Effectiveness of
the OPs
sector, which has resulted in a revised approach, with delivery through local authorities.
Table 5.2: Border, Midlands and Western Region OP and Southern and Eastern Region OP, Actual Expenditure as a Percentage of Planned Expenditure, 2000-2002
Region: Border, Midlands and Western Southern and Eastern Actual Spending CSF Total Public NDP Actual Spending CSF Total Public NDP Measure € million % of planned € million % of planned Local Infrastructure:
1 Non-National Roads 505.1 281.7 110.4 681.4 72.1 117.4
2 Rural Water 80.6 101.6 55.1 56.8 47.5 91.6
3 Waste Management 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.5
4 Urban and Village Renewal 8.1 39.8 43.9 18.3 39.1 45.7
5 E-Commerce and Communications 8.1 13.1 13.1 9.4 35.4 35.4
6 Seaports 4.9 48.2 39.0 52.5
7 Regional Airports 1.9 32.3 0.9 34.8
8 Culture, Recreation and Sports 22.5 36.3 43.5 40.1
9 Technical Assistance 0.2 27.0 27.0 0.2 16.3 16.3
Total Local Infrastructure Priority 632.0 102.0 78.3 850.1 53.9 83.8
Local Enterprise:
1 Tourism 2.6 0.4 0.0 1.0
2 Micro enterprise 0.9 188.5 80.0 56.7 127.6 92.5
3 Regional Innovation Strategies 27.6 4.6 4.6 2.4 14.4 14.4
4 Forestry 0.4 114.5 71.9 14.6 51.8 86.8
5 Fishery harbours, Gaeltacht/Islands
harbours 18.6 197.6 101.5 21.8 54.8 64.5
6 Aquaculture Development 43.7 65.1 65.1
Total Local Enterprise Priority 3.4 100.3 62.4 95.9 65.5 58.3
Agriculture and Rural Development:
1 General Structural Improvement 7.3 11.4 9.7 14.2 9.4 20.3
2 Alternative Enterprises 2.0 21.0 4.7 50.2
3 General Rural Development 6.6 29.6 21.6 4.7 38.8 26.0
4 Services for Agricultural and Rural
Development 15.8 96.4 13.0 95.6
Total Agriculture and Rural Development
Priority 31.8 15.1 24.0 36.7 13.6 32.9
Social Inclusion and Childcare:
1 Childcare 17.6 74.5 49.6 39.9 43.5 43.5
2 Equality 0.6 17.8 5.2 59.6
3 Community Development and Family
Support 16.1 105.9 50.9 114.4
4 Crime Prevention 1.7 18.7 14.5 55.9
5 Youth Services 10.0 73.4 98.6 97.2
6 Local Development 39.6 81.4 122.7 80.5
Total Social Inclusion and Childcare Priority 85.6 74.5 68.4 331.8 43.5 78.1
Total OP 843.8 83.3 69.4 1,314.4 49.5 76.7
Table 5.3 shows the corresponding physical progress in the two OPs. This is mostly measured using the Key Efficiency Indicator. In some cases no indicator was available, so in these cases nothing is reported. Overall, the same patchy performance emerges as in the case of the financial progress. Local Infrastructure, Non-National
REGIONAL OPS 97
Roads, Rural Water and Regional Airports have progressed particularly well, which also applies to a lesser extent to Culture, Recreation and Sports facilities, Urban and Village Renewal and E- Commerce and Communication. For the latter no data were available for the BMW OP. The Local Enterprise Priority appears to be progressing well, while the opposite is true for the Agriculture and Rural Development Priority. Finally, The Social Inclusion and Childcare Priority has made good physical progress, except in the case of the crime prevention measure.
Table 5.3: Regional OPs: Physical Progress as a Per Cent of Planned Progress, 2000-2002
Border, Midlands and Western Southern and Eastern Measure CSF % of planned % of planned Local Infrastructure
1 Non-National Roads CSF 100.6 102.7
2 Rural Water CSF 82.2 130.51
3 Waste Management CSF NA NA
4 Urban and Village Renewal CSF 51.5 57.7
5 ECommerce and Communications CSF NA 58.4
6 Seaports 0 0
7 Regional Airports 81.5 95
8 Culture, Recreation and Sports 70.5 70.2
9 Technical Assistance CSF NA NA
Total Local Infrastructure Priority CSF
Local Enterprise
1 Tourism 0 70.0
2 Micro enterprise CSF 80.7 91.6
3 Regional Innovation Strategies CSF NA 50
4 Forestry CSF 101.7 118.2
5 Fishery harbours, Gaeltacht/Islands
harbours CSF 296.9 92.4
6 Aquaculture Development CSF 110.8
Total Local Enterprise Priority CSF
Agriculture and Rural Development
1 General Structural Improvement CSF 13.8 46.5
2 Alternative Enterprises 74.8 68.1
3 General Rural Development CSF 58.0 17.2
4 Services for Agricultural and Rural
Development 20.7 11.2
Total Ag. and Rural Development Priority CSF
Social Inclusion and Childcare
1 Childcare CSF 69.0 50.1
2 Equality 0 0
3 Community Development and family
Support 83.7 120
4 Crime Prevention 24.8 25.6
5 Youth Services 184.6 112.3
6 Local Development 81.4 85.7
Total Social Inclusion and Childcare
38 These issues are dealt with in detail in the OP evaluations.
A number of constraints have contributed to this performance.38
First of all it must be recognised that the new institutions (Regional Assemblies) needed to get up and running. While this may not have directly delayed the progress of the OPs, it must be recognised that the staff in the Regional Assemblies had little time to prepare for the implementation. The efficiency with which they have managed the OPs should therefore be noted. The restrictions due to the foot and mouth crisis slowed down progress in some areas, especially agriculture. It appears that farmers were waiting to see what changes would be made to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which may explain the poor take up of the agriculture measure. The deterioration of the external economic environment has reduced demand for some Measures, and has undoubtedly reduced the return on others. There were long delays in getting state aid clearance. Another management issue relates to the slow progress on selection projects in some cases. The quality of applications appears to have been poor in a number of cases.
The slow progress so far is of particular concern regarding the Southern and Eastern region OP for which the planned spending profile entailed a front-loading with funding declining towards the end of the programme. In common with other OPs, a more gradual build up of funding might have seen progress running closer to targets.
T
his section summarises the main findings of the Mid-TermEvaluations of the two operational programmes.
EFFECTIVENESS
Effectiveness is measured by progress, both physical and financial. Both OP evaluations contain an extensive evaluation of both types of progress, which is similar to that reported above. Nevertheless the main findings are briefly summarised in this section.
The evaluators noted that progress on non-national roads has been excellent; physical progress of the Rural Water measure has been relatively good; but that progress on the Waste Management measure has been very poor. Similarly, financial progress on the E- Commerce and Communications has been poor and the majority measure will involve a greater level of public sector financial contribution. The micro-enterprise and harbour infrastructure Measures are progressing well while the tourism, forestry and aquaculture Measures are under-performing. For the Agriculture and Rural Development Priority, there has been poor progress with regard to the structural improvement measure, the alternative enterprises measure, and the general rural development measure. While financial progress is good for the services for agriculture measure, “physical” progress is poor.