PRODUCTIVE SECTOR OP 147 Table 7.1: Financial Progress for PSOP 2000 to 2002, in € and % of Plan
Planed Spending Actual Spending Actual Spending as a % of Planned Spending CSF NDP CSF NDP CSF NDP RTDI 289.7 919.5 147.2 403.4 51 44 Industry 0.0 992.7 0.0 555.2 56 Marketing 0.0 151.8 0.0 108.9 72 Sea Fisheries 22.0 24.7 3.9 4.0 18 16 Technical Assistance 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.2 33 17 Productive Sector OP 312.4 2,089.9 151.3 1,071.6 48 51
Table 7.2: Physical Progress by Measure for the Period 2000 – 2002, % of Planned
Priority Measure Progress
Research, Technological Development and Innovation (RTDI)
Education 180.6
Industry 96.2
Agriculture 69.4
Food – Institutional R&D 310.0
Marine 93.0
Forestry 160.3
Environmental RTDI 44.4
Industry Indigenous Industry 110.0
Food Sector – Agricultural Products 6.3
Seafood Processing 0.0
Film Industry 161.8
Gaeltacht 130.4
Foreign Direct Investment 86.7
Marketing Industry 16.3
Food Sector 11.5
Seafood 6.4
Tourism
Sea Fisheries Development Adjustment of Fishing Effort 0.0
Fisheries Development 56.8
Renewal and Modernisation of Fleets 4.0
Source: Own calculations using information from Mid-Term Evaluation of Productive Sector Operational Programme, Final Report by INDECON INC.
The Measures showing the highest degree of under-spending (neglecting Technical Assistance), are Sea Fisheries Development (just 16 per cent of planned spending), followed by RTDI (44 per cent) and Industry (56 per cent). The Marketing Priority has the lowest level of under-spending, with spending of 72 per cent of the OP plan. With the exception of the Marketing Priority some reduction in under-spending is apparent in 2002. At the regional level the figures indicate that in the BMW region just 34.4 per cent of the OP forecast was actually spent, while for the S&E region the figure is 60.3 per cent. So, the under-spending is substantially higher in the BMW region.
Taken as a whole, the picture suggests that during the period 2000 to 2002 financial progress has been slow for different reasons ranging from the Irish and international economic slowdown to implementation delays and funding problems, so that the original Mid-Term targets will not be achieved.
In Table 7.2 physical progress by measure is shown for the entire OP, using the key effectiveness indicator or, where not available, one output indicator as specified in the Programme Complements. As physical progress is reported at Sub-Measure level, the figures at measure level had to be calculated as a weighted average of the Sub- Measure indicators, where actual expenditure weights are applied. In general, the physical output across the Sub-Measures has been relatively positive compared with the financial progress. A second general conclusion is that the effectiveness indicators are missing in part, and that no impact indicators are shown. To be fair to the impact analysis, it seems much too early to be able to measure impact at the Sub-Measure level so that it is not remarkable that this is missing.
With regard to physical progress in the OP a mixed picture emerges although, there is significant physical progress across the Sub-Measures within this Priority and the mid-term targets will be achieved in most cases. For the RTDI Priority there are a number of notable findings. There has been no physical output of renewal of research equipment. With regard to Postgraduate students, progress has been very good with twice the projected number of Postgraduate and Postdoctoral students emerging from the Education RTDI measure. However, the number of individuals trained in R&D management under the Industry RTDI Measure has been zero. A substantial number of national collaborations have been established but no financial progress on an environmental centre of excellence was observed over the period 2000-2002, the OP evaluators conclude that uncertainty surrounds the completion of this project. Finally, where they are available, regional indicators show that progress has been concentrated in the Southern and Eastern region. This is not surprising, since most of the Measures and Sub-Measures are demand driven and the institutions that absorb the funding are located there.
The industry Priority also suffers from significant under- spending as compared to planned spending. However, many of the Measures appear to be achieving the physical progress targets. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions. There has been poor progress on incubation space, such that no firms were using the incubation space under the regional network Sub-Measure. The number of companies in receipt of R&D capability grants under the Foreign Direct investment measure is small, as are the number of firms that received training grants. Again, the regional pattern is much in favour of the S&E region. An exception is Indigenous Industry and the number of Business plans developed. The marketing Priority under-spending is small compared to the other priorities. The output Measures indicate that the mid-term targets
PRODUCTIVE SECTOR OP 149
should be achieved. The sea fisheries Priority is significantly behind financial targets and the output indicators are also behind target.
I
n this section we review the main findings of OP level Mid-Term Evaluation for each of the priorities under the headings Prioritisation, Effectiveness, Efficiency. There may be some overlap in some of the points. Then we set out the recommendations arrived at in the MTE. Statements, which summarise levels of expenditure or physical progress, are not repeated.PRIORITISATION IN THE
OP
The success of the programme as a whole depends on the selection of projects and the management of the programme. Therefore, relevant project selection criteria and procedures have to be utilised as is correctly highlighted by the OP evaluators, project selection should be on a competitive basis where only the best projects get funding. The Mid-Term Evaluation of this OP found the following:
• RTDI Priority – a competitive process features in respect of all Measures/Sub-Measures within the Priority, where such a process is applicable;
• Industry Priority – A competitive process currently applies only in respect of the Gaeltacht Land & Building Sub- Measure and the FDI Sites and Premises Sub-Measure, where competitive tendering applies;
• Marketing Priority – Competition does not feature in areas where project selection applies;
• Sea Fisheries Development Priority – competition is not currently applied in project selection.
Another point regards the transparency of selection process. In the vast majority of the cases the project selection procedures can be viewed as transparent. An exception, as the evaluators point out, is the FDI measure where transparency is questioned. The evaluators overall assessment concerning the management of the Programme is that this is impressive and furthermore “that the Managing Authority is actively engaged in ensuring that ongoing monitoring of the Programme takes place in line with standard EU and CSF Evaluation Unit guidelines.” (MTE, 362).
The evaluators’ assessment of the monitoring and performance indicators is that they are generally relevant. However, there is a need for significant improvements, especially with regard to the central issue of measuring impact and value added. There should be a particular interest in having consistency across the indicators. Moreover, the evaluators question the realism of the targets set down, since they are often not easily quantifiable and there is no reliable data source. Also, since the targets are not always realistic, it is difficult to judge the achievement of objectives by means of evaluating efficiency and effectiveness.