republic of bulgaria ex-ante evaluation of operational ... evaluation final...dg prd directorate...
TRANSCRIPT
Operational Program “Regional development” 2007-2013
www.bgregio.eu
Investing in your future!
This project is financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the state budget of
Republic of Bulgaria
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational
Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-
2020 programming period
(Final Report with updated indicator analysis)
Sofia, May 2014 г.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming
period
2
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF APPLIED ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. 6
ABOUT THE CONSULTANT ............................................................................................................................ 8
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 16
1. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 16 2. TEAM MEMBERS AND EVALUATION DEADLINES ...................................................................................... 17
II. ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED WITHIN STAGES 1- 4.......................................................................... 18
1. STAGE 1 – INTRODUCTORY PHASE STAGE 1 ............................................................................................ 18 2. STAGE 2 – DRAWING UP DRAFT VERSION OF EX-ANTE EVALUATION OF OPRG 2014-2020 AND STAGE 3 –
DRAWING UP AND SUBMISSION OF FINAL VERSION OF EX-ANTE EVALUATION OF OPRG 2014-2020 ................ 19 3. STAGE 4 - DRAWING UP AND SUBMISSION OF FINAL VERSION OF EX-ANTE EVALUATION OF OPRG 2014-
2020 32 4. CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING THE EVALUATION ................................................................................. 32
III. EVALUATION 1 – ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE PROGRAM . 33
1. DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................................. 33 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 34
IV. EVALUATION 2 – ASSESSMENT OF THE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE PROGRAM .. 75
1. DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................................. 75 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................... 75
V. EVALUATION 3 - ASSESSMENT OF THE HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES,
INCLUDED IN THE OPERATIONAL PROGRAM.................................................................................... 105
1. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................ 105 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 105
VI. EVALUATION 4 – ASSESSMENT OF THE INDICATOR SYSTEM ................................................ 108
1. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................ 108 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 108
VII. EVALUATION 5 – ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAM’S BUDGET ............................................. 132
1. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................ 132 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 133
VIII. EVALUATION 6 – ASSESSMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING SYSTEMS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM ................... 158
1. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................ 158 2. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 159
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming
period
3
IX. EVALUATION 7 – ASSESSMENT OF THE VALIDITY, RELEVANCE, CONSISTENCY,
APPLICABILITY AND REFLECTION OF THE RESULTS OF THE OPRG 2014-200
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................. 170
X.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 179
1. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 179 2. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 184 3. FOLLOW-UP OF THE CONSULTANT’S RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 195
ANNEXES ......................................................................................................................................................... 203
1. LIST OF KEY CONSULTED DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 203 2. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS IN THE EVALUATION ................................................. 205 3. RESULTS OF THE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................................... 215 4. INDICATOR FICHES ................................................................................................................................ 215
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
4
List of Applied Acronyms
CA Conformity Assessment
CCP Climate Change Policy
CCU Central Coordination Unit
CEACEF Committee for European Affairs and Control over the European Funds
CF Cohesion Fund
CM Council of Ministers
CSF Common Strategic Framework
DCM Decree of the Council of Ministers
DG PRD Directorate General Programming of Regional Development
EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
ECIF European Cohesion and Investment Funds
EE Energy Efficiency
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIB European Investment Bank
EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
EP Environmental Policy
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESEE Ecorys South East Europe Ltd.
ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds
EU European Union
FHR Fund for Housing Renovation
IAWP Indicative Annual Work Program
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IP Investment Priority
IUPRD Integrated Urban Plan for Regeneration and Development
MA Managing Authority
MAFP Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Programme
MC Monitoring Committee
MEE Ministry of Economy and Energy
MH Ministry of Health
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
5
MLSP Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
MRD Ministry of Regional Development
MRDPW Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works
NDP B2020 National Development Program Bulgaria 2020
NGOs Non-governmental Organizations
NKE Non-key Expert
NRDS National Regional Development Strategy
NRP National Reform Program
NSDC National Spatial Development Concept
NSI National Statistical Institute
NSRF National Strategic Reference Framework
NT National Target
OP Operational Programme
OPDCBE Operational Program Development of Competitiveness of the Bulgarian
Economy
OPE Operational Programme Environment
OPGG Operational Programme Good Governance
OPHRD Operational Programme for Human Resources Development
OPIC Operational Programme Innovations and Competitiveness
OPRD/
OPRG
Operational Program Regional Development/ Operational Program
Regions in Growth
OPSESG Operational Programme Science and Education for Smart Growth
OPTTI Operational Programme Transport and Transport Infrastructure
PA Partnership Agreement
PA Priority Axis
PPA Public Procurement Act
PPP Public-Private Partnership
R&D Research and Development
RDA Regional Development Act
RDP Rural Development Programme
RES Renewable Energy Sources
RIA Road Infrastructure Agency
SCF Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund of EU
SME Small and Мedium Еnterprise
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
6
SO Specific Objective
SP Sub-priority
SR Specific Recommendation
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
TEN-T Trans-Еuropean Transport Network Infrastructures
TL Team Leader
TO Technical Offer
TWG Thematic Working Group
UMIS Unified Management Information System
WD Working Document
ЕC European Commission
ЕЕ Energy Efficiency
КЕ Key Expert
ТO Thematic Objective
ТS Technical Specification
List of Figures
Figure 1: Evaluation approach .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 2: Relation between OPRG and OPE ........................................................................................ 60
Figure 3: Relation between OPRG and OPIC ....................................................................................... 62
Figure 4: Relation between OPRG and OPHRD .................................................................................. 65
Figure 5: Relation between OPRG and OPTTI..................................................................................... 67
Figure 6: Relation between OPRG and OP SESG ................................................................................ 69
Figure 7: Relation between OPRG and OPGG ..................................................................................... 71
Figure 8: Relation between OPRG and RDP ........................................................................................ 73
Figure 9: Relation between OPRG and PMAF ..................................................................................... 74
Figure 10: Logic of PA1, IP1, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 78
Figure 11: Logic of PA1, IP2, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 81
Figure 12: Logic of PA1, IP2, SO2 ....................................................................................................... 83
Figure 13: Logic of PA1, IP3, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 85
Figure 14: Logic of PA1, IP4, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 87
Figure 15: Logic of PA1, IP5, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 90
Figure 16: Logic of PA2, IP1, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 92
Figure 17: Logic of PA3, IP1, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 94
Figure 18: Logic of PA4, IP1, SO1 ....................................................................................................... 96
Figure 19: Logic of PA5, IP1, SO1 and SO2 ........................................................................................ 98
Figure 20: Logic of PA6, IP1, SO1 ..................................................................................................... 100
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
7
Figure 21: Logic of PA7, IP1, SO1 ..................................................................................................... 102
Figure 22: Logic of PA8 ..................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 23: Questionnaire – applicable horizontal principles .............................................................. 107
Figure 24: Online questionnaire – difficulties of indicators ............................................................... 130
Figure 25: Mechanism for defining the type of financing .................................................................. 140
Figure 26: Financing as per thematic objectives ................................................................................. 145
Figure 27: Questionnaire - needs of beneficiaries in relation to the preparation and management of
projects under OPRG 2014-2020 ........................................................................................................ 161
Figure 28: Questionnaire – areas, where the administrative capacity needs to be improved.............. 162
Figure 29: Questionnaire–areas where administrative capacity should be improved ......................... 163
Figure 30: Questionnaire – necessity of intermediate units ................................................................ 164
Figure 31: Management structure of OPRG - results of the online questionnaire conducted in June
2013 .................................................................................................................................................... 165
Figure 32: Appropriateness of delegation the verification processes on regional departments - results
of the online questionnaire conducted in June 2013 ........................................................................... 165
Figure 33: Assessment of adequacy of procedures - results of online questionnaire conducted in June
2013 .................................................................................................................................................... 166
Figure 34: Sufficiency of human resources in MA - answers to the online questionnaire by June 2013
............................................................................................................................................................ 167
Figure 35: Questionnaire – type of experts needed in MA ................................................................. 169
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
8
About the Consultant
ECORYS South East Europe Ltd. (Ecorys SEE) – is a legal entity registered in Bulgaria in
August 2006. The company is part of the European group of consulting and research
organizations – ECORYS Group, with offices in 10 countries in Europe, and representation
offices in Ukraine, Macedonia, and Serbia. The mission of Ecorys SEE is to provide the full
set of services offered by ECORYS Group in this region. ECORYS has established itself as
one of the most powerful European companies with its innovative, flexible, and integrated
multifaceted solutions and approaches, always and fully conformable to the needs of the
clients as well as to the specificity of the market.
By offering its consulting services to the Bulgarian market Ecorys SEE has gained significant
experience in the implementation of projects in the fields of: monitoring and evaluation,
regional development, transport, environment, human resources, etc.
1, Cherni Vrah Blvd.
1421 Sofia
Bulgaria
Phone: 02 815 56 80
Fax: 02 981 60 32
E-mail: [email protected]
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
9
Summary
This ex-ante evaluation was performed as a part of the mandatory activities of the
programming process of Operational Programme for Regional Development (OPRD) 2014-
2020. Following the ToR and contract requirements, the ex-ante evaluation was performed
during the period June 2012-September 2013.
It should be borne in mind that OPRG 2014-2020 is the first OP whose design undergoes the
approval process by the EC. Despite the accelerated pace at which OPRG 2014-2020 is
developed, in the framework of an ongoing process to develop the Partnership agreement and
uncertainties regarding the budgetary allocations for the next programming period, the
Contractor showed flexibility in reflecting the recommendations of this evaluation, including
on significant issues such as the extension of the scope of the energy efficiency measures
under Priority axis 1. In line with the best practices, the ex-ante evaluation was of "interactive
and iterative" nature, which was manifested in constant contact with the Client and
stakeholders and multiple updates of the evaluation reports, following changes in the text of
the OPRG 2014-2020,
In the evaluation were used both qualitative and quantitative methods, including:
Online questionnaire to beneficiaries, the Managing authority (MA) and participants
in the Thematic working groups (TWG) for development of OPRG
Online questionnaire to the MA with the objective of collecting information for the
administrative capacity
Interviews with experts of the MA, the Central coordination unit, members of the
TWG
2 focus groups with representatives of the TWG
2 focus groups with representatives of the beneficiaries
Stakeholder analysis
Analysis of the intervention logic
Analysis of the causal links
Objectives trees of main strategic documents – visualization
Objectives tree of OPRG – visualization
Quantified SWOT analysis
Analysis of the indicator system (SMART)
Benchmarking of target values of the indicators between programming period 2007-
2013 and 2014-2020
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
10
Indicator fiches
Workload analysis
Review of the environmental assessment of OPRG 2014-2020
The analyses and results of the ex-ante evaluation are structured following the seven groups
of evaluation questions:
External coherence evaluation (Evaluation 1);
Internal coherence evaluation (Evaluation 2);
Horizontal principles evaluation (Evaluation 3);
Evaluation of the system of indicators (Evaluation 4).
Evaluation of the budget of the programme (Evaluation 5)
Evaluation of the management and control systems and the administrative capacity for
implementation of the programme (Evaluation 6)
Evaluation of the validity, relevance, coherence, applicability, and inclusion in the
OPRD 2014-2020 of the results of the environmental assessment (Evaluation 7)
The main conclusions and recommendations are presented below along the above structure:
Evaluation 1: External coherence evaluation
The objectives and priorities of the OPRG 2014-2020 are coherent with the European and
National strategic documents and follow the National and European framework.
Albeit to varying degrees, OPRG 2014-2020 is also related to the three pillars of the Europe
2020 strategy - smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. OPRG 2014-2020 is expected to
have an impact on four of the seven flagship initiatives to catalyze progress under each
priority theme.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources and sustainable urban development are
expected to be among the main initiatives at European level during the programming period
2014-2020 expected. OPRG 2014-2020 meets this focus and is consistent with the common
understanding of the concentration of EU funds in order to achieve concrete results. Out of
the proposed total of 11 thematic objectives 6 are selected for OPRG. In spite of this large
range, the selection does not violate the principle of concentration of resources. The strategy,
set out in the OPRG, also fits into the priorities of the Territorial Agenda 2020 of the
European Union.
Reduction of the description of the compliance with national documents would improve the
text of the program. Description of the relevant ex-ante conditionalities should continue to be
updated in line with the progress of the preparation of the Partnership Agreement.
The report identifies opportunities to improve the description of the demarcation and
complementarity between OPRG 2014-2020, and the other programs co-financed by the EU.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
11
It should be noted, however, that the demarcation and complementarity between the programs
has not yet been clarified at the national level, which is related with the progress of the
Partnership Agreement.
The intention to use financial instruments partially, or fully to finance investments in sports
infrastructure, energy efficiency in buildings, cultural facilities, and areas with potential for
economic development, urban and integrated public transport is in coherence with the
policies promoted by the EC with respect to financial instruments. Experience in the
implementation of financial instruments, however, is still relatively small. For this reason it is
recommended with respect to the financial instruments to provide an assessment of the
financial instruments in the current programming period. It is recommended to perform it
before the start of the OPRD 2014-2020, but if this is not possible - to include it in the ToR of
the evaluation of the financial instruments, which is required by the Regulations.
Evaluation 2: Internal coherence evaluation
The current version of the OPRG 2014-2020, contains a number of improvements to the
internal coherence of the program. The OPRG strategy and the relationship between thematic
objectives / investment priorities, specific objectives envisaged activities and needs are
explained in greater detail as compared to previous versions of the program.
The report provides an overview of the links between: needs and envisaged activities;
envisaged activities and specific objective; specific objective and investment priorities /
thematic objective; and output/result indicators and envisaged activities. The conclusion of
the analysis is that after the changes in the programme the link between these elements is
strong enough.
Evaluation 3: Horizontal principles evaluation
OPRG 2014-2020 describes the application of the principles of sustainable development,
equal opportunities and non-discrimination and equality between men and women.
The description of the principles of equal opportunities and non-discrimination is short, but
adequate and covers the main requirements for this element of the operational program. The
description of the principle of equality between men and women is more general.
Evaluation 4: Evaluation of the system of indicators
The indicator system of OPRG includes the relevant common output indicators listed in
Regulation 1301/2013. As a whole, it may be concluded that all output indicators are relevant
to the activities and provide good measurement for their direct products.
As regards result indicators, it should be taken into account that one of the main specificities
of the OPRG is that it is an infrastructure programme. Hence the meaningful results, e.g. in
the health, social, and education spheres, will be achieved only through accompanying soft
measures and national/regional policies. The evaluation provides comments for each result
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
12
indicator that illustrate the difficulties in identifying indicators, which have as direct as
possible influence on effects that extend beyond the supported entities.
In some cases the baselines and the target values of the result indicators are not in the same
measurement unit, e.g. the baseline is in absolute numbers, whereas the target value is in
percentage. This is due to the fact that the result indicators are formulated in line with the
expected positive outcomes, e.g. “increase of”. Thus, it is recommended to reformulate the
indicators and delete “increase / decrease” in the formulation.
The programmers have developed a methodology for estimation of the baselines and the
target values, which is very helpful and increases the transparency of the calculation methods.
For most indicators there are still some issues (e.g. related to the data used), commented in
the analysis, that need to be clarified in the fiches.
The system of indicators is aiming at using as much as possible official National Statistics
Institute (NSI) data, which is beneficial in terms of methodological clarity and transparency.
In some cases the latest available data from the NSI was not used, so it is recommended to re-
calculate some baselines and unit costs. In two cases there is a discrepancy between the
formulation of the NSI indicator and the OPRG indicator: “Increase of the net annual
revenues from international tourism” and “Increased passenger and freight flow”.
Calculating unit costs is a very useful approach for the definition of target values. Overall this
is the approach followed in the indicator fiches of the OPRG.
On the basis of the above analysis of the indicators, the evaluators recommend review of the
following result indicators:
Reduction of final energy consumption from public administration, commerce and
services
Increase of the net annual revenues from international tourism
Increased passenger and freight flow
Evaluation 5: Evaluation of the budget of the programme
The breakdown of the budget of the program as a whole takes into account the identified
investment priorities and requirements contained in the main national and European strategic
documents, and considers the experience with the current programming period and the risks
of non-compliance of certain thematic ex-ante conditionalities. The financial justification of
the budget of OPRG 2014-2020, provides well-synthesized motivation for the selected
priorities and their weight. The justification meets all the requirements for its elaboration, set
in the guidelines for the development of operational programs for the next programming
period.
In terms of the priorities that will be implemented with the use of financial instruments, the
evaluation concludes that they are correctly identified, but no justification is provided for the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
13
correlation between grants and financial instruments into the OPRG 2014-2020. In relation to
financial instruments, it should be considered that the Form for the development of
operational programs for the next programming period provides that it is not required to
perform a preliminary evaluation of financial instruments at the time of submission of the
operational program and that it could be undertaken at a later stage after specifying the details
of the use of financial instruments.
As concerns the European regulations, OPRG 2014-2020 provides adequate financial
consideration of the thematic objectives that should be financed primarily with funds from
the ERDF and that are relevant to regional development. This applies mostly to TO 4
"Transition to a low carbon economy."
Significant funding is ensured for integrated actions for sustainable urban development,
which are likely to significantly exceed the 5% national minimum envisaged in the European
framework and also for support of the implementation of TO 9 and 10. The 5% threshold
should not be actively limited in the case of Bulgaria, given the high potential contribution of
this type of investment to achieve higher growth and employment if the investment is focused
on activities with a direct impact on regional economic activity.
In terms of compliance with the formal requirements of the financial plan of the program set
out in the Form of an operational program for the next programming period, the programme
already includes preliminary versions of all required tables (Tables 17-19).
In terms of the currently available national strategic documents (Partnership Agreement
2014-2020, National Strategy for Regional development and National Development
Programme 2020), which have or will have estimates in terms of funding, the programme is
generally coherent with the investment allocations by priorities. Direct comparison of these
documents, however, is virtually impossible, given the long planning horizon in these
documents and the wider range of funding sources.
Evaluation 6: Evaluation of the management and control systems and the administrative
capacity for implementation of the programme
As a part of the implementation of the ex-ante evaluation of the management and control
systems the team of evaluators reviewed the summary action plan for strengthening the
administrative capacity of 36 municipalities - OPRD beneficiaries (version December 2012)
and the Summary Action Plan for improvement of the administrative capacity of the direct
beneficiaries of the OPRD (version December 2012). Both documents contain
recommendations regarding the administrative capacity, which are relevant for the next
programming period.
The need for trainings of the beneficiaries, identified in the above analyses, was confirmed by
the online survey, conducted during the ex-ante evaluation. According to the results of the
study more than 70% of the respondents believe that training in the next programming period
will be necessary. According to the respondents, a key area in which there is a need for
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
14
training is project management, followed by training on reporting and monitoring
performance.
Based on the conducted desk research and focus groups as critical factors in the
implementation of OPRD may be accounted for beneficiaries' capacity for tendering and
implementation of quality inspection of construction supervision. It is recommended that the
text of the OPRG 2014-2020 specifically focuses on the need for training on cross-cutting
themes such as Public Procurement Act and implementation of construction supervision, but
it should be borne in mind that this is a horizontal need that has to be addressed by
Operational programme “Good Governance”.
It can be concluded that the needs of the beneficiaries (the enhancement of competences,
motivation and remuneration, as well as providing the necessary equipment), which are
specified in OPRG, are correct.
The results of the questionnaire and the discussions in the focus groups confirmed the opinion
that establishing intermediate bodies would create more structural and functional difficulties
and obstacles, rather than improvements.
The evaluation of the administrative capacity of the MA shows the need to further clarify the
division of responsibilities between the MA central and regional departments. The most
problematic are the mechanisms for collecting information on the indicators of the program
and the collection of data needed to perform evaluations. Given the even greater importance
that the European Commission pays to indicators and evaluations in the next programming
period, it is necessary for these procedures to be reviewed by the MA of OPRG 2014-2020.
As a whole the human resources for management and implementation of OPRG 2014-2020
are adequate, but additional experts with technical (engineer) knowledge and expertise in
monitoring are needed.
Given the great importance given by the EC to indicators and evaluations during the 2014-
2020 period, in the development of the MA Manual and Guidelines for beneficiaries in the
next programming period it is necessary to review the procedures for gathering information
on Programme indicators and collection of data necessary to conduct evaluations.
Evaluation 7: Evaluation of the validity, relevance, coherence, applicability, and inclusion
in the OPRD 2014-2020 of the results of the environmental assessment
According to the environmental assessment of the OPRG 2014-2020, at the level of priorities
and sub-priorities, the program's impact on the environment and human health as a whole has
a complex positive character. At the level of specific eligible activities, the impact is also
assessed positively as minor adverse effects are expected in the period of construction during
the respective activities.
Only some of the recommendations of the environmental assessment should be reflected in
the text of the OP. Implementing other recommendations should be performed in the
contracting process and the provision of grants, or in the process of implementation. A third
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
15
group of recommendations does not require actions in the programming and implementation,
as compliance is legally defined.
The environmental assessment includes the following recommendation: "Indicators for
monitoring and control of environmental impacts should be integrated in the system of
indicators of OPRG 2014-2020." However, in view of the recommendations of the
Commission for a limited number of indicators that measure the desired effects and
correspond to the size of the budget, which is designated for the individual measures, it is not
appropriate to include in the OPRG 2014-2020 system all of the indicators proposed in the
table provided in the environmental assessment. These indicators should be used in the
monitoring and control of environmental impacts during implementation of the program (e.g.,
in the reports with evaluation of the impact of the OPRG on the environment).
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
16
I. Introduction to the evaluation
1. Objectives of the evaluation
The objectives of the contract indicated in the Contracting Authority’s technical specification
are as follows:
General
objective
Ex-ante evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development
(OPRG) in the 2014-2020 programming period.
Specific
objectives
To ensure result-driven, well-structured programming document
aimed at overcoming the needs and turning to account the
potentialities for development of the Bulgarian regions.
