EU and its pre-accession activi-ties. It serves as a reference for definitions and explana-tions.
1.2 Objectives of the Training Manual
The pre-accession strategy of the EU is based on a highly specialized system. To be able to absorb financial sup-port by the EU, an efficient administration is a prerequi-site. Administrative resources for planning and program-
ming processes on the local, regional, and national levels are indispensable. In this sense, not only the implementa-tion of pre-accession funds is important, but also the iden-tification of programmes and projects.
Your target groups are civil servants or other actors (partners and key stakeholders) included in IPA II program-ming and/or management who need to know about IPA II in order to do their jobs. Your task is to give them back-ground information on how IPA II operates and the way it is planned in order to increase the absorption capacity of the public administration. Moreover, they will learn how their idea, project or organisation could be supported by IPA II funding.
This IPA II Training Manual helps you share your knowledge with a target group in a way that meets its par-ticular requirements.
1.3 Guiding Principles
The following criteria were adhered to while devising the training programme: � Diversity: A diverse selection of exercises with hints
on how to use them methodologically and didactically. This will help you develop the curriculum and duration of the course in a flexible way as well as meeting the spe-cific requirements of your course.
� Modularity: The Training Manual has been devised as a series of progressive modules. This enables you to adapt seminars, to suit specific objectives and reach different target groups. Modules also allow you to choose indi-vidual chapters to suit the level of detail required by different target groups.
� Applying knowledge: The Training Manual is divided into two sections: the transfer of information and the application of that information. Course participants learn the curriculum through didactic dialogues and group discussions. Newly acquired knowledge is then reinforced through various methods. The exercises will help course participants to access the complex issues discussed in the curriculum. This method enhances the learning experience and the ability of course par-ticipants to apply their newly acquired knowledge in a work setting.
� Trainer support: In devising the Training Manual, we put great importance on your ability as the trainer to understand the given information quickly and effec-
11
tively. We also want to support you in your teaching and give you as much scope as possible in how the cur-riculum is presented.
1.3.1 Learning Objectives of Each Chapter Chapter 2 is about the Regional Policy of the European Union and helps course participants to become familiar with the objectives of the European Structural and Invest-ment (ESI) Funds and understand the reform process of EU Regional Policy for the financing period 2014-2020. Course participants learn about the different forms of Community intervention and how it is funded by the EU budget.Chapter 3 gives an overview of the new Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II), particularly with regard to its objectives, political and financial framework. The chap-ter exclusively deals with the programming phase of IPA within the beneficiary country.Chapter 4 explains how to develop a project from an idea to a convincing project proposal by means of using the Pro-ject Cycle Management (PCM) and tools such as the Logi-cal Framework (LogFrame) approach. Course participants will learn how to analyse responsible actors and problems on the ground as well as to visualize them in the LogFrame matrix. Chapter 5 covers the different management types and man-agement structure requirements under IPA II. It provides general information on the steps in the implementation of a project and on principles of project evaluation.
1.4 Tips and Tools for Your Teaching
1.4.1 Methodology Seminars should endeavour to link theory and practice through an engaging combination of teaching method-ologies. Methods used in a training should be diverse and adapted to the training objective as well as to the target group (e.g. not all senior civil servants will feel comfortable doing a role play, while desk-officers usually are grateful for any kind of practical exercise). Keep in mind that you never use presentation more than two times in a row as a method for your training. “Active listening” should be encouraged and practiced with your trainees but cannot be exercised for longer than 45 minutes. Afterwards you should insert some method of active participation; a short list of possi-bilities is given below: � Didactic dialogues: You can use didactic dialogues to
convey and present the necessary curriculum to the course participants quickly and comprehensively. The idea of a dialogue between ‘teacher’ and ‘student’ is important. Do not assume that course participants have any previous knowledge of the curriculum. For these dialogues, you might need a blackboard, a flipchart or a power point presentation. Note: To successfully estab-
lish dialogue between trainer or presenter and trainees the participants should be familiar with “active listen-ing” techniques.
� Discussions: Use discussions to process or present infor-mation. You may even ask open questions to present new content. In doing so you may visualize the answers you receive on a flip-chart and group them according to the main message you want to pass. Asking ques-tions is a very powerful tool which demands a high degree of proficiency from the trainer. You should know your content by heart and be flexible enough to reach your message by the detour of the trainees’ answers. Announce a fix timeframe for your discussion and limit participants` statements to a certain length. If you hap-pen to face difficulties with trainees who only “show off” and don’t contribute anything new make sure you address them in a friendly way and remind the com-monly agreed time restrictions.
The downside of discussions is that you never reach or include all participants, especially shy people will prefer to just sit and listen. To avoid this you may use the next suggested method: � Role plays and simulations: Role plays can be used
to make course participants put forward different views and opinions during the discussions. This type of activity enables them to become familiar with dif-ferent points of view. Understanding and identifying oneself with the given roles helps course participants to appreciate other views. Simulations also require differ-ent roles which the participants adapt and in addition set a problem and certain preconditions which simulate the reality outside the training. When on-the-job train-ing is not part of training activities a simulation might be a good alternative to practice skills and knowledge.
Both role plays and simulation require careful preparation by the trainer. You need to present your participants role descriptions (three to four different roles have been proven reasonable while you as a trainer of course stay outside as an observer) as well as a detailed problem description and instructions. If you plan to conduct a whole day simulation the material should be given to your participants at least one evening in advance. Instructions might be given on the spot. Please note that you need at least two sessions and a total of three hours for this kind of activity.
� Group and individual work: Group work exercises are suitable for almost every type of training. Knowledge can be processed, new ideas can be developed. Groups should not be too big, the free-rider aspect would just be too difficult to handle. Make sure each group has the possibility to clarify instructions and ask ques-tions to trainer or expert present. Presentation of group
12
work results is obligatory. You also might announce in advance if and how these results will be used for the fur-ther training which rises participants motivation. Indi-vidual work can be useful for reading exercises and also as “individual learning assignment” during two train-ing sessions.
� Course length: A course on IPA II covers a wide variety of topics. The detailed structure enables course partici-pants to get familiar with the topic. Depending on the previous knowledge of the target group as well as the main objective of your training specific IPA II related knowledge can be transferred and trained within a one to four-day intensive training. The following course plan presents the training sessions which were devel-oped and practiced during the 2014 Training of Train-ers programme on IPA II in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The plan focusses on beginners with no or only little knowledge on IPA related issues. This single training day can of course be extended into a much broader for-mat, including a larger practical involvement of the trainees. However, we suggest you to start with one-day training and to increase your training level step by step.
Although this lesson plan can support you in your prepara-tion process, feel free to modify it as necessary: � You decide what information to stress and what exer-
cises to do. � You can determine the length of the course by the num-
ber of exercises you choose to use. � Of course, you may choose to single out parts of the cur-
riculum.
1.4.2 Feed-back and EvaluationAn important part of your role as a trainer is to provide your participants with feed-back and to encourage feed-back of the trainees on the performance and results that were achieved during the training session. Please remember that feed-back should always be constructive and encour-aging and positively formulated. You can ask your trainees to answer the following questions before commenting or giving feed-back:� Is there anything that could have been done different
to better attract participants attention?� What exactly did the presenter do to attract your atten-
tion?� What did the presenter do to make you feel he/she is
addressing particularly to you?
The evaluation of your course is an essential part of your work as a trainer. The main purpose of an evaluation is to assess the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of your course. The evaluation and recommendations of the course participants can help you improve your work in the future. Note: Always reserve enough time (minimum 30 minutes) for evaluation and feed-back exercises. If you wish to visual-ize your results (e.g. on flipchart paper put on the wall with different categories that were part of the training) make sure you can refer to the results in the following training sessions or any follow-up activity.
COURSE PLAN ON IPA II BASICS FOR BEGINNERS WITH BASIC KNOWLEDGE ON PROGRAMMING
Training objective Key learning points Methods
IAfter this training session the participants are able to explain the broad IPA II approach includ-ing changes with regard to the previous IPA.
Welcome and introductionOverview and IPA II – key elements and changes
Active listening, active participation (e.g. brainstorming)
Coffee break
II
After this training session the participants are able to understand and explain the systematic approach of IPA II focusing on the underlying documents.
IPA II – legal and strate-gic framework
Active listening, active participation (e.g. group work on hierarchy of docs)
Lunch break
IIIAfter this training session the participants are able to participate in the process of SPD development.
Sector approach and the Sector Planning Document
Active listening, active participation (e.g. group work on SPD template comparison and drafting)
Coffee break
IVAfter this training session the participants are able to participate in the process of AD development.
Action Document writing Evaluation and conclusion
Active listening, active participa-tion (short simulation on AD quality review)
13
In this chapter you will find:
ä an overview of the European Regional Policy, particu-larly with regard to its evolution and its present shape. The focus will be on the main objectives of the Euro-pean Regional Policy and the instruments used to implement it.
ä useful links to original documents and guidelines on European Regional Policy
02CHAPTER
European Regional Policy
EUROPEAN REGIONAL POLICY
project implementationevaluation
acti
on d
ocum
ents
enla
rgem
ent
sector approach
IPA
II R
egul
atio
ns
coun
try
stra
tegy
pap
er
prog
ram
min
g
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
instrument for pre-accession assistance
PRAG guidelinesproject proposallogical framework approach
procurement procedures
14
2 European Regional Policy
2.1 Introduction
Why do we need a European Regional Policy? Today the European Union is one of the most prosperous eco-nomic zones in the world. The 28 member states of the EU form a community and an internal market of 505.74 million citizens. There are, however, great economic and social disparities between these countries and their more than 350 regions that weaken the Community’s dynamic. Today, every fifth region (68 regions) has an average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per inhabitant that is more than 25% below the EU-27 average, and 22 of these regions have an average GDP per inhabitant less than 50% of the EU-27 average.
With the accession of twelve new member states in 2004 and 2007, the development gap between the regions dou-bled. As a result, today most beneficiaries of the Regional Policy are located in Central and Eastern Europe.
European Regional Policy puts into practice the soli-darity between the peoples of Europe mentioned in the preamble of the Lisbon Treaty (TEU). It helps to achieve one of the fundamental objectives laid down in the Treaty: the strengthening of the EU’s economic and social cohe-sion (Art. 158-162 TFEU) by reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions in the Union (Art. 174-178 TFEU).
The ongoing financial and economic crisis in the EU exposed fundamental problems of macro-economic imbal-ances and redirected attention to the need to tackle these disparities – to overcome the crisis, generate growth and competitiveness and to prevent the undermining of key European projects such as the European Single Market and the common currency, the euro.
European Regional Policy has a significant impact on the competitiveness of the regions and the living condi-tions of their inhabitants, mainly by co-financing multi-annual development programmes. As an investment policy it supports job creation and economic growth and there-fore plays an important role in responding to the current economic crisis and the delivery of the EU’s new high-level strategy, Europe 2020.
Apart from these broad policy objectives another fac-tor highlights the importance of European Regional Policy: More than one third (34 percent) of the actual budget of the
European Union is spent on regional development and eco-nomic and social cohesion. Amounting to €325 billion, it is the second largest budget item for the period 2014-2020.
2.2 History of EU Regional Policy
In 1957, the authors of the Treaty of Rome defined the main tasks of the European Community as promoting unity and harmonious development of economic activ-ities as well as the accelerated rise of the living stand-ard in all member states (Art. 2, Treaty of Rome). These objectives were to be reached by establishing a large mar-ket based on the free movement of goods, people, capi-tal and services. To reduce the economic and social dis-parities within the Community and its member states, two sector-based funds, the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), were set up in 1958. After the creation of the Directorate General for Regional Policy in 1968, the Heads of State and Government adopted conclusions in 1972 stating that Regional Policy was “an essential fac-tor in strengthening the Community”. To stimulate the endogenous development in the less developed regions in the Community the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was set up in 1975 for a three-year period. In 1986, the Single European Act paved the way for an inte-grated Cohesion Policy designed to counterbalance the burden of the single market for the less-favoured regions of the Community.
Since the Single European Act and with the back-ground of the second southern enlargement (accession of Spain and Portugal), the task of reinforcing Euro-pean economic and social cohesion has become the cor-ollary of a Europe without borders. A key objective for social and economic cohesion remained the diminution of regional disparities (Art. 158 TEC). In 1988, the mem-ber states decided to double the funds allocated to struc-tural expenditure and concentrate the action of various structural funds. The first fundamental reform regard-ing the structural funds adopted by the Council in June 1988 introduced key principles such as focusing on less-favoured regions, multi-annual programming, strate-gic orientation of investments and the involvement of regional and local partners.
15
The Treaty of Maastricht (Treaty on European Union) of 1993 designated cohesion as one of the main objectives of the Union alongside the Economic and Monetary Union and the Single Market. The preamble of the Treaty on Euro-pean Union (TEU) also inserted the principle of solidarity, another reason for engaging a European Regional Policy. The European Regional Policy therefore embodies the sol-idarity of the European Community. The Treaties spec-ify that the European Union should act to strengthen its economic and social cohesion (Art. 2 TEC) and specifically work to reduce the gaps among the levels of development in the different regions of the member states (Art. 158 TEC). The Maastricht Treaty also established the creation of the Cohesion Fund (Art. 161, TEC) to support projects in the fields of environment and transport in the least prosper-ous member states of the European Union.
The period of 2000 to 2006 was mainly determined by two topics: the simplification of the design and pro-cedures of Cohesion Policy as well as the preparation for enlargement of the European Union. A significant reform of structural policy came along with the Berlin summit in March 1999, when Heads of State and Government reached agreement on the Agenda 2000. The resulting reformed regulations on structural policy have been in force since 2000. The Cohesion Fund was adjusted at the same time.
In preparation for the EU’s forthcoming eastern enlargement, Agenda 2000 also provided the introduc-tion of two pre-accession instruments for the period 2000-2006: the Instrument for Structural Policies and Pre-accession (ISPA) which provided assistance along the lines of the Cohesion Fund and the Special Acces-sion Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD). The SAPARD assisted candidate countries to prepare for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These two instruments complemented the PHARE1 programme, in 1989 initially created to support reforms and economic and political transition in Poland and Hungary and later extended to back institution and capacity-building as well as investment financing in the applicant countries of the Western Balkans.
In 2002, the EU set up a European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to help European regions hit by a major nat-ural disaster. Major catalyst for its creation was to help rebuild the infrastructure and strengthen the economies of regions affected by the flooding in Eastern Europe in summer 2002. Ever since, the EUSF has helped in more than 55 catastrophic events in 23 different European countries amounting to more than 3.5 billion Euros.
The 2004 enlargement (from EU-15 to EU-25) was a historic step for the European Union. Yet, while the EU population increased by 20 percent, the EU’s GDP only
increased by 5 percent. The disparities in terms of income and employment between old and new member states were substantial and demanded enhanced efforts for cohesion. With a national average GDP per head of less than 50 percent of the EU average, the new member states became eligible for the highest possible level of support from the structural and cohesion funds.
Agreed upon by the European Council in Lisbon in March 2000, the Lisbon Strategy focused on growth, employment and innovation. With its re-launch at the end of 2005, Cohesion Policy has been recognized as a key instrument at the Community level contributing to the implementation of the growth strategy and the crea-tion of jobs – not only because it represents around one third of the Community budget, but also because strat-egies designed at local and regional levels must form an integral part of the effort to promote growth and jobs.
Anticipating the strong differences between the region’s levels of national and regional economic and social development following the enlargements 2004/2007, the Heads of State and Government adopted a much higher budget for the period 2007-2013 in Decem-ber 2003. Approximately €347 billion were allocated to the structural and cohesion funds. Compared to the pre-vious period (2000-2006), the financial assistance granted to new member states (on average by year) was 166 per-cent higher during the 2007-2013 period. As foreseen, the gap in economic and social development has grown sig-nificantly since the enlargements in 2004 and 2007 and was aggravated by the economic crisis. For example, by 2010 the richest region was Inner London with 290 per-cent of the EU’s per-capita income whereas the northeast of Romania was the poorest region with only 23 percent of the EU average.
Overview of the period of 2007-2013
In the period 2007-2013, Cohesion Policy represented 35.7 percent of the total EU budget expenditure (€347.41 bil-lion). For this period, the activities of the structural funds and instruments focused on three objectives of European Regional Policy:
Objective 1 – ConvergenceObjective 1 became the priority of the EU’s Cohesion Policy. In accordance with the Nice Treaty, the Union worked to “promote harmonious development” and aimed particu-larly to “narrow the gap between the development levels of the various regions”. This is why 81.54 percent of the appro-priations of the structural funds were allocated helping areas lagging behind in their development. In these areas,
1 Poland and Hungary: Aid for Restructuring of the Economies
16
the gross domestic product (GDP) was below 75 percent of the Community average.
Objective 2 - Regional Competitiveness and EmploymentObjective 2 addressed areas facing structural difficulties, including industrial, rural, urban areas or areas depend-ent on fisheries. Though located in regions whose devel-opment level was close to the Community average, such areas were faced with different types of socio-economic difficulties that are often a source of high unemployment. These include the devolution of industrial or service sec-tors, a decline in traditional activities in rural areas or a crisis situation in urban areas.
The aim of strengthening competitiveness as well as employment was pursued through a twofold approach: First, development programmes helped regions to foster
economic change through innovation and the promo-tion of knowledge, entrepreneurship, the protection of the environment, and the improvement of their accessi-bility. Secondly, the creation of more and better jobs was supported by adapting the workforce to the new circum-stances as well as investing into human resources.
In the EU-27, this objective concerned - within 19 member states - a total of 168 regions with a population of 314 million inhabitants. Within these, 13 regions with a total of 19 million inhabitants represent so-called “phas-ing-in” areas and received special financial allocations due to their former status as “Objective 1” regions. The amount of €55 billion – of which €11.4 billion were assigned to the “phasing-in” regions – represented just below 16 percent of the total amount allocated to European Regional Policy.
Source: Eurostat
Figure 1: Regional disparities across EU28 GDP/head (PPS), 2011
17
Objective 3 - European Territorial Cooperation The European Territorial Cooperation objective was financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and supported cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation programmes. The budget avail-able for this objective (€8.7 billion) represented 2.5 percent of the total allocation for Cohesion Policy during the period 2007-2013, including the allocation for member states’ par-ticipation in EU external border cooperation programmes supported by other instruments (such as the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance or the European Neighbour-hood and Partnership Instrument).
The figure below shows how the structural funds and instruments were attributed to the respective objectives:
Objectives, structural funds and instruments 2007-2013
Source: European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy
In order to reduce regional disparities between future EU member states, a new financial pre-accession instrument was created for the period 2007-2013. Superseding ISPA, SAPARD and PHARE, the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) inter alia supported candidate and poten-tial candidate countries in their preparation for the imple-mentation and management of the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund (see chapter 3).
Moreover, since 2013, in addition to social and eco-nomic cohesion, territorial cohesion has become an inte-gral part of Cohesion Policy.
Although the 2007-2013 period and its programmes were fairly effective in reaching the intended aims, the structure and the procedures were criticized for being complicated and not sufficiently performance-oriented. Hence, to simplify the process and the structure, to be bet-ter able to monitor the projects based on their performance and strengthen the responsibility and initiative of the ben-eficiary states, Cohesion Policy went through a reform pro-cess for the period 2014-2020.
2.3 Reform of Cohesion Policy 2014-2020: Refocusing on Growth and Jobs
EU Cohesion Policy for the current period (2014-2020) has undergone a substantial reform process, particularly before the backdrop of the financial and economic crisis. Regional Policy plays a major role in the response to the crisis and has been recognized as the main investment policy to achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy – namely to foster job creation and growth. Moreover, it is set to tackle climate change, energy dependence and social exclusion.
