bilateral cooperation between italy and turkey the “completamenti” programme

Bilateral cooperation between Italy and TurkeyBilateral cooperation between Italy and Turkey

THE “COMPLETAMENTI” PROGRAMME


LAWS FOR UNDER-UTILISED AREAS

LawTotal amount for under-

utilised areas (M€)Amount for

infrastructures/ agreements

L. 341/1995 2.582 2.035

L. 641/1996 5.165 1.549

L. 135/1997 6.197 1.542

L. 208/ 1998 6.301 2.324

L. 449/1998 (Budget Law 1999) 5.733 1.808

L. 488/1999 (Budget Law 2000) 6.197 2.324

L. 388/2000 (Budget Law 2001) 10.035 1.991

L. 448/2001 (Budget Law 2002) 7.750 (approx) 2.519

… … …

CentralAdministrations

Completamenti

Regions (mostly)+

CentralAdministrations


ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES TO INVESTMENT PRIORITIES (CIPE DECISION 70/1998)

Industrial incentives 1

Industrial incentives 2

Territorial Pacts

Research

SA-RC Motorway

Institutional ProgrammeAgreements

Employment

National co-funding of SFsInfrastructures(2.324 M€)

1.808 M€

516 M€


ALLOCATION OF INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMME AGREEMENTS RESOURCES TO rEGIONS (CIPE DECISION 70/1998)

Total

1.808 M€

Southern Regions

1.549 M€

Central + Northern Regions

181 M€

Earthquake-struck Regions(Umbria-Marche)

78 M€

~3% ALLOCATED TO COVER UP TO 50% OF COST OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES


Completion of works under commissioner’s management, upon condition of existing demand and readiness to start

Other works needing completion, in order to make them fully operational

Furthermore, “priority shall be given to projects co-funded with EC, regional, local or private resources”

The CIPE decision 70/1998 set two criteria for the projects to be funded:

THE BIRTH OF THE “COMPLETAMENTI” PROGRAMME


Ex ante

PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT PATH

In itinere Ex post

Evaluation

and

selection

Monitoring

and

checks

Efficiency

and

effectiveness


Partnership, as agreement of central, regional and local administrations on a strategic planning that leads to social and economic growth

Evaluation, as identification and distribution of the selection criteria, in a prompt and transparent way

Timeliness, as response to the demands of the territory for the acceleration of expenditure and the experimentation of the new procedures

SOME KEYPOINTS OF THE SELECTION PROCESS


SELECTION PROCESS

1. Identification of candidate projects to be completed by central, regional and local administrations

2. Pre-selection of candidate projects by central and regional administrations

3. Sending of proposals to the Evaluation Committee, according to agreed format

4. Processing of proposals by the Evaluation Committee, definition of ranking and final CIPE decision


Works under commissioner’s management

SELECTION PATHS

Other works needing completion

Selected by sectoral Ministry

Regions/Ministries + Ranking


RANKING CRITERIA

Criterion Score

A - Other funds / Total cost 0-3

B - Level of design 0-3

C - Existing demand 0-1

D - Up-to date technology and compliance to rules of existing part 0-1

E - Time elapsed from interruption of works of existing part 0-1

F - Up-to-date expenses / Total cost (inclusive of completion) 0-2

G - Multiple lots 0-1

H - Other causes of interruption than shortage of funds 0-0,5

I - Expected time before operation / Total cost (inclusive of completion) 0-1

J - Environmental relevance 0-1

K - Central-regional cross- liking 0-2

L - Programmatic coherence 0-1

M - Order of preference of central/ regional administration 0-1


PREMIUM SYSTEM

In each macro-area (Centre-North, South):

• 70% of resources is allocated to regions according to agreed quotas, then to best projects at regional level;

• 30% of resources is allocated to remaining best project at national level, regardless of region.

The premium system aims at rewarding the quality of projects, supporting regions where highest-score projects lie.


FINAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES: CENTRE-NORTH

CIPE funds CIPE funds

(millions of euros) (millions of euros)

Emilia Rom. 0,0 0 5,6 3 5,6 3,20% 3 4,20%

Friuli Ven. G. 0,0 0 16,5 5 16,5 9,40% 5 6,90%

Lazio 0,0 0 32,9 22 32,9 18,80% 22 30,50%

Liguria 0,0 0 21,5 3 21,5 12,30% 3 4,20%

Lombardia 0,0 0 9,1 4 9,1 5,20% 4 5,60%

Piemonte 0,0 0 33,7 8 33,7 19,20% 8 11,10%

P.A. Bolzano 1,0 1 1,8 1 2,8 1,60% 2 2,80%

P.A. Trento 0,0 0 1,1 2 1,1 0,70% 2 2,80%

Toscana 0,0 0 25,6 14 25,6 14,60% 14 19,40%

Valle d’Aosta 0,0 0 2,1 1 2,1 1,20% 1 1,40%

Veneto 0,0 0 24,2 8 24,2 13,80% 8 11,10%

Totale 1,0 1 174,3 71 175,3 100,00% 72 100,00%

Region

Managed by Commissary Other completions Total

Number of projects

Number of projects

CIPE funds

(millions of euros)Number of projects


FINAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES: SOUTH

CIPE funds CIPE funds

(millions of euros) (millions of euros)