To guarantee the external consistency of the developed operational
program, and the interventions established therein, with the
documents of importance for the preparation of the programming
document at both national and European level, including the
contribution to the Strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive
growth.
To guarantee the correct implementation of the horizontal principles
of the European Union in the fields of equal opportunities, equal
access, non-discrimination, sustainable development, etc.
To guarantee the internal consistency of the Program, the relevance
and the clarity of the proposed indicators and the feasibility of the
quantified target values for the indicators.
To integrate the environmental issues in the preparation of the
Operational Program for Regional Development 2014-2020 and
ensure a higher level of environmental protection and achievement of
sustainable development in Bulgaria.
The evaluation has been implemented as a part of the mandatory OPRG programming
activities and its objectives comply with the requirements of the regulations specifying the
rules for management and spending of the EU funds.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth for the 2014-2020 programming
period
17
2. Team members and evaluation deadlines
The following experts took part in the implementation of the evaluation:
Team leader: Mathias Hague
Key expert 1: Ralitsa Simeonova – Ganeva
Key expert 2: Iglika Vassileva
Key expert 3: Tsvetana Naniova
Project Manager: Mariana Stefanova
Evaluation Coordinator: Daniel Nigohosyan
Non-key experts have also been involved in the evaluation, contributing mainly to the
collection of input data for analyses purposes and to specific components of the evaluation.
During the project implementation, the Consultant and the Contracting Authority have shown
flexibility in implementing the project activities while at the same time the essential
evaluation deadlines specified in the table below were met:
Stage Deadline
Stage 1: Introductory phase Not later than 1 month after conclusion of the
contract with the Contracting Authority -
Implemented
Stage 2: Drawing up a preliminary version
of Ex-ante evaluation of OPRG 2014-2020
Not later than 6 months after conclusion of the
contract with the Contractor
Stage 3: Drawing up and submission of a
draft final version of Ex-ante evaluation of
OPRG 2014-2020
Not later than 8 months after conclusion of the
contract with the Contractor
Stage 4: Drawing up and submission of a
final version of Ex-ante evaluation of
OPRG 2014-2020
Not later than 20 working days prior to the
submission of the OPRG 2014-2020 final version to
the European Commission
Last date for submission of the final report containing
a final version of the Ex-ante evaluation – 27.06.2013
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development for the 2014-2020
programming period
18
II. Activities implemented within Stages 1- 4
1. Stage 1 – Introductory phase Stage 1
EVALSED recommends that program evaluations funded by SCF start with an analysis of
evaluability assessment. Accordingly, this evaluation has started with analysis of the
possibilities for evaluation of the OPRG 2014-2020.
This activity included the following elements:
- Meeting of the key experts team (held on 08.06.2012), during which each key expert
presented his initial views on the evaluation approach on the basis of his experience with
evaluation of programs co-financed by the EU, “good practices” and “bad examples” of
evaluations. The meeting concentrated on key European/national documents which
would be necessary for the implementation of the evaluation, and in particular, for the
assessment of internal consistency. Also, the role of each team member was clarified
during the meeting.
- Kick-off meeting (held on 14.06.2012) of team representatives and Contracting
Authority’s representatives with the following objectives:
Discussion of Contracting Authority’s expectations about the evaluation – key
evaluation issues, provision of guidelines on the main areas on which the
Contractor should focus his efforts, data sources, etc.;
“Inventory” of the existing documents relevant to the evaluation;
Schedule of evaluation-related projects;
Context of the evaluation.
During the kick-off meeting the following persons were appointed project coordinators (key
contact persons):
For the
Contracting
Authority :
Mr. Ivan Popov – Head of “Programming and Evaluation” Unit
Directorate General " Regional Development Programming "
e-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: 02 9405 662
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development for the 2014-2020
programming period
19
For the
Contractor:
Mr. Daniel Nigohosyan – Senior Consultant
Ecorys South East Europe
e-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: 02 8155 683
As a result of the kick-off meetings the expert team has upgraded the general methodology
and working plan. The evaluation approach has been finally determined in the framework of
this activity on the basis of:
Re-examination of the context for implementation of the evaluation – European
regulations and guidelines related to the implementation of evaluations, national legal
acts, related projects and national strategies/analyses;
Updates of the project schedule and evaluation implementation sequence.
The main outputs and results of the Introductory Phase (Stage 1) are presented in the table
below:
Outputs Implementation
Analysis of evaluability assessment according to the evaluation issues √
Updated general methodology and working plan √
Key experts team meeting √
Kick-off meeting between the Contracting Authority and the Contractor √
Results Implementation
Approved Inception Report √
Collection of information sources and data needed for the evaluation √
Clear communication channels (contact persons) √
2. Stage 2 – Drawing up draft version of Ex-ante
evaluation of OPRG 2014-2020 and Stage 3 – Drawing
up and submission of final version of Ex-ante evaluation
of OPRG 2014-2020
Our overall strategy and conception for performing Stages 2 and 3 of the Ex-ante evaluation
are outlined in Figure 1.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development for the 2014-2020
programming period
20
external
consistency
European Strategic
Framework
National Strategic
Framework
European legal
framework
Other operational
programs
Other regional
programs/
interventions
OPRD 2007-2013
Past experience and
learnt lessons
Environmental
assessment report
internal
consistency
OPRD 2014-2020
Assessment of management
and control systems and
administrative capacity
Assessment of Program’s
budget
Assessment of
horizontal
principles
Assessment of
indicators
Other sectoral
programs
Stakeholders
Expert team
Needs of regions and
territories
expertise,
methods and
evaluation tools
National legal
framework
Figure 1: Evaluation approach
As the figure shows, the Consultant aimed to cover all elements of the evaluation by
including all stakeholders and using various quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods
according to the needs and the specificity of the issues evaluated.
The table below presents briefly the evaluation issues, core evaluation criteria, methodology,
documentary sources, and relation to other issues/stages. The sub-strands complementing the
requirements of the Technical specification are added in italics.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
21
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
1) Assessment of the external
consistency of the Program
Consistency with the general and
specific preconditions set by the
European Commission regarding the
Operational Program
Contribution to the EU Strategy for
smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth
Consistency with the National
Reform Program
Consistency of the selected thematic
objectives, priorities and relevant
program objectives with the
Common Strategic Framework, the
Partnership Agreement and the
country-specific recommendations
in accordance with Art. 121 (2) of
the Treaty and the Council
recommendations adopted under
Art. 148 (4) of the Treaty
Relevance
(external
consistency)
OPRG 2014-2020
EU Strategy for
smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth
National Reform
Program
Partnership
Agreement
Integrated
Guidelines Europe
2020
Other OP
NDP Bulgaria 2020
National Regional
Development
Strategy
Regional
Development Plans
Council of Ministers
Desk research
Strategic documents
data encoding
Interviews with
experts of DG RDP
Interviews with
expert/s of the EC
Interviews with
experts of the CCU
Online questionnaire
targeted аt
municipalities,
district
administrations,
specific beneficiaries
and present OPRG
beneficiaries
Participation in
working group
sessions to prepare
Analysis of
stakeholders
Tree of the
objectives of the
main strategic
documents -
visualization
Tree of OPRG
objectives -
visualization
Expert analysis
Conformity
analysis
2
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
22
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
Consistency and coordination with
the other Operational Programs
included in the Partnership
Agreement
Consistency with other program and
strategic documents – National
Development Program: Bulgaria
2020, National Regional
Development Strategy, Regional
Development Plans, National
Spatial Development Concept
Consistency with the national and
European legal framework
Meeting the needs of the regions
and territories in Bulgaria
Web Portal for
Public consultations
National Spatial
Development
Concept
Guidelines and
recommendations of
the EC concerning
the Program
EU Regulations on
SCF for the 2014-
2020 period
National legislation
European legislation
OPRG 2014-2020
Focus group with
representatives of the
working Group
2) Assessment of the internal
consistency of the Program
Internal consistency of the proposed
program or activity and how it
Relevance
(internal
consistency
and
coherence)
OPRG 2014-2020
OPRD 2007-2013
Ex-ante evaluation
Online questionnaire
Desk research
Interviews with
Analysis of the
intervention logic
Causal analysis
Quantitative
All issues
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
23
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
relates to other important instrument
Relevance of the OPRG strategy
including the following analytical
components:
Analysis of previous evaluation
results - Lessons learnt from the
implementation of OPRD 2007-
2013
Scope and focus of the socio-
economic analysis of OPRG
Validity of strengths and
weaknesses analysis and
development potential, compliance
with the socio-economic analysis
findings, the internal and external
background
Adequacy of the proposed vision,
objectives and priorities and
thematic areas to the findings of the
socio-economic analysis and SWOT
and
estimated
impact and
sustainabilit
y
of OPRD 2007-2013
Review of the first
schemes opened
under OPRD 2007-
2013
Mid-term evaluation
of OPRD 2007-2013
Annual
Implementation
Reports of OPRD
2007-2013
Action Plans to
strengthen the
administrative
capacity of OPRG
beneficiaries
Results of the
analyses of
beneficiaries’
capacity
experts of DG RDP
Interviews with
experts of the CCU
Participation in
working group
sessions for
preparation of OPRG
2014-2020
Focus group with
beneficiaries
Focus group with
representatives of the
working group
Participation in
working group
sessions
Participation in
working group
sessions
Participation n
working group
SWOT analysis
Descriptive
statistics methods
Expert analysis
Expert panel
Analysis of good
practices in EU
Member States
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
24
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
analysis
Integration and coordination
between particular priorities as well
as in regard to thematic objectives
Analysis of beneficiaries’ capacity
Grounds for the proposed form of
support
Contribution of the expected
specific results to the general results
National Statistical
Institute
Eurostat
Surveys of UN,
World Bank,
Organization for
Economic
Cooperation and
Development
Socio-economic
analyses of the EC
sessions
3) Assessment of the horizontal
principles and objectives included
in the Operational Program,
Adequacy of horizontal
principles definition in the
Operational Program
Adequacy of the reflection of
horizontal principles in the
established mechanisms for
Relevance
(internal
consistency)
Future
efficiency
OPRD 2007-2013
OPRG 2014-2020
Environmental
assessment of
OPRG 2014-2020
National documents
defining the relevant
horizontal policies –
e.g. NRP Bulgaria
Desk research
Online questionnaire
Focus group with
beneficiaries
Focus group with
representatives of the
working group
Participation in
Analysis of the
intervention logic
Expert analysis
Expert panel
Analysis of good
practices in EU
Member States
2 and 4
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
25
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
programming, management
and implementation of the
Operational Program
Adequacy of the planned
measures to promote equal
opportunities between men
and women and prevent
discrimination
Adequacy of the planned
measures to promote
sustainable development
Climate changes
2020
European
documents defining
the horizontal
policies – e.g.
Europe 2020
EU Regulations
concerning SCF for
the 2014-2020
period
Previous evaluations
and reports dealing
with horizontal
issues
working group
sessions
4) Assessment of the system of
indicators
Relevance and clarity of the
proposed program indicators
Existence of instructions for
calculation and use of
Relevance
(internal
consistency)
OPRG 2014-2020
OPRD 2007-2013
Evaluations of
OPRD 2007-2013
UMIS data on
Desk research
Online questionnaire
Interviews with
experts of DG RDP,
including experts in
the field of OPRG
Analysis of
indicator system
and monitoring
system (SMART)
Development of
indicator fiches
2, 3 and 5
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
26
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
indicators
Scope of the proposed
indicators
Quality of the proposed
indicators
Integration of indicators
between the different levels
Relevance of the calculated
baseline values of indicators
Are the quantified target
values for indicators realistic
regarding the support
provided for by the CSF
Funds
physical progress
Methodology for
calculation of
indicators (if
available)
National Statistical
Institute
Eurostat
Surveys of UN,
World Bank,
Organisation for
Economic
Cooperation and
Development
Socio-economic
analysis of the EC
2007-2013
monitoring
Interviews with
members of the
working group
preparing OPRG
2014-2020 -
representatives of the
socio-economic
partners, regional
and local authorities,
institutions
Focus groups with
beneficiaries
Participation in the
working group
sessions
Expert panel
Expert analysis
Analysis of good
practices in EU
Member States
5) Assessment of the Program’s
budget
Consistency and validity of
budget resources allocation
Relevance
(internal
OPRG 2014-2020
OPRD 2007-2013
Evaluations of
Desk research
Review of data
collected within the
frameworks of
Descriptive
statistics methods
Benchmarking
4
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
27
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
in relation to the program
objectives
Consistency and validity of
budget resources allocation
in relation to the
requirements of the
regulations (integrated
approach, focused
interventions, financial
engineering, etc.)
consistency)
Future
efficiency
OPRD 2007-2013
UMIS financial data
EU financial
regulations
Evaluations 2 and 4
Interviews with
experts of DG
“RDP”, including
experts involved in
the financial
management of
OPRD 2007-2013
Focus group with
beneficiaries
Focus group with
representatives of the
working group
Participation in the
working group
sessions
Analysis of good
practices in EU
Member States
6) Assessment of the management
and control systems and
administrative capacity for
implementing the Program
Relevance
(internal
consistency)
Future
OPRG 2014-2020
OPRD 2007-2013
Procedure Manual
for implementation
Desk research
Online questionnaire
targeted at the
beneficiaries
Workload analysis
Administrative
capacity analysis
Expert analysis of
-
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
28
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
Adequacy of human
resources and administrative
capacity for management of
the Program
Adequacy of the
management structure
Capacity of the beneficiaries
of the program and the
measures provided for its
strengthening
Suitability of the milestones
chosen for the performance
framework
Suitability of the procedures
for monitoring of the
Program and collecting the
data necessary to carry out
evaluations
Suitability of financial
management mechanisms
effectivenes
s and
efficiency
of OPRD 2007-2013
Evaluations of
OPRD 2007-2013
Action plans for
strengthening the
administrative
capacity of the
OPRG beneficiaries
Rules of procedure
and other
administrative
documents
Analysis of MA and
beneficiaries
training needs (if
available)
EU Regulations
concerning SCF for
the 2014-2020
period
Online questionnaire
targeted at the MA
Interviews with
experts of DG
“RDP”
Focus groups with
beneficiaries
Focus group with
representatives of the
working group
Participation in the
working group
sessions
structures and
procedures
Analysis of good
practices in EU
Member States
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
29
Evaluation issues Evaluation
criteria
Main information sources Data collection methods Evaluation methods Relation
to other
issues
7) Assessment of validity,
relevance, coherence, applicability
and reflection of the results of the
OPRG 2014-2020 environmental
assessment
To what extent the Program
takes into account the results
and recommendations of the
OPRG 2014-2020
environmental assessment
Relevance
Future
impact
OPRG 2014-2020
Environmental
assessment of
OPRG 2014-2020
Past evaluations of
OPRD 2007-2013
Desk research
Interviews with
experts of DG
“RDP”
Interviews with
experts involved in
the project for
environmental
assessment of OPRG
2014-2020
Participation in the
working group
sessions
Expert analysis -
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
30
The main outputs and results of the implementation of Stages 2 and 3 are presented in the
table below:
Outputs Implementation
Online questionnaire √
Interviews with experts of DG RDP √
Interviews with experts of CCU √
Interviews with members of the Working Group √
Focus group with representatives of the Working Group √
Focus group with beneficiaries √
Analysis of stakeholders √
Analysis of the intervention logic √
Analysis of the intervention logic (supplemented by the horizontal
principles and objectives)
√
Causal analysis √
Tree of the objectives of the main strategic documents – visualization √
Tree of OPRG objectives - visualization √
Quantitative SWOT analysis √
Analysis of indicator system and monitoring system (SMART) √
Benchmarking √
Indicator fiches √
Online questionnaire targeted at MA √
Workload analysis √
Review of OPRG 2014-2020 environmental assessment √
Results Implementation
Conformity analysis √
Answers to the questions/issues within Evaluation 1 √
Recommendations related to the external consistency of the program √
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
31
Analysis of the internal consistency √
Answers to the questions/issues within Evaluation 2 √
Recommendations related to the internal consistency of the program √
Analysis of the horizontal principles and objectives included in OPRG √
Answers to the questions/issues within Evaluation 3 √
Recommendations related to the integration of the horizontal principles
and objectives in the program
√
Analysis of the indicator system √
Answers to the questions/issues within Evaluation 4 √
Recommendations related to the indicator system √
Answers to the questions/issues within Evaluation 5 √
Recommendations related to the program budget √
Analysis of the administrative capacity √
Expert analysis of the structures and procedures √
Answers to the questions/issues within Evaluation 6 √
Recommendations related to the management and control systems and
the administrative capacity
√
Expert analysis of the results of OPRG 2014-2020 environmental
assessment and their coverage
√
Expert analysis of the structures and procedures √
Answers to the questions/issues within Evaluation 7 √
Recommendations related to the coverage of the environmental
assessment results
√
This Report presents analyses and results of the ex-ante evaluation regarding all seven groups
of questions, namely:
Assessment of external consistency (Evaluation 1);
Assessment of internal consistency (Evaluation 2);
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
32
Assessment of horizontal principles (Evaluation 3);
Assessment of indicator system (Evaluation 4);
Assessment of budget program (Evaluation 5);
Assessment of management and control systems and administrative capacity for the
program implementation (Evaluation 6);
The assessment of validity, relevance, consistency, applicability and reflection of the
results of the OPRG 2014-2020 environmental assessment (Evaluation 7).
3. Stage 4 - Drawing up and Submission of final version of
Ex-Ante Evaluation of OPRG 2014-2020
Stage 4 of the Evaluation included two activities as described below.
Drawing up and approval of a final version of the ex-ante evaluation
The final report covers the activities carried out with regards to the evaluation, the answers to
all questions raised in TS on all topics, as well as the relevant recommendations.
Meeting with the Contracting Authority
Prior to the report submission, evaluation results, conclusions and recommendations were
discussed at a meeting between the Contractor and the team of experts that has developed the
evaluation.
4. Challenges in implementing the evaluation
In the course of this evaluation, no challenges jeopardizing the timely and quality completion
of the project, have been encountered. However, the following challenges should be
considered:
OPRG 2014-2020 is the first OP whose draft has passed through the process of
approval by EC, i.e. there is no model to be followed in developing the program;
The development of a Partnership Agreement is a process whose duration hampers
the programming of OPRG 2014-2020 on the basis of clear priorities;
Another lengthy process that impeded the OPRG 2014-2020 programming was the
clarification on the financial allocation of ESIF at early stage;
In a long period of the OPRG 2014-2020 programming process, the program was
much more advanced compared to other operational programs and this makes it
difficult to identify the demarcation lines and complementarity;
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
33
In the technical proposal and the Inception report were included two methods of
analysis with respect to Evaluation 5 for which it was subsequently considered more
appropriate to be replaced by benchmarks that served to evaluate the distribution of
the program budget;
One of the risks provided for in the Inception Phase, “Delay of planned meetings and
interviews over time” materialised. The interviews with experts of the MA and the
scheduled focus groups were shifted to later dates than originally envisaged in order
to discuss a higher maturity draft program with the stakeholders;
Another risk that materialised was “Delay of approval and decisions on
recommendations made” in the reports of ex-ante evaluation. The reason for this
delay might be sought mainly in the above delay of the process of programming at a
national level, as well as the need for frequent update of the OPRG 2014-2020 draft in
order to meet the specific needs of the stakeholders.
III. Evaluation 1 – Assessment of the external
consistency of the program
1. Data collection
The assessment of external consistency of the Program has been carried out on the basis of
desk research of key European and national strategic and legal documents described
below. Most of them have not been definitely adopted yet. For the purpose of this evaluation,
the latest possible versions of the documents accessible to the Contractor have been used.
Europe 2020 – EU Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on specific
provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the “Investment
for growth and jobs” goal, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down
common provisions on ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF covered by the Common
Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and Elements
for a Common Strategic Framework for the period 2014-2020 for the European
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 agreed upon at the informal Meeting
of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
34
EU Strategy for the Danube Region
National Development Program: Bulgaria 2020
National Regional Development Strategy 2012-2022
National Reform Program (2011-2015, updated in 2012), Convergence Program of
the Republic of Bulgaria (2011-2014) and recommendations in the conclusions of the
European Commission’s Report on Annual Growth Survey (2012)
Regional Development Act enforced on 31.08.2008 and subsequent updates
Opinion of the Commission on the development of Partnership Agreement and
programs in Bulgaria for the period 2014-2020
Partnership Agreement
Concepts and / or projects of other operational programs included in the Partnership
Agreement
2. Analysis
2.1. Compliance with European strategic and legal documents
Europe 2020 – EU Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
According to Europe 2020 Strategy, Europe should be able to ensure smart, sustainable, and
inclusive growth. In order to achieve this goal the Strategy advances three mutually
reinforcing priorities:
Smart growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation;
Sustainable growth: promoting a more resource-efficient, ecological and
competitive economy;
Inclusive growth: fostering a high-employment economy delivering social and
territorial cohesion.
Although to a different extent, OPRG 2014-2020 is related to all three pillars of Europe
2020 Strategy – smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. Current measures are relevant to
the development of economy based on knowledge (smart growth), the promotion of greener
and more resource-efficient economy (sustainable growth) and social and territorial cohesion
(inclusive growth). Given its infrastructural profile, the Program is focused on sustainable
growth.
The European Commission puts forward seven flagship initiatives in order to stimulate the
progress under each priority theme:
1. “Innovation Union”
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
35
2. “Youth on the move”
3. “Digital agenda for Europe”
4. “Resource efficient Europe”
5. “Industrial policy for the globalization era”
6. “Agenda for new skills and jobs”
7. “European platform against poverty”
OPRG 2014-2020 is expected to impact on four out of the seven flagship initiatives to
stimulate progress under each priority theme:
“Youth on the move” — one of the objectives of this initiative is to enhance the
performance of education systems. OPRG will help to ensure efficient investment in
education and training systems at all levels (from pre-school to tertiary), which is set
out in Europe 2020 as objective at national level. This has been set out under PA1 in
connection with Investment Priority 3: Investing in education, skills and lifelong
learning by developing education and training infrastructure, and Priority Axis 2 “State
Education Infrastructure.”