2.3.1 Legal Basis for the Period 2014-2020
Treaty ArticlesTEU Preamble TEU Art. 3TEU Art. 174 & 176: Objectives of the European CommunityTFEU Art. 162-164: The European Social FundTFEU Art. 174-178: Economic, Social and Territo-rial Cohesion
The Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parlia-ment and the Council of 17 December 2013 lays down com-mon provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and sets down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, providing the basis for European Regional Policy for the period 2014-2020. This regulation is based on TFEU Art. 177, which stipulates that the Council is to coordinate the structural funds and to make them more effective with the purpose of meeting the objectives set out in TEU Art. 174 and 176.
In addition to this general regulation, there are fund-specific regulations such as:
� Regulation (EC) No 1301/2013 of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006, Official Journal of the European Union L 374/289 (20 December 2013).
� Regulation (EC) No 1304/2013 of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regula-
CohesionFund
ESF
ESF
ERDF
ERDF
ERDF
Convergence
Regional Competitive-ness and Employment
Objectives Structural Funds and Instruments
European Territorial Cooperation
18
tion (EC) No 1081/2006, Official Journal of the Euro-pean Union L 347/470 (20 December 2013).
� Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Par-liament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territo-rial cooperation goal, Official Journal of the European Union L 347/259 (20 December 2013).
� Regulation (EC) No 1302/2013 of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amend-ing Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplification and improvement of the establishment and functioning of such groupings, Official Journal of the European Union L 347/303 (20 December 2013).
� Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2013 of 17 Decem-ber 2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006, Official Journal of the European Union L 347/281 (20 December 2013).
� Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Par-liament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agri-cultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 Official Journal of the European Union L 347/487 (20 December 2013).
2.3.2 Common Rules, Objectives and Allocation34 percent of the EU 2014-2020 budget have been allocated to Cohesion Policy amounting to €325 billion.
Taking into account the national contributions through co-financing by member states and the lever-age effects of financial instruments, the overall impact of Cohesion Policy has been calculated to be more than €500 billion. In contrast to the last period, the three objectives are no longer explicitly mentioned, but the focus rests on two major goals: investment in growths and jobs and Euro-pean territorial cooperation.By investing in all European regions and targeting resources at key growth sectors, the reform of the Cohe-sion Policy aims at maximizing the funding impact. Four key areas of investment have been defined as a framework in order to achieve the goals of economic growth and job creation. These are:� Research and innovation� Information and communication technologies � Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-
sized enterprises� Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy
European territorial cooperation remains the second goal of Cohesion Policy and works as a framework in which
national, regional and local actors from different mem-ber states can exchange their experience and develop joint actions to approach common problems. The goal has gained increasing importance particularly due to the fact that the challenges faced by member states increasingly cut across regional borders and therefore require joint actions.
These investment strategies are stipulated in the Part-nership Agreements and Operational Programmes, con-cluded between the member states and the European Com-mission. In contrast to the 2007-2013 programming period, the rules proposed for the 2014-2020 period set the finan-cial instruments up to be non-prescriptive in regards to sectors, beneficiaries, types of projects and activities that are supported. Hence, the scope for financial instruments is widened and member states may use financial instru-ments in relation to all thematic objectives covered by Operational Programmes.
A major change to the 2007-2013 period is that the com-mon provision regulation acts as a single programme plan-ning instrument for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohe-sion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Under a Common Strategic Frame-work (CSF) joint rules for capital expenditure allow for bet-ter coordination, complementation and less overlap while at the same time reducing the administrative burden.
Within the CSF, establishing national and regional objectives and a strategy for its achievement is ultimately the member countries responsibility.
By setting clear, transparent and measurable aims and targets for accounting and results, Cohesion Policy has become more result-oriented and can be easier moni-tored. Moreover, a regular debate about the use of finan-cial resources is enabled. The performance-measuring framework also implies the creation of a ‘performance reserve’ allowing additional funding for well performing programmes, which will be reviewed in 2019. In contrast, failure to achieve milestones or a serious underachieve-ment may even result in the suspension or cancellation of funds. The fact that the disbursement of funds will only take place after certain conditions have been established (ex ante conditions) as well as the releases of additional funding is made contingent on performance (ex post con-ditions) underlines the focus on increased performance and conditionality.
Geographical distribution according to the Cohesion Pol-icy (2014 - 2020)The reformed Cohesion Policy stipulates that all regions in Europe benefit from the ESI funds. The level of investment as well as the national contribution is adapted to the level
19
Source: European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy
of regional development in order to ensure the concentra-tion of the funds according to the GDP. Therefore, three categories of regions have been determined: � Less developed regions (GDP < 75% of EU-27 average)� Transitional regions (GDP 75% to 90% of EU-27 aver-
age)� More developed regions (GDP > 90% of EU-27 average)
2.4 European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds)
Within the financial framework for 2014-2020, the main instruments of the European Regional Policy are: � the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)� the European Social Fund (ESF)� the Cohesion Fund (CF) � the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Develop-
ment (EAFRD) � the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
The ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Funds are the three funds under Cohesion Policy. Every region may benefit from the ESF and the ERDF. However, only the least devel-oped regions are eligible for support from the Cohesion Fund.
Through the Common Provisions Regulation all three funds are now subject to the same rules of programming, management and monitoring.
2.4.1 The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) The ERDF was created in 1975 and is managed by the Regional Policy Directorate General. It works to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion by correcting imbalances between regions. For the 2014-2020 period, the resources of the ERDF are concentrated on four key priori-ties for economic growth and job creation:� research and innovation; � information and communication technologies (ICT)
implying the investment in ICT infrastructure, access to high-speed broadband in remote regions, develop-ment and upgrade of ICT tools;
� competitiveness of SMEs; and� supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy.
To ensure that EU investments are concentrated on these priority areas, minimum allocations are set depending on the category of the region. For example, in more developed regions at least 80 percent of the funds must focus on at least two of these priorities, while in transition regions this focus is for 60 percent of the funds. Less developed regions have a wider scope of investment priorities to choose from, reflecting their wider development needs. Nevertheless, 50 percent of the ERDF resources still have to be devoted to the four priorities mentioned above.
Around €100 billion are dedicated to the priorities for the period of 2014-2020, of which at least €23 billion support the shift to a low-carbon economy. This implies themes such as renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean urban transport.
COHESION POLICY ARCHITECTURE
2007-2013 2014-2020
Objectives Goals Category of regions Funds
Convergence ERDFESF
Investment in growth and jobs
Less developed regions
ERDFESF
Convergence phasing out
Transition regions
Regional competitive-ness and employment phasing in
Cohesion Fund Cohesion Fund
Regional competitive-ness and employment
ERDFESF
More developed regions
ERDFESF
European Territorial Cooperation
ERDF European Territorial Cooperation
ERDF
20
Moreover, the urban dimension of Cohesion Policy has been enhanced and a minimum amount of ERDF resources has to be spent on integrated projects in cities.
2.4.2 The European Social Fund (ESF)The European Social Fund was created in 1957. Over time it has become the main financial tool through which the European Union aims to improve employment by invest-ing in human capital. In the current economic crisis, the ESF is playing an important role in mitigating its conse-quences – most importantly the rise of unemployment and poverty. The ESF investments target all EU regions and are ensured through a minimum guaranteed share of the ESF within the Cohesion Policy in each member state. For the period between 2014 and 2020, more than €80 billon have been allocated to the investment in human capital includ-ing €3 billion for the Youth Employment Initiative.
The ESF covers four thematic objectives throughout the Union: 1. Promoting employment and supporting labour mobil-
ity;
2. Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty;3. Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning; 4. Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient pub-
lic administration.
In line with the EU’s commitment for inclusive growth, in each member state at least 20 percent of the EFS should target to promote social inclusion and combat poverty. In order to increase the impact of funding, the current period the ESF concentrates its interventions on the following limited number of priorities: � to boost the adaptability of workers with new skills and
enterprises with new ways of working; � to improve the access to employment, in particu-
lar facilitating the transition from school to work for young people, or by training less skilled job-seekers to improve their job prospects. This also implies an increased emphasize on vocational training and life-long learning opportunities; and
� to help disadvantaged people form groups to get jobs.
Figure 4: Structural Fund (ERDF and ESF) eligibility 2014-2020
Source: European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy
21
Figure 5: Cohesion Fund eligibility 2014-2020
Source: European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy
2.4.3 The Cohesion Fund (CF)The Cohesion Fund was established in 1994 as part of the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty. It was mainly created to assist the least prosperous countries of the Union in meeting the Convergence Criteria of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Cohesion Fund aid is made avail-able to member states where the Gross National Prod-uct (GNP) is less than 90 percent of the Community aver-age. Thus, the fund is not linked to wealth at the regional level but at the national level measured in GDP per capita. Therefore, only the poorest countries – but not compara-
tively wealthy countries like the UK or Germany with poor regions – benefit from this catching-up fund.
With the EU enlargement on 1 May 2004, all new member states qualified for the CF and became its main recipients: one third of the funding was reserved for them between 2004 and 2006. When Croatia acceded to the EU in 2013, it became directly eligible for support from the Cohesion Fund. For the period of 2014-2020 the following member states receive Cohesion Fund assistance: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hun-gary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
22
Figure 6: Total allocations of Cohesion Policy 2014-2020* (million €, 2011 prices)
ERDF and ESF ERDF
Cohesion
Fund
Less
developed
regions
Transition
regions
Special
allocation for
outermost
and sparsely
populated
regions
More
developed
regions
Territorial
CooperationTotal
BE - - 962 - 868 231 2.061
BG 2.384 4.623 - - - 145 7.153
CZ 6.562 13.646 - - 79 298 20.585
DK - - 64 - 230 199 494
DE - - 8.750 - 7.609 847 17.207
EE 1.123 2.198 - - - 49 3.369
IE - - - - 869 148 1.017
EL 3.407 6.420 2.105 - 2.307 203 14.443
ES - 1.858 12.201 432 10.084 542 25.116
FR - 3.147 3.927 395 5.862 956 14.288
HR 2.676 5.225 - - - 128 8.029
IT - 20.333 1.004 - 7.006 998 29.341
CY 286 - - - 388 29 703
LV 1.412 2.742 - - - 82 4.236
LT 2.145 4.189 - - - 100 6.434
LU - - - - 39 18 57
HU 6.313 13.452 - - 416 318 20.498
MT 228 - 441 - - 15 684
NL - - - - 908 342 1.250
AT - - 66 - 823 226 1.114
PL 24.274 45.917 - - 2.017 615 72.823
PT 3.000 15.008 232 103 1.148 108 19.599
RO 7.251 13.773 - - 405 397 21.826
SI 939 1.134 - - 763 55 2.891
SK 4.361 8.489 - - 40 196 13.086
FI - - - 272 911 142 1.325
SE - - - 184 1.355 300 1.840
UK - 2.126 2.335 - 5.144 760 10.364
interregional
cooperation 500 500
Total 66.362 164.279 32.085 1.387 49.271 8.948 322.332
Source: European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy
23
The CF supports two types of actions:
� Investments in the field of environment to support the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors, to promote climate change adaption and to preserve and protect the environment and promote resource effi-ciency.
� Support to infrastructure projects related to the Euro-pean transport (TEN-T) networks, notably to priority projects of European interest that are supported by the member states. In addition, the Fund contributes to investments in low-carbon transport systems and urban transport.
The CF may also be used to finance studies and measures related to technical assistance in connection with these two types of actions.
The current applicant countries cannot take part in the Cohesion Policy and they do not have access to structural funds and instruments before accession. The promotion of economic and social development and environmental protection is, however, one of the objectives of pre-acces-sion aid for applicant countries. The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) directly prepares candidate and potential candidate countries for the successful manage-ment of structural instruments. In this respect, structural instruments can be considered as a direct continuation of assistance granted under IPA – a topic that will be dis-cussed in the following chapter.
NUTS – a three-level hierarchical classification
The whole European Union is covered by one or several objectives of the Cohesion Policy. To determine eligibility for aid from the respective funds, the Commission bases its decision on statistical data. Europe is divided into various groups of regions corresponding to the classification known by the acronym NUTS (common nomenclature of territo-rial units for statistics).
Since this is a hierarchical classification, the NUTS subdivides each member state into a whole number of NUTS 1 regions, each of which is in turn subdivided into a whole number of NUTS 2 regions and so on. At the regional level (without taking municipalities into account), the administrative structure of the member states generally comprises two main regional levels (Länder and Kreise in Germany, régions and départements in France, Comunidades autono-mas and provincias in Spain, regioni and provincie in Italy, etc.).
The grouping of comparable units at each NUTS level involves for each member state establishing an additional regional level to the two main levels referred to above. This additional level therefore corresponds to a less important or even non-existent administrative structure, and its classification level varies within the first 3 levels of the NUTS depending entirely on the member state: NUTS 1 for France, Italy, Greece, and Spain, NUTS 2 for Germany, NUTS 3 for Belgium, etc.
The NUTS Regulation lays down the following minimum and maximum thresholds for the average size of the NUTS regions: Minimum Maximum
NUTS 1 3 million 7 millionNUTS 2 800 000 3 millionNUTS 3 150 000 800 000.
The current NUTS classification is valid from 1 January 2012 until 31 December 2014. It determines 97 regions at NUTS 1, 270 regions at NUTS 2 and 1294 regions at NUTS 3 level.
24
2.5 Notes for the Trainer
Possible activities Distribute prepared cards with the objectives of Cohesion Policy and ask the groups to put them in some sort of hier-archical order. Each group can then justify the order they chose and open this to a general discussion.
Discuss the following questions in class:� What is the purpose and what are the main objectives
of EU Regional Policy?� What measures aim at achieving these objectives?� What are the priorities of EU Cohesion Policy for the
financing period of 2014-2020?
2.6 Suggested Readings
For those who are interested in further reading, literature and specific internet links are listed below:
Treaty lawThe basic legal texts on which regional policy is based (reg-ulations, delegated acts, implementing acts, guidance, etc.) are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/leg-islation/regulations/ andhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/regional_pol-icy.html?root_default=SUM_1_CODED=26
Other documentsEuropean Commission: Strategic report 2013 on pro-gramme implementation 2007-2013 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2013/strat_report_2013_en.pdf
InternetTo receive overall information on EU Regional Policy: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htmYou can get detailed information on the programming period 2014-2020 under: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_pol-icy/en/policy/how/priorities
The European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional Policy has developed a Policy Learning Database with case studies, ex-post evaluation reports and sum-maries of RegioStars. You can search by sector and sub-sector, member states and project contacts under: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/best-practices/
The European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional Policy has a free mailing list you can join at: www.inforegiodoc.eu/mailinglist/faces/welcome.jsp You then receive information leaflets, learn about new developments and are sent the monthly newsletter Infore-gio News.
LiteratureAllen, David (2005): Cohesion and Structural Funds, in: Wallace, H., Wallace W., Pollack, M. (eds.) Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bache, Ian; Andreou, George; Atanasova, Gorica & Tom-sic, Danijel (2011): Europeanization and multi-level gov-ernance in south-east Europe: the domestic impact of EU cohesion policy and pre-accession aid. Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 18, Issue 1, p.122-141.
Bache, Ian (2011): Europeanization and Multi-level govern-ance, in Bache, I. and Andreou, G. (eds). Cohesion Policy and Multi-level Governance in South East Europe, Oxford: Routledge.
Baldwin, Richard (2012): Chapter 10 - Location effects, eco-nomic geography and regional policy. In: Economics of European Integration. Fourth edition, New York: Mcgraw-Hill Publ.Comp.
McCann, Philip and Ortega-Argilés, Raquel (2014): Trans-forming European regional policy: a result-driven agenda and smart specialization. Oxford Review of Economic Pol-icy, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp.405-431.
McCann, Philip and Ortega-Argilés, Raquel (2013): Rede-signing and Reforming European Regional policy: The Rea-sons, the logic and the outcomes. International Regional Science Review, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp. 424-445.
25
In this chapter you will find:
ä a detailed overview of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) particularly with regard to its objec-tives, its political and financial framework and the pro-gramming process;
ä useful links to original documents, further information on IPA II
03CHAPTER
IPA II - The Pre-accession Financial Instrument for 2014-2020
IPA II REGULATIONproject implementation
evaluation
acti
on d
ocum
ents
enla
rgem
ent
sector approach
Euro
pean
Reg
iona
l Pol
icy
coun
try
stra
tegy
pap
er
prog
ram
min
g
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
instrument for pre-accession assistance
PRAG guidelinesproject proposallogical framework approach
procurement procedures
26
3 IPA II - The Pre-accession Financial Instrument for 2014-2020
3.1 Introduction
On 1 January 2014, the Instrument for Pre-accession Assis-tance (IPA) II was introduced as the new EU financial tool for the Community’s activities to support candidate and potential candidate countries in their preparation for accession in the period 2014-2020. IPA II constitutes the continuation of IPA I from 2007-2013 which was conceived to bring these countries closer to the EU in economic, polit-ical and legal terms. Under IPA, a broad range of financial support for various types of projects in the fields of insti-tution building, human rights, civil society, agriculture, etc. was made possible in order to back their path towards EU membership and eventually prepare them for acced-ing to the Union.
Financial assistance under IPA is provided to two types of beneficiary countries: potential candidate countries and candidate countries. Candidate country status is granted on the day the European Council accepts a country’s appli-cation for membership in the European Union. Potential candidate countries find themselves at an earlier stage in the accession process as they may apply for EU member-ship in the future. At present, Albania, Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Serbia, Monte-negro and Iceland are candidate countries; Bosnia and Her-zegovina and Kosovo* are potential candidate countries. All in all, these 8 beneficiary countries are eligible for EU pre-accession funding in the period 2014-2020.
The overall policy objective of IPA II is to support can-didate countries and potential candidate countries in their preparation for EU membership and the progressive align-ment of their institutions and economies with the stand-ards and policies of the European Union. This support is always related to the needs of the individual beneficiary countries and adapted to their specific EU approximation agendas. Through IPA, the EU assists the beneficiary coun-tries in aligning themselves to the standards and policies of the European Union in the perspective of a future mem-bership. In other words, the general aim of IPA is to help beneficiary countries in their efforts to meet the accession criteria.
Besides this general objective, IPA II aims at support-ing political reforms in the beneficiary countries as well as their economic, social and territorial development in the light of inclusive growth. In addition, another specific
objective of pre-accession funding is to bolster regional integration and territorial cooperation among the benefi-ciary countries so as to prepare them for joining the Euro-pean Union as the ultimate goal of their individual acces-sion paths.
Furthermore, candidate countries and potential can-didate countries are expected to be able to meet the set of common rules, standards and policies of the European Union. These are embodied in the term “acquis commu-nautaire” or Community acquis (French for “that which has been acquired”).
The acquis is constantly evolving and includes: � the content, principles and political objectives of the
treaties on which the Union is founded;� legislation and decisions adopted in application of the
treaties, and the case law of the Court of Justice;� other acts, legally binding or not (e.g. declarations, reso-
lutions), adopted by the European Union;� measures relating to the Common Foreign and Security
Policy;� measures relating to Justice and Home Affairs;� international agreements concluded by the Commu-
nity, the Community jointly with it`s member states, the Union, and those concluded by the member states among themselves with regard to Union activities.
In order to become a member state, applicant countries must accept the acquis, transpose it into their national leg-islation and implement it upon accession. Specific arrange-ments in limited scope may be agreed on only in excep-tional circumstances.
IPA helps beneficiary countries to meet all these cri-teria. With IPA funding, candidate countries are prepared to fully adopt and implement the acquis communautaire. Furthermore, these countries are supported in preparing themselves to effectively implement and manage the struc-tural and cohesion funds (see chapter 2: European Regional Policy) which will be available for them once they join the EU. Hence, IPA constitutes a link between pre-accession preparation and post-accession challenges.