Abruzzo 0,0 0 72,3 21 72,3 4,80% 21 8,50%

Basilicata 2,1 2 47,5 8 49,6 3,30% 10 4,00%

Calabria 14,6 3 112,3 49 126,8 8,40% 52 21,00%

Campania 35,1 5 390,6 51 425,7 28,30% 56 22,60%

Molise 0,0 0 20,3 11 20,3 1,30% 11 4,40%

Puglia 24,5 1 175,6 54 200,2 13,30% 55 22,20%

Sardegna 12,9 2 81,6 9 94,5 6,30% 11 4,40%

Sicilia 85,0 4 430,8 28 515,9 34,30% 32 12,90%

Total 174,2 17 1.331,1 231 1.505,3 100,00% 248 100,00%

Region

Managed by Commissary Other completions Total

Number of projects

Number of projects

CIPE funds

(millions of euros)Number of projects


FINAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES: NATIONAL MAP

> 155 M€33,5 – 155 M€20 – 33,5 M€< 20 M€

Amount of funding

Source of funding

Regional quota (70%)Premium quota (30%)


Time of start of the projects (works under commissioner’s management)

Handover to contractor within 60 days of end of procurement

Time-schedule of the start of the projects

“UVER shall report to CIPE on critical issues, in order to facilitate the removal of constraints and to give a framework of knowledge for future allocations.”

SOME KEYPOINTS OF THE CIPE FUNDING DECISION


RELIABILITY OF THE TIME-SCHEDULE

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1999 2000 2001 2002 >2002

Expected at start of programme Actual

Cumulative percentage of number of projects by year of start

The actual curve does not reach 100% as some projects have been cancelled


UVER ACTIVITY

1999-2003 Documentation checks, on-the-spot checks, special focuses

2002- Monitoring (implementation, management and analysis)

2003- Support and assistance to selected projects / Forecasting

2005- Evaluation of effectiveness of completed projects / Support and assistance to all on-going projects


THE SELECTION OF PROJECTS FOR CHECKS

Statistical sample

Pros: Good representativeness

Cons: Low number of projects, high variability

Reasoning-based choice

Pros: Selection on specific issues

Cons: Poor representativeness

The solution: A mixed approach

- Representativeness of all sectors

- More importance to greater projects


CHECKS VS MONITORING

Monitoring provides an overall view on all the projects but may fail to report specific issues that affect the implementation of the single projects.

On-the-spot checks provide very detailed reports on each project under observation, but they fail to give any insight on the rest of the programme.


MONITORING CONTEXT

What: Projects and procurements (lots); project identity and articulation are replicated in monitoring forms.

Who: Referees at implementing bodies (from a continuously updated database).

How: Pre-filled form sent automatically by fax or email.

When: 30 Apr – 31 Aug – 31 Dec until 2004; 31 Dec since 2005.


SPECIFIC ISSUES OF THE MONITORING

Particular cases: Projects with more than one implementing body.

Finalisation of the monitoring form: After prototype used in simulation during on-site checks.

Data validation: Horizontal validation by experts, vertical validation by the system.

Contact with referees: Inconsistent or missing data, form not returned, before monitoring.


Up-sides

Data collected at production site.

Atomic data.

Only necessary data.

Pre-filled form.

Push mode.

Exchange mode chosen by referees.

Upgrade from prototype.

Detailed instructions.

Management of metadata.

Quick response times.

High coverage.

Data used in reports to CIPE.

No rule by law.

MONITORING: UP-SIDES AND DOWN-SIDES

Down-sides

No shared use of the monitoring database.

Manual data entry.

Raw user interface.

Costly validation process.

Difficult management of projects with multiple lots.


MONITORING FORM, INSTRUCTIONS AND VALIDATION CHECKLIST

The monitoring process is supported by:

• simple instructions to fill in the monitoring form• a validation checklist on the collected data

available on the internet.

All the stakeholders are empowered to understand the utilisation of the data that they produce.


PERFORMANCES OF MONITORING

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of projects CIPE resources

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean response time (days) Days allow ed before deadline

Coverage Percentages by Monitoring Phase Mean Response Times by Monitoring Phase


MONITORING REPORTS

Report to InterministerialPlanning Committee

DPS Annual Report

Monitoring outputs are used for reports and proposals.


MONITORING: DATA REVISIONS

0 M€

500 M€

1.000 M€

1.500 M€

2.000 M€

2.500 M€

3.000 M€

3.500 M€

2003 2004 2005

Total funds Total cost Total payments

When considering percentages of progress, both numerator and denominator can change!