“Resource-efficient Europe” — Modernizing the transport sector (PA1, Investment
Priority 5, Specific Objective 1: Improvement of urban air quality) and promoting
energy efficiency of all public buildings whose renovation is funded under OPRG
2014-2020, are among the objectives of this initiative. In particular, it is expected that
the following activities set out in Europe 2020 will be funded under the OPRG 2014-
2020: submission of proposals to modernize and build a decarbonised transport sector,
grid infrastructure of electrical mobility, intelligent traffic management, better logistics,
action for energy efficiency and promotion of substantial program in resource
efficiency supporting households, emphasis on transport in urban environment where
much of the congestion and emissions are generated; use of Structural Funds for
investments in energy efficiency in public and residential buildings. Similar activities
are expected to be implemented under PA1 in connection with Investment Priority 1:
supporting renewable energy use in public infrastructures, including public buildings
and the housing sector.
“Industrial policy for the globalization era” — this initiative is aimed at improving the
business environment, especially for SMEs, and supporting the development of a strong
and sustainable industrial base able to compete globally. To a certain extent, the
activities intended under PA1, in connection with the implementation of IP2 and
Specific Objective2 – Improvement of urban economic activity, are expected to
contribute to this initiative.
“European platform against poverty” — this initiative aims to ensure social and
territorial cohesion so that the benefits of growth and jobs would be widely shared
and people experiencing poverty and social exclusion would be enabled to live in
dignity and take an active part in society. In particular, Europe 2020 states that at
national level Member States should define and implement measures addressing the
specific conditions of groups at particular risk and fully deploy their social protection
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
36
and pension systems so as to ensure appropriate income support and access to health
care. The activities set out in OPRG 2014-2020 which are expected to help the
implementation of this initiative, have been provided mainly in PA 1, in connection
with IP4 and 5, PA2 “State Education Infrastructure”, PA3 “Regional Health
Infrastructure” and PA4 “Regional Social Infrastructure”.
OPRG 2014-2020 does not provide for activities in the field of Initiative 3 of Europe 2020
Strategy - “Digital Agenda for Europe”.
Europe 2020 Strategy sets 5 headline targets for the European Union by 2020.
1) The employment rate of the population aged 20-64 should increase from 69% to at
least 75%, including greater involvement of women, older workers and the better
integration of migrants in the work force (Bulgaria’s national target – 76 %);
2) Keep the current target of investing at 3% of GDP in R&D while taking account of
the R&D and innovation intensity at the same time (Bulgaria’s national target –
1.5%) ;
3) Reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% compared to the levels of the 90s; increase the
share of renewable energy sources in the final energy consumption to 20%
(Bulgaria’s national target – 16%), and a 20% increase in energy efficiency
(Bulgaria’s national target – 25%);
4) Reduce the share of early school leavers to 10% compared to the current 15%
(Bulgaria’s national target – 11%) whilst increasing the share of the population
aged 30-34 having completed tertiary education from 31% to at least 40% (Bulgaria’s
national target – 36%);
5) Poverty and social exclusion – reduce people living in poverty or at risk of poverty
and social exclusion by at least 20 million. (Bulgaria’s national target - by 260
thousand people by 2020).
OPRG implementation is expected to contribute to the achievement of four of the objectives
(1, 3, 4 and 5) of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the most direct contribution being the
improvement of energy efficiency.
With a view to the implementation of the objectives of Europe 2020 Strategy and the
achievement of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the European Commission has
proposed a Common Strategic Framework. It covers the management of the European
Funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF),
the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),
and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). These Funds will be the main source
of investments at EU level supporting the Member States to relaunch and boost growth and to
guarantee recovery matched by employment growth whilst at the same time ensuring
sustainable development.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
37
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down
common provisions on ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF covered by the Common
Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on ERDF, ESF and CF, and
Elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014-2020 for the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
The proposal aims at establishing a common strategic framework for ERDF, ESF, CF,
EAFRD, and EMFF, which will ensure the integrated use of the funds for the achievement of
the Europe 2020 Strategy objectives. A key element of the CSF is the set of 11 thematic
objectives commented further in the text of the Ex-ante evaluation describing the investment
priorities and objectives relevant to ERDF.
One specific element of CSF is that Member States are expected, where appropriate, to
combine CSF Funds into integrated packages at local, regional, or national level,
specifically tailored to meet particular needs in order to achieve the national targets set by
Europe 2020. Member States can use integrated operations in the form of integrated territorial
investments (Art. 99 of the proposed General Provisions Regulation) and/or joint action plans
(Art. 93:98 of the proposed General Provisions Regulation). The program provides for the
implementation of 67 Integrated Territorial Investments (IPURD) which will be supported by
other operational programs and coordinated by the Managing Authorities, including:
OP Environment for construction/rehabilitation/reconstruction of the water and
sewerage infrastructure (network), and
OP Human Resources Department – for supporting the implementation of “soft
measures”, equipment and furniture of social and education institutions financed
under OPRG 2014-2020, specially focusing on the socially disadvantaged, vulnerable
and minority groups of people, and supporting qualification of SMEs;
Operational program “Science and Education for Smart Growth” – for
supporting the implementation of “soft measures”, equipment and furniture of social
and education institutions financed under OPRG 2014-2020.
The draft OPRG provides for (in accordance to Art. 32 - Financial Instruments of the General
Provisions Regulation) partial or full application of financial engineering for financing of
investments in sports infrastructure, energy efficiency of housing buildings, cultural
infrastructure, as well as areas with potential for economic development, urban environment
and integrated public transport.
In this respect, the draft OPRG 2014-2020 follows the stipulations of the proposed General
Provisions Regulation on the use of financial instruments.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
38
Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on specific
provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the ”Investment for
Growth and Jobs” goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
This document will set the basis of the European regional development policy and the main
rules for its funding during the 2014-2020 period. The Proposal for a Regulation states that
the notion of concentration of funding is commonly agreed. The document further stipulates
that the building of infrastructure should be funded in less developed regions where public
authorities do not have sufficient resources for investments and investment costs cannot be
recovered as the population is low income. Energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources as well as sustainable urban development are expected to be a major focus of the
2014-2020 programming period. OPRG 2014-2020 takes into account these focuses and is
consistent with the notion for concentration of EU funds to achieve specific results.
The proposed Regulation on the ERDF gives description of the Fund’s investment priorities
corresponding to the eleven thematic objectives defined by the SCF. The objectives and
investment priorities consistent with OPRG 2014-2020 are indicated below:
1. Thematic objective – Strengthening research, technological development and
innovation: not expected to receive funding under OPRG 2014-2020
2. Thematic objective – Enhancing access to and use and quality of ICT: not expected
to receive funding under OPRG 2014-2020
3. Thematic objective – Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs – not expected to
receive funding under the Program
4. Thematic objective – Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all
sectors: included in OPRG
Supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public
infrastructures, including in public buildings and in the housing sector;
Promoting low carbon strategies for all types of territories, in particular for
urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable multi-modal urban mobility
and mitigation relevant adaptation measures.
5. Thematic objective – Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and
management:
Promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and
developing disaster management systems
6. Thematic objective – Protecting the environment and promoting resource
efficiency: included in OPRG.
Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural heritage
Action to improve the urban environment, revitalisation of cities, regeneration
and decontamination of brownfield sites (including conversion areas), reduction
of air pollution and promotion of noise-reduction measures
7. Thematic objective – Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks
in key network infrastructures: included in OPRG
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
39
Enhancing regional mobility through connecting secondary and tertiary nodes to
TEN-T infrastructure;
8. Thematic objective – Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility: not
expected to receive funding under the Program
9. Thematic objective – Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty:
included in OPRG
Investing in health and social infrastructure which contribute to national,
regional and local development, reducing inequalities in terms of health status,
promoting social inclusion through improved access to social, cultural and
recreational services and the transition from institutional to community-based
services
Support for the physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived
communities in urban and rural areas;
10. Thematic objective – Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning by
developing education and training infrastructure: included in OPRG.
Six out of the eleven proposed thematic objectives have been selected for the OPRG. Such
comprehensive coverage of thematic objectives is not surprising given the complex needs of
the territorial development. OPRG 2014-2020 does not, at the same time, violate the principle
for concentration of funds as it is limited in territorial scope compared to OPRD 2007-2013.
The draft Regulation on ERDF (Art. 4) sets out special requirements about the amount of
funds allocated at national level to support the shift to low-carbon economy (energy
efficiency and renewable energy sources) which illustrates the emphasis that the EC lays
upon this sphere. Energy efficiency is a key area of concern for the OPRG 2014-2020 as well.
In order to give a greater focus on the sustainable urban development, the proposed
Regulation on the ERDF (Art. 7) provides for at least 5% of the ERDF resources allocated at
national level to be allocated to integrated actions for sustainable urban development through
strategies which set out integrated actions to tackle economic, environmental, climate and
social challenges affecting urban areas. It also puts in place the requirement (Art. 7 (2)) to
draw up in advance a list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban
developments are to be implemented and an indicative annual allocation for these actions at
national level. The draft OPRG has provided for funding of activities in the framework of
IPURD in 67 cities under PA1 “Sustainable and integrated urban development”. A listing
proposal has been drawn up based on analysis and criteria system included in the National
Spatial Development Concept.
In the light of the above, it can be concluded that OPRG 2014-2020 is consistent with the
emphasis placed on the sustainable urban development.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
40
Territorial Agenda 2020 of the European Union agreed at the Informal Meeting of
Ministers responsible for spatial planning and territorial development
The aim of Territorial Agenda 2020 is to provide strategic guidelines for territorial
development within different policies at all management levels and ensure the
implementation of Europe 2020 Strategy in accordance with territorial cohesion principles.
Urban regions are described as “assets” for the development of the entire European territory,
provided that other regions benefit from their dynamism and are connected through networks.
The Territorial Agenda stipulates that “ecological values, environmental quality and cultural
assets are crucial to well-being and to economic prospects and offer unique development
opportunities.” It also points out that urbanisation and mass tourism threaten cultural and
environmental heritage. Regions and cities are encouraged to develop and adopt integrated
spatial strategies and plans to enhance the effectiveness of all actions on a particular territory.
The Agenda identifies the following territorial priorities:
Support for polycentric and balanced territorial development – urban centres
should contribute to the development of their wider regions. At the same time, the
polarisation should be avoided and small to medium-sized cities may play a
crucial role at regional level.
Encouragement of integrated development in cities, rural and specific regions –
supporting the cities to become “engines of smart, sustainable and inclusive
development” and attractive places to live, work, visit and invest. The urban-rural
interdependence should be influenced on the basis of a broad partnership.
Territorial integration in cross-border and transnational functional regions
Ensuring of global competitiveness of the regions based on strong local
economies - including the use of local assets, social capital, strategies and other
activities which rather fall beyond the scope of OPRG
Improvement of territorial connectivity between individuals, communities and
enterprises – including the use of energy from renewable energy sources
Management and connecting of ecological, landscape and cultural values of the
regions – protection and improvement of cultural and environmental heritage are
considered essential for sustainable development. Protection, rehabilitation, and
utilization of the cultural heritage are supported to this effect.
As stated in the text of OPRG 2014-2020, the strategy set out in the Program fits into the
priorities of the EU Territorial Agenda 2020.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
41
Position paper of the Commission services on the development of Partnership Agreement
and Programs in Bulgaria for the period 2014-2020
The position paper of the EC sets out the fundamental specific challenges for Bulgaria and
presents the Commission services’ preliminary views on the central priorities for funding the
growth-enhancing public expenditure in Bulgaria. Presented below are the fundamental
priorities/challenges outlined in the Position Paper of the Commission services, with which
OPRG 2014-2020 is consistent:
National and Trans-Еuropean Transport Network infrastructures (TEN-T) are not well
connected nor sufficiently rehabilitated and maintained;
Urban public transport infrastructure is in a poor technical condition and the transition
from car mobility to high-quality public transport should be facilitated;
Energy intensity of the Bulgarian economy is very high, especially in urban areas.
Energy efficiency measures should focus on buildings that can serve as an example;
Insufficient capacity to cope with risks of natural and man-made disasters;
Modernization of education and training requires significant investments in the
infrastructure;
Continuous enhanced support from SCF Funds is needed for a further transfer from
institutional to community-based facilities for children, people with disabilities and
mental problems, elderly people, including targeted infrastructure investments;
Investments shall contribute to remove barriers to access in order to allow the
integration of disabled people into education and labor market;
In addition to the extensive use of financial engineering instruments to support SME
investments, they should be used more widely for investments in projects where there
is a proven capacity to return all or part of the input, including promoting the
transactions for integrated urban development and the promotion of energy efficiency;
Need for investments focused on reducing early school drop-outs (more specifically of
Roma people), acquiring technical and business skills, promoting effective access to
primary, secondary and pre-school education, and in the absence of discrimination,
enhancing the quality, effectiveness and accessibility of higher education;
Investments in renewable energy sources (RES) and energy efficiency improvements
in the sectors of services, industry, renovation of residential buildings, agriculture,
fisheries and aquacultures should be supported, thereby increasing the share of RES in
final consumption energy;
Investing in the desegregation of school infrastructure with special emphasis on
education and care in early childhood, particularly in the most populous municipalities
which are faced with lack of capacity, taking into account the need for sustainable
funding;
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
42
Support sustainable integrated urban development, including measures against soil
sealing and rehabilitation of contaminated sites. Support for the rehabilitation of areas
in decline and creation of green urban infrastructure. Improving the urban environment
while preserving and enhancement of the cultural and historical heritage;
The initial Position of the Commission staff states that no ERDF funding of tertiary roads
will be provided, but subsequently in the so-called Negotiating box it has been pointed out
that "Based on the developed methodology and specific criteria, support for first, second and
third class roads will be limited to key pre-determined sections of roads that connect major
urban centers and tourist sites of TEN-T network, thus exploiting the potential for growth and
employment at regional level.”
As the list of priorities/challenges clearly shows, OPRG 2014-2020 covers many of the
infrastructure investment priorities.
The CSF in the period 2014-2020, puts in place requirements for joined-up policies,
integrated approaches, and result-driven use of the CSF Funds which shall maximise their
combined effect1. In this respect, the activity “Support for modern social housing of
vulnerable, minority and socially weak groups of the population and other disadvantaged
groups” under sub-priority 7 should be implemented in synergy with programs funded by the
CSF Funds in support of the national education, health care, and social service policies to
desegregate Roma people.
OPRG 2014-2020 has been aligned with the general requirement of the new Common
Strategic Framework and the Commom Provisions Regulation for cordination and
complimentarity of interventions supported by the CSF Funds. Тhis concept has been
applied to PA1 of the Program, which will be implemented by means of integrated territorial
investments, in conjunction with OP “Environment” and OPHRD, and coordination between
several thematic objectives within the framework of the OPRG. The proposed Common
Provisions Regulation advances different forms and mechanisms for coordination of
cooperation activities funded by different Funds. The OPRG has opted for a parallel
funding approach through “coordinated launch of different schemes of the Managing
authorities, with the assisstance of CCU, by enabling the submission of one project proposal
under several schemes”.
The intention to use financial engineering partly or in full to fund investment in sports
infrastrucutre, energy efficiency in public buildings, health and cultural infrastricture, and
areas with potential for economic development, urban and integrated urban transport, is
consistent with the policies promoted by the Community in respect of the financial
instruments (proposal for Common Regulations, reviews of DG "Regional and urban policy"
of the first draft of OPRG 2014-2020). Given the limited experience and results delivered
during the current planning period, it is advisable to provide for a feasibility study on this
1 Integrated approaches are promoted in the Proposal for Common Provisions Regulation and the Position paper of the Commision services on the development of Partnership Agreement and Programs in Bulgaria for the period 2014-2020.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
43
issue or evaluation of the financial engineering schemes operating during this planning period
(Funds under Jessica, FJO). It is recommended that this be done before the start of the OPRG
2014-2020, but if this is not possible, an ex-ante evaluation of financial instruments required
under the Regulation should be included. The study/evaluation will help to identify barriers to
the effective use of financial instruments, respectively, obtain recommendations for
improving the design of schemes for the implementation of this mechanism, and limit the risk
of failure to achieve targets within deadlines - interim and final, of the program period.
2.2. Compliance with national strategic and legal documents
National Development Program Bulgaria 2020
The National Development Program Bulgaria 2020 (NDP B2020) is the leading strategic and
programming document specifying the objectives of the country’s development policies to
2020 and revealing the relation between EU priorities within Europe 2020 Strategy and
Bulgaria’s national priorities.
The implementation of the OPRG is expected to contribute for the achievement of two out of
the three targets set out in the NDPB 2020:
1. Enhancing the standard of living through competitive education and training,
creating conditions for quality employment and social inclusion and ensuring
accessible and quality health care.
2. Construction of infrastructural networks to provide optimal conditions for
development of the economy and quality and healthy environment for the
population.
OPRG 2014-2020 covers six out of the eight formulated priorities as follows:
1. Improving the access to and enhancing the quality of education and training and the
quality characteristics of the workforce – the Program is expected to contribute.
2. Reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion – the Program is expected to
contribute.
3. Achieving sustainable integrated regional development and use of local potential –
the largest expected contribution of the Program to this priority.
4. Developing the agricultural sector to ensure food safety and production of high value-
added products through sustainable management of natural resources – the Program
is not expected to contribute.
5. Supporting innovation and investment activities to raise competitiveness of the
economy - the Program is not expected to contribute.
6. Energy security and increasing resource efficiency – the Program is expected to
contribute.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
44
7. Improving transport connectivity and market access – the Program is expected to
contribute.
Тhe consistency of OPRG 2014-2020 with particular priorities and sub-priorities of NDPB
2020 is examined below:
Priority 1. Improving the access to and enhancing the quality of education and training and
the quality characteristics of workforce
P1) Sub-priority 1.1 The providing for affordable and quality education for personal
development through modernization of the education system and the ensuring of its
adaptability to labour market needs include activities for Improving the material and
technical basis for education, training and youth activities. Such activities are included in
OPRG 2014-2020 in terms of educational infrastructure of regional importance by PA1
(Investment Priority 3: Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning by developing
educational and training infrastructure) and Priority Axis 2 "State educational infrastructure.
P1, Sub-priority 1.4 Enhancing the quality and effectiveness of health services, includes
activities to improve the quality of health care services and ensure access to health care for all
citizens (incl. health infrastructure - carrying out works and purchasing equipment for
health care facilities).The activities under PA 3 correspond to this sub-priority.
P1, Sub-priority 1.5 Development of culture and arts, cultural and creative industries,
extending access to art and developing culture of the population (improving the material
and technical basis). Available compliance with envisaged activities in PA 1, in connection
with IP 3 and PA 5.
P1, Sub-priority 1.6 Developing sports and increasing physical education of the population.
PA 1, IP4 correspond to this sub-priority.
Priority 2. Reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion
P2, Sub-priority 2.2 Providing of sustainable, high quality and affordable cross-sectoral
services with the aim of preventing social exclusion includes improving the housing
conditions for vulnerable groups and supporting the homeless which will be covered under
PA 4 “Regional Social Infrastructure”. SP in NDPB 2020 enables the construction of social
housings “improvement of the material basis and/or construction of a new one.”
Priority 3. Achieving sustainable integrated regional development and use of local potential
P3, Sub-priority 3.2. Fostering urban development and improving the integration of the
Bulgarian regions on national scale is a SP corresponding to PA1 under OPRG 2014-2020.
The target areas for integrated sustainable urban development and strengthening of the
functions of the polycentric city network are covered. The aim is to develop large and
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
45
medium-sized cities in the country, to improve the integrated sustainable urban development,
urban environment, transport, and communication connectivity, to create areas with potential
for development, to improve the access to public services, the standard of living of the
population. List of consistencies as per planned activities:
Improvement of urban environment – PA1, Investment Priority 2 by upgrading the
physical environment (SO 1), by restoring the urban areas (SO 2), investments in
sports infrastructure (IP4)
Protection, promotion and development of cultural and natural heritage -
Investment Priority 4 of PA1
P3, Sub-priority З.4 Support for effective and sustainable utilization of the tourism potential
of the regions and development of cultural and creative industries in the regions
The areas of impact related to the implementation of the sub-priority are as follows:
Development of infrastructure for specialized forms of tourism, including cultural
tourism
Marketing of tourist regions and forming of regional tourism products
There is consistency with PA5 Regional Tourism of OPRG, particularly with respect to
activities that will allow for restoration and preservation of cultural sites of national and
international significance and for increasing their attractiveness to visitors with a view to
turning them into generators of growth and jobs.
P3, Sub-priority З.5 Creating the conditions for protecting and improving the environment in
the regions, adapting to changes in the climate and achievement of sustainable and efficient
use of natural resources. The objectives of this sub-priority will be supported by investment
priority 2 of Priority Axis 1: Actions to improve the urban environment, including
regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air pollution of OPRG.
Priority 7. Energy security and increasing of resource efficiency
P7, Sub-priority 7.2 Increasing of energy efficiency includes measures to increase the
efficiency of energy consumption in the public sector and households, as well as increase the
energy efficiency of buildings. This sub-priority is consistent with Investment Priority 1 of
PA1 of OPRG which provides for targeted investments in improvement of energy efficiency
of residential and public administrative buildings. In addition, the requirement for inclusion
of measures to improve the energy efficient renovation of all other buildings funded under
OPRG 2014-2020 has been established as a horizontal principle.
OPRG 2014-2020 will contribute to the Sub-priority 7.3 Reaching 16% of energy from
renewable sources in gross final energy consumption by 2020 with planned activities related
to implementation of installations using renewable energy in commercial and residential
buildings under PA1.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
46
Priority 8. Improving transport connectivity and access to markets
Sub-priority 8.2 Effective maintenance, modernization and development of the transport
infrastructure is focused on the construction, modernization and maintenance of transport
infrastructure which makes part of the European transport corridors in order to integrate the
Bulgarian transport system into the European one.