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.
27
What exactly are the accession criteria?Meeting the accession criteria is a prerequisite for all can-didate countries to become a member state of the Euro-pean Union. As they were decided at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993, they are also known as Copen-hagen Criteria. To join the EU, an applicant country must meet three criteria:1. Political criterion: stability of institutions to guaran-
tee democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights including the rights of minorities;
2. Economic criterion: the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competition and market forces;
3. acquis-related criterion: the adoption of common rules, standards and policies that form the so-called Community acquis.
IPA assistance for potential candidate countries especially promotes their alignment to the Community acquis. Thus, IPA funding focuses on social, economic and territorial development as well as the creation of necessary financial accounting and audit systems.
3.2 Political Framework of Pre-accession Funding
Pre-accession funding operates within a framework of agreements devised for the EU approximation of the appli-cant countries for European membership. The EU’s pol-icy towards the Western Balkan countries is governed by the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP). Initiated in 1999, the SAP aims at delivering stabilisation and pro-viding a swift transition to a market economy. It also pro-motes regional cooperation and the prospect of EU acces-sion. The SAP process makes the perspective of a future membership conditional on the introduction of basic ele-ments of good governance and societal, legal or economic reforms.
The main element of the process is the conclusion of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA). The SAA provides a framework of mutual commitments on a wide range of political, trade and economic issues between the EU and each Western Balkan country. The SAAs embody a choice for Europe by the Western Balkan countries and the membership perspective offered to them by the EU. Such agreements have been concluded with each of these coun-tries and represent a far-reaching contractual relationship with the EU including mutual rights and obligations.
The concrete policy and programming framework for the Community’s pre-accession activities channelled through IPA is constituted by the European Partnerships
(for potential candidate countries) and the Accession Part-nerships (for candidate countries). The European Partner-ships and the Accession Partnerships together with annual Progress Reports and the Commission’s annual strategy document form the “enlargement package” adopted each year by the Commission and presented to the Council and the European Parliament.
Accession Partnerships are an instrument of the Com-munity’s pre-accession strategy. They are designed to guide and assist the candidate countries in their efforts to achieve the accession criteria, in particular to implement the Com-munity acquis. In one document per country, they deter-mine specific priorities in order to facilitate the preparation for EU accession. Thus, they constitute the framework for pre-accession assistance from Community funds.
European Partnerships have been set up for the poten-tial candidate countries within the framework of the Sta-bilisation and Association Process (SAP). Following the logic of the Accession Partnerships, they define priority actions for potential candidate countries and the finan-cial structure needed to improve stability and prosperity in the Western Balkans and to approach the EU. Further-more, they outline the financial and technical assistance the EU provides for the potential candidate countries in the course of alignment with the EU acquis.
The strategy document highlights the Commission’s policy on EU enlargement. This annually published doc-ument reviews the progress made by the candidate and potential candidate countries over the last year. It defines priorities as well as recommendations for further develop-ment of each country to be met in the following year. Pub-lished together with the strategy document, the Progress Reports of the European Commission contain information about the progress achieved by candidate and potential candidate countries in their preparation for EU member-ship over the last twelve months.
Being conceived as a flexible instrument within the context of pre-accession, IPA assistance depends on the evolution and needs of the beneficiary countries as well as their individual progress towards EU accession. Taking into account the strategy document and the annual progress reports of the European Commission, IPA II thus allows to detect new priorities and make necessary adjustments.
A central document of the financial framework of each country is the Framework Agreement. In this agreement concluded between the European Commission and the beneficiary country for the entire programming period, provisions regarding management, implementation, moni-toring and evaluation of financial assistance are stipulated. For each beneficiary country, it also specifies the provi-sions of the legal and regulatory framework. The Frame-work Agreement applies to all financial assistance from the EU in the beneficiary country and IPA cannot be granted if the Agreement has not entered into force.
28
3.3 Lessons Learnt from IPA I
During the implementation phase of IPA I from 2007-2013 (see box below for information on its programme structure), the European Commission initiated a series of interim and mid-term evaluations of pre-accession fund-ing in order to successfully assess the IPA approach and prepare the next phase of funding which was scheduled to start in 2014.
Stakeholder consultations and structured dialogues with beneficiaries brought about several results which were used to reshape assistance to applicant countries from 2014-2020. The overall aim of these evaluations was to offer a more tailor-made approach for benefi-ciary countries in order to accomplish planned goals and impacts. The most important findings of the stakeholder consultation and ex-ante evaluation of IPA I were the following:
Key findings of the Progress Report 2013 for Bosnia and Herzegovina
Political criteriaBosnia and Herzegovina has made very limited progress in addressing the political criteria for membership in the EU. The EU has engaged in intensive facilitation efforts to help the country’s political representatives to find common ground for implementing the Sejdić-Finci judgement. This issue has also been the focus of discussions of the EU-BiH High Level Dialogue on the Accession Process. This judgement needs to be implemented as a matter of urgency in order to have the amendments of the constitution and election law in place by April 2014 at the latest, in time for the next general elections. An EU coordination mechanism between the State, the Entities and the Brčko District for the transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU laws remains to be established as a matter of urgency to enable the country to speak to the EU with one voice and to make effective use of EU funds under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance.
Economic criteriaBosnia and Herzegovina has made little further progress towards a functioning market economy. Considerable further reform efforts need to be pursued to enable the country to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union over the long-term. The authorities need to improve the quality of public finances as well as fiscal reporting. The authorities furthermore need to develop a pension reform in the Federation and implement it with a clear time-table. Reinvigorated privatisation would have the potential to improve the fiscal situation and bring about more com-petition in the economy. The private sector needs to be supported by a sound business environment, most notably by improving contract enforcement and establishing a single economic space in the country. The informal sector remains an important challenge.
EU legislationThere is very limited progress as regards approximation to EU law and standards. This concerns in particular the fields of veterinary and food safety, competition, public procurement, energy, environment, climate change and transport. In other areas such as rural development or regional policy there is little progress due to the lack of agreement on the rel-evant country-wide strategies. In some cases appointments for important bodies are not made, what is hampering leg-islative progress. Other institutions, such as the State Aid Council, have been suffering from a lack of financial resources and couldn’t function properly. One of the few positive exceptions is the area of intellectual, industrial and commercial property rights where preparations to align with EU standards are advanced. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only country in the region which has not aligned its legislation to the 2004 EU directives on public procurement. It is now expected to do so as a matter of urgency.
Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-889_de.htm
� Institutional ownership: most IPA I projects were pre-pared by a small group of specialists in government institutions instead of involving a broader commu-nity of experts. This hindered the relevance of these projects on national policy agendas.
� Annual programming: projects were programmed for one year in which a wide range of objectives in a given policy area was targeted. In successive years, fol-low-up projects rarely addressed these objectives but rather defined new ones. Therefore, projects lacked continuity and were poorly sequenced to meet over-arching policy objectives.
� Project indicators and targets: project targets were set too broad with unsuitable indicators. Following this, it was seldom possible to assess the impact and results of projects by means of evidence-based indicators.
29
� Differentiation between beneficiary countries: While candidate countries have entered a more advanced stage in the accession process than potential candi-date countries, the fact that the latter were kept from accessing funds from components III, IV and V was not conducive to their EU approximation process. IPA I lacked the possibility of a tailor-made approach to pre-accession funding.
� Project-based assistance: projects often lacked strategic focus in attaining overarching goals of policy areas and whole sectors. Rather, a number of different projects were set-up in one policy area but did not interrelate to achieve a common aim in this specific policy area and the general advancement of the beneficiary country’s EU approximation process.
Key elements of IPA 2007 - 2013
In 2007, IPA was developed by the European Commission as the central pre-accession tool of financial support to the can-didate countries and potential candidate countries for EU accession. It replaced all previously existing instruments such as PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD, CARDS and the Turkish pre-accession aid and aimed at unifying all financing instruments under only one programme. Beneficiary countries were supported in five components, each covering one or more policy areas:
Component I: Transition Assistance and Institution-Building (TAIB) focused on capacity and institution-building measures and was the principal IPA component. Within this component, the alignment with the acquis communautaire was promoted, with the aim to support administrative and judicial capacity, democratic institutions and the transition towards a functioning market economy.
Component II: Cross-border Cooperation (CBC) addressed the improvement of cooperation at borders between mem-ber states and beneficiary countries as well as among beneficiary countries, especially at the borders of (potential) can-didate countries in the Western Balkans. It aimed at advancing good neighbourly relations, tackling common challenges and strengthening security, prosperity and stability.
Within Component III: Regional Development, the beneficiary countries were prepared for the implementation and management of the European Regional Fund and the Cohesion Fund. It offered investments and technical assistance in the areas of transport, environment and economic development.
Component IV: Human Resources Development supported the preparations for the Community’s social Cohesion Pol-icy and in particular the European Social Fund (ESF). The development of human capital and the battle against exclu-sion were key aspects of this component.
Component V: Rural Development built upon the Special Accession Programme for Agricultural and Rural Develop-ment (SAPARD) and was designed to support the beneficiaries’ preparation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and related policies.IPA differentiated between two types of beneficiary countries, namely candidate countries and potential candidate countries. Candidate country status is granted the day the European Council officially accepts a country’s application for membership in the European Union. Potential candidate countries are countries that may apply for EU membership at a later stage. Two main differences between the two types of beneficiary countries were identified which made the differentiation plausible: First, differences exist regarding the administrative, programming and management capac-ity of the countries as candidate countries have already demonstrated their ability to manage EU accession funds under decentralized management systems. Second, candidate countries urgently needed to prepare the management of the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds. Therefore, under IPA all beneficiary countries were eligible for support under the first two components (TAIB and CBC), whereas only candidate countries received funding from components III, IV and V.IPA funding between 2007-2013 amounted to €11,5 billion or roughly 1.3 percent of the EU financial framework for this period. The beneficiary countries of IPA were: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Iceland, Kosovo*, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.
30
The Commission initiated the possibility of multi-annual programming in the framework of IPA II. This change is planned to bring about a more strategic and long-term planning in pre-accession funding. As mentioned above, one of the main deficiencies of IPA I was that it only allowed for annual programming. This resulted in the problem that projects implemented in the same policy area but in dif-ferent years were poorly sequenced and not strategically intertwined. In the context of IPA II, it is now possible to plan both annual and multiannual projects to address this problem.
Another central aspect of IPA II is the dissolution of the five components which existed in IPA I. These components are changed into the following policy areas:� Reforms in preparation for Union membership and
related institution and capacity-building� Socio-economic and regional development� Employment, social policies, education, promotion of
gender equality, and human resources development � Agriculture and rural development� Regional and territorial cooperation
Another central change is that in IPA II, there is no longer a differentiation between beneficiary countries with regard to the funding in certain components or policy areas. This aims at making pre-accession more tailor-made to the needs and capacities of each beneficiary country inde-pendently of its status as candidate country or potential candidate country.
Generally, pre-accession assistance under IPA II is more result-oriented than preceding programmes and frame-works. A lasting impact in the several policy areas of the
The regulatory framework of IPA IIThe Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in the financing period from 2014 to 2020 has been established by the following three central legal documents:
1. The IPA II Regulation 231/2014 constitutes the main legislative framework for pre-accession assistance in this period. It sets the overall framework as well as general principles of assistance. Thereby, it lays down the general and spe-cific objectives of IPA II and defines policy areas eligible for funding as well as the most important strategic plan-ning processes. The Council Regulation 231/2014 is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0231&qid=1395920279290&from=EN
2. The Common Implementing Rules for External Action (236/2014) are not only relevant for IPA II, but also for any other financing instrument of EU external relations. This document includes harmonised rules of implementation for these financing instruments, including IPA II. It specifies the format of programmes and the types of financing. The Common Implementing Rules for External Action 236/2014 are available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0236&rid=8
3. The Financial Regulation and its Rules of Application are the main point of reference for the principles and proce-dures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the European Commu-nity’s finances. In the context of IPA II, it is relevant as it defines the essential elements of a Financing Decision and Actions. The Financial Regulation is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:298:0001:0096:EN:PDF
From 2010 onwards, these findings were incorporated in the process of drafting the new IPA II regulation in order to improve the EU’s pre-accession funding and make the IPA instrument more adaptable to stakeholder’s interests while maintaining the steering function of the European Commission.
3.4 IPA II – Key Elements
For the period 2014-2020, approximately €14.1 billion (2011 prices) have been earmarked for the implementa-tion of pre-accession funding. This represents roughly 1.4 percent of the entire EU budget for the current financial framework and constitutes a slight increase in funding and percentage of the whole budget compared to the pre-vious financial framework from 2007-2013. In addition, less beneficiary countries have to share this amount as Croatia joined the EU in July 2013 and therefore does not belong to the pre-accession financing framework any-more.
The new IPA II can be seen as a continuation of the for-mer instrument with similar resources, with the aim to maintain the scope but adjust implementation arrange-ments. These adjustments are largely the result of the con-sultation process with stakeholders as well as the internal mid-term evaluation. In effect, IPA II is designed to ensure continuity and transition from IPA I, to operate under sim-plified and harmonised rules and to facilitate the access to funding for beneficiaries. Some novelties were introduced to ensure this simplification and harmonisation, the most important of which will be explained in the following.
31
beneficiary countries and their EU approximation agen-das is foreseen by means of stipulating meaningful and realistic indicators and achievable project goals. In addi-tion, IPA II also includes a performance element which rewards beneficiary countries for good performance and allows for more flexibility in the allocation and distribu-tion of pre-accession funding. Furthermore, the ownership of projects is to be increased by broadening the relevance of projects within the policy areas and strengthening their inclusiveness.
Incrementally, the project-based character of IPA I is progressively changed towards a sector-based approach of IPA II. The sector approach constitutes the guiding prin-ciple of pre-accession funding from 2014-2020 and will be presented in-depth in the following section.
3.5 The Sector Approach and its Application
Over the programming period 2014-2020, the European Commission expects the beneficiary countries to aug-ment their potentials of funding in national sector poli-cies and strategies. Therefore, it is inevitable to build up the administrative capacities and arrangements for the implementation of sector-based instead of mere project-based financial assistance. Yet, the project-based approach will not be entirely abolished. This is due to the fact that the sector approach is not feasible and appropriate with regard to each and every part of the enlargement agen-das, e.g. with regard to the very specialized and technical parts of the acquis.
As a result, it aims at increasing the coherence between sector policy, government spending and the achievement of measurable results and impacts. Before programming actions in a given sector in a beneficiary country, it first needs to be assessed whether this sector is suitable for the sector approach in IPA II. This assessment is based on the evaluation of the following five criteria.However, these criteria can already be quite difficult to
fulfil. Due to the different financial and political situ-ations in the beneficiary countries, the Commission decided that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach in pre-accession funding. Therefore, the following three criteria are essential and must be in place in a beneficiary country in order to assess whether it’s on the way for the application of the sector approach:1. The existence of a national sector policy and strategy
and a medium-term budget or a commitment by the government to either elaborate or refine these.
2. A lead institution/ministry responsible for the sector/sub-sector.
3. The existence of a functional sector coordination framework or a commitment by the government that steps are going to be taken towards its development.
Nonetheless, an increasing proportion of pre-accession assistance is delivered to sector-approach-based rather than to stand-alone projects. The sector approach is defined as a process which broadens government and national ownership over public sector policy and deci-sions on resource allocation within the defined sector.
3.5.1 Sector Definition
As a first criterion, a sector needs to be clearly defined and identified for the sector approach. A sector can be defined as a delimited area of public policy addressing a fairly homogenous set of challenges by using dedicated resources (staff and budget) under the authority of a com-petent member of the government.
Key criteria to asses the possibility of adopting the sector approach
1. Sector identification2. Institutional setting and capacity3. Sector coordination4. Sector budget and mid-term financial planning5. Sector performance monitoring system
In addition, two criteria can be of importance when Budget Support applies:6. Public financial management7. Macro-economic framework
Governance & rule of law
Competitiveness & growth
1 Democracy and gov-ernance (focus on public administration reform, public finance management, eco-nomic governance, pro-tection of minorities, incl. Roma, freedom of the media, fight against corruption and organ-ised crime, etc.)
2 Rule of Law and funda-mental rights
3 Environment and climate action
4 Transport5 Energy6 Competitiveness and
innovation7 Education, employ-
ment and social policies8 Agriculture and rural
development9 Regional cooperation
and territorial coopera-tion
32
As funding in IPA II will be structured along the five pol-icy areas mentioned above, they serve as a starting point to identify possible sectors. For example, in the first pol-icy area ‘Transition Assistance and Capacity Building’, the sectors of Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights could be identified, whereas the second policy area ‘Regional Development’ could incorporate the Transport or Envi-ronment sectors. However, this example has to be seen as indicative as the definition and identification of sectors lies within the responsibility of the beneficiary countries.
Some characteristics for the identification of suitable sec-tors are� A sector is specifically defined by the government as
well as relevant for the EU accession agenda of the beneficiary country
� A sector should be wide enough to make a contri-bution to this agenda and at the same time narrow enough to ensure a focus for funding
� A clearly established institutional framework exists within the sector, e.g. one lead national institution is in charge
� Link to national budget of beneficiary country
An additional element of the sector definition is that a sector policy and strategy is in place. This is the crucial aspect to decide whether a sector is suitable for the sector approach in pre-accession funding. Such a sector policy should lay down government objectives and goals for a mid-term (3-4 years) and long-term (5+ years) perspective. A sector strategy indicates the government’s implemen-tation of these objectives, i.e. the sector policy. The readi-ness of a country to implement the sector approach should be decided on in a sector-level dialogue between the lead national institution and the European Commission.
3.5.2 Institutional Setting and CapacityAs second relevant criterion, the capacity to implement the sector approach is central for its adoption. There-fore, the identification of the institutional setting and the administrative capacity within the sector are essential. Mainly but not exclusively, this relates to the analysis of the capacities of the leading national institution within a sector, most notably the responsible national ministry. The existence of a lead ministry is considered to be one of the key criteria for the successful introduction of the sec-tor approach. The leading institution should coordinate� the donors and relevant stakeholders within the sector� the preparation of the national Sector Support Pro-
gramme� the implementation of IPA-funded support� the collection and analysis of monitoring data (indi-
cators)
3.5.3 Sector Budget and Mid-term Financial PlanningAs a fourth element, a comprehensive and transparent sector budget as well as mid-term financial planning is essential for the application of the sector approach in IPA II. This budget should contain both internal (i.e. national) as well as external (i.e. international donors) resources within the given sector. The sector budget has to be iden-tified in the national state budget. The financial planning is to be made available on an annual as well as mid-term (3-5 years) basis which ideally should take the form of a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Espe-cially the mid-term perspective of financial planning is of importance as the ensuing Sector Action Programmes are predominantly multi-annual in scope. This ensures continuity in financial planning as well as the logical sequencing of actions within a sector and contributes to the Commission’s goal of improving the strategic scope of pre-accession funding.
3.5.4 Sector Performance MonitoringAs the last essential element of identifying a sector suit-able for the sector approach, a performance monitoring system should be in place in the given sector. Performance monitoring contains the testing of the achievement of policy objectives and targets by means of indicators describing the implementation on four levels:� inputs: financial and human resources provided� outputs: resource utilization (activities carried out)� results: benefits for direct beneficiaries� impacts: wider benefits beyond direct beneficiaries.
In contrast to sector-based assistance, project-based assistance focuses on the first two levels while the wider impacts and the achievement of policy objectives are not its focal points. Therefore, by introducing the sector approach, the European Commission plans to emphasize the measurement on the levels of results and impacts, to make pre-accession assistance more result and impact-oriented.