STATE OF THE PROGRAMME31 Dec 2006 estimate (amounts in thousand euros)

Number CIPE funds

Number CIPE funds

NumberCIPE funds

Piemonte 8 33,715 0 0 8 33,715 0 0 8 33,715

Valle d’Aosta 1 2,117 0 0 1 2,117 0 0 1 2,117

Lombardia 4 9,141 0 0 4 9,141 0 0 4 9,141

Liguria 2 16,720 1 4,777 3 21,497 0 0 3 21,497

P.A. Trento 2 1,149 0 0 2 1,149 0 0 2 1,149

P.A. Bolzano 1 1,833 0 0 1 1,833 0 0 1 1,833

Veneto 8 24,219 0 0 8 24,219 0 0 8 24,219

Friuli Venezia Giulia 4 11,672 0 0 4 11,672 1 4,870 5 16,542

Emilia Romagna 3 5,629 0 0 3 5,629 0 0 3 5,629

Toscana 12 19,646 2 5,939 14 25,585 0 0 14 25,585

Lazio 16 20,478 4 10,316 20 30,794 2 2,119 22 32,913

Abruzzo 18 40,386 3 31,917 21 72,303 0 0 21 72,303

Molise 11 20,302 0 0 11 20,302 0 0 11 20,302

Campania 37 186,794 9 162,899 46 349,692 5 40,893 51 390,586

Puglia 45 142,136 6 29,791 51 171,927 3 3,718 54 175,646

Basilicata 3 29,438 3 10,329 6 39,767 2 7,747 8 47,514

Calabria 42 82,115 6 29,660 48 111,775 1 491 49 112,266

Sicilia 22 94,153 3 262,386 25 356,539 3 74,288 28 430,827

Sardegna 6 56,832 2 17,043 8 73,875 1 7,747 9 81,622

Centre-North 61 146,319 7 21,033 68 167,352 3 6,989 71 174,340

% on area 85.9 83.9 9.9 12.1 95.8 96.0 4.2 4.0 100.0 100.0

Mezzogiorno 184 652,156 32 544,025 216 1,196,181 15 134,884 231 1,331,065

% on area 79.7 49.0 13.9 40.9 93.5 89.9 6.5 10.1 100.0 100.0

Italia 245 798,474 39 565,058 284 1,363,532 18 141,873 302 1,505,405

% on area 81.1 53.0 12.9 37.5 94.0 90.6 6.0 9.4 100.0 100.0

Region

Active projects

Completed On-going Total activeNumber CIPE

funds

Total

Number

CIPE funds

Revoked projects


REGIONAL DYNAMICS OF PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE

Region 31.12.2002 31.12.2003 31.12.2004 31.12.200531.12.2006(estimate)

Piemonte 79.9 90.4 97.6 100.0 100.0

Valle d’Aosta 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Lombardia 84.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Liguria 23.3 38.5 60.6 81.7 88.9

P.A. Trento 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

P.A. Bolzano 23.7 97.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

Veneto 87.1 94.2 97.7 100.0 100.0

Friuli Venezia Giulia 62.9 73.1 73.1 75.6 77.9

Emilia Romagna 68.4 81.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

Toscana 48.0 70.4 79.2 81.1 87.8

Lazio 16.1 31.0 42.7 51.0 69.6

Abruzzo 26.1 41.0 61.6 69.2 75.0

Molise 65.2 86.1 100.0 100.0 100.0

Campania 22.7 30.9 39.8 47.8 56.8

Puglia 57.7 67.8 73.7 77.5 81.4

Basilicata 27.1 34.9 45.8 54.5 63.3

Calabria 47.8 67.4 89.5 94.8 97.3

Sicilia 26.4 40.9 51.9 61.9 73.6

Sardegna 43.4 57.0 69.0 79.4 87.0

Centre–North 54.1 67.1 76.9 83.2 89.2

South 29.6 41.0 51.9 59.9 68.5

Italy 33.0 44.7 55.4 63.1 71.4


FIRST CATALOGUE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (2003)


THE “COMPLETAMENTI” WEB PAGES


FORECASTING SYSTEM

Region

Cost

Duration

Year of start

Sector

Actual expenditure

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Forecastexpenditure

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

f(yt-1,x)

A statistical model is used to gain information on:

• the importance of the effects

• future expenditure


IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTS

Variable LevelsEstimated parameter

Significance

Intercept 0.27 ***yt-1 0.90 ***

Cost Up to 0.1 M euros 0.38 ***

From 0.1 to 1 M euros 0.24 ***

From 1 to 10 M euros 0.09 ***

More than 10 M euros 0.00

Geographical area North 0.03

Centre -0.07 ***

South-West -0.03

South-East -0.02

Islands 0.00

Expected duration of works Up to 1 year 0.26 *** From 1 to 2 years 0.15 *** From 2 to 3 years 0.07 ***

More than 3 years 0.00

Sector Cultural heritage -0.12 ***Environment -0.06 ***

Integrated water system -0.08 ***

Building 0.03

Energy 0.05

Waste management -0.31 ***

Roads 0.00


EXPENDITURE FORECASTS

Progress forecast

Expenditure forecast

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0 Meuro

100 Meuro

200 Meuro

300 Meuro

400 Meuro

500 Meuro

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

bilateral cooperation between italy and turkey the “completamenti” programme

Documents

bilateral cooperation

turkey works

turkey allocation of

turkey completion

south slide

effectiveness slide

selection process slide

turkey laws