Sub-priority 8.6 Improving the connectivity and integration of Bulgarian regions on national
and international scale and the connectivity with the big urban centers in the neighboring
countries will be implemented by improving connectivity and accessibility of the network of
cities and sites of cultural and natural heritage of TEN-T network under Priority Axis 6
"Regional road infrastructure".
National Regional Development Strategy 2012-2022
The National Regional Development Strategy (NRDS) for the period 2012-2022 is the
fundamental document formulating the strategic framework of the public policy for achieving
balanced and sustainable development of the regions in the country and overcoming the
intraregional and interregional differences/inequalities.
In the interim evaluation of NRDS, the regional development policy has been formulated as
an integrated cross (multi)-sectoral approach for defining objectives and implementing
measures to stimulate the development and the social inclusion on different territorial levels.
The regional development policy ensures territorial dimension of the sectoral policies and
fosters the achievement of more effective and sinchronized effect of their implementation.
The Strategy lays down 4 strategic objectives:
Strategic objective 1: Economic cohesion on European, national and intraregional scale
through development of the very potential of the regions and environmental protection.
Priority 1.1., Specific Objective 1: Stimulating the economic development of the regions of
NUTS 2 through improvement of access to production zones and their infrastructure – the
indicative activities under PA 1 in connection with Investment Priority 2 and the
implementation of SO2 – improvement of urban economic activity; coverage of the activities
envisaged under this specific objective;
Priority 1.2., Specific objective 1: Stimulating region-specific types of tourism based on
natural landscape and cultural values and activities – consistency with PA5;
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
47
Priority 1.2., Specific objective 2: Protection, valorization, digitization”2, presentation of
immovable, movable, and intangible cultural values – consistency with Investment Priority 4
of Priority Axis 1 and PA5 “Regional Tourism”;
Priority 1.2., Specific objective 3: Development, regional marketing, and advertising of
regional tourism products based on local potential – consistency with PA5;
Priority 1.3., Specific objective 5: Natural risks prevention – in full consistency with PA6.
Strategic objective 2: Social cohesion and reduction of regional disparities in the social
sphere by generating conditions for development and realization of the human capital
Priority 2.1. Specific objective 1: Upgrading of the educational infrastructure of schools of
arts and culture – as mentioned above, these activities are expected to be covered under
Priority “State educational infrastructure” by the Ministry of Culture as specific beneficiary
under the OPRG 2014-2020.
Priority 2.1. Specific objective 2: Improving the state and municipal cultural
infrastructure – corresponds to the activities planned under PA1 and PA4 as regards the
sites of environmental and cultural heritage.
Priority 2.1. Specific objective 4: Construction and reconstruction of sports infrastructure
for professional and recreational sport – PA1 (Investment Priority 4 and PA1) is consistent
with this specific objective.
Strategic objective 3: Territorial cohesion and development of transborder, interregional and
transnational cooperation – the activities will not be covered by OPRG 2014-2020
Strategic objective 4: Balanced territorial development through strengthening of metropolis
network, improving the connectivity in the regions and the environment quality in the
populated areas.
Priority 4.1. Specific Objective 1: Integrated renovation and development of cities and
improvement of urban environment quality – the activities have been covered by the PA1.
Priority 4.1. Specific objective 2: Improving public works, transport, and communication
connectivity in the agglomeration areas of the large cities – such activities have been
provided for under PA1 (in connection with the implementation of Investment Priority 5:
Promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories, in particular for urban areas,
including the promotion of sustainable urban mobility and mitigation relevant adaptation
measures).
Accordingly, there are priorities and objectives in NRDS 2012-2022 which have not been
covered by OPRG 2014-2020. The reason for this is that they are expected to fall in the scope
of other programs or funding sources.
2 More information on the digitization of the cultural heritage can be found on the following website: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/culture/l29018_en.htm
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
48
NRDS, respectively the regional plans for development, define the territorial focus of the
sectoral policies and lay down the territorial basis for their effective coordination in the
regions.
National Reform Program (2011-2015, updated 2013), Convergence program of the
Republic of Bulgaria (2011-2014), and recommendations in the conclusions of the EC’s
report on the Annual Growth Survey (2012)
The measures proposed in NRP are aimed at overcoming the existing challenges to optimal
development of the key factors for Bulgaria’s ecomonic growth and achieving the national
targets in implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy. NRP is closely related to the Convergence
Program of the Republic of Bulgaria (2011-2014) and directly addresses the
recommendations made in the conclusions of EC report on the Annual Growth Survey.
The implementation of the OPRG 2014-2020 will contribute to achieving the following
national targets:
National Target 1 - Reaching 76% employment rate for population aged 20-64 by 2020.
PA5 “Regional Tourism” of the Programme is expected to contribute to the NT1
where the implementation of activities will create conditions to maintain / increase
employment in the sphere of services in cities / regions, in which natural and cultural
heritage attractions will be renovated and promoted.
Toward the implementation of NT1 is targeted IP2 of PA 1 of the Programme, within
the scope of implementation are included activities in support to areas with potential
for economic development.
National Target 3 under the “Climate-energy” Package – “Achieving 16% share of
renewable energy sources in the gross final energy consumption and increasing energy
efficiency by 25% by 2020”.
Direct contribution to NT3 is expected from the implementation of PA 1 "Sustainable
Integrated Urban Development", in relation to IP1, which comprises measures to
improve energy efficiency ( EE) in residential and public buildings.
IP 5 and PA1 will ontribute to greenhouse gas emissions reduction and the
improvement of resource efficiency by measures on public transport and alternative
forms of transportation.
It is expected that all priority axes to have an indirect contribution to the achievement
of NT3, taking into consideration the horizontal requirement for the implementation
of energy efficiency measures in all types of the Programme intervention.
National target 4 “11% share of the early school leavers by 2020, and a 36% share of the
people aged 30-34 with higher education by 2020”. PA1 and PA 2 of the Program will
contribute to the implementation of this target.
National target 5 “Reducing the number of people living in poverty by 260 000”.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
49
Contributing to the implementation of NT5 will have PA1, IP4 – “Investing in health
and social infrastructure,” PA3 “Regional Health Infrastructure” and PA4 “Regional
Social Infrastructure” of the Programme, through measures ensuring adequate living
conditions for vulnerable groups of the population and improving the quality of social
and health infrastructure, and hence of social and health services.
IP2 of PA1 provides also the creation of an accessible architectural environment,
including improving access for people with disabilities to public administration
buildings, which corresponds to the planned measure NT5 (1) of NR, updated 2013.
NDP (updated 2013), presents the government's planned measures, necessary in different
areas and policies for the implementation of Specific Recommendations (SR) of the
Council. Below are listed those for which funding is provided under the OPRG:
SR 3 “To reduce poverty, improve the efficiency of social benefits and access for children
and adults to quality social services, and to implement the National Strategy for
Integration of Roma.” IP 4 under PA 1 of the Program and PA4 “Regional social
infrastructure” aim at improving living conditions (and the underlying technical
infrastructure) of groups at risk of social exclusion (including Roma), the Programme
contributes to the implemenation of the “National Strategy for integration of Roma,” quoted
in Specific Recommendation 3 of the Council.
SR 4 “To speed up the reform of legal acts regulating the school and universities’ activities
and measures, focusing on modernizing curricula, improved training and provision of
effective access to education for disadvantaged groups. To improve access to finance for
start-ups and SMEs, in particular those involved in innovative activities.” IP 3 under PA1 and
PA2 the OP address to a certain extent the SR 4 of the Council “provision of effective access
to education for disadvantaged groups,” through the implementation of measures for
accessible architectural environment for people with disabilities. Expected contribution of
interventions under PA 1 within the areas of social impact of cities-beneficiaries, since there,
often are concentrated representatives of disadvantaged groups.
SR 7 “Improve connections of electricity and gas networks, to increase energy efficiency
and to strengthen capacity with respect to supply disruptions.” IP 1 under PA1 “Supporting
energy efficiency, smart energy management and renewable energy use in public
infrastructures, including in public buildings and in the housing sector” is specifically aimed
at increasing energy efficiency. It is important to note that the implementation of energy
efficiency measures is foreseen in the implementation of all priority axes of the operational
program.
The indicated consistencies of ORPG, version 09.09.2013, to RS4 - effective use of resources
and Priority 3 AGS 2013 “Promoting growth and competitiveness of today and tomorrow”
should be removed as irrelevant to NDP update 2013. However, in the program should be
mentioned its contribution to the promotion of growth and employment in 67 cities through
the implementation of integrated urban plans for regeneration and development (IUPRD) -
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
50
measure DA 4-5 of NDP. The necessary changes are provided in the latest version of OPRG,
16.09.2013.
Regional Development Act, effective as of 31st of August 2008 and subsequent updates
The Regional Development Act regulates the government policy for regional development
and creates conditions for balanced and sustainable integrated development of regions,
reduction of interregional and intraregional disparities regarding the level of economic,
social, and territorial development. The regional development policy is based on the
principles of uniform approach towards planning and programming, concentration of
resources, coordination with other structural policies, tools, and activities.
OPRG 2014-2020 relies on the same principles:
- The integrated approach and concentration of resources – fully set out in PA1;
- The uniform programming approach – has been reflected in the fact that the entire
PA1, for which the major part of the Program’s resources is planned, will be
implemented on the basis of IPURD, developed at local level;
- The principle of coordination with other policies and tools has been reflected in the
planned coordination of the interventions with other operational programs.
Compliance with the National Spatial Development Concept for the period 2013-2025
The National Spatial Development Concept for the period 2013-2025 is a mid-term strategic
document whose main function is to lay the foundations for spatial orientation and
coordination of sectoral policies. Together with the National Regional Development
Strategy 2012-2022, it is a fundamental document and instrument for integrated planning and
sustainable spatial, economic, and social development.
The Concept defines the guidelines of the regional policy and the spatial planning policy,
guides the MA in the selection of cities to support under OPRG, and coordinates the sectoral
policies by redirecting them to the national space. It is on the basis of NSDC that a selection
has been made of 67 cities to be supported under PA1 OPRG 2014-2020. As stated in the
NSDC “the selection criteria are: suitable location in districts, good transport accessibility,
demographic size, presence of functions beyond municipal level in the fields of economic,
social, health, education and culture.” NSDC is also discussed and agreed by the thematic
working groups, including with one of the key stakeholders - the National Association of
Municipalities. In this sense, the territorial scope of the program is justified in terms of
national strategic documents and is discussed with key stakeholders.
Among the strategic objectives of NSDC relevant to OPRG 2014-2020, are:
Strategic objective 1 “Integration into the European space” – development of
national and trans-border transport, energy, urban, cultural and ecological corridors
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
51
with a view to achieving territorial cohesion, cooperation and integration in the region
and the European space.
The overall strategic framework of the OPRG 2014-2020 corresponds to this strategic
objective.
Strategic objective 2 “Polycentric territorial development” – strengthening of a
moderately polycentric metropolis network with improved urban environment quality
enabling the achievement of balanced territorial development and decrease in
disparities between the central urban and peripheral rural areas.
PA1 “Sustainable and integrated urban development” corresponds most fully to this strategic
objective. The choice of cities to be supported by the program is based on the strategy
described in NSDC for development of the territory of this country by strengthening the
balanced polycentric network of cities and peripheral rural areas
Strategic objective 3 “Spatial connectivity and access to services” – development of
the national technical and social infrastructure to improve the spatial connectivity of
regions and urban centers, and the access to education, health, social and cultural
services.
In order to achieve SO3, three main priorities have been worked out. OPRG 2014-2020
supports the implementation of Priority 3.3 Uniform coverage of the national territory with a
network of objects at the high level of the public services in health care, education, social
assistance and culture – and improving the access to quality services.
The activities under PA1 (Investment Priority 3 and 4), as well as the activities under PA 2, 3
and 4 correspond to this priority.
Strategic objective 4 “Preserved natural and cultural heritage” – preservation and
development of the national system of protected natural and cultural values to maintain
the biodiversity, spatial natural and cultural identity and to integrate their values into
modern life.
PA 1 (IP 4) and PA 5 “Regional Tourism” correspond to this strategic objective.
Coherence with the Partnership agreement
The Draft Partnership agreement of the Republic of Bulgaria and EU stipulates that in the
programmes finances by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) Bulgaria will
follow all 11 thematic objectives of the funds (Dec. of the Council of Ministers
328/25.04.2012).
At the same time, the Partnership agreement outlines the thematic objectives in the following
major, complementing funding priorities:
1. Strategic priority 1: Education, qualification and employment for inclusive growth
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
52
2. Strategic priority 2: Scientific research, innovation and investments for smart growth
3. Strategic priority 3: Connectivity and green economy for sustainable growth
4. Strategic priority 4 (horizontal): Good governance and access to quality public
services
5. Strategic dimension (territorial): Spatial dimension and place-based policies
а) interventions according to the territorial specifics (towns, rural areas and such
depending on fishery, territories with tourism potential);
b) additional territorial dimension of the sector policies in the programming process,
applicable to a certain degree to all funding priorities (e.g.: health, educational, social,
environmental infrastructure with regional and local importance).
The relationship between thematic objectives of ESIF and the Draft Partnership agreement of
the Republic of Bulgaria and the EU is demonstrated in the table below:
PA strategic priorities for funding Thematic objective of the ESIF
Education, qualification and
employment for inclusive growth
8) Encouraging employment and support for work force mobility;
9) Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty;
10) Investments in education, skills and life-long learning;
Scientific research, innovation and
investments for intelligent growth
1) Strengthening research, technological development and innovation;
2) Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and
communication technologies (different from e-government);
3) Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized
enterprises, the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries
and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF);
Connectivity and green economy for
sustainable growth
4) Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors;
5) Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and
management;
6) Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;
7) Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key
network infrastructures;
Good governance and access to
quality public services
2) Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and
communication technologies (different from e-government);
11) Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public
administration.
Spatial dimensions and place-based
development policies
Place-based approach according to the BARCA report (2009), the
Fifth Cohesion report and art. 174 from the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union.
Territorial agenda
Source: Draft Partnership agreement of the Republic of Bulgaria and EU outlining the support from the
European structural and investment funds for the 2014-2020 period, version 3.0 from August 2013.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
53
In addition, the strategic priorities, on their turn, are divided in sub-priorities. OPRG 2014-
2020 addresses the priorities and sub-priorities of the Partnership agreement, as shown in the
table below:
PA Strategic
priority for funding Sub-priority
Areas from PA with relation
to planned interventions in
OPRG 2014-2020
Priority axes in
OPRG 2014-2020
Strategic priority 1:
Education,
qualification and
employment for
inclusive growth
Employment and work force
mobility
None Not addressed
Social inclusion
Investments associated with
promotion of active life among
elderly citizens, provision of
accessible environment –
physical, institutional and
informational, and accessible
transport;
Integrated measures for
investments in early childhood
development;
Substitution of the institutional
model for care and
development of integrated
intersectoral services for social
inclusion;
Provision of essential services
(health and social services,
accommodation, services for
homeless people and people
living in bad living condition,
internet services) and
education
Priority axis 1.
Sustainable and
integrated urban
development
Priority axis 3.
Regional health
infrastructure
Priority axis 4.
Regional social
infrastructure
Education, training and life-
long learning
Investments in state and
municipal educational
infrastructure
Priority axis 1.
Sustainable and
integrated urban
development
Priority axis 2. State
educational
infrastructure
Strategic priority 2:
Scientific research,
innovation and
investments for
intelligent growth
Boosting competitiveness of
SMEs from key sectors of
the economy
None Not addressed
R&D and Innovations
Access to and use of ICT
Strategic priority 3: Connectivity (internal and Development of eco-friendly Priority axis 1.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
54
Connectivity and
green economy for
sustainable growth
external) transport systems for
promotion of sustainable urban
mobility.
Road infrastructure with
regional significance
Sustainable and
integrated urban
development - 1.5.
Priority axis 6.
Regional road
infrastructure
Shift to low-carbon
economy, energy and
resource efficiency
Promoting energy and resource
efficiency and increasing the
use of renewable energy
sources
Priority axis 1.
Sustainable and
integrated urban
development - 1.1.
Climate and climate change,
risk prevention and
management
Prevention/protection from
floods through implementation
of investment measures
Priority axis 7. Risk
prevention
Environment and protection
of natural resources
Measures associated with
protection, popularization and
development of cultural and
natural heritage
Priority axis 5.
Regional tourism
Strategic priority 4
(horizontal):
Good governance
and access to
quality public
services
Administrative effectiveness
and quality of the judiciary
system
None Not addressed
Access to qualitative public
services and effective
application of electronic
governance and justice
Strategic dimension
(territorial):
Spatial dimensions
and place-based
development
policies
Place-based development
policies:
- Sustainable and
integrated urban
development
- Rural areas
development
- Fishing area
development
- Areas with potential
for tourism
development
Spatial dimension of
strategic priorities for
sustainable, intelligent and
inclusive growth
Construction, rehabilitation
and reconstruction of state
road network, regardless of
road class, infrastructure;
Development of tourism
through support of
preservation, popularization
and development of cultural
and natural heritage;
Urban development;
Priority axis 6:
Regional road
infrastructure
Priority axis 5:
Regional tourism
Priority axis 1:
Sustainable and
integrated urban
development
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
55
OPRG 2014-2020 mentions the following reference to the Partnership agreement: OP
“Regions in Growth” 2014-2020 is oriented directly towards the achievement of the
objectives of strategic territorial priority 5: “Regional development and place-based
potential” and more specifically to sub-priorities “Sustainable and integrated urban
development” and “Territorial dimensions of the sectoral policies” of the Partnership
agreement.
The text of OPRG 2014-2020 needs to become more precise in view of better transposition of
the amendments of the Partnership agreement and better explanation of how the priorities of
the Partnership agreements are reflected in OPRG. Concrete proposals are given below.
It needs to be stressed that OPRG 2014-2020 is one of the leading sectoral programmes with
regards to the Strategic territorial priority: “Spatial development and place-based
development policies” and more specifically of sub-priority “place-based development
policies” in parts “Sustainable and integrated urban development” and “Areas with potential
for tourism development”, as well as of “Spatial dimension of the strategic priorities for
sustainable, intelligent and inclusive growth”.
The description of the cohesion with the PA needs to be complemented with information
regarding the supporting functions of OPRG in regard to Priority 1 “Education, qualification
and employment for inclusive growth”, Priority 2 “Scientific research, innovation and
investments for intelligent growth” and Priority 3 “Connectivity and green economy for
sustainable growth”.
With regards to the mentioned challenges, the amendments in the wording of the specific
challenges needs to be reviewed using Table 8. “Relation between the challenges from the
analysis, strategic priorities, thematic objectives and the list of Programmes” from the last
version of the Partnership agreement from 13 August 2013.
The challenge ”Insufficient economic activity of the population and entrepreneurship
(NEET, Active Aging)” mentioned in OPRG 2014-2020 has been formulated as
“Insufficient economic activity of the population (youths, elderly people, women)”;
The challenges ”Inefficient use of resources” and ”Inefficient use of energy”
mentioned in OPRG 2014-2020 have been consolidated in the current version of the
PA;
The challenge ”Low level of healthcare” mentioned in OPRG 2014-2020 has been
formulated as “Last but one ranking in Europe for healthcare”;
The challenge ”Insufficient sectoral and geographical mobility of the work force“ is
not present in the current version of the PA;
In addition to the remarks mentioned above, in the text of OPRG other challenges need to be
addressed for which in the PA is indicated that OPRG would act as a supporting programme,
such as:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
56
Unsatisfactory quality of the educational system, increase of the illiterate population
and increase in the share of young people not attending school lessons;
One of the highest standardized coefficients for all death causes
Ineffective systems for prevention, management and addressing risk consequences (if
Priority axis 7. Risk prevention is included);
In case these recommendations are taken under consideration, information concerning how
the OP will respond to them has also to be provided.
The recommendations above are taken into account in the latest version of OPRG,
16.09.2013.
Evaluation of the description, applicability and the degree of implementation in OPRG
2014-2020 of the ex-ante conditionalities and description of the actions taken
In accordance with the Common Provisions Regulation requirements, the operational
program text should point out the ex-ante conditionalities, relevant to all priority axes whose
performance or failure will affect the program. With reference to each applicable
conditionality, the specific priority to which it relates is indicated, and it is explained which
of the criteria are met and which are not. This information is filled out in Table 24 in the text
of the program. A description of the measures to be taken is required and, respectively, the
responsible institutions and terms for implementation.
Based on the review of the conditionalities set out into the OPRG text (version 13.05.2013)
and the requirements for Bulgaria in the Partnership Agreement, version 3.0. from 13 August
2013, the following was established:
The description in Table 24 includes the applicable thematic ex-ante conditionalities, as set
out in Annex 3 of the PA and are relevant to the implementation of OPRG 2014-2020 with
the two exceptions, listed below.
The description in Table 26 should include actions that will be taken to implement the
outstanding criteria with respect to applicable conditionalites and correspond to the
descriptions in Annex 4 of the PA.
The applicable ex-ante thematic conditionalities that are included in the program (Table 24)
refer to the following:
• 7.1. Road transport;
• 9.1. Early school leaving;
• 9.2. Higher education, and
• 10.3. Health.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
57
There is an indication for the criteria for assessing the performance, the actions to be taken
and the responsible institutions.
In Table 24 (OPRG 2014-2020, 09.09.2013), there is no relevant precondition with respect
to 4.1. - "Actions have been carried out to promote cost-effective improvements of end-use
energy efficiency and cost-effective investments in energy efficiency when constructing or
renovating buildings". In the latest version of OPRG, 16.09.2013, the table is updated.
At the same time, in PA, Annex 3, this ex-ante conditionality is listed as partially met, in
particular due to not implemented foreseen action, including “measures to ensure minimum
requirements are in place related to the energy performance of buildings Articles 3, 4 and 5
of Directive 2010/31/EU”. This text should find its place in Table 24.