Besides these five essential elements of adopting the sec-tor approach, two additional criteria can be important as well: First, sound public financial management as a key factor in determining the allocation of financial resources in a sector. Second, the macroeconomic framework can be analysed to identify the potentials of funding in a coun-try and to assess the stability of financial inputs against outputs. However, these two criteria are only essential in situations where the Budget Support will be the chosen financial modality.
33
3.6 Strategic Planning and Programming of IPA II Assistance
The strategic and coherent approach of IPA II is struc-tured along different levels in the process of drafting actions for pre-accession funding. At the top of this pro-cess ranks the development of the key strategic planning document, the Country or Multi-Country Strategy Paper (CSP) which is the prerequisite in the programming pro-cess of IPA II in each beneficiary country. In the following, the different stages of this process and the corresponding planning documents will be briefly introduced.
3.6.1 The Strategic Planning and Programming DocumentsThe Country Strategy Paper (CSP) is a multi-annual document defining the scope and use of pre-accession assistance under IPA II for each beneficiary country. In these papers, the general guidelines, principles, crite-ria and indicators of pre-accession assistance, stipulated in Annex II or the IPA II Regulation, are broken down and applied to the individual situation of the beneficiary countries. They lay down the priorities for funding in each sector while including an allocation of pre-accession assistance per year and policy area. The Country Strat-egy Papers are the key element in strengthening a more result-oriented approach of IPA II by setting targets to be reached by EU funding in each policy area including the approach to reach these targets and the indicators to evaluate performance and achievements. The CSP cov-ers the whole financing period and contains a mid-term review. It is prepared by DG NEAR as well as the EU Del-egation in the beneficiary country in close collaboration with the national IPA coordinator (NIPAC).
As the sector approach presented in the preceding section constitutes the guiding principle of pre-acces-sion assistance, a national Sector Programme or an IPA-specific Sector Planning Document (SPD) serves, next to the CSP, as a starting point for the programming of IPA II assistance. If a sector is already mature in the sense of the sector assessment and a national sector strategy is in place, this national Sector Programme can be used to plan concrete actions under IPA assistance.
In case this national strategy is not existent, the Sec-tor Planning Document can be used. The Sector Planning Document is a multi annual document which assesses the sector maturity of a given sector in a beneficiary coun-try and specifies the actions planned within this sector. It includes an overview of the sector and the sector assess-ment as well as a sequencing of IPA actions with a mid-
term and long-term perspective. Based on these actions, the SPD is updated on a regular basis; therefore, it is a liv-ing document which will gradually address the missing elements of the sector approach which ideally have been identified to requiring further development. The SPD is prepared by beneficiary authorities in close collaboration with DG NEAR.
The Action Document (AD) serves as the underlying document for the preparation of the national IPA Action Programme. The AD is of an operational nature and incor-porates all actions planned in a beneficiary country as well as their rationale. The AD is the main basis for extensive stakeholder consultation regarding financial assistance within a sector. Therefore, it is based on the overarching existing sector-specific documents and will summarise planned interventions in one or more sectors. During IPA I, the Logical Framework Matrix (see chapter 4.3) merely had to be an annex of the Sector or Project Fiche (the former versions of the Action Document). In contrast, the Action Document will now be entirely based on the LogFrame as its centrepiece and main source of information. Follow-ing this, an intervention logic needs to be formulated for each planned action including objectives, results and per-formance indicators.
3.6.2 Programme Options under IPA IIThe principles and priorities of pre-accession funding as well the financial allocation per sector and policy area, stipulated in each country’s strategy paper, can be trans-lated into specific Action Programmes under IPA II. Action Programmes (AP) are a set of Actions for EU financial assis-tance defined by clearly identified objectives and expected results, as well as implementation arrangements. These can be both national and multi-country, either annual or multiannual. Essentially, there are three options for the length of Action Programmes. First, Action Programmes can be annual so that Actions are programmed for one budgetary year. Second, beneficiary countries can issue combined annual programmes for up to three years. In this case, the size of the budget allocation is proportionally larger so that the AP becomes the sum of separate annual programmes. Still, these programmes will have an individ-ual annual budget allocation and a separate financing deci-sion by the European Commission. The third option entails multi annual programmes for the whole financing period from 2014 to 2020. Even though these are adopted for the whole period of seven years, the budget allocations must be split to annual instalments, the so-called ‘split commit-ments’. However, the first option will be most common while the other two will only be applied in special cases.
34
SPD Template and Instructions
1. Sector Description1.1 National Sector Policy & Strategy This section defines the scope of the sector and states sector policies including the strategies to implement these.
In addition, this sector is also concerned with priorities for the sector derived from the strategic planning docu-ments.
1.2 Sector Institutional Framework, Coordination, Capacity Section 1.2 comprehensively lists all involved institutions in the sector. Furthermore, it identifies the lead institu-
tion as well as the coordination of the NIPAC with the involved institutions. Coordination mechanisms between government and non-governmental institutions should also be explained.
1.3 Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) The PAF is a monitoring system to assess the progress made towards achieving sector policies. This section should
therefore state which indicators are used to measure the achievement of sector-wide targets.
1.4. Mid-Term Perspectives of National Budget and Development Assistance In this section, the sector budget and its mid-term development should be briefly described.
2. Sector Programme Rationale2.1 Sector Status and Problem Analysis Section 2.1 serves as the justification for IPA assistance – it provides for the analysis of the problems in the sec-
tor and why IPA II assistance is needed. It also explains to what extent IPA funding can contribute to solving the identified problems within the sector.
2.2 SWOT Analysis The SWOT analysis serves as the summary of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the sector.
In doing so, it identifies the programme objectives and measures.2.3 Links with National Documents, Sector Strategies and Country Strategy Paper In this section, a link should be established with all relevant strategic planning documents on national and donor
level, e.g.: Country Strategy Paper, Progress Report, Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), National Plan for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA).
2.4 Cross-Cutting Issues Cross-cutting issues are most prominent: Equal opportunities and non-discrimination, regional and local devel-
opment, civil society and stakeholder involvement. 2.5 Links with other sectors List how the SPD will support or be supported by programmes in other sectors. 3. Sector Programme Description3.1 Overall & Specific Objectives The SPD follows the logic of project cycle management (PCM, see forthcoming chapter) as it requires an interven-
tion logic in which overall objectives in each sector are addressed by specific objectives. These, in turn, are imple-mented by means of measures. In this section, overall and specific objectives are listed and can be derived from the comprehensive sector analysis.
In any case, all these forms of APs are implemented over several years irrespective of whether they are financed annually or multi annually.
In accordance with the decision on length and focus of Action Programmes, in comparison to IPA I beneficiary countries have a broader and more flexible choice in terms
of the number and types of programmes under IPA II, for example:� One programme per country� Several programmes cutting across different policy
areas� One (or more) programme(s) per policy area
35
3.2 Impact Indicators Impact indicators measure the extent to which a programme objective has been reached or is on track to be
achieved. Most commonly, these are identified in the CSP and national strategic planning documents.
3.3 Results In this section, the anticipated results of the Sector Programme are to be listed.
3.4 Measures & Operations Measures are programming mechanisms and address the achievement of a limited number of results and objec-
tives of the SPD. Operations are specific contract forms (twinning, supplies, technical assistance) and form part of measures.
3.5 Past and On-going Experience, Lessons Learned Section 3.5 provides for an overview of on-going and past assistance by international donors as well as the
government.
3.6 Sustainability Describes how the results of the SPD will be sustainable in the long-term.
3.7 Assumptions & Pre-conditions List the preconditions that need to be fulfilled prior to the implementation of measures and operations as well as
the external factors that must be taken into consideration.
3.8 Institutional Arrangements for Implementation Describe the operating structure for the implementation of the SPD as well as the monitoring structure and meth-
odology.
4. Budget
4.1 Summary of Indicative Budget Provides a budget allocation for all measures and operations
4.2 Budget breakdown per year
5. Annexes Logframe Matrix for the SPD (see chapter 4.3), implementation structure and schedule
Source: http://www.ppf5.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Template_ for_IPA_Sector_Planning_Document.pdf
These Action Programmes are designed to contribute to the achievement of the sector-specific goals and priori-ties stipulated in the Country Strategy Papers (CSP) and other strategic documents. The main bulk of assistance will be given for these types of APs while it is also possible to address funding to Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) Pro-
grammes or Rural Development Programmes (RDP). The former are multi-country in scope and aim at promoting good neighbourly relations among IPA beneficiary coun-tries or between IPA countries and beneficiaries of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI). The latter is the most common form of funding in the policy area of
36
rural development and will be administered by DG Agri-culture and Rural Development.
As regards the Actions within a beneficiary country programme, there is also a certain degree of flexibility. An Action is a coherent set of coordinated activities under-taken to meet a defined objective of a geographic and/or sectorial scope, which have an estimated total cost to which the EU approves a maximum contribution, as well as implementation schedule and performance parameters. In principle, all types of Actions, either sector-focused or stand-alone, may coexist within one single Action Pro-gramme. Due to the sector approach administered in IPA II, the European Commission prioritizes Sector Support Actions which can take two possible forms.
In case a defined sector completely fulfils the sector assessment criteria, a fully-fledged Sector Support Action can be developed. This supports the sector development on the basis of an already existing national Sector Pro-gramme and Strategy. Nonetheless, in some cases a sec-tor can be identified as not ready for the sector approach following the assessment. In these situations, Sector Sup-port- oriented Actions can be devised. These Actions are based on the Sector Planning Document (SPD) and aim at developing the advancement of the sector until it fulfils all the assessment criteria. Ultimately, the objective is to pro-
gressively move from the second towards the first option of Actions so that every sector reaches maturity and can be supported by fully-fledged Sector Support Actions.
Nonetheless, applying the sector approach may not always be appropriate in some cases. Therefore, the Euro-pean Commission also allows for the possibility of stand-alone Actions in cases where the Sector Approach is not necessary in the context of preparation of accession (e.g. technical support on some parts of the Acquis) or where a horizontal or ad hoc intervention is concerned. This is largely in accordance with former ‘projects’ under IPA I. Following this, stand-alone Actions and sector support Actions can co-exist, although pre-accession funding is deemed to progressively move towards more sector-based assistance and less project-based assistance. This approach aims at prioritizing strategically coordinated pre-accession assistance in beneficiary countries and gradually reduc-ing stand-alone Actions. Still, an Action Programme can consist of multiple combinations of these three types of Actions.
3.6.3 The Process of Programming IPA II AssistanceThe programming of IPA II assistance is a complex process and requires the participation of national authorities, the European Commission and stakeholders. Programming
Country Strategy Paper (CSP)7 years with mid-term review stipulating funding priorities per country and policy area
National Sector Programme / Sector Planning Document (SPD)Multi annual planning document, including assessment of sector maturity
Action Documents (AD)Operational nature, consisting of planned Actions and their rationale
Annual and Multi annual Action Programmes (AP)5 policy areas grouped by sector
Policy Area I
Policy Area II
Policy Area III
Policy Area IV
Policy Area V
Table 1: The IPA II programming framework
Supervision by DG NEAR & EU DelegationSupervision by DG AGRI
Supervision by DG NEAR
Table 1 illustrates the IPA II programming process from the strategic documents to the formulation of opera-tional Action Programmes implemented under pre-accession assistance from 2014-2020.
37
is intended to create a link between the strategic planning documents and the implementation of Actions in the ben-eficiary countries. Therefore, it is required that the princi-ples and objectives of IPA II, stipulated in the CSP and other relevant strategic documents, are translated into concrete actions to be carried out. It is essential that these Actions are consistent with the strategic background of EU finan-cial assistance. Programming can be defined as a phase aiming at designing the delivery of financial assistance for a given Action or a set of Actions. The overall objective is to finish this process with a Commission Implementing Decision which adopts the Action Programme for one or more years. Basically, programming is divided into the fol-lowing two broad phases.
Phase 1: Preparation of ProgrammingThis phase starts with the identification of funding objec-tives and priorities as stated in the Country Strategy Paper and other strategic planning documents. Based on whether a sector in which interventions are planned is already ready for the sector approach, further information about devel-opment goals can also be found in a national Sector Pro-gramme (or Strategy) or needs to be worked out by means of using the Sector Planning Document (SPD). For the preparation of national Action Programmes, the benefi-ciary authorities under the supervision of the responsi-ble DG NEAR country unit as well as the EC Delegation conduct an extensive identification phase: Identification implies to carry out a sector and problem analysis as well as to identify priorities for funding within each sector2. At the end of this process, an intervention plan is formu-lated which includes a tentative budget and a description of implementation arrangements. At the end of this step, the beneficiary authorities compile a draft Action Docu-ment (AD) which incorporates all these aspects gathered during identification and formulation. In the case of multi-country programmes, the procedure slightly differs as the ADs are prepared by DG NEAR directly with support of the beneficiary countries.
After completion, the draft ADs are subject to a quality review by DG NEAR. In this quality review, it is checked whether the draft Action Documents are in line with the proposed priorities and objectives of IPA II funding within the beneficiary country as well as the wider enlargement agenda. DG NEAR will provide comments and recom-mendations how to proceed with the programming – the so-called formulation phase. The formulation phase con-sists of finalising the Action Documents so that they are arranged in the form of a draft Action Programme. For each Action, the Action Programme should indicate the objectives pursued, the expected results and main activi-ties, the methods of implementation, the budget as well
2 Both identification and formulation (see below) form part of project cycle management (PCM) which is the primary tool for project design and management advocated by the EU (see chapter 4.2.1).
as an indicative timetable. The draft Action Programme will be an annex to the draft Commission Implementing Decision (CiD).
Phase 2: Approval of Action Programme In the second phase of programming IPA II assistance, the meeting of the IPA Evaluation Committee is the central event. Before the Evaluation Committee decides about the approval of the beneficiary country Action Programme, DG NEAR conducts several legality and regularity checks. In this process, it will be tested to what extent the Action Programme and its budget are in conformity with the main legal documents of IPA II and EU external action funding, most prominently the Financial Regulation and the Com-mon Implementing Rules for EU External Action as well as the IPA II regulation. In case these checks are passed, the draft Action Programme will be forwarded to the IPA Eval-uation Committee. The IPA Evaluation Committee is made up of representatives of the EU member states which pro-vide an opinion on the CiD and the AP drafted by the ben-eficiary and the Commission. After approval by the Eval-uation Committee, the Commission implementing Deci-sion and the Action Programme are internally circulated until its adoption.
Concluding the programming process, a Financing Agreement representing the legal basis for the implemen-tation of the Action Programme is signed between the Commission and the beneficiary country. The Financing Agreement includes a description of the particular pro-gramme to be funded and represents the formal commit-ment of the European Union and the partner country to finance the measures described. After the signing of the Financing Agreement, the process of concluding individ-ual contracts for the implementation of the projects with relevant beneficiaries can start (see chapter 5 for further information on implementation).
38
3.7 Notes for the Trainer
Possible activities Course participants can discuss the following questions in small groups:� What is the purpose of IPA II, and what are its main
priorities and objectives of funding for the period from 2014-2020?
� Which aspects of IPA were changed and improved in order to make pre-accession funding more tailor-made to the needs of beneficiary countries?
� What are the main IPA II strategic planning and pro-gramming documents and what is their respective pur-pose?
In addition, you can organize an assessment simulation for a given sector in a beneficiary country. To do so, assign your participants with the role of relevant stakeholders within a policy area eligible for IPA II funding. In order to prepare the programming of IPA II funding, ask partici-pants to apply the sector assessment criteria in discussion so as to analyse if a given sector in the beneficiary country is ready for the sector approach. In a second step, discuss funding priorities for the given sector in groups. These pri-orities should be in line with those indicated in the respec-tive Country Strategy Paper.
3.8 Suggested Readings
InternetWebsite of the Directorate General of the European Com-mission on IPA II: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/overview/index_en.htm
All strategy papers and progress reports are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/index_en.htm
IPA II Regulation: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/ipa/2014/231-2014_ipa-2-reg.pdf
The Enlargement Strategy of the European Commission for 2014-2015 is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2014/20141008-strategy-paper_en.pdf
Information about multi-country financial assistance under IPA II are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlarge-ment/instruments/multi-beneficiary-programme/index_en.htm
LiteratureEuropean Commission: Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) 2014-2020. A Quick Guide to IPA pro-gramming.
Bushati, Ditmir (2008): Albania and IPA, in: Center for EU Enlargement Studies: Using IPA and other EU funds to accelerate convergence and integration in the Western Balkans, Budapest, pp. 33-35, available at: http://web.ceu.hu/cens/assets/files/IPA.pdf (last accessed: 22 May 2014).
Elbasani, Arolda (2013): European integration and trans-formation in the Western Balkans: Europeanization or business as usual?. Routledge: Abingdon.
Gjorgjievski, Mate (2008): EU Instrument for Pre-acces-sion assistance: The path to a successful start, in: Center for EU Enlargement Studies: Using IPA and other EU funds to accelerate convergence and integration in the Western Balkans, Budapest, pp. 69-88, available at: http://web.ceu.hu/cens/assets/files/IPA.pdf (last accessed: 22 May 2014).
39
In this chapter you will learn:
ä about the basic elements and purpose of project cycle management (PCM)
ä how to recognize needs and problems and present them in a project proposal using a logical framework matrix
04CHAPTER
From an Idea to a Convincing Project Proposal
PROJECT PROPOSAL
project implementationevaluation
acti
on d
ocum
ents
enla
rgem
ent
sector approach
Euro
pean
Reg
iona
l Pol
icy
coun
try
stra
tegy
pap
er
prog
ram
min
g
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
instrument for pre-accession assistance
PRAG guidelinesIPA II regulationlogical framework approach
procurement procedures
40
4 From an Idea to a Convincing Project Proposal
4.1 Introduction
The following two chapters will take you through the pro-cess of developing a project from an idea to a convincing project proposal and then to a functioning project. For this purpose, in this chapter the first three stages of Project Cycle Management (PCM) will be presented describing cen-tral aspects and guidance for each stage3. After this, special emphasis is put on the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) (also called ‘Logframe Approach’), an analytical process and set of tools used to support project planning and man-agement. The remaining two stages of the project cycle will be presented in the next chapter.
4.2 PCM – Guidelines for Project Planning and Management
The term Project Cycle Management (PCM) describes man-agement activities and decision-making procedures used during the life-cycle of a project including key tasks, roles and responsibilities, key documents and decision options. In 1992, the European Commission adopted PCM as its pri-mary set of project design and management tools. The can-didate and potential candidate countries are also required to use PCM in order to allocate and prepare the use of IPA funding.
PCM pursues the following objectives: � Projects should support overarching policy objectives
of the EU and of its development partners. � Projects should be relevant to an agreed strategy and
to the real problems of target groups.� Projects should be feasible, meaning that the project is
well designed and that objectives can be realistically achieved.
� Projects should provide sustainable benefit to target groups.
In order to achieve these aims, PCM:� requires the active participation of key stakeholders
and aims at promoting local ownership, � uses different tools, inter alia the Logical Framework
Approach, to support a number of key assessments and analyses, e.g. of stakeholders, problems, objec-tives and strategies,
� incorporates key quality assessment criteria into each phase of the project cycle,
� requires the production of good-quality key document(s) in each stage of the project cycle (with commonly understood concepts and definitions) to support well-informed decision-making.
4.2.1 The Stages of Project Cycle Management This cycle emphasizes three main principles: 1. Decision-making criteria and procedures are defined
at each phase of the cycle (including key information requirements and quality assessment).
2. The phases in the cycle are progressive – each phase should be completed before the next phase can be tackled successfully.
3. New programming and project identification draws on the results of monitoring and evaluation as part of a structured process of feedback and institutional learning.
In practice, the concrete design of each phase of the cycle is not determined. Depending on scale, scope and spe-cific operating modalities of the project, the duration and importance of each stage can vary. A large and complex engineering project may for example take many years to pass from identification to the implementation phase, whereas a project that aims at providing emergency assis-tance in a post-conflict context may only take a few weeks to start implementing operations on the ground.
3 The chapter is partially based on the PCM Guidelines by the European Commission (2004).
Programming
IdentificationEvaluation &
Audit
Implementation Formulation
41
The fact that the activities described in the preceding chap-ter under ‘IPA II programming process’ may lead to the impression that they are carried out in the phase of the project cycle called ‘programming’. In fact, the program-ming process of IPA II assistance encompasses the follow-ing three first stages of the project management cycle.
4.2.2 Stage 1: ProgrammingThe project cycle starts with the Programming phase which is intended to identify and agree upon the main objectives, obstacles and priorities for cooperation in each sector. Therefore, it should result in a relevant and feasible programming framework within which programmes and projects can be prepared. The basis for programming is the Country Strategy Paper as the single most important stra-tegic planning document laying down objectives and pri-orities of financial assistance in each country. In addition, the process of programming should be consistent with the principles of the Logical Framework Approach (see below).
The key question to be answered at this stage is: What are the partner’s development priorities and what is the Community’s focus for assistance?
4.2.3 Stage 2: IdentificationDuring the Identification phase, beneficiary countries are required to formulate project ideas that conform to the Commission’s priorities of funding. Moreover, the rele-vance and likely feasibility of these project ideas is assessed. In this regard, local ownership is a crucial aspect of poten-tial projects to be identified at this stage. In order to ensure ownership and commitment by partners, the leading role in the identification phase is taken by local stakeholders and potential implementing partners led by line ministries in the beneficiary country. The outcome of this phase is the identification of project proposals.
The key question in this phase is the following: Is the project concept relevant to local needs and consistent with the Community’s policy priorities?
4.2.4 Stage 3: FormulationThe purpose of the Formulation stage is to confirm the relevance and feasibility of the project ideas. This results in the formulation of a detailed project fiche that has to be prepared in this phase of the cycle. This project fiche should include management and coordination arrangements as well as a financial plan and a cost-benefit analysis. During this phase, the implementing partners in the beneficiary country fulfil the leading role, most commonly the Min-istry of Finance, in order to meet the consistency between co-funding requirements set by the Commission and co-financing possibilities by the beneficiary country. In this
process, they are supported by technical assistance from the donors, in the case of IPA II by the European Commis-sion and its Delegation to the country.
In the Formulation phase, the following question should be asked: Is the project feasible and will it deliver sustainable benefits?
In the following, the process of developing a project proposal will be illustrated by means of showing in greater details what activities are to be carried out in the Identi-fication and the Formulation stages. The Logical Frame-work Approach serves as the main support tool to execute these two phases.
4.3 The Logical Framework Approach
Developed in the late 1960s to assist the US Agency of Inter-national Development in improving its project planning and evaluation system, the Logical Framework Approach (or Logframe Approach) nowadays is used (in one form or another) by most multilateral and bilateral aid agencies, international NGOs and by many partner governments. Indeed, the European Commission has generally asked for the use of LFA as an element of its project cycle manage-ment system since 1993.
Logframe analysis is a very effective analytical and management tool when understood and intelligently applied. However, it is not a substitute for experience and professional judgment and must also be complemented by the application of other specific tools (such as Economic and Financial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assess-ment) and through the application of working techniques which promote the effective participation of stakeholders.
The two main phases of the LFA are Analysis and Plan-ning carried out progressively during the Identification and Formulation phases of the project cycle. The recogni-tion of problems and needs on the ground, their structur-ing in a cause-effect relationship and the choice of strategy for the future project are the main elements of the analy-sis phase. In the planning phase, the results of the analysis phase are transcribed into an operational plan ready to be developed further in the project application form. Upon completion of the planning phase, you should be able to set out your project’s objectives in a systematic and logical way. Thus, your presentation should:
42
The Logframe Approach during the project cycle
The Logical Framework Approach is an essential management tool in each phase of the project cycle. It should be used for the preparation, implementation and evaluation of a project.
During the Identification stage of the project cycle, the Logical Framework Approach helps analyse the existing situation, investigate the relevance of the proposed project and identify potential objectives and strategies.
In the Formulation phase, the Logframe matrix helps those responsible for appraising the scope and logic or proposed investments by providing a summary of key project elements in a standard format. The objectives identified in the Log-frame, together with the activity, resource and cost schedules, provide information to support a cost-benefit analysis.
During Project Implementation the Logframe lays the basis for the preparation of contracts – clearly stating anticipated objectives, and also the level of responsibility and accountability of project managers and other stakeholders.
In addition, on the basis of the Logframe and associated schedules, more detailed operational work plans can be for-mulated. The indicators and Means of Verification provide the framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to be designed and implemented by project managers.
In the Evaluation and Audit phase, the Logframe provides a basis for evaluation, given that it clearly specifies what was to be achieved, how these achievements were to be verified (indicators and means of verification) and what the key assump-tions were.
Finally, the Logframe provides a structure for preparing Terms of Reference (TOR) for evaluation studies and for perfor-mance audits.
� reflect the causal relationship between the different levels of your project’s objectives,
� indicate how to check whether these objectives have been achieved, and
� establish what assumptions outside the control of the project may influence its success.
For the pre-accession funding of the European Union, you are expected to summarise these features in the form of a matrix which shows the logical framework of your pro-ject. This is the Logical Framework Matrix or Logframe Matrix.
4.3.1 The Analysis Phase – Getting to Know Problems and PrioritiesBefore starting the analytical work with stakeholder groups, you should become aware of the situation on the ground. Current statistical data such as surveys, police reports or census data as well as discussions with mem-bers of the community or key informants on the major challenges of the community will help you identify the problems of the community (such as poverty, environ-mental pollution or unemployment).
Knowing and understanding the problems you are facing is one essential prerequisite of project planning. Know-ing the national and EU policy priorities is another one. In this respect, key preparatory activities also include an analysis of the strategic framework and the institutional context in which the project will take place. The analysis of strategy documents at the national, regional and local level will help to ensure that the project idea takes account of its operating environment.
4.3.1.1 Analysing the Stakeholder Different individuals, societal groups and institutions that may have a specific interest in the success or failure of the project are defined as stakeholders. As they will influence the project in different ways (as part of the prob-lem or as part of the solution, as allies or opponents of the project) it is important for those involved in the pro-ject planning to understand and recognise the stakehold-ers’ concerns, capacities and interests. If the stakeholders themselves have analysed the existing situation, infor-mation on the relevant study results should be collected and disseminated. At a minimum, study results should be discussed with all stakeholders.
43
Stakeholder analysis is the process of identifying those affected by a project. It intends to collect their views on the situation and problems in order to address them in the project design. The stakeholder analysis ultimately aims at maximizing the social, economic and institutional benefits of the project to target groups and ultimate beneficiaries. At the same time, it helps to minimise the potential nega-tive impacts of the project for all concerned stakeholders. The findings of a stakeholder analysis are to be used for a project design so as to ensure that:� resources are well targeted to meet distributional
objectives and the needs of priority groups;� management arrangements are appropriate to pro-
mote stakeholder participation and ownership;� conflicts of stakeholder interests are recognized and
addressed in the project design.
Findings of a stakeholder analysis can be summarized in a matrix like the one presented below, which concerns the preparation of a project aimed at reducing the river pollution, advocated by the European commission in its PCM guidelines.
Apart from the stakeholder analysis matrix which is shown in the figure, the following tools can be used to conduct a stakeholder analysis:� A SWOT analysis – depicting Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats;� Venn diagrams – illustrating the relationship between
key stakeholder groups; or� Spider diagrams – helping to provide a visual sum-
mary of institutional capacity.
4.3.1.2 Analysing the ProblemProblem analysis helps to identify the factors at the root of a problem a project seeks to solve. This process will help you to acknowledge different reasons that influence the problem and to establish a ‘cause and effect’ relationship between the different aspects of the problem. The visu-alisation of the analysis in a diagram (called a ‘problem tree’ or ‘hierarchy of problems’) will be helpful to get a detailed, causative problem and to clarify the cause-effect relationship. The following illustration shows the prob-lem analysis for the example of river pollution.
Figure I: Stakeholder analysis matrix
Stakeholder and basic characteristics
Interests and how they are affected by the problem(s)
Capacity and motivation to bring about change
Possible actions to address stakeholder interests
Fishing families:ca. 20,000 families, low income earners, small scale family busi-nesses, organised into informal cooperatives, women actively involved in fish processing and marketing
� maintain and improve their means of livelihood
� pollution is affecting volume and quality of catch
� family health is suffering, particularly children and mothers
� keen interest in pollution control measures
� limited political influence given weak organisational structure
� support capacity to organise and lobby
� implement industry pollu-tion control measures
� identify/develop alternative income sources for women and men
Industry X:Large scale industrial operation, poorly regulated and no-unions, influential lobby group, poor environmental record
� maintain/increase profits� some concern about public
image� concern about costs if
environmental regulations enforced
� have financial and techni-cal resources to employ new cleaner technologies
� limited current motivation to change
� raise their awareness of social and environmental impact
� mobilise political pressure to influence industry behaviour
� strengthen and enforce envi-ronmental laws
Households:ca. 150,000 households dis-charge waste and waste water into river, also source some drinking water and eat fish from the river
� aware of industrial pollution and impact on water quality
� want to dispose of own waste away from the house-hold
� want access to clean water
� limited understanding of the health impact of their own waste/waste water disposal
� Potential to lobby govern-ment bodies more effec-tively
� appear willing to pay for improved waste manage-ment services
� raise awareness of house-holds of implications of their own waste disposal practices
� work with communities and local government on addressing water and sanita-tion issues
Environmental protection agency:Etc.
etc. etc. etc.
Source: European Commission (2004). PCM Guidelines, p. 63.
44
As the process is as important as the product, the crea-tion of a problem tree should ideally be a team effort and treated as a learning exercise. Involving stakeholder rep-resentatives is essential and determines the quality of the output. The creation of a problem tree requires the use of individual pieces of paper on which the problem state-ments are written.
A good problem tree can provide a clear and convinc-ing analysis of complex situations. It can show that even
complicated issues can be divided into smaller problems which are easier to tackle.
Taking one step after the other, discussing possible solutions to one sub-problem after the other will help you define the solution of the overall problem. That is how a number of small projects aimed at the same problem can contribute to the achievement of an overall devel-opment goal.
Figure II: Problem Tree
Source: European Commission (2004). PCM Guidelines, p. 68.
Catch and income of fishing families in decline
Riverine ecosystem under serious threat including
declining fish stocks
High incidence of water- borne diseases and
illnesses, particularely among poor families
and under 5s
River water quality is deteriorating
High level of solid waste dumped
into river
Most households and factories discharge
wastewater directly into the river
Wastewater treated in plants does not
meet environmental standards
Polluters are not controlled
Environment Protection Agency
ineffective and closely aligned with
industry interests
Population not aware of the danger of waste dumping
No public information/
education programs available
Pollution has been a low political
priority
Inadequate level of capital investment and poor business planning within
Local Government
40% of households and 20% of businesses
not connected to sewerage network
Existing legal regulations are
inadequate to prevent direct discharge of
wastewater
Problem analysis - river pollution
45
4.3.1.3 Analysing the ObjectivesThe problem tree provides a summary of the existing nega-tive situation. Good projects, however will not only define problems, but also show a practical way out. Thus, the next step in the project development process will be to convert this negative situation into a positive one. In other words, the problem tree will be transformed into an objective tree by reformulating all negative statements of the problem analysis into positive objectives that are desirable and real-istically achievable. Thus, the objective tree is the visualisa-tion of the desired future situation including the indicative means by which ends can be achieved.
As with the problem tree, it is important to check the logic of the means-end relationships in the objective tree and add, change or delete objectives when necessary. If the prob-lem tree included problems outside the scope of the pro-ject, there will also be statements of objectives, which are beyond the reach of those who will carry out the project.
As no project is isolated from its environment, factors outside the control of the project are to be expected. In a good project plan, they must be systematically treated as well. In IPA Logframe methodology, factors outside the control of the projects are called risks and assumptions. Risks are factors, whose occurrence will have a negative effect on the project. Assumptions are factors that must materialise if the project is to succeed.
4.3.1.4 Analysing the Strategies After having defined the stakeholders, the main problems and the objectives, strategies that help best to achieve your desired project goals have to be set. The following guiding questions might need to be asked and answered at this stage:� Should all identified problems and objectives be tack-
led, or is it better to select only a few?� What combination of interventions will bring the
desired results and promote sustainable benefits?� What resources are required for the implementation
of the project?� What strategy will have the most positive impact in
addressing the needs of the beneficiary groups?
Answers to these questions will be determined by an agreed set of criteria (such as benefits to target groups, expected contribution to key policy objectives, reciproc-ity with other ongoing or planned programmes or projects,
Practical Session – Problem Analysis
Stakeholder analysis and problem analysis are closely intertwined. Therefore, when drawing up a problem tree, it is advisable to proceed as follows:1. Organise a workshop with the core stakeholders. Start with a brainstorming exercise to decide the central aspects
of the overall problem. Ask the workshop participants to write down their individual problems on individual pieces of paper – these can then be aligned to identify cause-effect relationships.
2. From the problems identified in the brainstorming exercise, select an individual starter problem. Look for related problems and establish a hierarchy of causes and effects.
3. All other problems are then sorted in the same way – the guiding question should be: what causes this problem?4. If there are two or more causes combining to produce an effect, place them at the same level.5. Connect the problems with cause-effect arrows.6. Review the structure and verify its validity and completeness. Are there important problems that have not been
mentioned yet?7. Copy the structure onto a sheet to illustrate the problem tree.
Practical Session – Objective Tree
At a planning workshop, the recommended approach is to take the problem statements one after the other, turn around the sheet, and write on the other side of the paper the opposite of the problem statement for-mulated as an action or as the desired result of the action. Reading the tree from the top to the bottom, complex development objectives can be broken into immediate goals and results that are to be achieved by specific activities. Read in the opposite direction, it becomes visible what must be accomplished to reach the overall goal.
Perhaps, this is the point where bad project plans are easiest to identify. In a badly prepared project plan, problems, objectives, means and activities are confused. The rationale behind the individual solu-tions and the connection between the problems and the proposed solutions will be difficult to understand.
46
financial and economic cost-benefit, technical feasibility or environmental impact). Using these key criteria will help you to decide what should be included in the scope of the project and what, in contrast, cannot be included.
Although the use of key criteria facilitates the task, this analytical stage is related to the most difficult and chal-lenging work as it includes synthesizing large amounts of data and information and making judgments about the best implementation strategies to pursue. Those involved in this work will realise that in practice compromises often have to be made in order to strike a balance between the stakeholders’ interests and needs, political demands and practical constraints.
The selected strategy will finally be used to help formu-late the first column of the Logical Framework, particularly in identifying the project`s objective, purpose and potential results. With choosing the preferred strategy, the analyti-cal phase is concluded and the planning phase can start.
Four main elements of the analysis phase
1 Stakeholder Analysis - identifying and character-izing potential major stakeholders; assessing their capacity
2 Problem Analysis - identifying key problems, con-straints and opportunities; determining cause and effect relationships
3 Objective Analysis - developing solutions from the identified problems; identifying means-to-end relationships
4 Strategy Analysis - identifying different strategies to achieve solutions; selecting most appropriate strategy
Figure III: Objective Tree
Source: European Commission, PCM Guidelines, p. 70.
Catch and income of fishing families is stabilised
or increased
Threat to the riverine eco-system is reduced, and fish
stocks are increased
Incidence of water-borne diseases and
illnesses is reduced, par-ticularly among poor fami-
lies and under 5s
River water quality is improved
Objective Tree - river pollution
The quantity of solid waste dumped into the
river is reduced
No. of households and factories discharging
wastewater directly into the river is reduced
Wastewater treatment meets environmental
standards
Polluters are effectively controlled
Environment Protection Agency is effective and
more responsive to a broad range of stakeholder
interests
Population more aware of the danger of waste dumping
Public information/ education programs
establishedPollution management is given a higher politi-
cal priority
Improved business planning within Local Government is established, including cost
recovery mechanisms
Increased % of house-holds and businesses
connected to sewerage network
New legal regulations are established which
are effective in prevent-ing direct discharge of
wastewater
Increased capital
investment
47
4.3.2 The Planning PhaseAfter the preparatory and analytical work is completed, the results of the analysis are transcribed into a practi-cal, operational plan ready to be implemented: a 16-box matrix called the Logical Framework matrix (or Logframe).The purpose of a Logframe matrix is to provide a sum-mary of the project design. It helps you to develop a coher-ent project with measurable goals that take full account of assumptions and risks. The process of drawing up a logical framework matrix is as important as its content. It should be drawn up early in the process of planning a project and elaborated, ideally, with the participation of all the inter-est groups and institutions that will implement the project or be affected by it.
The basic matrix consists of four columns and four rows where the key elements of the project are inserted. The table below shows the typical structure of a Logframe matrix and the information to be written into the respec-tive cells4. When drafting the matrix, it is advisable to start with the first column. The project description must be inserted top-down, followed by the assumptions (bot-tom-up). After this, the objectively verifiable indicators and the sources of verification (working across) are added. The numbers in the cells indicate the recommended sequence for inserting the information. If it is properly filled with information, the matrix should fit on one A4 page. Take care that the text in the matrix remains easily readable.
Project Description Indicators Source of Verification Assumptions
1
Overall Objective: The broad
development impact to which
the project contributes
8
Measure the extent to which
a contribution to the overall
objective has been made. Used
during evaluation. However, it
is often not appropriate to the
project itself to try and collect
this information.
9
Sources of information and
methods used to collect and
report it
2
Purpose: The development
outcome at the end of the pro-
ject – more specifically the
expected benefits to the target
group(s)
10
Help answer the question:
‘How will we know if the pur-
pose has been achieved?’
Should include appropriate
details of quantity, quality and
time
11
Sources of information and
methods used to collect and
report it
7
Assumptions (factors outside
project management control)
that may impact on the pur-
pose-objective linkage
3
Results: Direct results that the
project delivers, and which are
largely under project manage-
ment control
12
Help answer the question:
‘How will we know if the
results have been delivered?’
Should include appropriate
details of quantity, quality and
time.
13
Sources of information and
methods used to collect and
report it
6
Assumptions (factors outside
project management control)
that may impact on the result-
purpose linkage
4
Activities: Tasks that need to
be carried out to deliver the
planned results
14
Means, resources:
What are the means required
to implement these activities
(personnel, equipment, stud-
ies, etc.)?
15
Budget:
What are the action costs?
How are they classified?
5
Assumptions (factors outside
project management control)
that may impact on the activ-
ity-result linkage
4 Adapted from: European Commission (2004), PCM Guidelines, p. 73.
48
4.3.2.1 Defining the Project Description (First Column)The first column of the Logframe matrix summarises the overall objective, the specific project purpose, expected results and project activities. The project activities defined in the Logframe matrix provide the basis for operational plans including timetables for implementation and pro-ject budgets. All the information you collected during the analysis phase concerning the problem and the objectives will now be of great relevance.
The overall objectiveLooking more closely at the cells in the left column, the upper left (1) cell is reserved for the overall objective towards which the proposed project works. The overall objective is at the highest hierarchy level describing the future situation or state that the project strives to accom-plish. The overall objective should be consistent with IPA II objectives and priorities and should identify the target groups and reflect the desired impact of the project on final beneficiaries.