In addition, at the extent to which the Programme aims to contribute to the implementation of
the National Strategy for Integration of Roma, it may be considered as relevant ex-ante
conditionality “10.2. National strategic policy framework for Roma integration has been
introduced” (Annex 3 PA, aforementioned version). The condition as specified in PA is met,
but its inclusion in Table 24 is necessary for the completeness of the information.
With the removal of these shortcomings, the list of applicable ex-ante conditionalities would
be comprehensive and would correspond to those given in Annex 4 of Draft PA version 3.0
of 08/13/2013 conditionalities relating to the implementation of OPRG 2014-2020.
In separate Table 26 of OPRG in accordance with the requirements, a description of the
actions to be undertaken for the implementation of relevant thematic conditionalities with
respect to the outstanding criteria is made. Deadlines and responsible institutions are
indicated.
There are inconsistencies between the OPRG and PA texts. It is difficult to make an
exhaustive list since many terms and descriptions are mixed, such as: Annex 4 of the PA is
quoted as benchmark under 7.1. “Existence of comprehensive transport plan (s) or frame(s)
for transport investments .......” but as planned actions - Strategy for development of road
infrastructure in the Republic of Bulgaria 2014-2020. Meanwhile, in the OPRG 2014-2020,
Table 26 indicates the development of a general transport actions plans.
Below are listed some of the more important inconsistencies that were identified in
OPRG 2014-2020, 09.09.2013:
Discrepancies related to listed ex-ante conditionalities:
In Table 26, there is no conditionality 4.1. – "Actions have been carried out to promote cost-
effective improvement of end-use energy efficiency and cost-effective investments in energy
efficiency when constructing or renovating buildings."
In Annex 4 of the PA it is included because of benchmarks. Specifically: “measures to ensure
minimum requirements are in place related to the energy performance of buildings consistent
with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 2010/31/EU”. Actions (directly affecting MRD) which
have to be taken are listed, namely:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
58
o Action 1 with responsible institutions MEE and MRD and deadline 01.09.2013:
Update of the “Regulation for energy efficiency audits, certification and
assessment of energy savings in buildings, which will be repeal Regulation №
RD-16-1057 of 2009 on procedures for conducting energy audits and certification
of buildings” and “Regulation for amending and supplementing Regulation № 5
of 2006 on buildings’ technical passports”
o Action 2 with responsible institutions MEE and MRD and deadline 31.12.2013:
Amendment of Regulation № RD 16-1058 of 10 December 2009 on indicators for
energy consumption and energy performance of buildings, taking into account the
Delegated Commission Regulation № 244/2012 requirements, which supplements
Directive 2010/31/EU, published on 21 March 2012 in "Official Gazette" of the
European Union.
o Action 3 with responsible institutions MEE and MRD and deadline December
2013: Amendment of Regulation № 7 for energy efficiency, heat and energy
savings in buildings.
It is necessary these texts to be incorporated in the description of Table 26.
Inconsistencies regarding Actions that should be undertaken
Regarding 7.1. Transport: the text of the OPRG does not include “Action 2 - Mid-term review
of the Strategy for the development of the transport sector of the Republic of Bulgaria 2020”
with deadline December 2015.
Regarding 9.1. Early school leaving: in the OPRG text are not included Action 1 “Adoption
of a Strategy on prevention and reduction of dropouts and early school leavers (2013 -
2020)” with deadline October 2013 and Action 2. Adoption of Updated National Youth
Strategy (2013-2020) with deadline December 2013. Instead it is envisaged the
“Development of a National Strategy for Lifelong Learning for 2014-2020”, which is not
consistent with action 9.1.
Regarding 9.2. Higher education: in the OPRG text it is not included Action 1 - Adoption of a
separate strategy for higher education with period of implementation- May 2014
Non-compliance with the periods/terms
There is inconsistency regarding 7.1: in OPRG is stated June 2013, in PA - November 2013.
In general, the following conclusions can be made:
o Tables 24 and 26 regarding thematic ex-ante conditionalities and their
implamentation should be prepared in accordance with the updated information set
out in Annexes 3 and 4 of the PA;
o Conditionality provisions relate to priority national policies on energy efficiency,
transport, education and health, the implementation of which OPRG plans to support.
According to Annex IV of the General Regulation, 9.1 and 9.2 are ex-ante
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
59
conditionalities relating to the ESF. However, given the scope of the OPRG 2014-
2020, in the opinion of the assessment team, these conditions are also relevant to
OPRG;
o Indeed, the performance of these thematic ex-ante conditionalities, however, with
partial exceptions (referring to 7.1 and 4.1), is related to the sectors for which other
institutions are responsible, respectively, line ministries and departments. For this
reason, the commitments of MA are not direct, but refer to monitor progress and
coordination under the Partnership Agreement so that the program or separate
priority axes would not be jeopardized.
The inconsistencies listed above are corrected in the latest version of OPRG 2014-2020,
16.09.2013.
Complementarity and demarcation lines regarding the other operational programmes
On the following pages we present commentaries on the complementarity and demarcation,
described in Section 9 of Operational Programme “Regional Development” (OPRG) 2014-
2020. Only the programmes on cross-border cooperation have not been commented since the
evaluation team does not have a version of these programmes.
As discussed during the focus group in June 2013 with representatives of the managing
authorities and the central coordinating unit, the demarcation and the complementarity
between the separate programmes has not been clarified yet at national level, including in the
Partnership Agreement. A large part of the commentaries below were discussed within the
focus group.
Operational Programme Environment (OPE)
OPE
Priority Axis 1: Water
1.1. Protection and enhancement of the state of the water resources
1.2. Improvement of the conditions for reduction of the risk of flooding and drought
1.3. Increase of the innovations for resource efficiency and cleaner environment
Priority Axis 2: Waste
2.1 Sustainable management of waste for a resource-efficient and green economy
2.2 Increase of innovations for resource efficiency and cleaner environment
Priority Axis 3: Natura 2000 and biodiversity
3.1 Reducing the loss of biodiversity
The relation between OPRG and OPE is presented at the chart below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
60
OPE
OPRD
Sustainable and integrated urban development
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk prevention
7.n
Water
1.1 1.2 1.3
Sewerage
1.1 1.2
Natura 2000 and
biodiversity
1.1
Figure 2: Relation between OPRG and OPE
Complementarity/
Demarcation
Reflection in the text of OPRG Recommendation
Priorities 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,
2.1, 3.1, 4.1. and 5.1
complement Priority 1.3 of
OPE. The replacement and
construction of water supply
and sewerage systems for the
different types of
infrastructure will support,
albeit to a limited extent, the
intervention in the innovative
technologies for supporting
the water saving and reuse
measures.
Complementarity: Not reflected. It is
pointed out that the identified water
supply and sewerage systems in the
integrated plans on urban restoration
and development will complement the
measures under OPE.
Demarcation: Not reflected
To point out in the Complementarity
Section of OPRG that the investments
in building water supply and sewerage
systems along with the energy
efficiency measures will support
interventions for promotion of water
consumption in public and private
(multifamily residential) buildings and
in enterprises as well as introduction
of other water saving methods:
development and applying of
technologies for water recycling and
reuse in accordance with the Ministry
of Environment and Water
instructions for integration of the
environment and the climate change
policy in funds for the Cohesion
Policy, the Common Agricultural
Policy and the Common Fisheries
Policy for 2014-2020, as of February
2013.
To point out in the Demarcation
Section that the measures for
building/replacement of water supply
and sewerage systems in the buildings
are not supported under OPE.
Priority 7 (activities within
Priority Axis 7 have not been
specified yet) will support the
efforts of OPE to improve the
conditions and reduce the risk
of flooding through
infrastructure investments for
Complementarity: Not reflected.
Demarcation: It is pointed out that
OPRG will complement the measures
under OPE regarding prevention of the
risk of landslides. It is not pointed out
that, likewise, OPRG will complement
No specific recommendation can be
made as at the present moment given
that the activities under Priority
Axis 7 of OPRG have not been
finalized yet.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
61
prevention purposes. OPE with measures for prevention of
flooding through investments in such
infrastructure. It is also indicated that
OPRG will invest in the promotion and
development of the cultural and natural
heritage on the territory of the whole
country of national and world
relevance, including the sites of
NATURA 2000, on the basis of a list of
priority sites for financing.
Priority 1.2 is indirectly
related to Priority 1.1 of OPE
in terms of the need of
synergy between the
construction of pavements in
the population centres and the
laying of water pipes,
supported under OPE.
Complementarity:
OPRG reads: The construction/
rehabilitation/ reconstruction of the
water supply and sewerage
infrastructure (network) identified in
the integrated plans on urban
reconstruction and development –
within the impact areas in 39 towns of
1st, 2nd and 3rd level, and on the whole
urban territory of the towns of the 4th
level, as well as the territory of the
whole town for level 1-3, where the
activities for integrated public
transport are coordinated;
For the sake of clarity, it is
recommended to change the text as
follows:
The activities for the rehabilitation of
the urban road network supported
under Priority 1.2. of OPRG
complement and should be
coordinated with the activities for the
construction/ rehabilitation/
reconstruction of the water supply and
sewerage infrastructure (network),
supported under OPE within the
impact areas in 39 towns of 1st, 2nd
and 3rd level, and on the whole urban
territory of the towns of the 4th level.
Operational Programme Innovations and Competitiveness (OPIC)
OPIC
Priority Axis 1: Innovations and enterprise
1.1 Promotion of investments in research and innovation and promotion of relations between the
business and the research centres and provision of support for improved production capacities and
pilot production of key base technologies.
Priority Axis 2: Competitiveness and resource efficiency
2.1 Provision of support for enhancing the capacity of SMEs to increase their contribution to the
economic growth and the development of the innovation processes.
2.2 Promotion of the energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources (RES) in the
enterprises.
2.3. Development and construction of LW and MW smart distribution networks.
2.4. Promotion of the use of high-efficient combined production of heat and electricity.
Priority Axis 3: Financial instruments
3.1. Promotion of enterprise through support of the development of new business ideas and the launching of new
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
62
companies.
3.2. Promotion of investments into business innovations and enhancing the energy efficiency of enterprises.
The relation between OPRG and OPIC is presented at the chart below:
OPIC
OPRD
Sustainable and Integrated urban development
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk prevention
7.n
Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
1.1
Competitiveness and resource
efficiency
2.1 1.2
Financial
instruments
3.23.12.2 2.3 2.4
Figure 3: Relation between OPRG and OPIC
Complementarity/ Demarcation Reflection in the text of
OPRG
Recommendation
Priority 1.2 of OPRG is related to the
activities, which will be assisted under
priorities 1.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of OPIC– the
relations are shown in the table below.
While some of the activities under OPRG
complement ones, envisaged in OPIC,
such as improvement of the conductive
and connecting infrastructure to business
zones, others overlap – building of
industrial zones, implementation of
measures for energy efficiency of business
buildings; production of energy from RES
and energy audits. The overlapping
between the two programmes is presented
in the table below.
Complementarity: There is
no text for complementarity
with OPIC.
– Demarcation: It is
pointed out that
OPRG supports the
development of
areas with
potential for
economic
development within
the Integrated Plan
for Urban
Reconstruction and
Development
(IPURD). OPIC
supports the
development of
economic areas
outside the scope
of IPURD of the 67
towns,
technological
parks of national
relevance.
The OPIC text does not
To establish the complementarity
and eliminate all possible
overlapping between the two
programmes in a discussion with the
experts working on the OPIC texts.
The text in the Demarcation Section
should be rendered more precise in
terms of what would be supported
under each of the two programmes.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
63
make it obvious that the
development of the
economic areas will be
outside the scope of the
urban development plans
and outside the towns.
Priorities 1.3 and 5.1 complement Priority
2.1 of OPIC.
Priority 1.3 of OPRG envisages measures
for development and building of culture-
related infrastructure.
The infrastructure measures in culture
have tourist potential. These measures will
be supported by the tourist campaigns
under OPIC.
Priority 5.1 of OPRG supports the
development of cultural attractions and
tourist infrastructure, including
information centres, as well as non-
infrastructure activities, related directly to
the supported attractions (organizing of
events in the area of the attractions,
marketing and advertising activities).
Priority Axis 2.1 of OPIC envisages
activities for tourist information services,
promotion and marketing of tourism
(events, initiatives, campaigns) at national
and regional level (Marketing,
Advertising and Information in Tourism
Directorate and Tourist Policy Directorate
at the Ministry of Economy, Energy and
Tourism).
Complementarity: There is
no text for complementarity
with OPIC
Demarcation: It is pointed
out that OPRG supports the
development of regional
tourist marketing as well.
OPIC supports national
tourist marketing.
There is a possibility for
duplication of activities,
related to tourist advertising
and marketing.
A text describing how the
construction of cultural and tourist
infrastructure will support the
activities under OPIC should be
added in the Complementarity
Section.
A discussion with the experts
working on the OPIC texts should
define clearly the demarcation line
between the two programmes
regarding tourist advertising and
marketing.
The text regarding differentiation of
tourist marketing in the two
programmes in the Demarcation
Section should be rendered more
precise (OPIC points out events at
national and regional level).
Relation between Priority 1.2 of OPRG and priorities 1.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of OPIC
Priority 1.2 of OPRG envisages support for:
Improvement and reconstruction of the existing or
construction/ development of new technical
infrastructure, related to business, such as
communication links, construction/ reconstruction/
rehabilitation of streets providing access to industrial
and business zones, electricity supply, public lighting,
connections to the main gas supply, water supply and
sewerage network, placement of signs and
information boards, security systems by or within the
business zones and terrains, etc. within the areas with
At the same time OPIC envisages:
Within 1.1
Support for the development of technological parks,
coordinating centres, offices for technological transfer,
laboratories for proving of concepts and certification
laboratories.
Within 2.2
Support for enhancement of energy efficiency of
enterprises: includes conducting of energy audits,
feasibility studies and technical specifications;
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
64
potential for economic development within IPURD;
Construction, renewal, rehabilitation, reconstruction
and repair of business and industrial zones in areas
with potential for economic development within
IPURD, including buildings;
Implementation of energy efficiency measures in the
above buildings/premises, including heating
insulation, replacement of door and window frames,
local installations and/or connection to the heat
supply, gas supply systems, etc.;
Setting into operation of plants for power generation
from RES in the above buildings to meet the own
needs of energy, where this is technically feasible and
economically expedient;
Energy audits and construction audits in the above
buildings.
introduction of technologies resulting in enhancement
of energy efficiency or reduction of the energy intensity
of production; improvement/replacement of start-up
engines and systems; improvement of energy systems
and replacement of the energy input; utilization of
waste heat; supply of equipment, related to the more
efficient use or recycling of waste products as well as
equipment for the manufacture projects subject to
recycling; construction and installation works leading
to reduction of the energy intensity of the building stock
of the enterprises; introduction of RES systems;
introduction of energy management systems.
Within 2.4.
Drafting of an energy audit driven project, feasibility
studies and technical specifications;
Operational Programme Human Resources Development (OPHRD)
OPHRD
Priority Axis 1: Improvement of access to employment and quality of jobs
1.1 Access to employment for job-seeking and non-active persons, including local employment
initiatives, and support for workforce mobility
1.2 Sustainable integration of young people, aged 15 to 24, into the labour market, in the sectors of
employment, education and training and, in particular, in the context of the Guarantee for Youth.
1.3 Self-employment, enterprise and establishment of enterprises.
1.4 Improvement of the access to life-time learning, enhancing workforce skills and qualification and
better coordination of the education and training system and the labour market.
1.5 Adjustment of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change.
Priority Axis 2: Reduction of poverty and promotion of social inclusion
2.1 Integration of marginalized communities, such as the Roma
2.2 Active inclusion
2.3. Promotion of social economy and social enterprises.
Priority Axis 3: Modernization of labour market institutions, social inclusion and healthcare
3.1. Investments in the institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public
services in view to implementing the reforms and achieving better regulation and management.
3.2. Capacity building regarding interested parties implementing policies in the field of employment,
education and the social sphere, as well as sectoral and territorial agreements for mobilization with
the purpose of implementation of reforms at national, regional and local level.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
65
Priority Axis 4: Transnational cooperation
4.1 Promotion of transnational cooperation in the field of labour market, social inclusion and
strengthening of institutional capacity.
4.2. Promotion of cooperation of the interested parties from the region of the Danube river in the
area: “Investing in People and Skills”, of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region.
The relation between OPRG and OPHRD is presented at the chart below:
OPRD
Sustainable and Integrated urban development
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk prevention
7.n
Reducing poverty and promoting social
inclusion
2.1 2.2 2.3
Modernization of the labor market institutions, social inclusion and health care
3.1 3.2
Transnational
cooperation
4.1
Improving access to and quality of
employment
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 4.2
Figure 4: Relation between OPRG and OPHRD
Complementarity/ Demarcation Reflection in the text of
OPRG
Recommendation
Priority 1.2 of OPRG complements the
activities under Priority 1.4 of OPHRD.
The investments in business structure
complement the investments in human
resources in the industrial zones and high-
tech enterprises.
Complementarity: The text
of OPRG reads: Assisting
SME for qualification and
infrastructure measures
under OPRG in support of
the separate areas with
potential for economic
development, the said
measures being oriented
towards establishment of
business zones.
Demarcation: There is no
OPRG text involving any
differentiation between the
two measures.
The text regarding complementarity
is not very precise and needs to be
clarified as follows:
The investments in business
infrastructure under OPRG (support
for the establishment of separate
areas with potential for economic
development and business zones)
are supported by investments in
human resources under OPHRD for
the purpose of the provision of
possibilities to enhance the
qualification of the workforce. This
mutual support is expected to
promote the development of
business and SMEs.
The Demarcation Section should
also be supplemented by pointing
out that OPRG invests in business
infrastructure, while OPHRD
provides support for measures for
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
66
investments in human resources.
Priorities 1.4, 3.1 and 4.1 of OPRG –
investments in health and social
infrastructure – complement the measures
within OPHRD under priorities 2.1
(provision of access and rendering of
social and health services to marginal
groups), 2.2 (support for local and social
activities, development of the capacity of
providers of social and health services)
and 3.1. (investments in institutional
capacity and the efficiency of public
administrations and public services in the
area of social services and healthcare).
Complementarity: The
OPRG text reads: Support
for the implementation of
“soft measures”, equipment
and furnishing for the social
sector facilities financed
under OPRG 2014-2020;
Support for training,
qualification and re-training
within the impact areas in
39 towns of 1st, 2nd and 3rd
level, and on the whole
urban territory of the towns
of the 4th level, with a
special focus on socially-
disadvantaged, vulnerable
and minority groups of
people;
There is no relation between
OPRG and the training and
qualification of unemployed,
socially disadvantaged and
minority groups.
Demarcation: The OPRG
presents very clearly the
demarcation line between
the two programmes
regarding support in the
health and social sphere.
The text regarding complementarity
is not very precise and needs to be
clarified as follows:
The investments in the social and
health infrastructure in the
municipalities and at local and
regional levels promote the
provision of social and health
services under OPHRD.
Operational Programme Transport and Transport Infrastructure (OPTTI)
OPTTI
Priority Axis 1: Development of road and railway infrastructure along the “main” trans-European
transport network (TEN-T)
1.1 Development of road infrastructure along the “main” Trans-European transport network (TEN-T);
1.2 Development of railway infrastructure along the “main” Trans-European transport network (TEN-
T).
Priority Axis 2: Development of road and railway infrastructure along the “extended” TEN-T
2.1 Development of road infrastructure along the “extended” Trans-European transport network
(TEN-T);
2.2 Development of railway infrastructure along the “extended” Trans-European transport network
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
67
(TEN-T)
Priority Axis 3: Improvement of intermodality in passenger and freight transport and development of
sustainable public transport
3.1 Improvement of intermodality in freight transport;
3.2 Improvement of intermodality in passenger transport.
Priority Axis 4: Innovations and management of services – installation of upgraded infrastructure for
traffic management, enhancement of safety and security of transport
4.1 Introduction of modern traffic management systems;
4.2 Purchase of locomotives and rolling stock;
4.3 Supply of specialized ships.
The relation between OPRG and OP Transport is presented at the chart below:
OPTTI
ОПРР
Sustainable and urban integrated development
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk
prevention
7.n
Development of road and railway
infrastructure in the "extended"
TEN
2.1 2.2
Improvement of passengers
and cargo intermodality and
development of sustainable
urban transport
3.1 3.2
Innovations in management and services -
Introduction of modernized infrastructure
for traffic management, enhancing safety
and transport security
4.1
Development of road and railway
infrastructure in the “main” TEN
1.1 4.2 4.31.2
Figure 5: Relation between OPRG and OPTTI
Complementarity/
Demarcation
Reflection in the text of OPRG Recommendation
Priority 1.5 complements
priorities 1.1 and 2.1 of
OPTTI as far as improvement
of the road transport
infrastructure is concerned.
Complementarity: not reflected.
Demarcation: It is pointed out in the
opinion that as far as OPRG is oriented
towards improvement of the connections
between the national road network and
TEN-T, OP Transport finances road
projects within TEN-T. Main and
secondary roads outside TEN-T are
financed under the programme.
Information about the
programme's contribution to the
overall transport infrastructure and
the relation with the European
transport network should be added
to the OPRG text, Demarcation
Section.
Sustainable urban mobility Complementarity: Not reflected. The In the Complementarity Section,
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
68
under Priority 1.5 of OPRG
has potential common ground
with priorities 3.1 and 3.2 of
OPTTI regarding construction
and reconstruction of railway
station complexes and the
underground in Sofia.
common ground concerns intensified
participation in electric transport (and,
respectively, improvement of ambient air
quality), reduction of traffic jams,
development of infrastructure route
network with new destinations, etc. The
improvement of the intermodality in
passenger transportation and, respectively,
the extension of the Sofia underground are
directly related to these processes.