In principle, there can only be one overall objective per project. However, the achievement of the overall objective requires the impact of several programmes and projects. Stated differently, a single project cannot achieve the over-all objective by itself, it can only complete one part of it. Therefore, your project will only make one contribution among others to the overall objective. It is normal for the overall objective to reappear in the Logframe matrices of several projects. In order to provide adequate support dur-ing the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation, the overall objective should not be expressed in too gen-eral terms.
The overall objective will often reflect the priorities of the Accession Partnership, the National Plan for Approx-imation with the Acquis, the European Partnership, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, the Country
The European Commission advises that the project purpose(s) should:
� indicate the immediate reason for the project prep-aration;
� identify target groups and reflect their needs. The quality of the needs assessment should be assessed by examination of the stakeholder analysis;
� significantly contribute to the achievement of the overall objective of the project. Thus, make sure that there is a clear and direct linkage between the project purpose(s) and the overall objective.
� be realistic or expected at the time when the desired outcomes of the project are produced.
Strategy Paper, the IPA II Regulation as well as the secto-ral development plans of the beneficiary country. Hence, it is recommended to consult these documents for select-ing a convincing statement of the overall objective of your project.
A Logframe matrix should not contain more than three project purposes. If the project is trying to address too many problems at once, it will be best to split it into two or several projects. Otherwise, the Logframe will become too complex to be a useful management tool. In any case, you have to avoid repetitive purposes and overlaps with results. To enhance clarity, it is often advisable to number the immediate objectives (1., 2., 3.).
The resultsClarifying the results of your project (3) is next. Results are tangible outputs that are delivered as a consequence of car-rying out the project. It is the project manager’s responsi-bility to achieve the indicated results by the project’s com-pletion date. To enhance clarity, it is advisable to number the project results.
The following aspects may guide you when formulat-ing the project results:� The definition of the project results should clearly
indicate the timeframe for their realisation.� Project results should be realistic in relation to the
duration of the project.� In order to relate the results to Objectively Verifiable
Indicators (OVIs) and their sources of verification, it is important to give a precise definition of the project results.
� Project results should clearly illustrate the concrete benefits to be delivered to the beneficiaries. The ben-efits should mirror the needs identified by the stake-holder analysis.
ActivitiesActivities are defined in the bottom left corner (4) of the matrix. They answer the question: “How are we going to achieve the change and reach our objectives?” The activi-ties are the actions that have to be implemented in order to achieve the expected outcomes of the project. Activities should indicate what the person or organisation should do and how the project’s goods and services will be delivered.
In addition, key project activities should:� directly contribute to the expected results of the pro-
ject. The linkage between the proposed activities and the project results should be clearly indicated,
� be adequate for the type and dimension of the project, and
� be expressed as a process.
49
If–then causality
The project description in the first column follows a clear if-then causality (also known as intervention logic). Read from the bottom up, one can say that:� IF the activities are undertaken THEN results can
be produced;� IF results are produced, THEN the purpose(s) will
be achieved; and� IF the purpose(s) is/are achieved, THEN this shall
contribute to the overall objective.When it is read from the top to the bottom, it can be expressed in terms of:� IF we want to contribute to the overall objective,
THEN we must achieve the purpose;� IF we want to achieve the purpose, THEN we have
to produce the results; and� IF we wish to produce the results, THEN the speci-
fied activities must be implemented.
4.3.2.2 Defining the Project Assumption (Fourth Column)The fourth column (5-7) describes the conditions on which, in addition to the successful completion of the planned measures, the project depends on for its success. Assump-tions are external factors that have the potential to affect or even determine the success of a project. They lie outside the direct control of the project managers. Those involved in the project planning have to show in the Logframe matrix that they are aware of such factors and have considered them as important.
Assumptions come with different degrees of risk. Their analysis tests and refines the vertical logic in the Logframe. This works as follows:� Once the project results and the related assumptions
are fulfilled, the project purpose will be achieved; and� Once the purpose and the related assumptions are ful-
filled, a contribution to the achievement of the overall objective will be made.
Usually assumptions are identified during the analysis phase since the analyses of stakeholders, problems, objec-tives and strategies highlight several issues (e.g. technical, institutional, social and economic) that will influence the project but cannot be directly controlled by the project manager. For example, in the case of the river water pol-lution example (see section 4.3.1.1. and 4.3.1.2.) the stake-holder analysis as well as the problem, objective and strat-egy analyses treated the work of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency as an external factor. In order to attain the project purpose, assumptions need to be made about the Agency’s capacity to regulate solid waste disposal. Other
important assumptions might include the expected intro-duction of favourable policy initiatives, or decisions at national, regional and local level, or the additional support and promotion from other stakeholder groups.After the identification of assumptions, their probability of materialisation needs to be analysed to help assess the pro-ject’s feasibility. The question: “Will the assumption hold true?” can have three possible answers: � If the assumption will “almost certainly” hold true, it
needs not to be included in the Logframe.� If the answer is “yes, possibly it will hold true”, it is to be
included in the Logframe as an assumption.� If the answer is “very unlikely”, it should be asked
whether it is possible to redesign the project in order to reduce the influence of the external factor. If this is not possible, the project may not be feasible.
Once the analysis and tests of the assumptions have shown that the project is feasible, the only assumptions that should remain in the Logframe matrix are those which are likely to hold true but which nevertheless need to be carefully mon-itored during project implementation. Then they become part of the project’s monitoring and risk management plan.
4.3.2.3 Defining Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) of Achievements (Second Column)In the second column, the performance indicators for each level of objectives need to be identified and set. These Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) describe the pro-ject’s objectives in operationally measurable terms (quan-tity, quality, time (QTT)) and help to check the feasibility of objectives. They give an answer to the following questions: How do we know whether what has been planned has actu-ally happened or not? How do we verify success?
As indicators ultimately provide the basis for design-ing an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system, they must be objectively verifiable. This means that observers or groups of observers applying the same measuring methods would inevitably come to the same conclusions concerning your project’s achievements.
For defining good indicators, the participants in the project should develop a common view of the scope of the project goals and the levels to be achieved. It should be pos-sible for them to define exactly what has to happen. Gener-ally, one should not be satisfied with a generalised declara-tion concerning a desirable project outcome. Wherever no precise indicators are set, misunderstandings and conflicts are likely to occur during project implementation.
Two types of indicators can be distinguished:� Quantitative indicators measure things that can be
counted and are tangible. They are formulated as abso-
50
lute numbers (e.g. number of people involved, number of jobs created, etc.).
� Qualitative indicators are not tangible and cannot be counted. They can be formulated as a change relative to a previous level (increase, decrease) or as a change in the dynamics of a development (acceleration, decelera-tion). The opinion of target groups is one example for a qualitative indicator.
It is recommended to establish more than one indicator for each objective statement and to use both quantitative and qualitative indicators in order to measure the real progress and impact of the project.
Moreover, it is important that indicators are independ-ent of each other and that each indicator relates to only one objective in the Intervention Logic. In other words, each indicator should refer to either the project objective, the project purpose or to one result. For the presentation of indicators in the Logframe matrix, it is important to show which indicator belongs to which objective. Again, the easiest solution is to number each indicator according to the objective to which it is connected.
Objectively Verifiable Indicators are usually to be defined in the formulation stage and sometimes in a pre-liminary way during the identification stage. However, they often have to be specified during the implementa-tion of the project when the practical information needs of managers and the practicality of collecting information becomes more apparent.
SummaryFor each objective you will have to define what con-crete level of development you would like to achieve. If any of the objectives selected cannot be paired with a SMART indicator, the objective must be changed. Otherwise, there will be no basis for monitoring the achievement of the objective, no means to control the efficiency of your work, and no way to ensure that your funds are spent effectively.
IndicatorsGood objectively verifiable indicators should be S.M.A.R.T. That means that each indicator should be:� Specific to the objective it is supposed to measure� Measurable quantitatively or qualitatively� Available at an acceptable cost� Relevant to the information needs of managers� Time-bound so that people involved in the pro-
ject know when they can expect the objective to be achieved.
4.3.2.4 Defining Sources of Verification (Third Column)While the OVIs are formulated, one should consider and specify the source of verification (SOV) of these indicators. SOVs describe the sources of information that should be used to measure the achievement of indicators. All sources of information are to be inserted in the third matrix column.
The SOV should specify: � what type of data is needed (surveys, reports, special
studies, newspaper articles, official statistics),� who can provide the data (e.g. the project management
team, a public agency), and� when and how regular data should be collected
(monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.).
In many cases, it might be necessary to arrange for pro-ject-specific measurements to produce the actual value of the indicator. For instance, an environmental project might require physical measurements. For another pro-ject, it could be necessary to undertake statistical surveys, e.g. regional opinion polls. Costs for these activities might have to be built into the project budget.
More often, it is practical to use the documentation resulting from the project for defining indicators. For example, in a staff-training project trainees could take an exam at the end of their studies. Exam results can be taken as an indicator for the project’s performance. In the case of a procurement contract the official statement on the delivery or the acceptance of the products could be uti-lised. For construction projects, where the indicator is the completion of a building or facility, one obvious source of verification is the authorities’ permit for the facility to go into service.
There is often a clear interrelation between the cost and the complexity of the SOV. If OVI data is considered to be too expensive and/or complicated to collect, it is to be replaced by a cheaper and simpler one. After the identifi-cation of the objective, the project purpose, project results and activities, assumptions, indicators and sources of ver-ification, the draft Logframe is almost finished. However, further work will need to be done such as analysing the indicative activities and assessing the resource and cost implications.
SummaryThere should be an easy answer to the questions when, how, and by whom the indicators can be meas-ured. It is advisable to define an easily accessible but slightly less accurate indicator instead of a marvel-lously complex and accurate one. Otherwise, you will deprive yourself of the means to follow the implemen-tation of the project, produce clear evidence of your results, or to realise when you have to intervene, and turn the fortunes of your ailing project around.
51
4.3.2.5 Finalising the Draft Logframe Matrix: The Logic CheckAs mentioned above, the logical connection between the different cells of the matrix is twofold as there is a ver-tical logic and a horizontal logic. The vertical logic tests the connection of the project description and the project assumption, whereas the horizontal logic tests the con-nection of the project description, the set of indicators and their sources of verification.
In order to design a convincing and consistent Log-frame, each level must be directly related to and achieve the higher level. If higher objectives are too ambitious or if the links between results and the project purpose are not realistic, the links between the levels need to be strength-ened. Discussion and review can help to gradually improve the project design.
4.3.2.6 Activity, Resource and Cost SchedulesAfter having completed the Logframe and checked its logic, the activity, resource and cost schedules should be prepared.
The activity planDrafting an activity schedule helps to identify the logical sequence and expected duration of the project’s activities as well as the dependencies existing between those activi-ties. The preparation of such a plan usually includes the classification of activities into manageable tasks. Moreover, it allows for a clear allocation of management responsibili-ties. By means of the activity schedule, further specifica-tion of resources (technical and human) and scheduling of costs can be undertaken.
The activity schedule helps in answering the following questions:� Who will do what?� When will this happen?� What types of inputs will be needed (besides people)?
As specified in the Logframe matrix, activities should be clearly linked to the delivery of project results. By carry-ing forward the project activities from the Logframe to a detailed activity schedule, the interrelation between activi-ties and results should be maintained.
Resource and cost planningAfter the preparation of the activity plan, the resources necessary to undertake these activities have to be specified in a budget table. The budget table provides a summary of the envisaged expenses for all project activities and related management tasks. In order to make a proper planning of all necessary resources, a detailed planning per activity must be established.
Cost estimates should be based on careful and thorough budgeting as they have significant influence over the investment decision at project appraisal and subsequently on the implementation of the project. The preparation of the budget is based on allocating resources to agreed cost categories (unit, number of unit, unit rate, costs).
Key messageThere are three main elements in the Planning Phase:� Preparation of a Logframe matrix (requiring further
analysis and refinement of ideas),� preparation of an activity plan, and� preparation of a budget.
Both phases of the process of developing a project should be considered as iterative learning processes rather than as a simple set of linear ‚steps’. For exam-ple, it may be necessary to review and revise the stake-holder analysis, carried out early in the process, as new information is acquired.
52
4.4 Notes for the Trainer
Possible activityYou can simulate a project planning workshop with core stakeholders in a given sector. This could deal with a practical example of an IPA II project planned in a benefi-ciary country in a given sector. Each course participant is assigned a specific role. His/her task will be to analyse the problems, objectives and strategies together with other rel-evant stakeholders within the sector.
Your task as a trainer will be to analyse and discuss these results of the planning workshop together with the par-ticipants. The findings can then be illustrated in a Log-frame matrix.
4.5 Suggested Readings
LiteratureEuropean Commission (2004). Aid Delivery Methods - Pro-ject Cycle Management Guidelines, Directorate General Development and Cooperation; EuropeAid Cooperation Office, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-project-cycle-management-200403_en_2.pdf
Government of the Republic of Serbia, EU Integration Office (2011): Guide to the Logical Framework Approach, A Key Tool for Project Cycle Management. 2nd edition, avail-able under: http://www.evropa.gov.rs/Evropa/ShowDocu-ment.aspx?Type=Home&Id=525
European Commission, Directorate General Develop-ment and Cooperation (2002): EC Guidelines for the use of indicators in country performance assessment, available under: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-indicators-in-country-performance-assess-ment-200212_en_2.pdf
53
In this chapter you will find:
ä an overview of different management types under IPA II
ä guidelines for the implementation of IPA II-funded projects
ä basic public procurement rules for the process of imple-menting IPA II programmes
ä principles of project evaluation and links between key evaluation criteria and Logframe matrix
05CHAPTER
From a Convincing Project Proposal to a Successfully Implemented Project
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
IPA II Regulationevaluation
acti
on d
ocum
ents
enla
rgem
ent
sector approach
Euro
pean
Reg
iona
l Pol
icy
coun
try
stra
tegy
pap
er
prog
ram
min
g
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
instrument for pre-accession assistance
PRAG guidelines
project proposallogical framework approach
procurement procedures
54
5 From a Convincing Project Proposal to a Successfully Implemented Project
5.1 Introduction
After the adoption of the Action Programme and the con-clusion of the Financing Agreement, the next step is the implementation and management of actions in the benefi-ciary country. All activities that have been planned during the programming, identification and formulation phases can now commence. In the implementation phase, it is cru-cial to achieve the results and specific objectives within the planned timeframe and the allocated budget. Implemen-tation will be monitored, and the results need to be evalu-ated. In order to do so, this chapter presents guidelines for the implementation and evaluation phases of the project cycle including basic rules for the contracting of IPA II- funded actions. First of all, it will briefly be described in what ways IPA II assistance can be managed.
5.2 How is IPA Assistance Managed?
There are different management modes for the imple-mentation of the annual and multi annual IPA Action Programmes. These types differ in the degree of involve-ment of the EU Commission in the process of managing EU funds.
Direct management In direct management mode, all budget implementation tasks are directly managed by the European Commission acting for and on behalf of the beneficiary’s government. These tasks include preparation, implementation and fina-lization of contract procedures and can be done either by the Commission’s headquarters in Brussels, the EC Del-egation in the beneficiary country or through EU execu-tive agencies such as the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized enterprises (EASME). Under direct manage-ment, the Commission is the Contracting Authority and takes decisions on behalf of and in account with the ben-eficiary country fulfilling the necessary requirements of the Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EU exter-nal action (PRAG).
Indirect management In the case of indirect management of IPA assistance, the EU Commission confers budget implementation tasks to (a) partner countries, (b) international organisations, (c)
development agencies of EU member states or (d) other bodies. Indirect management is possible with ex-ante or ex-post controls.
Under indirect management with ex-ante controls, decisions on procurement are taken by the beneficiary country acting as the contracting authority while it is dependent on the prior approval of the European Commis-sion. The Commission needs to verify that in the drafting of the documents, the rules of the PRAG were adhered to. After receiving this approval by the Commission, the con-tracting authority is responsible for conducting the public procurement procedures with all their elements such as drawing up shortlists, issuing calls for tenders, receiving applications et cetera. Before signing contracts, the results of the evaluations of tenderers are submitted to the Euro-pean Commission for approval. Again, the Commission verifies the accordance with PRAG rules before contracts can be signed. The contracts are also to be sent to the Com-mission for endorsement.
Under indirect management with ex-post controls, the beneficiary country takes the decision on procurement without prior approval by the European Commission. In this case, contracts are directly concluded by the contract-ing authority within the beneficiary country. It is respon-sible for conducting the public procedures in accordance with PRAG. In this process, the contracting authority of the beneficiary country can decide on the result of the proce-dure and the signing of contracts without prior approval by the Commission. Nonetheless, the contracting authority needs to submit all relevant notices to the EC in electronic format for publication.
Shared managementUnder shared management, budget implementation tasks are delegated to EU member states. This management mode is most common in case of cross-border coopera-tion programmes. The delegated authority is responsible for managing assistance and applying the procurement procedures while the European Commission may verify the procedures ex-post.
55
5.3 Stage 4: Implementation
In the following two subsections of this chapter, the two remaining phases of the project cycle will be presented. After the programming and approval of the Action Pro-gramme, the project implementation phase begins. Its primary objectives are to deliver the results and achieve the purpose of an action and therefore contribute posi-tively and effectively to the overall programme objective. In addition, during the implementation phase available resources are to be managed efficiently and progress of the actions is monitored and reported on. As planned benefits are delivered during this stage, the implementation phase can be considered as the most critical one. The three pre-vious stages in the project cycle (programming, identifica-tion and formulation) and their documented outcome - the Logframe matrix - are therefore essential to stir the actions and steps during the implementation stage.
The implementation phase can be divided into three major phases: inception, implementation and phase-out. During the inception period, contracting arrangements are to be concluded, resources are to be mobilized, working relationships with stakeholders are to be established and the project plan has to be reviewed. One of the first crucial steps is the set-up of a project team with a competent team leader. However, it is recommendable to already identify candidates (for the team leader) well before the Action Pro-gramme is approved. The composition of the project team should represent stakeholder interests, and the team leader should have the final say about which members to choose in order to incorporate these interests. The project team needs to establish good working relationships with stake-holders. Therefore, inception workshops are recommend-able to mobilize resources. This period is followed by the main implementation period.
Key tasks during the main implementation period:� procurement and deployment of resources includ-
ing personnel, � implementation of activities and delivery of
results, � monitoring progress, � revision of operational plan (if necessary) in light
of experience, and � report on progress.
Finally, in the phase-out period, responsibilities are handed over to the local partners and the maintenance plans are put in place. At the same time, efforts are undertaken to ensure that relevant skills have been efficiently transferred and that the cost requirements are met after the comple-tion of the project. Implementation should be understood
as a continuous learning process within which gained experiences are revised and fed back into the ongoing implementation process.
The role of the project manager is crucial in this regard. Most prominently, the project manager’s role is threefold: The first task consists of monitoring and regular reviews. Monitoring is the systematic and continuous collection, analysis and use of management information to support decision-making. The project manager must keep an eye on the progress of the project in terms of expenditure, resource use, implementation of activities, delivery of results and management of risks. Regular reviews enable the project manager to reflect on the progress of the action and follow-up activities if necessary.
The second task is to plan and re-plan as the project proceeds. Experiences gained this way often make an adjustment of the project plan necessary. In any case, pro-ject plans can at best only be an estimate of what will hap-pen as the action proceeds. Therefore, new developments need to be taken into account and may lead to a modifica-tion of the whole plan. Important documents such as the Sector Planning Document (SPD) or the Logframe matrix must be updated on a regular basis. Sometimes, even the scope of contractual documents such as the Financing Agreements needs to be adapted to new developments.