Demarcation: Not reflected.
it should be pointed out that in the
course of the implementation of
projects on sustainable urban
mobility under Priority 1.5 of
OPRG the projects/results of
priorities 3.1 and 3.2 of OPTTI
regarding construction and
reconstruction of railway station
complexes and the Sofia
underground will be taken into
account in view to ensuring
synergy.
The differences between the
interventions under OPRG and
OPTTI in the area of urban
transport infrastructure should be
described in the Demarcation
Section.
Operational Programme Science and Education for Smart Growth (OPSESG)
OPSESG
Priority Axis 1: Research and technological development
1.1 Strengthening of the infrastructure needed for research and innovation activity, enhancing the capacity for
implementation of the achievements in research and development, enhancing the capacity to implement the
achievements in research and innovation and promotion of the competence centres and, in particular, centres of
interest for Europe.
Priority Axis 2: Education for actual employment, mobility and enterprise
2.1 Access to employment of job seekers and non-active persons, including local employment initiatives, and
support for workforce mobility.
2.2 Modernization and strengthening of the labour market institutions, including education and training systems,
which cover strengthening of transnational workforce mobility.
Priority Axis 3: Promotion of education, skills and life-time learning
3.1 Reducing of early school leaving and promotion of equal access to high-quality pre-school, primary and
secondary education;
3.2 Improving the quality, efficiency and access to tertiary or equivalent attainment with the purpose of
increasing of involvement and improving education levels.
3.3 Enhancing the access to possibilities for life-long learning, enhancing workforce skills and qualification and
enhancing the adequacy of the education systems and training against the requirements of the labour market.
Priority Axis 4: Educational environment for active social inclusion
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
69
4.1 Active inclusion;
4.2 Integration of marginalized communities.
Priority Axis 5: Educational and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure
5.1 Investments in education, skills and life-time learning through building of educational and training
infrastructure;
5.2 Improving the access to ICT and their use and ensuring quality through intensive use of ICT-based
applications.
Priority Axis 6: Transnational cooperation
The relations between OPRG and OPSESG are presented at the chart below:
OPSESG
OPRD
Sustainable and integrated urban development
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk
prevention
7.n
Education for actual
employment, mobility
and entrepreneurship
2.1 2.2
Насърчаване на образованието, уменията и ученето през целия живот
3.1 3.2
Promote education,
skills and lifelong
learning
4.1
Research and
Technological
Development
1.1 4.2
Educational and
ICT infrastructure
5.1 5.2
Transnational
cooperation
3.3
Figure 6: Relation between OPRG and OP SESG
Complementarity/
Demarcation
Reflection in the text of OPRG Recommendation
Priorities 1.3 and 2.1 for
investments in the educational
infrastructure are
complemented by priorities
3.1, 3.2, 5.1 and 5.2 of
OPSESG, which envisage
measures for improving the
quality of education and the
access to education (3.1),
improving the quality and
access to higher education
(3.2) and investments in
educational infrastructure –
schools and universities (5.1)
Complementarity: It is reflected as
support on the part of OPSESG for the
implementation of “soft measures”,
equipment, furnishing and ICT for
financing under OPRG 2014-2020 of
facilities in the educational and research
spheres.
Demarcation: Reflected
There is a possibility of overlapping of
Priority 2.1 of OPRG and Priority 5.1 of
OPSESG. Both programmes envisage
investments in the building of educational
It is good to extend and
supplement the text regarding the
complementarity focusing on ICT
infrastructure.
Apart from the pointed measures,
OPSESG supports the building of
educational infrastructure with the
exception of cities supported in
terms of integrated urban
development under OP Regions in
Growth 2014-2020. There is a
possibility for overlapping, i.e.
financing of the same activities
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
70
and information and
communication technologies
(5.2).
infrastructure in the country.
under both programmes, which is
inefficient and should not be
allowed. Section 3, mechanisms
for coordination of funds under the
Common Strategic Framework
(CSF) of the Regulation laying
down common provisions 2014-
2020 says that duplication should
be avoided.
Operational Programme Good Governance (OPGG)
OPGG
Priority 1: Enhancing the institutional capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the public administration
and the judiciary.
1.1 Measures enhancing the institutional capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the public
administration;
1.2 Measures enhancing the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the judiciary.
Priority 2: Provision of high-quality services to citizens and business and development of e-governance and
justice
2.1 Measures, related to the provision of integrated administrative services, including e-governance;
2.2 Measures, related to e-justice
Priority 3: Effective and efficient absorption of the EU funds
3.1 Measures, related to maintenance, development and optimization of the management,
coordination, monitoring, control and audit of the EU funds;
3.2 Measures, related to the development and improvement of the information systems for EU funds
management.
The relation between OPRG and OPGG is presented at the charter below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
71
OPGG
OPRD
Sustainable and integrated
urban development
1.1 1.2 1.3
1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional
tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk
prevention
7.n
Providing quality services for the citizen and
businesses and developing e-government
and e-judiciary
2.1 2.2
Enhancing the institutional capacity,
effectiveness and efficiency of public
administration and judiciary system
1.1
Effective and efficient absorption
of EU funds
3.1 3.21.2
Technical
assistance
Figure 7: Relation between OPRG and OPGG
Complementarity/
Demarcation
Reflection in the text of OPRG Recommendation
The main relation between the
two programmes is related to
enhancing the administrative
capacity, i.e, Priority Axis,
Technical Assistance, of
OPRG and, respectively,
priorities 3.1. and 3.2 of
OPGG.
Complementarity: Not reflected.
Demarcation: Reflected as difference
of the scope of OPRG and OPGG.
While OPRG, in its section about
capacity strengthening, is oriented
towards the Managing Authority and
the beneficiaries of the programme,
OPGG supports in general public
administration and public services,
related to the European Regional
Development Fund and the European
Social Fund.
It should be pointed in the
Complementarity Section of OPRG
that the programme contributes to the
attainment of the OPGG goals and
that through the technical assistance
strengthens the administrative
capacity of the Managing Authority
and the beneficiaries.
Rural Development Programme (RDP)
RDP
Priority 2: Enhancing farm viability and the competitiveness of all types of agriculture and promoting
innovative technologies in agriculture
Priority area 2A: Improving the economic performance of all farms and facilitating the restructuring and
modernization of farms, in particular, with a view to increasing market participation and orientation and
diversification in agriculture.
Priority area 2B Promoting the entry of qualified farmers in agriculture and, in particular, the continuity of
between the generations in the agricultural sector.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
72
Priority 3: Promoting food chain organisation, humane treatment of animals and risk management in
agriculture
Priority area 3A: Enhancing competitiveness by better integrating primary producers into the food chain
through quality schemes to add value to farm products, promotion in local markets and short supply circuits,
producer groups and inter-branch organisations.
Priority area 3B: Supporting farm risk prevention and management of farms
Priority 4: Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems, related to agriculture and forestry
Priority area 4A: Restoring, preserving and strengthening of biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas and
high nature value farming, areas facing natural or other specific constraints and the state of European
landscapes.
Priority area 4B: Improving water management, including management of fertilizers and pesticides
Priority area 4C: Prevention of soil erosion and improving of their management
Priority 5: Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate
resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors
Priority area 5A: Increasing efficiency in water use by agriculture.
Priority area 5B: Increasing efficiency in energy use in agriculture and food processing.
Priority area 5C: Facilitating the supply and use of renewable sources of energy, of by-products, wastes,
residues and other non-food raw material for purposes of the bio-economy.
Priority area 5D: Reducing greenhouse emissions in agriculture.
Priority area 5E: Fostering carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry.
Priority 6: Promoting social inclusion poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas
Priority area 6A: Facilitating diversification, creation of new small enterprises and job creation.
Priority area 6B: Fostering local development in rural areas.
Priority area 6C: Enhancing accessibility to, use and quality of ICT in rural areas.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
73
The relation between OPRG and RDP is presented at the charter below:
RDP
OPRD
Sustainable and integrated urban development
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk prevention
7.n
4.А 4.Б 4.В5.А 5.Б 5.В 5.Г 5.Д
2.А 2.Б 3.А 3.Б 6.А 6.Б 6.В
Figure 8: Relation between OPRG and RDP
Complementarity/ Demarcation Reflection in the text of
OPRG
Recommendation
Priorities 1.1. and 1.5. of OPRG and priorities
5C, 5D and 5E of RDP contribute to the
promotion and use of RES and reduction of
greenhouse emissions.
Priority 1.2 of OPRG and Priority 6B of RDP are
complemented in terms of improving the urban
(OPRG) and rural environment (RDP). Priority
5.1 of OPRG also complements the activities
under Priority 6B of RDP regarding the
development of tourism.
Enhancing of mobility is supported under Priority
6.1 of OPRG through improvement of the
infrastructure of road junctions connecting
secondary secondary roads to TEN-T and the
municipal road infrastructure in the rural regions
under Priority 6B of RDP.
The investments in the regional health and social
infrastructure under Priority 3.1. of OPRG are
complemented by measures improving local
services, related to healthcare, education and
security under Priority 6B of RDP.
Complementarity: Not
described in OPRG,
09.09.2013.
Demarcation: The
complementarity with
RDP is described.
OPRG, 16.09.2013, contains a
description of the
complementarity between
OPRG and RDP.
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Programme (MAFP)
MAFP
Priority Axis 1: Promotion of sustainable fisheries and aquacultures including the related processing
entailing efficient use of resources
1.1 Promotion of the shift to maximum sustainable fishing, phasing out of discards; reduction of the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
74
impact of fishing on the marine environment and adjustment of fishing to species protection
1.2 Mitigation of the consequences of climate change
1.3 Services for environment and organic production
Priority Axis 2: Promotion of innovative, competitive and knowledge-based of fisheries and aquacultures,
including the related processing
2.1 Promotion of competitive fisheries
2.2. Promotion of competitive aquacultures
2.3 Granting of powers to producers and provision of better coordination along the value chain
Priority Axis 3: Promotion of the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy through the pursuit of
specific goals
3.1 Provision of high-quality data collection and analysis, respectively
3.2. Provision of efficient control, monitoring and law enforcement system
Priority Axis 4: Increasing of employment and territorial cohesion
4.1. Increasing growth, employment and territorial cohesion in the fisheries areas
4.2. Promotion of local and international cooperation
Priority Axis 5: Strengthening of the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy
5.1. Supporting integrated maritime surveillance
5.2. Promotion of the protection of the marine environment
The relation between OPRG and MAFP is presented at the chart below:
PMAF
OPRD
Sustainable and integrated urban development
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
State educational
infrastructure
2.1
Regional health
infrastructure
3.1
Regional social
infrastructure
4.1
Regional tourism
5.1
Regional road
infrastructure
6.1
Risk prevention
7.n
1.1 1.2 1.3 3.1 3.22.1 2.2 2.3 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2
Figure 9: Relation between OPRG and MAFP
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
75
Complementarity/ Demarcation Reflection in the text of
OPRG
Recommendation
The measures for energy efficiency and
promotion of the low-carbon strategies under
priorities 1.1. and 1.5 of OPRG in 67 priority
population centres are complemented by the
measures for introducing low carbon
technologies and solutions and increasing the
energy efficiency of the activities in the sectors of
fisheries and aquacultures, including fishing
vessels, ports, farms for aquacultures and
processing of fishery and aquaculture products
under Priority 1.2 of MAFP.
Complementarity: not
reflected
Demarcation: It is pointed
out that investment and
territorial overlapping
between OPRG and MAFP
is not envisaged.
To point out the
complementarity between
priorities 1.1 and 1.5 of
OPRG and Priority 1.2 of
MAFP regarding low-carbon
economy and energy
efficiency.
IV. Evaluation 2 – Assessment of the internal
consistency of the Program
The analysis of indicators in this section was updated in May 2014 in order to cover the
significant changes in the system of indicators.
1. Data collection
Evaluation 2 was carried out in parallel with Evaluation 1. For analysis purposes, it has used
the information obtained through the desk research described above and the online
questionnaire. The questionnaire includes questions targeted at the (potential) beneficiaries
as regards their capacity and views on the strategy of OPRG 2014-2020. The internal
consistency of the Program has also been discussed in interviews with experts of DG RDP.
This issue has been among the topics of the impending working groups and interviews.
2. Analysis
Overview of the needs identified in ORDP 2014-2020
The inclusion of the needs’ description is a basic element of each program as the objectives
are defined on the basis of the needs and consistency with regional, national, and European
documents. Under this form for OP development, item 2.1 should contain the following:
A description of the OP strategy regarding its contribution to achieving the objectives
of Europe 2020 Strategy and the achievement of economic, social and territorial
cohesion.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
76
Description of the relevant regional and, where appropriate, national development
needs, including the challenges identified in the specific recommendations of the
Council for the country (Art. 121 (2) and Art. 148 (4) TFEU)
Description of how OP will address these needs and challenges, and thus will
contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy, where appropriate, with reference to
existing national or regional strategies for convergence, corresponding to the Europe
2020 Strategy, including the National Reform Programme where applicable, and a
preliminary assessment.
Also, the Form indicates that the OP strategy should be in accordance with the General
Strategic Framework, the Partnership Agreement and the applicable elements of the views of
the Commission.
Within the program compliance has been fully described with respect to:
National Reform Programme 2012-2020;
National Development Programme Bulgaria 2020 (NPRB2020);
National Strategy for Regional Development 2012-2022;
The National Spatial Development Concept for the period 2013-2025, the (NSDC);
Territorial Agenda 2020 of EU;
Partnership Agreement.
Some of the descriptions are too exhaustive and could be shortened. In this regard, some
additional concrete proposals for cutting the text were sent to the Contracting Authority.
Specific comments/recommendations regarding OPRG 2014-2020 Table 1 are:
Separation of investment priorities, although they belong to the same thematic
purpose - thus greater clarity about the strategy of the program will be achieved and it
will be easier to meet the restrictions of the OP Form.
The quoted need to overcome the "low energy efficiency, which negatively affects
competitiveness" has no direct relation with the program measures as it refers to
industry, as quoted in NDPB 2020 "outdated machines used in enterprises." In this
sense, it should be pointed out another need that is relevant to OPRG strategy 2014-
2020 in terms of energy efficiency.
The table does not specify any needs regarding Investment Priority "Actions to
improve the urban environment, including regeneration of brownfield sites and
reduction of air pollution." The indicated compliance with Sub-priority 3.2.
“Promotion of cities and improvement of the integration of Bulgarian regions
nationally (NDP Bulgaria 2020) is general in nature, while the investment priority is
more specific.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
77
With respect to IP "Improvement of regional mobility through connecting secondary
and tertiary nodes to the infrastructure of the trans-European transport network" is
referred to as a specific need, but the need to improve the connections with the TEN-T
network was not mentioned.
The text of the program is to clarify how the 2014-2020 OPRG will address the needs
identified in the Table under Thematic Objective 9, for instance, how OPRG 2014-
2020 will address the identified insufficient economic activity of the population and
entrepreneurship. This also applies to the needs identified in the Table under
Thematic Objective 10, such as how OPRG 2014-2020 will help to reduce the number
of early school leavers.
Intervention logic
Comments on the intervention logic of all priority axes OPRG 2014-2020 are presented
below. The analysis examines in parallel the needs, planned activities, objectives, investment
priorities and thematic objectives, as well as the output and results’ indicators (general and
specific).
As pointed in the text of the OPRG 2014-2020, a horizontal element among the planned
activities is the obligation to include measures for improving energy efficiency in renovation
of buildings, funded under the Programme. In the analysis below, it is noted that for these
activities are not provided indicators. Given that they are concomitant, it is difficult and not
necessary to add indicators in the OPRG system of indicators because of the difficulty in
setting a target value. At the same time, the monitoring of the program and especially the
upcoming reports on environmental impacts, these activities should be reported with
indicators.
Priority Axis 1, Investment Priority 1.1
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA1, IP1.1 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
78
Figure 10: Logic of PA1, IP1.1
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
79
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and planned
activities
Strong There is a direct connection between the
planned activities and needs.
Planned activities and
Specific Objectives
Strong Planned activities will contribute to the
achievement of the Specific Objectives.
Improving of access for people with
disabilities is not directly related to energy
efficiency, but it is included as a
horizontal principle. In the context of
program implementation, the surveys on
energy efficiency and the activities on
constructive strengthening are closely
related to energy efficiency.
Putting into operation of installations for
the production of energy from renewable
energy sources will not contribute to the
specific objective, but will contribute to
achieving the investment priority. In this
sense, the scope of the specific objective
could be expanded.
Specific Objective and
Investment Priority/
Thematic Objective
Strong The specific objectives will contribute to
the implementation of the investment
priority.
Indicators of output/result
and
Planned activities /
Specific objectives
Strong/It should
be improved
For Specific objective 1 there are good
links between the activities – output
indicator - result indicator - specific
objective.
For Specific objective 2 there is a good
link between the activities and the output
indicator, but the result indicator has a
very large range and is only partly linked
to the activities, the output indicator, and
the specific purpose.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
80
Priority Axis 1, Investment Priority 1.2, Specific Objective 1: Improving the quality of the
urban environment
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA1, IP1.2, SO1 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
81
Figure 11: Logic of PA1, IP1.2, SO1
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
82
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and planned
activities
Should be
improved
As shown on the graph, there is a direct
connection for part of the activities
(restoration of recreational areas and
physical elements of urban environment).
The needs in terms of measures against
crime and controlled access systems in
pedestrian zones are not specified, but it is
assumed that they are part of the elements
of the urban environment.
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Strong Planned activities contribute to the
Specific Objective.
Specific Objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Should be
additionally
clarified
To avoid confusion, we recommend that
the text of the Programme give a brief
explanation as to the scope of the concepts
of urban environment / urban physical
environment.
Output/result Indicators
and
Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There is a clear link between the output
indicator and most activities. The result
indicator is linked to the output indicator
and the specific objective.
Priority Axis 1, Investment Priority 1.2, Specific Objective 2: Improving the economic
activity in the cities through regeneration of areas with potential for economic development
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA1, IP1.2, SO2 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
83
Figure 12: Logic of PA1, IP1.2, SO2
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
84
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and
Planned activities
Strong The connection between the identified
poor state of the economic zones and the
planned activities in industrial zones is
strong.
Planned activities and
Specific objectives
Strong/
Satisfactory
The connection between construction and
reconstruction activities and the Specific
Objective are clear.
The other activities may potentially have
an indirect effect.
Specific Objective and
Investment Priority/
Thematic Objective
Should be
clarified
The specific objective is changed in the
latest version of OPRG, 16.09.2013.
Output/result indicators
and
Planned activities /
Specific objective
Satisfactory Most activities under the SO are covered
by the indicator system.
Indicators for activities related to energy
efficiency, renewable energy and
improving access for people with
disabilities are not provided.
The result indicator is linked to the
specific objective, but the link between the
output and result indicators depend on
many external factors.
Priority Axis 1, Investment Priority 1.3
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA1, IP1.3 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
85
Figure 13: Logic of PA1, IP1.3
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
86
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong Clear connection between the indicated
needs and the planned activities (except
for the needs of people with disabilities,
which is defined as horizontal need)
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Strong The connection is clear.
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong Direct connection
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There are good links between the activities
– output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority Axis 1, Investment Priority 1.4
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA1, IP1.4is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
87
Figure 14: Logic of PA1, IP1.4
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
88
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the connection Comments/Explanations (if
necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Should be clarified As can be seen from the graph, in
the text of the OPRG 2014-2020,
are not presented clearly the needs
with respect to the provision of
social services
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Should be completed Most of the activities have a direct
connection with the Specific
Objective.
In OPRG, version from
09.09.2013, the activities with
respect to the following objectives
have not been described:
cultural infrastructure.
installations for the
production of energy from
renewable sources
energy efficiency audits
improve access for people
with disabilities
The activities are described in the
version of OPRG from
16.09.2013.
Specific objectives
and Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong The connection between the
Specific objectives and the
Investment Priority is direct.
Output/result
indicators and
Planned activities /
Specific objectives
Satisfactory For Specific objective 1 there are
good links between the activities –
output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
For Specific objective 2 there is a
good link between the activities
and the output indicator. There is
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
89
no hierarchical link between the
output and result indicators. There
is a direct link between the result
indicator and the specific
objective.
For Specific objective 3 there are
good links between the activities –
output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority Axis 1, Investment Priority 1.5
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA1, IP1.5 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
90
Figure 15: Logic of PA1, IP1.5
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
91
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong In the analysis for this investment priority
are included a number of needs that are
related to the planned activities. A short
statement on the sources of the analyses,
which have been used, could be provided.
(feasibility studies of cities- beneficiaries
for integrated urban transport in the
current programming period).
In the version of the Programme from
09.09.2013, the recommendation has
already been implemented.
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Should be
clarified
The specific objective is narrowed in
terms of content in the version of the
Programme of 13.05.2013. Therefore
many of the activities are not linked to the
specific objective and it should be
reformulated. Possible way of
reformulation is to link it more closely
with the investment priorities and in
particular the achievement of sustainable
urban mobility.
In the 09.09.2013 version of the
Programme, the specific objective is now
redefined.
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong The connection between the Specific
objective and the Investment Priority is
direct.
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There are good links between the activities
– output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority Axis 2
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA2 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
92
Figure 16: Logic of PA2
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
93
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong The needs analysis contains specific needs
in the education sector that are linked to
planned activities (with the exception of
the needs of people with disabilities, but
they are defined as horizontal).
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Strong The connection is clear, but as with PA1,
IP4, SO1, the achieving of a specific
objective is linked to many factors beyond
infrastructure.
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong Direct connection
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There are good links between the activities
– output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority Axis 3
The understanding of the assessment team of the connections between the elements of OPRG
strategy 2014-2020 under PA3 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
94
Figure 17: Logic of PA3
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
95
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong There is a clear connection between
indicated needs and planned activities
(with the exception of horizontal activities
- energy efficiency, renewable energy and
measures for people with disabilities).
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Strong Planned activities are expected to
contribute to the achievement of the
specific objective.