As the third task, reporting on the physical and finan-cial progress keeps the stakeholders informed. This applies in particular to those stakeholders who are providing financial resources to the action. In the reports, action pro-gress has to be compared to the initial intentions and plans. Constraints encountered and any important remedial or supportive action required should be pointed out. In addi-tion, a report serves as a formal document on the attained action achievements and facilitates future reviews and evaluations. By documenting any changes in the forward plans, a report promotes transparency and accountability. A good report ultimately provides the basis for evaluation and audit, the final steps in the project cycle.Some decisions in the implementation cannot and should not be taken at the action level by project managers alone. Therefore, monitoring is supportively carried out at pro-gramme level. The European Commission supervises the implementation of pre-accession programmes through its services in DG NEAR and DG AGRI (for policy area 4) as well as the European Commission’s Delegations in the benefi-ciary countries. For this purpose, a monitoring system has been established including joint monitoring committees between the Commission and the beneficiary countries. By means of monitoring and evaluation reports, these com-mittees discuss the implementation of financial assistance programmes and agree on corrective measures as neces-sary in order to keep an action on track.
56
As a result of monitoring and review, one of the fol-lowing options can be taken during the implementa-tion stage:� The implementation of the action can be continued
as planned.� In light of experiences gained through the process
of monitoring and review, plans (resources, activi-ties, budget, etc.) have to be revised.
� In extreme cases, the action must be discontinued.
5.4 PRAG Guidelines for Implementing and Managing IPA Actions
The conclusion of contracting arrangements forms part of the inception period of the implementation phase. This section takes a closer look at procurement principles and procedures which are most important for the implemen-tation of IPA II actions. However, this part only comprises principles for a specific type of financing under IPA II, namely procurement (service, works, supply) and grants. More specified rules regarding procurement principles and procedures can be found in the Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EU external action (PRAG).
5.4.1 General Procurement PrinciplesThe central principles for the participation in procurement and grants financed under EU external aid (and therefore also to IPA II) are that applicants are on the one hand eli-gible and on the other hand not excluded from the aid scheme. The first notion essentially depends on the rules of nationality and origin. With regard to IPA II, the rule of nationality specified in the Common Implementing Reg-ulation stipulates that participation is open to all interna-tional organisations, natural persons that are nationals of or legal persons established in� an EU member state� a beneficiary of IPA II, i.e. a candidate or potential can-
didate country for EU accession� member states of the European Economic Area (EEA)� partner countries and territories covered by the ENI
instrument � or third countries for which reciprocal access to exter-
nal assistance is established by the Commission.
This condition is always requested in the Tender Dossier and the rules for applicants. In case a tenderer is suspected not to fulfil this condition, the applicant must provide evi-dence to demonstrate compliance with the nationality
rule. This can be done by proving that the legal personal-ity or the ‘real seat’ of the tenderer is established under the law of one of the aforementioned states. However, experts engaged by eligible tenderers may be of any nationality.
The rule of origin demands that any supply purchased under a procurement contract or in accordance with a grant contract shall also originate from an eligible country as specified in the rule of nationality. Only some exceptions are valid, for example when the total value of supplies to be purchased is below 100 000 EUR. It is important to point out that all supplies delivered fall under the rule of origin; it is not enough if only a certain percentage of the goods tendered and supplied or a certain percentage of the total tender and contract value comply with this requirement. While applicants need to fulfil these two criteria in order to apply for IPA II funding, there are also certain exclusion criteria which hinder applicants from participating in pro-curement and grants. These are the following :� bankruptcy, affairs being administered by the courts,
arrangement with creditors, suspension of business activities or subject of proceedings concerning those matters
� conviction of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgment of a competent authority of a member state
� guilt of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify
� non-compliance with obligations relating to the pay-ment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in (a) the country of establishment, (b) the country of the contracting authority or (c) the country where the contract is to be performed
� judgment for fraud, corruption, involvement in a crimi-nal organisation, money laundering or any other illegal activity
� existence of an administrative penalty referred to in Article 109(1) of the EU Financial Regulation.
In case of an ongoing procurement procedure, three addi-tional criteria apply. The applicants have to provide infor-mation that they do not meet the following three criteria. Otherwise, they will be excluded from the contract award:� existence of a conflict of interest� misrepresentation in supplying the information
required by the contracting authority as a condition of participation in the contract procedure or failure to sup-ply this information
� fulfilment of exclusion situations for this specific pro-curement or grant award procedure.
57
What is a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest occurs when the impartial and objective exercise of the functions of the Contracting Authority, or observance of the principles of competi-tion, nondiscrimination against or equality of treatment of candidates, tenderers, applicants and contractors, is compromised for reasons involving family, emotional life, political or national affinity, economic interest or any other shared interest with a beneficiary of EU funded programmes.
5.4.2 Contract FormsThe basic rules listed in this section as well as stipulated in PRAG concern four different types of procurement con-tracts: services, supplies, works and grants. In the follow-ing, each of these will be shortly described.
Service Contracts generally comprise study and techni-cal assistance contracts. Mostly, these contracts are issued to receive input from external knowledge. Study con-tracts are often used to identify and prepare actions, fea-sibility studies and other studies. During technical assis-tance contracts, the service provider is asked to play an advisory role or manage and monitor an ongoing action. Service contracts can either be of a global-price or fee-based nature. When choosing a global-price service con-
tract, the payment will be done on the basis of the deliv-ery of determined outputs. An example for a global-price contract would be the organization of a conference or a training event. With fee-based contracts, in contrast, the workload required to deliver an output is not or cannot be specified beforehand. Following this, the payment will be done on the basis of the time worked to achieve the output. Here, an example would be the supervision of an action or monitoring of facilitation processes. More detailed information about the procurement of service contracts can be found under PRAG section 3.2-3.5.
Supply Contracts cover the purchase, leasing, rental or hire purchase (with or without option to buy) of products. This clearly delineates it from other contract forms as a product cannot be a service or works. Supply contracts may include after-sales services such as installation, test-ing or maintenance; an example for a supply contract would be the purchase of IT equipment, vehicles or office furniture. More detailed information about the procure-ment of supply contracts can be found under PRAG sec-tion 4.2-4.6.
Works Contracts comprise either the execution or both execution and design of a work as stipulated in Annex I of Directive 2004/18/EC or as specified by the contracting authority of the beneficiary country. ‘Works’ refers to the
Serv
ice
Cont
ract
s
≥ EUR 300 000
International restricted tender
procedure
< EUR 300 000 but > EUR 20 000
Framework contract
or
Competitive negotiated procedure
≤ EUR 20 000
Single tender
For service and supply
contracts, a payment
may be made against
invoice without prior
acceptance of a tender
if the expenditure is
≤ EUR 2 500
Supp
ly C
ontr
acts ≥ EUR 300 000
International open tender pro-
cedure
< EUR 300 000 but
≥ EUR 100 000
Local open tender procedure
< EUR 100 000 but
> EUR 20 000
Competitive negotiated proce-
dure
Wor
ks C
ontr
acts
≥ EUR 5 000 000
International open tender pro-
cedure
or
International restricted tender
procedure
< EUR 5 000 000 but
≥ EUR 300 000
Local open tender procedure
< EUR 300 000 but
> EUR 20 000
Competitive negotiated proce-
dure
58
outcome of a building or civil engineering project that on its own is sufficient to fulfil an economic or technical func-tion. More detailed information about the procurement of works contracts can be found under PRAG section 5.2-5.7.
The last contract form is grants, which is different to the previous ones as it is in principle not about buying things, but giving money for something, e.g. a project. A grant is defined as a financial donation or non-commercial pay-ment by the contracting authority from the EU budget to a grant beneficiary in order (a) to finance an action intended to advance the EU’s policy objectives or (b) to cover the operating costs of an entity that promotes or supports these policy objectives. In contrast to the procurement of service, supply or works contracts, the EU finances part of the costs for grants while the grant beneficiary has to finance the other part. In addition, grants are strictly non-profit-oriented. More detailed information on grants can be retrieved from PRAG section 6.2-6.10.
5.4.3 Procurement ProceduresIn the context of public procurement of IPA-funded action, several different procurement procedures apply. Generally, the basic means of awarding contracts is competitive ten-dering. This aims at securing that tenderers comply with the conditions for awarding contracts and that the con-tracts will be awarded at the best price possible. The fol-lowing procurement procedures are most common in the context of EU external aid and consequently IPA II. They are applied in accordance with the value of the contract to be procured.
Open procedureIn the open procedures, any legal or natural person as eco-nomic operator is invited to submit a tender. The open pro-cedure may be local or international, and the procurement notice is published in the Official Journal (OJ) of the Euro-pean Union in order to secure maximum publicity. The tenderers have to comply with the conditions specified in the procurement notice, and their capacity to meet the cri-teria is checked in the selection process. The contract will be awarded in accordance with the stipulated criteria.
Restricted procedureIn the restricted procedure, all natural or legal persons as economic operators are invited to request the tender information. However, in contrast to the open procedure, only those who satisfy the selection criteria are allowed to submit tenders. These criteria are specified in the con-tract notice, and all eligible tenderers replying to the notice and complying with the criteria are gathered on a long list. This list will be cut to a short list containing only the best tenderers based on their offers. The Evaluation Commit-tee will then, on the basis of the evaluation criteria, award the contract to the best offer.
Competitive negotiated procedureUnder the competitive negotiated procedure, the Contract-ing Authority invites selected natural or legal persons as economic operators to submit tenders. From these, the offer with best value for money (in the case of service con-tracts) or the cheapest offer (in the case of supply and works contracts) will be selected. The evaluation of tenderers fol-lows the restricted procedure.
Framework ContractsA Framework Contract is an agreement between the Con-tracting Authority and one (or more) economic operators. The purpose of this agreement is to set the terms for one (or more) contracts to be awarded to these economic operators in a given time period. The Framework Contract specifies the duration, subject, price, maximum value, implementa-tion rules and the quantities envisaged for these contracts. The maximum duration for a framework contract is four years; a longer period needs to be justified on grounds of the specificity of the framework contract. Due to the fact that it distorts competition, Contracting Authorities are advised not to make undue use of Framework Contracts. The specific contracts are awarded under the principles specified in the agreement and must respect the princi-ples of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
Single tender procedureUnder the negotiated / single tender procedure, a tender will be directly awarded to a single economic operator. In order to do so, a contract has to have a value of less than 20 000 EUR. Before the selection process, the Contracting Authority needs to check whether the candidate or one of its partners is in an exclusion situation. A negotiation report has to be written in which the selection criteria for participants as well as the setting of price are explained.In addition, for service and supply contracts, payments of less than 2500 EUR may be made against invoice without prior acceptance or selection of tenders. With regard to all public procurement procedures, it is forbidden to artifi-cially split contracts in order to circumvent procurement thresholds. In the table on the following page, you can find a summary of when to apply which procedure for each con-tract form.
59
Table 1: Differences between grants and other procurement
Grants Other procurement contracts
Applicant proposes the project Contracting Authority proposes the project
Call for proposals Tendering
Guidelines for Applicants Terms of Reference / Technical Specifications
Grant beneficiary is responsible for implementation Contracting Authority closely monitors implementation
Selection – 1 step Selection – 2 or 3 steps
Maximum budget Fixed price
Ownership of results by grant beneficiary Ownership of results by Contracting Authority
Financial contribution by grant beneficiary No financial contribution by contractor
Non-profit Profit (competitive)
Payment of a non-commercial nature Commercially related payment
Frequent secondary procurement Unusual secondary procurement
5.5 Stage 5: Evaluation
The main purpose of the last phase of the project cycle, the evaluation phase, is to assess the efficiency, effective-ness, impact, relevance and sustainability of an on-going or completed action or programme. An evaluation should follow four guiding principles:� An evaluation should be impartial and independent
from the programming and implementation stages;� An evaluation should be carried out by appropriately
skilled and independent experts who can ensure the transparency of the evaluation process including wide
dissemination of results;� An evaluation should take into account different per-
spectives and views; therefore stakeholders should par-ticipate in the evaluation process;
� An evaluation should lead to the timely presentation of relevant, clear and concise information to decision-makers.
Overall objective
Project purpose
Results
Activities
Means
Problematic situation
Logframe objective hierarchy Evaluation criteria
Sustainability
impact
effectiveness
efficiency
relevance
Source: European Commission (2004). PCM Guidelines, p. 49.
60
The European Commission uses the following set of five key criteria to evaluate individual actions or whole pro-grammes:
RelevanceThe evaluation should determine if the socio-economic objectives of the action are appropriate to the problems it was supposed to address and to the wider societal context within which it operates. Assessing the relevance of an action should also include an assessment of the quality of the planning process and the action design.
EfficiencyThis addresses the question whether the action results have been achieved at reasonable cost. One of the guiding ques-tions is: How well have inputs/means been converted into activities (in terms of quality, quantity and time, and the quality of the results achieved). In order to see whether an action maximized its efficiency, comparisons must be made to alternative approaches striving for the same results.
EffectivenessThe key question here is to what extent the action results contributed to the achievement of the project purpose. Another question to be answered here could be: To what extent have the identified assumptions and risks affected the achievement of action results?
Impact The impact assessment should evaluate the effect of the action on its wider surroundings and its contribution to the wider policy or sector objectives as summarised in the action’s overall objective. Since the achievement of the overall objective requires the implementation of multiple programmes and actions, the impact assessment should not be done directly after the action has been completed, but rather after a certain amount of time has passed.
SustainabilityThe sustainability assessment focuses on the likelihood that benefits produced by the action will continue to last after funding has been completed. Knowing how much the local community has gained ownership of the action results is one of the key questions in this context.
There is a common link between the five evaluation criteria and the Logframe’s objective hierarchy which is shown in the figure on page 59. Evaluations can differ in terms of timing and in terms of focus. The following three types can be distinguished:� Ex-ante evaluation – Will we do the right action?� Mid-term evaluation – Are we doing the right action
and are we doing it correctly?� Ex-post evaluation – Have we done the right action and
have we achieved planned results, purpose and objec-tive of the action?
The types of evaluation do not only differ in terms of tim-ing but also in terms of focus. Mid-term evaluations focus on questions of continued relevance, efficiency and pre-liminary indications of effectiveness. However, this form of evaluation only offers limited possibilities for an impact assessment as the actions are not finished. Ex-post evalu-ations, in contrast, focus on questions of impact and sus-tainability. Finally, ex-ante evaluations can be considered helpful to improve the design of actions as well as their monitoring and evaluation in the future.
Monitoring and EvaluationMonitoring and Evaluation are key elements of project manage-ment. They are both based on the collection, analysis and use of information to support decision-making. At the same time, they differ in terms of primary purpose and stage of the project cycle when they occur.
Monitoring is an analysis of project progress towards achiev-ing planned results with the purpose of improving management decision-making. Considering any operational changes that need to be made to the action work plan and deciding remedial actions are important elements of the monitoring process. Monitoring is undertaken regularly during the implementation phase.
Evaluation is an assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability of aid policies and actions. Evaluation can and should be done after action identification (ex-ante evaluation), during an on-going action (mid-term eval-uation) and most certainly after action implementation (ex-post evaluation).
Another assessment adding to monitoring and evaluation is Audit. The purpose of an audit is to provide assurance and accountability to stakeholders and to provide recommendations for improvements of current and future actions. Audits are under-taken in the form of systems reviews (ex-ante) or upon the com-pletion of an action.
The Evaluation CommitteeThe Evaluation Committee’s task is to prepare and con-duct the evaluation process of tenders. It is formally appointed by the Contracting Authority (depending on the management mode, approval by the European Commission is obligatory) and composed of a non-vot-ing chair-person, a non-voting secretary and an odd number of voting members – the evaluators. Except for works contracts above 5 000 000 EUR, there must be a minimum of three voting members for all procedures, and an Evaluation Committee must be established for all procurement procedures except for the single ten-der procedure.
61
Mid term evaluation
Policy implementation
Monitoring
Problem analysis
Policy formulation
Ex p
ost e
valu
atio
n
Ex ante evaluation
Source: European Commission (2004). PCM Guidelines, p. 49.
5.6 Notes for the Trainer
Possible activityStart a discussion about the essential elements of the implementation and evaluation phase. Create a short multiple-choice quiz regarding general procurement principles and procedures after your presentation in order to test participants’ knowledge about PRAG.
5.7 Suggested Readings
European Commission: Practical Guide to Contract Pro-cedures for EC external actions (PRAG) 2014, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/prag/document.do
European Commission (2004): Aid Delivery Methods - Pro-ject Cycle Management Guidelines, Directorate General Development and Cooperation; EuropeAid Cooperation Office, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-project-cycle-management-200403_en_2.pdf
European Commission: Guidelines of the Framework Con-tracts Beneficiaries 2009, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/1_1_guidelines_benef_2009_version_10_2014_en.pdf
62
Conclusion
In the course of the 1990s, the EU’s financial support to the Western Balkans has basically been provided in the form of ad hoc actions and measures responding to urgent needs during and after war. There was no coherent and struc-tured relationship between the EU and the newly emerg-ing countries in the Western Balkans.
After awarding the EU perspective to all countries par-ticipating in the Stabilisation and Association Process at the Feira European Council in 2000, the EU approach to the Western Balkans became more structured. Several pre-accession programmes such as ISPA, SAPARD or CARDS were set up in order to initiate the alignment of these coun-tries to the EU. This approach lasted until the launch of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), which was conceived for the period 2007-2014.
With the initiation of IPA, the EU further strength-ened its pre-accession activities in the Western Balkans. Not only did it provide more overall funding for the candi-date and potential candidate countries, but it also merged the several existing programmes under one single legal and political framework. This contributed to the harmoniza-tion of implementing procedures and gave pre-accession assistance a uniform scope and focus.
The new IPA II for the period 2014-2020 can be seen as both the continuation of this process as well as the adjust-ment of the pre-accession instrument to attain more effi-cient funding tailor-made to the needs of each beneficiary country. IPA II reinforces the positive and well-functioning aspects of its predecessor and combines it with some nov-elties aimed at further simplifying and harmonising pre-accession assistance.
For example, the differentiation between candidate countries and potential candidate countries was aban-doned. From 2007-2014, this differentiation was seen as reasonable following the logic that candidate countries were able to access a larger share of IPA components and EU assistance than potential candidate countries. How-ever, internal evaluation and intensive dialogue with the beneficiaries have shown that each country should benefit from all possible financial support, irrespective of its sta-tus and stage in the enlargement process. In addition, the sector approach as the new key guiding principle of pre-accession assistance foresees to strategically approach EU assistance and promote efficient and effective funding. Fol-lowing this, pre-accession funding is deemed to progres-sively move towards more strategic sector-based and less ad-hoc project-based assistance.
In order to benefit from this strategic IPA assistance, ben-eficiary countries have to go through great endeavours. The goals of IPA actions and interventions need to comply with EU goals of pre-accession assistance, and they have to advance overall sector development in the beneficiary countries and their national sector goals. Planning and programming IPA funding requires the application of complex proceedings and management tools, the most important of which were presented in this Training Manual for IPA II.
In programming IPA assistance, a good understanding of the basics and principles of IPA as well as a basic knowl-edge of how the EU operates is of utmost importance. This requires competent instructors who are familiar with the EU and its pre-accession strategy and can share their knowledge with a target group – an aim to which this Training Manual strives to contribute.
We hope that this Training Manual will prove to be useful in your future training activities and contribute positively to our common efforts for promoting a united, peaceful and prosperous Europe.