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong Direct connection
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Satisfactory There is a good link between the activities
and the output indicator. There is no
hierarchical link between the output and
result indicators. There is a direct link
between the result indicator and the
specific objective.
Priority Axis 4
The understanding of the assessment team for the connections between the elements of
OPRG strategy 2014-2020 under PA4 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
96
Figure 18: Logic of PA4
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
97
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong As a whole, planned activities comply
with the identified needs.
Planned activities and
Specific Objective Strong
All planned activities comply with the
specific objective
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong Direct connection (with regards to social
infrastructure)
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There are good links between the activities
– output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority Axis 5
The understanding of the assessment team for the connections between the elements of
OPRG strategy 2014-2020 under PA5 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
2014-2020 г.
98
Figure 19: Logic of PA5
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
99
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong The connection between the identified
needs and planned activities is direct.
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Strong Planned activities will directly contribute
to the identified specific objective (with
the exception of horizontal activities on
energy efficiency and renewable energy).
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong Direct link
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There are good links between the activities
– output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority Axis 6
The understanding of the assessment team for the connections between the elements of
OPRG strategy 2014-2020 under PA6 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
100
Figure 20: Logic of PA6
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
101
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong The connection between the identified
needs and planned activities is direct.
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Strong Planned activities will directly contribute
to the identified specific objectives (with
the exception of horizontal activities on
energy efficiency and renewable energy
measures provided for people with
disabilities).
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong/Should be
clarified The connection of the Specific Objective 1
with the Investment Priority is direct.
Specific objective 2 is not directly related
to the thematic objective, but it is rather
the result of the measures on conservation,
promotion and development of natural and
cultural heritage.
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There are good links between the activities
– output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority axis 7
The understanding of the assessment team for the connections between the elements of the
OPRG strategy 2014-2020 under PA7 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
102
Figure 21: Logic of PA7
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
103
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong Direct connection between needs and
planned activities.
Planned activities and
Specific Objective
Strong Direct connection
Specific objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
Strong Direct connection
Output/result indicators
and Planned activities /
Specific objective
Strong There are good links between the activities
– output indicator - result indicator -
specific objective.
Priority 8
There are no indicators under Priority axis 8 in the updated version of the OPRG 2014-2020.
The understanding of the assessment team for the connections between the elements of
OPRG strategy 2014-2020 under PA8 is presented in the graph below:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
104
Figure 22: Logic of PA8
The graph is also available at the following address:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5OBgJzwame-dnNsNmhxMkJ1YTA&usp=sharing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
105
The interconnection between the elements of the graph has been examined in the table below:
Connection Strength of the
connection
Comments/Explanations (if necessary)
Needs and Planned
activities
Strong Direct connection
Planned activities and
Specific Objectives
Strong Direct connection
Specific Objective and
Investment
Priority/Thematic
Objective
- -
Output and result
indicators and Planned
activities
- -
V. Evaluation 3 - Assessment of the horizontal
principles and objectives, included in the
Operational Program
1. Data collection
Evaluation 3 brought to light the way in which the horizontal principles and objectives have
been included in the text of the OPRG. The main documents taken into account in the
documentary analysis are:
OPRG 2014-2020
Draft of General Regulations
Guidelines of the EC for ex-ante evaluation
Moreover, this report has used data of the online questionnaire, the focus group with
beneficiaries and the focus group with representatives of the working group.
2. Analysis
According to Art. 48 of the proposed General Regulation (of November 2012) repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006, the ex-ante evaluations shall assess “the adequacy
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
106
of the planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and prevent
discrimination.” Art. 87 of the same Regulation specifies that each OP, except for those
concerning technical assistance, should include the following, depending on the discretion of
the Member State of the relevance of the horizontal principles to the content of the program:
1. „A description of specific actions for taking into account environmental protection
requirements, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster
resilience and risk prevention and management, in the selection of operations;
2. A description of the specific actions for promoting equal opportunities and
preventing any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation during the preparation, design and implementation
of the operational program, and in particular, in relation to access to funding, taking
into account the needs of the various target groups at risk of such discrimination, and
more specifically, the requirements for ensuring accessibility for disabled persons;
3. A description of its contribution to promoting equality between men and women
and, where appropriate, the arrangements to ensure the integration of gender
perspective at operational program and operation level.”
There is a description of the three main horizontal principles that are included in the specified
form of OP in OPRG 2014-2020
In terms of sustainable development, the program describes OPRG Compliance with the
guidelines for integration of the Environmental Policy (EP) and the Climate Change Policy
(CCP). As stated in the OP form, when some or all of the required information is included in
the Partnership Agreement, links to it may be provided. In this sense, the text of OPRG 2014-
2020, can make reference to "polluter pays" principle described in the Partnership Agreement.
Also, a short description (similar to that in PA, version 3.0, point 1.5) can be added regarding
the way that will ensure compliance with the principle of sustainable development in the
implementation of the program, namely:
• Assessment of OPRG projects (already mentioned in the text of the program);
• Monitoring on observing the horizontal principles;
• Role of the Monitoring Committee;
• Evaluation of the program.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
107
Figure 23: Questionnaire – applicable horizontal principles
According to 80% of the respondents in the online survey – representatives of the
beneficiaries and the working group, and according to 74% of the respondents -
representatives of MA of OPRG, it is the principle of sustainable development that is most
applicable to OPRG 2014-2020.
The program also includes a description of the measures to implement the principle of equal
opportunities and non-discrimination. Improving access for people with disabilities is one of
horizontal activities under the program and it is included in most priority/ sub-priorities of the
program. This fact is explicitly included in the text of the program itself. Accordingly, this
action is appropriate for including a horizontal indicator to measure performance at the
program level – e.g. "Percentage of facilities financed under OPRG 2014-20203, including
measures to improve access for people with disabilities" or "Provide physical access to public
buildings, housing, open spaces, etc. (number of adapted sites)4." Due to the new regulations
concerning indicators, the possibility of including this indicator should be further discussed.
As in sustainable development, the text of OPRG 2014-2020 should include more details
about the "measures for monitoring and evaluation to ensure subsequent implementation of
these principles, and how the results of monitoring and evaluation” (as per the OP Form)
should be taken into account.
In terms of equality between men and women, the program states that "all projects under
OPRG 2014-2020 will include a description of measures to promote gender equality and
prevent gender and other discrimination." As stated in the program, the potential contribution
of OPRG 2014-2020 could be expressed in interventions related to educational infrastructure
and technical support, but at the same time, it should be noted that OPRG is a program of
investment in infrastructure. Compliance with this principle in interventions for educational
infrastructure and technical support can be seen in a similar manner with the requirement of
4 Included in NDP B2020
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
108
MA to provide information on the number of created new jobs for men and women as a result
of the project implementation. These interventions may also require information on the
number of men and women who have been trained under PA7 of OPRG 2014-2020, and the
number of men and women in supported universities.
In describing the measures for monitoring and evaluation of the horizontal principles required
by the OP Form, the following conclusions/recommendations of the Interim Evaluation of
OPRD 2007-2013 should be considered in the development of the program:
Inclusion of the horizontal indicators in the MA Annual Report;
Paying special attention to the horizontal principles in the MA Annual Report.
As discussed in Evaluation 3, the inclusion of horizontal indicators in terms of energy
efficiency, renewable energy and improving access for people with disabilities should be
considered in the development of a form and actual completion of the annual reports of the
MA in the next programming period.
VI. Evaluation 4 – Assessment of the indicator
system
1. Data collection
The data collection methods used in Evaluation 4 are identical to those used in the other
activities. Data collection started with desk research of: the most recent guidelines of EC in
this field, the indicators currently applied, as well as the available official statistics relevant to
the establishment of indicator system for the next programming period. Besides the desk
research, interviews with experts of DG “RDP” which were carried out at the beginning of
the evaluation had major role, given the character of the issues to be solved by Evaluation 4.
As the evaluation of indicators advanced, focus groups with beneficiaries and representatives
of the working group were conducted in order to obtain their opinion on the indicators. The
online questionnaire also included basic questions on the indicator system.
This section was updated in May 2014 following a major revision of the indicators and of the
indicator fiches.
2. Analysis
The indicator system is among the main topics of the Mid-term evaluation of OPRD 2007-
2013 as well. The recommendation of the previous evaluation to decrease the number of
indicators has been to a great extent taken into account in the programming of the OPRG
2014-2020 indicators.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
109
The indicator system has been based on the already established European practices for
formulation of indicators on one hand, and the newest guidelines in this field, on the other
hand.
The formulated indicators follow a structure of two levels – output indicators and result
indicators. The output indicators are related to and measure the progress of the specific
interventions measure. As a whole, the result indicators are linked to the specific objectives.
The number of indicators included in the system under OPRG 2014-2020 meets the
recommendations for a limited number of indicators.
In accordance with the EC guidelines for the programming period 2014-2020 - Monitoring
and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy – ERDF and Cohesion Fund, Concepts and
Recommendations, March 2014:
Output indicators should describe the “physical” product of spending resources
through policy interventions. For common and programme-specific output indicators,
baselines should be set at zero
Results are specific dimensions of improvement of well-being of people and
consequently result indicators should describe a specific aspect of a result. Result
indicators should have baseline values.
As stated in the Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation for ERDF, CF, and ESF from
January 2013:
The values of result indicators should be influenced in as direct way as possible by the
actions funded under the priority axis.
ERDF result indicators should aim to measure a change in the situation of a Member
State, a region, an area, a sector, a population targeted by the programme, i.e. result
indicators should not be limited to the supported entities
The extent to which these requirements for the output/result indicators are followed in the
system of indicators in the draft of the OPRG 2014-2020 is commented in the tables below.
The analysis focuses on: pros/cons of using the indicators; links to the activities and specific
objectives; and methodological issues.
Priority Axis 1: Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development
Investment Priority 1 of Priority Axis 1: Supporting energy efficiency, smart energy
management and renewable energy use in public infrastructure, including in public
buildings, and in the housing sector
Specific objective 1: Raising energy efficiency in the housing sector
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
110
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.1.1 result
indicator
Reduction of final
energy consumption
from households in %
Pros: the indicator is measured and verified
by the NSI. It is in line with the activities, the
output indicator and the specific objective.
Cons: final energy consumptions from
households is linked with economic
prosperity – usually the higher the growth,
the higher the energy consumptions from
households. This is why this external factor
(economic prosperity or the lack of it) should
be taken into account in the future
evaluations of the programme. A potential
issue is that the unit cost is calculated on
envisaged budget and expected results, rather
than actual results, which is due to the lack of
other available data.
Other issues:
The baseline value is correctly taken from the
NSI database, but NSI has also data for 2012
and it is preferable to use the most recent
year.
The indicator represents a desired change
(reduction), but for greater clarity, it is
recommended to simplify it – “final energy
consumption from households”.
There is a mismatch between the specified
unit of measurement, which is toe and the
measurement unit of the target value (%).
The following issue in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
It seems the data for the 2007-2013
budget calculation is also coming
from scheme BG161PO001/1.2-
03/2011 (in the indicator fiches the
overall financial resources for 2007-
2013 are calculated as a sum of the
budgets of procedures
BG161PO001/1.2-01/2011 and
BG161PO001/1.2-03/2011, while the
description specifies only the first
procedure). If this is the case, the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
111
expected results for this scheme,
should also be added.
1.1.2
common
output
indicator
№ 31
Number of households
with improved energy
consumption
classification
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
A challenge that may lead to incorrect
assessment of the target value of the indicator
is that the unit cost is calculated on envisaged
budget and expected results, rather than
actual results, due to the lack of other data. It
is noteworthy that the expected results are
based on a pilot project of the UNDP.
Specific objective 2: Raising energy efficiency in public buildings
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.1.3 result
indicator
Reduction of final
energy consumption
from public
administration,
commerce and services
in %
Pros: follows the same logic as the result
indicator for Specific objective 1.
Cons: The indicator “Reduction of final
energy consumption from public
administration, commerce and services in %”
is much broader than the specific objective. It
also includes commerce and services, which
is not relevant for the activities, and the
specific objective. The rationale for this is
that through “expanding” the scope of the
indicator, the indicator would capture
changes that extend beyond the effects for the
beneficiaries. If this indicator is used, future
evaluations will have to take into account this
extended scope of the indicator.
Energy savings are used both for primary and
final consumption of energy, thus the result
and output indicators are similar.
Other issues:
The baseline value is correctly taken from the
NSI database, but NSI has also data for 2012
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
112
and it is preferable to use the most recent
year.
The indicator represents a desired change
(reduction), but for greater clarity, it is
recommended to simplify it – “final energy
consumption from public buildings”.
1.1.4
common
output
indicator
№ 32
Decrease of annual
primary energy
consumption of public
buildings
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
Due to the lack of data, the unit cost is
calculated on envisaged budget and expected
results. It is possible that the actual data are
different than the expected, which would lead
to incorrect definition of the target value of
the 2014-2020 indicator.
Priority Axis 1: Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development
Investment Priority 2 of Priority Axis 1: Taking action to improve the urban
environment, to revitalise cities, regenerate and decontaminate brownfield sites
(including conversion areas), reduce air pollution and promote noise-reduction
measures
Specific objective 1: Improving the quality of the urban environment
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.2.1 result
indicator
Increase in population
benefitting from an
improved urban
environment in % of
total population
Pros: the indicator is directly linked to the
activities, the specific objective, and the
output indicator. It provides information on
the scope of the intervention results.
Cons: Difficulties operationalizing the
indicator in terms of: added value of
improved urban environment and scope of
the population (directly, or indirectly
affected; cities, or regions).
Other issues:
Demographic statistics for 2013 are already
available from the NSI and it is preferable to
use them, which would slightly change the
target value.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
113
In the indicator fiches it should be clearly
specified that by population is meant
“inhabitants of the supported cities” and there
should be a definition (examples) of urban
environment in order to define the scope of
the indicator.
The following issues in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
The population of Veliko Tarnovo is a
0 (F189).
The benefiting population for Varna is
60 000, whereas for Kameno
municipality it is 46 286 although the
whole population of the municipality is
around 12 000.
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Population benefiting from improved
urban environment”.
1.2.2
common
output
indicator
№ 38
Open space created or
rehabilitated in urban
areas
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
The following issue in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
The value of Yambol’s project is too
big and it is an outlier - BG161PO001-
1.4.05-0036-C0002 (‘OPRD
Results’G201)
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
114
Specific objective 2: Improving investment activity in the cities through regeneration
of areas with potential for economic development
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.2.3 result
indicator
Increased expenditures
on acquisition of
tangible fixed assets in
%
Pros: the indicator is measured and verified
by the NSI. It is meant to capture the
expected increase in economic activity.
Cons: the indicator is dependent on too many
external factors that in case it is used, should
be taken into account in future evaluations.
Other issues:
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Expenditures on acquisition of tangible
fixed assets”.
The target value should be in the same
measurement unit as the baseline (Euro).
The following issue in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
The methodology says that “according to
the experience from the implementation
of JESSICA the invested OP funds are
about 30 % from the entire JESSICA
investments”, but it should be taken into
account that not all the funds lead to the
acquisition of tangible fixed assets.
1.2.4
common
output
indicator
№ 22
Total surface area of
rehabilitated land
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
The following issues in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
Are the results of grant schemes of
OPRD 2007-2013 BG161PO001/1.4-
02/2008 “Support for Improvement of
the Urban Environment” and
BG161PO001/1.4-05/2009 “Support for
Integrated and Sustainable Development
through Improvement of Urban
Environment” relevant in this case (e.g.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
115
for brownfields)?
The target value is based on rehabilitated
playgrounds and alleys in 2007-2013,
while in 2014-2020 it will cover
economic zones. The unit cost might
therefore be different. It is not clear if
the scope of the activities will be
sufficiently similar in order to allow the
use of these results in the
implementation of the programme in
2007-2013 for the definition of the target
value of the indicator in the next
programming period.
1.2.5
common
output
indicator
№ 39
Public or commercial
buildings built or
renovated in urban areas
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
The following issues in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
Are the achieved results of grant
scheme of OPRD 2007-2013 Scheme
BG161PO001/1.4-08/2010 “Joint
European Support for Sustainable
Investment in City Areas (JESSICA)”
relevant in this case?
The data is for actual results, or
expected results?
Priority Axis 1: Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development
Investment Priority 3 of Priority Axis 1: Investing in education, training and
vocational training for skills and lifelong learning by developing education and
training infrastructure
Specific objective: Improving conditions for modern educational services
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.3.1 result
indicator
Increase of the share of
modernized educational
institutions in %
Pros: the indicator is measurable and directly
linked to the activities and the specific
objective. It provides information on the
scope of the intervention results.
Cons: the output and result indicators are
very close in scope. Although, the indicator
would provide contextual information on the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
116
scope of the achieved results the result does
not show what the improved conditions will
bring. The difficulty with the result indicator
for this specific objective is that OPRG
provides infrastructure, but for example the
Europe 2020 targets of decreasing early
leavers from education and training depend
also on soft measures and policies.
Other issues:
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Share of modernized educational
institutions”.
There scope of “modernised” should be
defined in the indicator fiches.
The following issue in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
There are differences between target
values and unit costs in the fiches and
the text of the programme
1.3.2
common
output
indicator
№ 35
Capacity of supported
childcare or educational
infrastructure
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
The following issues in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
From the indicator fiches it is not
clear enough if for the calculations
were used the achieved results for
2013 and the absorbed funds.
The target value in the text of the
programme is higher than in the
indicator fiches.
Priority Axis 1: Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development
Investment priority 4 of priority axis 1: Investing in health and social infrastructure
which contributes to national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities in
terms of health status, promoting social inclusion through improved access to social,
cultural and recreational services and the transition from institutional to community-
based services
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
117
Specific objective 1: Improving the housing conditions for marginalised groups of the
population including the Roma
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.4.1 result
indicator
Increase of the
representatives from
marginalised groups,
including Roma, with
improved housing
conditions in %
Pros: the indicator is measurable and directly
linked to the activities, the specific objective,
and the output.
Cons: From the baseline it is clear that here
are meant only the marginalised groups with
improved housing conditions as a result of
OPRD. However, if data allows it, this
indicator would be even more meaningful, if
it captures the improvement of housing
conditions for all marginalised groups in
urban areas.
Other issues:
The measurement unit is in percentage and
the unit cost is in absolute numbers. Although
this approach shows the method of
calculation, the baseline and the target values
should be in the same measurement unit
(persons).
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Representatives from marginalised groups,
including Roma, with improved housing
conditions”.
From the indicator fiches it is not clear
enough if for the calculations were used the
achieved results and the absorbed funds.
1.4.2
common
output
indicator
№ 40
Rehabilitated housing in
urban areas
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
It should be specified in the indicator fiches,
if for the calculations were used the achieved
results and the absorbed funds
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
118
Specific objective 2: Improving conditions for modern social services
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.4.3 result
indicator
Increase in modernized
facilities for social
services as a share in
total number of social
institutions
Pros: the indicator is measurable and directly
linked to the activities and the specific
objective. It provides information on the
scope of the intervention results.
Other issues:
The difficulty of finding a result indicator for
the improvement of social services is also
manifest in the OPHRD programme. Result
indicators for OPHRD 2014-2020 (Priority
axis 2 – Decreasing poverty and social
inclusion) are:
Participants above 18 receiving social
and health services in the community
Children receiving social services in
the community
Participants above 65, unable to serve
themselves, with improved access to
services
In order to underlie the complementarity
between the two programmes, a similar result
indicator might be used also for OPRG, e.g.
population using social services. The logic
between these indicators and the indicators
for Priority axis 4 should be aligned, if
possible.
There is probably a technical mistake in the
calculations (in Excel). As it is, only a part of
the 2014-2020 budget is reduced by 10%.
1.4.4
specific
output
indicator
Population covered by
improved social services
Pros: The indicator is appropriate and it
follows the logic of the common indicator
“Population covered by improved health
services”.
Other issues:
The following issue in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
For Gabrovo municipality the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
119
population is 0 (F46).
There is probably a technical mistake
in the calculations. As it is, only a part
of the 2014-2020 budget is reduced
by 10%.
Specific objective 3: Improving the conditions for sports for all and cultural life in
cities
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.4.5 result
indicator
Increase of the share of
modernized cultural/
sport objects
Pros: The indicator is measurable and
directly linked to the activities and the
specific objective, which is to improve the
conditions (having in mind the infrastructure
character of the programme). It provides
information on the scope of the intervention
results.
Cons: Although it shows the outcomes of the
programme activities in relation with the
overall conditions of cultural and sport
facilities in the country, this indicator is
another measurement for the achieved output.
Other issues:
If this indicator is used, it should be
reformulated to “Share of modernized
cultural/sport objects”. Thus, the target value
would not be 560,8%, because this is above
100%.
There is probably a technical mistake in the
calculations. As it is, only a part of the 2014-
2020 budget is reduced by 10%.
1.4.6
specific
output
indicator
Number of promoted
objects of sport and
cultural infrastructure
Pros: The indicator is directly linked to the
activities.
Cons: the scope of “promoted” is unclear
(could be modernized).
Other issues:
It is better to use “sites” or “facilities” rather
than “objects”.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
120
The following issue in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
if for the determining of the unit cost
were combined sport and cultural
infrastructure
if for the calculations were used the
achieved results and the absorbed
funds
The common indicator - “Increase in
expected number of visits to supported sites
of cultural and natural heritage and
attractions” is not completely relevant,
because it does not include sport
infrastructure. Besides, the common indicator
would not capture the visits of mass sports
facilities.
There is probably a technical mistake in the
calculations. As it is, only a part of the 2014-
2020 budget is reduced by 10%.
Priority Axis 1: Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development
Investment Priority 5 of Priority Axis 1: Promoting low-carbon strategies for all types
of territories, in particular for urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable
multimodal urban mobility and mitigation-relevant adaptation measures
Specific objective: Improving the urban mobility
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
1.5.1 result
indicator
Increase of the travels
with public urban
transport
Pros: the indicator is linked with the output
indicator and the activities. It captures the
intended effect.