63
IPA II REGULATIONnational IPA coordinator
national strategy
acti
on d
ocum
ents
DG
enl
arge
men
t
country sector strategies
perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
men
t
coun
try
stra
tegy
pap
er NIPAC
prog
ram
min
g
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
the instrument for pre-accession assistance II
need assessment document
sector approachnational ownership
common strategic framework
sect
or w
orki
ng g
roup
s
sector operational programme
ACHAPTER
Annex
In this chapter you will find:
ä sources of information
ä abbreviations
ä glossary of terms
64
A1 Sources of Information
Chapter 2European Union (2014): The History of the European
Union, available at: http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm (last accessed: 12 May 2014).
Cini, Michelle/Pérez-Solorzano, Nieves (2013): Euro-pean Union Politics, 4th edition, Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.
Nugent, Neil (2010): The government and politics of the European Union, 7th edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Mac-millan.
Pinder, John: The European Union. A very short intro-
duction, Oxford 2007.
Piris, Jean-Claude (2010): The Lisbon Treaty. A Legal and Political Analysis, Cambridge: University Press.
Chapter 3Allen, David (2005): Cohesion and Structural Funds, in:
Wallace, H., Wallace W., Pollack, M. (eds.) Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bache, Ian (2011): Europeanization and Multi-level gov-ernance, in Bache, I. and Andreou, G. (eds). Cohesion Policy and Multi-level Governance in South East Europe, Oxford: Routledge.
European Commission (2014): Eurostat: Regional Year-book 2014, available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/pub-lications/regional-yearbook.
European Commission (2014): DG Regional Policy. Regional Policy - Inforegio, available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm (last accessed: 12 May 2014).
European Union (2011): Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 Investing in Jobs and Growths, available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/regulation/pdf/2014/proposals/regulation2014_leaflet.pdf (last accessed: 12 May 2014).
Chapter 4Central Office for Development Strategy and Coordi-
nation of EU Funds (2009): European Funds for Croatian Projects. A Handbook on financial cooperation and Euro-pean Union supported programmes in Croatia, available
at: http://www.safu.hr/datastore/filestore/10/European_Funds_for_Croatian_Projects.pdf (last accessed: 17 June 2014).
Elbasani, Arolda (2013): European integration and transformation in the Western Balkans: Europeanization or business as usual?. Routledge: Abingdon.
European Commission (2014): Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) 2014-2020. A Quick Guide to IPA programming.
European Commission (2014): DG Enlargement on IPA II, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instru-ments/overview/index_en.htm
Gjorgjievski, Mate (2008): EU Instrument for Pre-acces-sion Assistance: The path to a successful start, in: Center for EU Enlargement Studies: Using IPA and other EU funds to accelerate convergence and integration in the Western Balkans, Budapest, pp. 69-88, available at: http://web.ceu.hu/cens/assets/files/IPA.pdf (last accessed: 22 May 2014)..
Official Journal of the European Union (2014). Council Regulation 231/2014 establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II). L 77/11-26.
Official Journal of the European Union (2014). Council Regulation 236/2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union’s instru-ments for financing external action. L 77/95-108.
Chapter 5European Commission (2004): Aid Delivery Methods -
Project Cycle Management Guidelines, Directorate General Development and Cooperation; EuropeAid Cooperation Office, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-project-cycle-management-200403_en_2.pdf
Government of the Republic of Serbia, EU Integration
Office (2011): Guide to the Logical Framework Approach, A Key Tool for Project Cycle Management. 2nd edition, avail-able under: http://www.evropa.gov.rs/Evropa/ShowDocu-ment.aspx?Type=Home&Id=525
European Commission: Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EC external actions (PRAG) 2014, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/prag/document.do
65
European Commission (2004): Aid Delivery Methods - Project Cycle Management Guidelines, Directorate General Development and Cooperation; EuropeAid Cooperation Office, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-project-cycle-management-200403_en_2.pdf
ConclusionSzemlér, Tamás (2008): EU Financial Support for the West-ern Balkans: Well-suited to Real Needs?, in: Center for EU Enlargement Studies: Using IPA and other EU funds to accelerate convergence and integration in the Western Bal-kans, Budapest 2008, pp. 9-22, available at: http://web.ceu.hu/cens/assets/files/IPA.pdf (last accessed: 18 June 2014).
66
A2 Abbreviations
AD Action Document
AP Action Programme
Art. article
BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation
CBC Cross-border Cooperation
CF Cohesion Fund
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
CSF Common Strategic Framework
CSP Country Strategy Paper
DG Directorate General
DG AGRI Directorate General Agriculture
DG NEAR Directorate General European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Nego-tiations
EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
EC European Community
ECB European Central Bank
ECJ European Court of Justice
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community
EDC European Defence Community
eds. editors
EEAS European External Action Service
EEC European Economic Community
EMU Economic and Monetary Union
ENI European Neighbourhood Instrument
EP European Parliament
EPC European Political Community
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF European Social Fund
ESI European Structural and Investment Funds
67
TEN-T European Transport
EU European Union
Euratom European Atomic Energy Community
Eurostat European Statistical Office
EUSF European Union Solidarity Fund
FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNP Gross National Product
HR High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
IGC Intergovernmental Conference
IPA Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance
ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession
JHA Justice and Home Affairs
LFA Logical Framework Approach
MEP Member of the European Parliament
MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIPAC National IPA Coordinator
NPAA National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis
NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
OJ Official Journal of the European Union
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
OP Operational Programme
OS Operating Structure
PAF Performance Assessment Framework
PCM Project Cycle Management
PHARE Poland-Hungary: Actions for Economic Reconstruction
PRAG Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EC External Actions
QMV Qualified Majority Voting
SAA Stabilisation and Association Agreement
SAP Stabilisation and Association Process
68
SAPARD Special Accession Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development
SEA Single European Act
SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
SPD Sector Planning Document
SOV Sources of Verification
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
TAIB Transition Assistance and Institution Building
TEC Treaty establishing the European Community
TEEC Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
TEU Treaty on European Union
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
TOR Terms of Reference
WEU Western European Union
69
A3 Glossary of Terms
Term Definition
Accession Partnerships An instrument of the Community’s pre-accession strategy. The Accession Partnerships are designed to guide and assist the candidate countries in their efforts to achieve the accession criteria, in particular to implement the Community acquis. In one document per country, short and medium-term priorities are determined.
Acquis communautaire Set of common rights and obligations that bind all the member states within the EU. It includes all the treaties, regulations and directives passed by the European institutions as well as judgements laid down by the Euro-pean Court of Justice. In order to become a member state, applicant coun-tries have to accept the acquis, transpose it into their national legislation and implement it upon accession.
Action A coherent set of coordinated activities undertaken to meet a defined objective of a geographic and/or sectorial scope, which have an estimated total cost to which the EU approves a maximum contribution, as well as implementation schedule and performance parameters.
Action Document The Action Document serves as the underlying document for the prepara-tion of the national IPA Action Programme. The Action Document is of an operational nature and incorporates all actions planned in a beneficiary country as well as their rationale.
Action Programme A set of Actions for EU financial assistance defined by clearly identified objectives and expected results, as well as implementation arrangements and other related conditions for execution adopted through a Commission implementing decision.
Activity A component of an action which can be clearly identified by its costs and EU contribution, as well as type of financing.
Activity Schedule A schedule setting out the timing, sequence and duration of project activi-ties. It can also be used to identify milestones for monitoring progress and assigning management responsibility for the achievement of these mile-stones.
Assumptions External factors that have the potential to affect or even determine the success of a project. They lie outside the direct control of the project man-ager. Assumptions form the fourth column of the Logframe matrix and should be formulated positively.
Beneficiaries Groups that benefit from the implementation of a project. They can be either the target group or final beneficiaries. Whereas target groups will be immediately and positively affected by the actions, final beneficiar-ies benefit from the action in the long term at the level of the community, society or sector at large.
70
Candidate country The candidate country status is granted to applicant countries for Euro-pean membership on the day the European Council officially accepts the application. At present, these are: Albania, Turkey, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Iceland.
Community Assistance for Reconstruc-tion, Development and Stabilisation
The programme of Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Develop-ment and Stabilisation aimed at supporting the participation of the West-ern Balkan countries in the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP). In 2007, CARDS was replaced by the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA).
Cohesion Fund This Fund was set up in 1994 in order to provide financial assistance to the least prosperous countries of the EU. It supports projects in the fields of environment and transport infrastructure. It is made available to member states where the gross national product is less than 90 percent of the Com-munity average.
Contracting Authority The Contracting Authority is responsible for awarding grants, tendering, contracting and payments. Whereas this is the case in the event of indi-rect management, it is the European Commission in the event of direct management.
Copenhagen Criteria Accession criteria decided at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. To join the EU, an applicant country must have stable institutions to guar-antee democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights includ-ing the rights of minorities. Moreover, it must have a functioning mar-ket economy as well as the capacity to cope with competition and market forces. Finally, it must have adopted common rules, standards and policies that form the Community acquis.
Cost-benefit analysis A cost-benefit analysis involves the valuation of the flow of the project’s costs and benefits over time to determine the project’s return on invest-ment. A comparison is made between the situation ‘with’ and ‘without’ the project to determine the net benefit of the project.
Council of the European Union One of the Union’s central decision-making institutions. The Council meetings are attended by one minister from each of the member states’ governments.
Country Strategy Paper The Country Strategy Paper is a multi-annual document defining the scope and use of pre-accession assistance under IPA II for each beneficiary country. It breaks down the general guidelines, principles, criteria and indicators of pre-accession assistance and applies to the individual situa-tion of the respective beneficiary country.
Direct management In the event of direct management, all budget implementation tasks are directly managed by the European Commission acting for and on behalf of the beneficiary’s government. These tasks include preparation, imple-mentation and finalization of contracts procedures and can be done either by the Commission’s headquarters in Brussels, the EC Delegation in the beneficiary country or through EU executive agencies.
Effectiveness Contribution made by the project’s results to the achievement of the pro-ject purpose.
Efficiency The fact that the results were obtained at reasonable cost, i.e. how well means and activities were converted into results, and the quality of the results achieved.
71
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)
Founded on 1 January 1958. Its aim is to conduct research and develop nuclear energy, to create a common market for nuclear fuels and to super-vise the nuclear industry to protect health and prevent abuse. The institu-tions of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and Euratom were amalgamated under the Merger Treaty, signed in Brussels on 8 April 1965 and in force since 1 July 1967.
European Coal and Steel Community Founded in 1951 by France, West Germany, Italy and the Benelux States. One of the functions of the creation of a common market for coal and steel products was to tie West Germany into the post-war Western Euro-pean order and guarantee peace in Western Europe. Since 1967 the insti-tutions of Euratom, the European Coal and Steal Community and the European Economic Community have merged.
European Commission The European Commission is the quintessential supranational actor and the executive arm of the EU. Its main tasks consist in initiating legislation and implementing EU policies and the EU budget.
European Council The European Council brings together the heads of state and government of the European Union and the president of the Commission. It defines the general political guidelines of the European Union.
European Court of Auditors The Court of Auditors ensures that EU funds coming from the taxpayers are properly collected and legally spent. Its task is to ensure that the tax-payers receive the maximum value for their money.
European Court of Justice The Court of Justice of the European Community ensures that EU legisla-tion is interpreted and applied in the same way in all EU member states. Moreover, the Court makes sure that EU institutions and member states do what the law requires.
European Parliament The European Parliament is directly elected by the European citizens in order to represent their interests and acts as a supranational institution. Its main tasks consist in enacting legislation together with the Council of the European Union and exercising budgetary power.
European Partnerships An instrument of the Community’s pre-accession strategy. The European Partnerships have been set up for the potential candidate countries within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP). They define priority actions and a financial structure needed to improve stabil-ity and prosperity in the Western Balkans with a view to the eventual EU membership of the potential candidate countries.
European Regional Development Fund The European Regional Development Fund aims at fostering economic and social cohesion in the European Union by correcting imbalances between its regions. The ERDF is active in the areas of investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), investment in infrastruc-ture and development of endogenous potential by measures which sup-port regional and local development. It intervenes in the three objectives of Regional Policy: Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employ-ment as well as European Territorial Cooperation.
European Social Fund The European Social Fund is one of the EU‘s structural funds. By promot-ing employment it aims at reducing differences in prosperity and living standards across the member states and regions of the EU.
72
Evaluation A periodic assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability of aid policies and actions. Lessons of the evaluation are used to influence future projects and programmes. The evaluation phase is the final phase of the project cycle.
Feasibility study A study usually carried out during the formulation phase. It verifies whether the proposed action is well-founded, and is likely to meet the needs of its intended target groups/beneficiaries. The study should design the action in full operational detail and takes into account all policy, eco-nomic, financial, institutional, management and environmental aspects. Due to the study, the Commission and partner governments will have suf-ficient information to justify acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposed project for financing.
Financing Agreement Document signed by the European Commission and the respective part-ner country/countries subsequent to a financing decision. It is the formal commitment of the subscribers to finance a programme or project.
Formulation Phase Third stage of the project cycle. The purpose of this stage is to confirm the relevance and feasibility of the actions. The formulation phase consists of finalising the Action Documents so that they are arranged in the form of a draft Action Programme. For each Action, the Action Programme should indicate the objectives pursued, the expected results and main activities, the methods of implementation, the budget as well as an indicative time-table. The draft Action Programme will be an annex to the draft Commis-sion Implementing Decision (CiD).
Identification phase Second phase of the project cycle. This phase includes the identification of project ideas that are consistent with partner priorities and those of the Commission.
Impact The effect of a project on its wider surrounding and its contribution to the wider sector objectives (as summarised in the project’s overall objective) and to the achievement of the Commission’s overarching policy objec-tives.
Implementation Phase Fourth phase of the project cycle. Its primary objectives are to deliver the results and achieve the purpose of an action and therefore contribute positively and effectively to the overall programme objective. In addition, during the implementation phase, available resources are to be managed efficiently and progress of the actions is monitored and reported on.
Inception Phase First period in the implementing phase, from project start until the writ-ing of the inception report. During the inception phase, contracting arrangements are to be concluded, resources are to be mobilized, working relationships with stakeholders are to be established and the project plan has to be reviewed and revised.
Indirect management Under this management mode, the EU Commission confers budget imple-mentation tasks to (a) partner countries, (b) international organisations, (c) development agencies of EU member states or (d) other bodies. Indirect management is possible with ex-ante or ex-post controls.
Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession
The Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession was a Commu-nity framework for the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the period 2000-2006. It provided financial support in the areas of eco-nomic and social cohesion. In 2007, ISPA was replaced by IPA.
73
Intervention logic The intervention logic is the strategy underlying the project. It contains the steps to be realised by the project and the overall objective to which it contributes. The intervention logic forms the first column of the Log-frame matrix.
Logical Framework Approach The Logical Framework Approach is an essential management tool in each phase of the project cycle. It should be used for the preparation, imple-mentation and evaluation of a project.
Logical Framework matrix The documented product of an analytical process (including stakeholder analysis, problem analysis, analysis of objectives, analysis of strategies). In the Logframe matrix the project’s Intervention Logic, Assumptions, Objectively Verifiable Indicators and Sources of Verification are presented.
Means Means (or inputs) are physical and non-physical resources that are neces-sary to carry out the planned activities and manage the project.
Monitoring An analysis of project progress towards achieving planned results with the purpose of improving management decision-making. Monitoring is undertaken regularly during the implementation phase.
Multi-beneficiary programmes Programmes designed to assist a group of beneficiary countries and to complement the support given under National Programmes. Multi-benefi-ciary actions require the cooperation between the participating countries and encourage the establishment of regional structures and networks, most prominently by means of Cross-Border Cooperation Programmes.
National IPA Coordinator The NIPAC shall ensure a close link between the Commission and the beneficiary country with regards both to the general accession process and the use of assistance under the IPA Regulation.
Objective Tree Diagrammatic visualisation of a desired future situation once problems have been remedied, following a problem analysis and showing a means-to-end relationship.
Objectively Verifiable Indicators Measurable indicators showing whether or not objectives have been achieved. OVIs lay down the basis for designing an appropriate monitor-ing system.
Overall objective Description of a future changed situation that a project strives to accom-plish. The overall objective explains why a project is important for the society in terms of long-term benefits for the beneficiaries. It also shows how the programme or project is consistent with regional/sectoral poli-cies as well as the Commission’s overarching policy objectives.
Performance Assessment Framework The Performance Assessment Framework is a monitoring system to assess the progress made towards achieving sector policies.
Potential candidate countries Countries that may apply for EU membership. Currently, these are: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo* as defined in UNSC Regulation 1244.
Problem Analysis A structured investigation of the negative aspects of a situation in order to establish causes and their effects.
Problem Tree Diagrammatic visualisation of a negative situation showing a cause-effect relationship. The problem tree is the documented output of a problem analysis.
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.
74
Programming Phase First phase of the project cycle during which priorities of cooperation are identified by the European Commission and the partner country govern-ments. The output is a national indicative programme that defines gen-eral guidelines for cooperation with the EU and specifies focal sectors and themes within a country or a region.
Project cycle Life-cycle of a project leading from the initial idea to its completion. The project cycle defines decision options, key documents, key tasks, roles and responsibilities so that informed decisions can be made at each phase in the life of a project.
Project Cycle Management Methodology for the preparation, implementation and evaluation of pro-jects and programmes based on the Logical Framework Approach. In 1992, the European Commission adopted PCM as its primary set of project design and management tools.
Project purpose Central objective of a project in terms of sustainable benefits to be deliv-ered to the project’s beneficiaries.
Regulation A legislative act of the European Union which is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all member states.
Results Tangible products or services that are delivered as a consequence of the implementation of a set of activities. Results are what the project manag-ers are responsible for achieving by the action’s completion date.
Risks External factors that have the potential to affect the success of an action and that are not very likely to hold true.
Sector Planning Document The Sector Planning Document is a multi-annual document which assesses the sector maturity of a given sector in a beneficiary country and specifies the actions planned within this sector. It includes an overview of the sector and the sector assessment as well as a sequencing of IPA actions with a mid-term and long-term perspective.
Shared management Under shared management, budget implementation tasks are delegated to EU member states. This management mode is most common in case of cross-border cooperation programmes.
Sources of Verification SOVs describe the sources of information that should be used to measure the achievement of indicators. They form the third column of the Log-frame matrix.
Special Accession Programme for Agri-cultural and Rural Development
Through SAPARD, the EU provided financial assistance for the alignment to the Common Agricultural Policy and related policies. The programme was targeted on a sustainable development in the rural and agricultural sector of the Central and Eastern European Countries in the period 2000-2006.
Stabilisation and Association Agreement Main element of the Stabilisation and Association Process. The SAA pro-vides a framework of mutual commitments on a wide range of politi-cal, trade and economic issues between the EU and each Western Balkan country.
Stakeholder Analysis Identification of all stakeholder groups that will be affected by the pro-posed intervention, the analysis of their interests, problems and poten-tials. The results of this analysis are to be integrated into the action design.
Stakeholders Individuals, societal groups or institutions that may directly or indirectly, positively or negatively affect or be affected by the action.
Imprint
Published byDeutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered officesBonn and Eschborn, Germany
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40, 53113 Bonn, GermanyPhone: +49 228 44 60-0Fax: +49 228 44 60-17 66
Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5, 65760 Eschborn, GermanyPhone: +49 61 96 79-0Fax: +49 61 96 79-11 [email protected]
ResponsibleAngela MarxSenior Project Manager “EU Integration of South Eastern Europe”[email protected]
As atMarch 2015
Author Institut für Europäische Politik e.V.Bundesallee 2310717 BerlinTelefon: +49 30 8891 [email protected]
Design and layout Nicole Fritsch | Visuelle Kommunikation August-Bebel-Str. 61, 04275 [email protected]
Photo credits © GIZ; Cover photo: shutterstock
GIZ is responsible for the content of this publication.
On behalf of theGerman Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)
75