Cons: no baseline value is included.
1.5.2
specific
output
indicator
Total length of
supported urban
transport lines
Pros: the indicator is linked with the
activities and follows the logic of the
common urban transport indicator “Total
length of new or improved tram and metro
lines”.
Cons: no data is included on the values of the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
121
indicator
Other issues:
The indicator could be reformulated to
“improved” instead of “supported”.
Priority Axis 2: Regional Education Infrastructure
Investment Priority 1 of Priority Axis 2: Investing in education, training and
vocational training for skills and lifelong learning by developing education and
training infrastructure
Specific objective 1: Creating conditions for modern education services
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
2.1 result
indicator
Increase in the
modernized regional
educational institutions
as a share of total
number of educational
institutions
See the comments for indicator 1.3.1.
Other issues:
The target value seems unrealistic.
The difference between regional educational
institutions and the ones that will be
supported under PA1 is not clear in the
methodology for the calculation of indicators.
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Share of modernized regional educational
institutions”.
There scope of “modernised” should be
defined.
2.2
common
output
indicator
№ 35
Capacity of supported
childcare or education
infrastructure
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
The following issues in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
Are these the achieved results for
2013?
How is the number of persons in the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
122
educational infrastructure determined
– capacity of the institutions, or actual
number of students?
Only the indicators of
BG161PO001/1.1-07/2009 are taken
into account whereas the budget for
the calculations includes also 2 other
schemes.
There are differences between target
values and unit costs in the indicator
fiches and the OP.
Priority Axis 3: Regional Health Infrastructure
Investment Priority 1 of Priority Axis 3: Investing in health and social infrastructure
which contributes to national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities in
terms of health status, promoting social inclusion through improved access to social,
cultural and recreational services and the transition from institutional to community-
based services
Specific objective: Improving the conditions for modern healthcare services
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
3.1 result
indicator
Increased share of
modernized healthcare
establishments
Pros: the indicator is measurable and directly
linked to the activities and the specific
objective.
Cons: the output and result indicators are
very close in scope. The difficulty with the
result indicator for this specific objective is
that OPRG provides infrastructure, but for
example the increase in the health status of
the population depends on the overall health
policy in the country.
Other issues:
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Share of modernized healthcare
establishments”.
The indicator fiches do not include this
indicator.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
123
3.2
common
output
indicator
№ 36
Population covered by
improved health
services
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Cons: The unit cost is based on just one
project, but it seems there is no other relevant
available data.
Other issues:
Although it is a common indicator, there are
difficulties operationalizing it. It is
recommended that the indicator fiches
describe what is meant by “population
covered” and “improved health services”.
Priority Axis 4: Regional Social Infrastructure
Investment Priority 1 of Priority Axis 4: Investing in health and social infrastructure
which contributes to national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities in
terms of health status, promoting social inclusion through improved access to social,
cultural and recreational services and the transition from institutional to community-
based services
Specific objective: Deinstitutionalization of social services
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
4.1 result
indicator
Decrease of the people
in institutional social
care in %
Pros: The indicator captures the intended
effect and is in line with the specific
objective.
Cons: The achieving of the target value also
depends on the OPHRD programme and the
overall national policy for
deinstitutionalisation.
Other issues:
The indicator represents a desired change
(decrease), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “People in institutional social care”.
There is a different logic (in this draft of the
indicators) between Specific objective 2:
Improving conditions for modern social
services (of Priority axis 1) and Specific
objective: Deinstitutionalization of social
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
124
services (Priority axis 4).
Indicator measurement unit is number and the
target value is set in percent.
4.2
specific
output
indicator
Number of supported
facilities of social
infrastructure in the
process of
deinstitutionalization
Pros: The indicator is directly linked to the
activities and represents the outputs that are
expected to be achieved.
Cons: the indicator does not follow the logic
of the common indicators. For the social
infrastructure an indicator, following that
logic would be: “Capacity of supported social
infrastructure”.
Other issues:
It is better to use “facilities” rather than
“objects” in the measurement unit.
Priority Axis 5: Regional Tourism
Investment Priority 1 of Priority Axis 5: Conserving, protecting, promoting and
developing natural and cultural heritage
Specific objective 1: Increasing the tourist offer of cultural monuments of national and
world significance
Specific objective 2: Promoting the local economic potential and new forms of
employment in the regions
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
5.1 result
indicator
Increase of the net
annual revenues from
international tourism
Pros: the indicator is relevant to the intended
effects.
Cons: There is a discrepancy between the
formulation of the NSI indicator (internal
tourism consumption) and the OPRG
indicator.
The indicator’s measurement unit is mln.euro,
which makes the baseline value too big.
Increasing the value of the indicator with
0,12% is a rather insignificant effect.
Other issues:
The indicator represents a desired change
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
125
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Net annual revenues from international
tourism”.
The unit cost is calculated on the basis of just
2 projects. Thus, it is actually not
recommended to use unit costs for
determining the target values of this indicator,
because there is not enough data.
Furthermore, the description in the
methodology - “Net annual revenues from
international tourism under OPRD 2007-2013
are 90 754 euro with invested funds 2 355
714 euro” shows inefficiency.
The measurement unit should be changed to
percent.
5.2
common
output
indicator
№ 9
Increase in expected
number of visits to
supported sites of
cultural and natural
heritage and attractions
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator
Other issues:
The following issues in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
There is no description of the used
data for determination of the target
value.
Why is BG161PO001/3.1-02/2009 not
included?
Are these results already achieved, or
they are expected?
Why is the target value divided by 7?
There are inconsistencies in the
calculation methodology in terms of
budget and target value
Priority Axis 6: Regional Road Infrastructure
Investment Priority 1 of Priority Axis 6: Enhancing regional mobility by connecting
secondary and tertiary nodes to TEN-T infrastructure, including multimodal nodes
Specific objective: Improving connectivity and accessibility of the network of cities
and sites of cultural and natural heritage with the TEN-T network
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
126
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
6.1
result
indicator
Increased passenger and
freight flow
Pros: the indicator is relevant to the intended
effects and is aligned with the specific
objective
Cons: there is a discrepancy between the
measurement unit (thousands of tons) and the
indicator, which includes passengers. This is
due to the discrepancy between the NSI
indicator ("Goods carried by type of journeys
and type of carriage") and the formulation of
the indicator.
Other issues:
The calculation is not based on 2007-2013
results.
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Passenger and freight flow”.
The target value and the baseline should be in
the same measurement unit.
It should be clarified, if the source of data
will be the NSI, or the Road Infrastructure
Agency.
6.2
common
output
indicator
№ 14
Total length of
reconstructed or
upgraded roads
Total length of
reconstructed or
upgraded 1st and 2nd
class roads
Pros: use of a relevant common output
indicator. The division between the indicators
specifies the length of the different road
classes.
Other issues:
The indicator “Total length of reconstructed
or upgraded roads” should provide
information on the cumulative length of the
reconstructed or upgraded roads, including 1st
and 2nd class.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
127
Priority Axis 7: Risk Prevention
Investment Priority 1 of Priority Axis 7: Promoting investment to address specific
risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems
Specific objective: Preventing the risk of landslides
I.D. Type Indicator Comment
7.1 result
indicator
Increased share of the
population not at risk of
landslides
Pros: the indicator is in line with the
activities, the output indicator, and the
specific objective. It provides information on
the scope of the intervention results.
Other issues:
It should be clarified what is meant by “The
population expected to be covered in the
period 2014-2020” in the description of the
methodology.
The indicator represents a desired change
(increase), but for greater clarity, in case it
will be used, it is recommended to simplify it
– “Share of the population not at risk of
landslides (or population not at risk of
landslides)”.
The target value and the baseline should be in
the same measurement unit.
The NSI already provides demographic
statistics for 2013, which should be used in
the calculations.
7.2
specific
output
indicator
Reinforced landslide
area
Pros: the indicator is in line with the
activities and is within the control of the
programme managers
Cons: the indicator does not follow the logic
of the common output indicators on Risk
prevention and management (e.g. Population
benefiting from flood protection measures).
Other issues:
The following issues in the indicator fiches
should be clarified:
No data for Madan municipality
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
128
The data for Velingrad is inconsistent.
Sources of data
Output indicators are based primarily on UMIS and the statistics generated in the operating
records of the beneficiaries under OPRG. Therefore, in preparing UMIS for the new
programming period, extension of its scope must be embodied and mandatory precision and
specifics regarding information on the physical progress should be provided. Thus an
adequate, effective and efficient way to use modern information technology for reporting the
physical progress and impact of the MA will be provided. Although the preparation of UMIS
for the new programming period is beyond the powers of MA of OPRG, we recommend to
pay attention to this information needs of the competent authorities in case an opinion on this
issue by MA is requested.
The territorial scope of the existing indicators is essential for future evaluations, especially
regarding the integrated urban development. NSI currently publishes a very limited number of
indicators at local and district level. Therefore, the team of the Contractor together with
representatives of the Contracting Authority held a series of consultations with NSI and four
focus groups with representatives of TWG and the beneficiaries for identifying the options for
providing statistical information at district, municipality and urban area level. Thus, a
preliminary analysis was carried out as to what extent difficulties might arise in the
measurement of the program achievements proving the effectiveness of one or another project
in a specific impact area.
In general, NSI can present demographic information for measuring the achieved results
within the Program implementation. Thus a considerable part of the necessary information on
result indicators will be provided. In terms of future impact assessment, it has been
established that policies set in the Program will contribute not only to long-term effects on the
social and economic development of the specific areas of impact, but to the overall
development of the city, municipality or neighbouring municipalities.
Regarding the indicators (both output and result) to be generated by the UMIS version that
should be developed for the purposes of the new programming period, they should
automatically report the progress and allow at the same time the implementation of impact
assessment at all times at a relatively much lower cost and much higher quality (compared to
the data collection cost and data quality obtained through ad-hoc surveys). Therefore, the
Contractor team recommends that the Contracting Authority requires mandatory integration
of the physical progress indicators in UMIS in a form that allows automatic aggregation and
reporting.
In addition, it should be noted that the inclusion of the physical indicators in UMIS at project
and beneficiary level that can be automatically aggregated, will allow for a possible future
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
129
microeconometric modelling and counterfactual analysis of the net impact (in the case that
such a need occurs) 5.
In conclusion, it should be noted that a need for macroeconometric modelling of net long-term
impact of OPRG may arise in the future. In order to serve for assessment of the long-term
impact, the indicators should be included in a specific macroeconomic model (e.g.
SIBILA). Each project under the program and accordingly, each procedure should provide
sufficiently comprehensive information on which of the components of the aggregate demand
it is particularly focused on. This information can be provided by including indicators of
physical progress in the new UMIS system. Indicators must contain additional information
that complies with the technical features of macroeconomic models (as regards their focus on
the individual components of the aggregate demand and individual factors within the
macroeconomic production function), and the very models should take into account (insofar
as it is possible) the set indicators. Since the scope of these components is limited, it should be
possible to explicitly indicate which of the following elements will be promoted by OPRG:
o Production facilities/ physical capital;
o Infrastructure – road, water and sewage, etc.
o Human capital – training, education, health, sports, culture, etc.
o Employment
o Technologies – ICT, R&D, etc
Indicator fiches
Based on all the findings above, as well as on previous experience in programming and
reporting of indicators for the period 2007-2013 it can be recommended to the MA of OPRG
to develop specific indicator fiches. This need is also found in the Mid-term Evaluation of
OPRD 2007-2013 and is illustrated by the results from the online survey within the
assessment. As can be seen from the Figure below, 21% of the experts of the beneficiaries
5During the next programming period, EC will significantly strengthen the role and place of the counterfactual
analysis in measuring the result of the Program implementation. The realization of quality and adequate
assessment by counterfactual analysis requires alignement of the indicators to the requirements of this method,
namely:
1. Clear distinction of the target group which shall be impacted through the instruments of the
operational program that is provided in the programming and refining of the interventions;
2. On this basis, it will be possible already at this stage of programming to identify “treated” and
“control” group with a view to implement in the future comparative statistical analysis based on the
counterfactual analysis methods.
3. Defining a data collection method for the purposes of counterfactual analysis and/or a data source -
ad-hoc research or reference from administrative registers (according to the guidelines of EC).
4. Defining of indicators that will be compared in both treated and control groups, and these are the
already formulated result indicators or equivalent indicators at beneficiary level (representative of
the treated group) and at potential beneficiary level (representative of the control group, that has
been a potential beneficiary under the Program)
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
130
declare that sometimes they have difficulties in the accounting of indicators, while 44% of the
MA staff declare that they often face problems in reporting the indicators.
11% I do not face difficulties
17% Rarely
21% Sometimes
5% Often
46% N/A
17% I do not face difficulties
11% Rarely
17% Sometimes
44% Often
11% N/A
Figure 24: Online questionnaire – difficulties of indicators
The structure of the indicator fiches should include the following components:
names of indicators
number
definition and description
baseline and target value
calculation methods
data sources
unit costs information (if applicable to the indicator)
staff responsible for maintaining the indicator fiches
Following discussions between the evaluation team and the client, drafts of indicator fiches
have already been developed by the MRD. Their content was taken into account in the
analysis of the indicators provided in this section.
Overall conclusions on the indicators
The indicator system of OPRG includes the relevant common output indicators listed in
Regulation 1301/2013. In some cases where there are no relevant output indicators, the draft
of the OPRG 2014-2020 includes output indicators, which follow closely the common
indicators’ logic – “Population covered by improved social services” and “Total length of
supported urban transport lines”. As a whole, it may be concluded that all output indicators
are relevant to the activities and provide good measurement for their direct products. The
baselines of the outputs are set to 0.
As mentioned, result indicators have to fulfil at the same time two conditions - they need to
be directly attributable to the programme and they should not be limited to the supported
entities. One of the main specificities of the OPRG is that it is an infrastructure programme.
Hence the meaningful and tangible results, e.g. in the health, social, and education spheres,
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
131
will be achieved only through further soft measures and national/regional policies. OPRG will
provide the necessary infrastructure for the expected results, but the results themselves will
depend also on many other external factors and policies. For example, the difficulty with the
result indicator for the health infrastructure is that OPRG will provide infrastructure, but the
increase in the health status of the population depends on the overall health policy in the
country and on other external factors like aging. The difficulties in identifying indicators that
have as direct as possible influence on effects that extend beyond the supported entities are
commented for each indicator in the above analysis. It is clear from the analysis that in the
identification of result indicators for each specific objective in most cases there should be a
choice of different compromises between “direct attribution” and “overall influence”.
All result indicators have baseline values (except “Increase of the travels with public urban
transport”). However, in some cases the baselines and the target values are not in the same
measurement unit, e.g. the baseline is in absolute numbers, whereas the target value is in
percentage. This is largely due to the fact that the result indicators are formulated in line with
the expected positive outcomes, e.g. “increase of”. Yet, the values of these indicators might
increase, or decrease depending on external factors. In order not to report negative values in
cases where instead of increase there is a decrease in a certain indicator, it is recommended to
reformulate the indicators and delete “increase / decrease” in the formulation.
The programmers have developed a methodology (indicator fiches) for estimation of the
baselines and the target values, which is very helpful and increases the transparency of the
calculation methods. For most indicators there are still some issues, commented in the
analysis, that need to be clarified in the fiches. In some cases the unit costs are calculated on
the basis of envisaged budget and expected results, rather than actual results. Since at the
moment of indicator development for the OPRG 2014-2020 the implementation of a large
number of the projects have not been finalised, in many cases this is the only possible
approach.
It is worth mentioning that the system of indicators is aiming at using as much as possible
official NSI data, which is beneficial in terms of methodological clarity and transparency. In
some cases, identified in this section, the latest available data from the NSI was not used, so it
is recommended to re-calculate some baselines and unit costs. In two cases there is a
discrepancy between the formulation of the NSI indicator and the OPRG indicator: “Increase
of the net annual revenues from international tourism” and “Increased passenger and freight
flow”.
Calculating unit costs is a very useful approach for the definition of target values. Overall this
is the approach followed in the indicator fiches of the OPRG. However, inflation also needs to
be taken into account in the calculation of the target values. Possibly, this is why the target
values for 2014-2020 have been reduced by 10%.
On the basis of the above analysis of the indicators, the evaluators recommend review of the
following result indicators:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
132
Reduction of final energy consumption from public administration, commerce and
services – due to the relatively low expected influence of the OPRG on this indicator.
It is suggested, if feasible, to ask NSI for data on the final energy consumption from
public administration
Increase of the net annual revenues from international tourism – due to the
discrepancy between the NSI and OPRG formulation. Another source of data for this
indicator is the Bulgarian national bank (Balance of payments, income from travel).
Increased passenger and freight flow – due to the discrepancy between the NSI and
OPRG formulation
VII. Evaluation 5 – Assessment of the Program’s
budget
1. Data collection
The main objective of Evaluation 5 is to analyze whether the budget allocation of OPRG
2014-2020 meets the general objectives of the program. According to the Guidelines of the
European Commission on carrying out ex-ante evaluations for the period 2014-2020, the
analysis of allocation of financial resources should assess whether allocated resources are
focused on the most important identified goals:
1. in accordance with the requirements for concentration of resources for specific
priorities identified in the European (and national) law.
2. in accordance with the outlined challenges and needs.
Also, in a purely formal aspect, it should be checked whether the information required
under the General Regulation on ESIF regarding the financial plan of the program is set
throughout the program document.
In order to assess the budget of OPRG 2014-2020, this chapter describes the results of the
following activities performed:
Overview of the financial framework set in the programming document of OPRG
2014-2020
o Structure of the financial framework for investment priorities;
o Allocation of funds according to the form of funding, beneficiaries, territorial
aspect and thematic objectives.
Benchmarking against financial allocation and implementation of OPRG in the current
programming period, taking into account the change in the program scope.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
133
Analysis of the results of the online survey and focus groups with beneficiaries,
representatives of the working group for OPRG 2014-2020 and MA for the allocation
of financial resources of OPRG 2014-2020,
Analysis of the extent of consistency of the financial allocation under OPRG 2014-
2020 to the requirements of European regulations.
o Degree of compliance with the formal requirements in the description of the
financial framework in the program document and co-financing;
o Consistency and validity of the allocation of budgetary resources to satisfy the
thematic concentration in European regulations.
Compliance of the financial allocation under OPRG 2014-2020 with the objectives
and priorities set in the major national strategic documents.
2. Analysis
Financial Framework of Operational Program “Regions in Development” 2014-2020
The current version of OPRG 2014-2020 presents the financial allocation, which is clearly
and well justified both in terms of national goals and priorities, and in terms of compliance
with the relevant EU legislation.
As a whole, the financial justification of the current version of OPRG 2014-2020, is
presented in accordance with the requirements regarding the content and format of the
financial statement of the guidelines for the development of operational programs in the new
programming period. It is written by thematic objectives, the information in it is presented in
percentages and qualitative indicators and it is concise and concentrated (although a little
longer regarding the number of characters according to the requirements of EC).
The Financial justification contains relevant links to major European and international
documents and provides information on the ability to attract investments that are not financed
by ESIF or the national co-financing. In the case of OPRG 2014-2020, they are limited to the
ability to attract private capital through the use of financial instruments.
From the point of view of contents, the financial statement gives a good synthesized
presentation of the main socio-economic challenges and needs in the thematic areas where
measures will be implemented to support OPRG 2014-2020.
For the purposes of this ex-ante evaluation, the team of evaluators examined the more detailed
financial statement of OPRG 2014-2020, which was presented and discussed by the thematic
working group. It gives a complete picture of projected financial allocation of the funds under
the program in various breakdowns, taking into account the correct conditions and limitations
in relation to the relevant European and national documents and the socio-economic
conditions in which the program will be implemented.
In this more detailed statement the major assumptions in the working out of the financial
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
134
framework of the program are outlined, the relevant conclusions of the mid-term evaluation of
OPRD 2007-2013, as well as the experience of the current programming period, the degree of
project readiness, the requirements of the draft European regulations, the logic OPRG
intervention, assessment of applicability of prior contingencies and risks of non-compliance,
the rationale of the financial allocation as per thematic objectives and priority axes, according
to the form of financing and in territorial aspect, and as per beneficiaries and compliance with
funding set in other strategic documents.
Structure of the financial framework as per investment priorities
For achieving the objectives of OPRG 2014-2020, 1 170 270 000 Euros of EU funding (or €
1,376,788,235 total funding) is provided in the current version of the program. Given that all
measures under OPRG are focused on underdeveloped regions as per the definition of EU, the
share of EU co-financing is set at 85%. The majority of these funds (62%) are intended for
urban development based on Integrated plans for urban reconstruction and development.
The amount of funds allocated to Priority 1 meets the identification of cities as key drivers of
growth and regional development (including the update of 2012 National Reform Program).
Also, this distribution corresponds to the European approach, set out in the Europe 2020
Strategy for focused support of EU funds.
The measures to improve energy efficiency in administrative and residential buildings have
the largest share of urban finance, equal to about 20% of the total budget of OPRG 2014-
2020. This priority is directly related to the requirements set at EU level for priority financing
of activities under Thematic Objective 4 "Transition to a low carbon economy," as well as to
Specific Recommendation 7 of the Council on Energy Efficiency.
Substantial funds (about 17% of the total budget of OPRG 2014-2020) are also provided to
improve urban environment in compliance with the common European goals set in the EU
Territorial order. Based on the experience of the current programming period, this type of
investments accounts a good performance and is considered to have an integrating role that
allows the realization of the sectoral policies at territorial level. Although investments in
urban areas are not directly related to economic growth and the achievement of long-term
employment, the implementation of activities to improve the urban environment should have
a significant effect on the improvement of living conditions in cities, which, in turn, will
contribute to increase economic activity in them.
A significant amount is also provided for regional road infrastructure, although in the next
programming period less money on this investment priority are set. The current financial plan
of the program (in Euros) is presented below
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
135
Priority/Investment Priority/
Intervention Area
Program
Document
2014-2020 (EU
funding)
%
Budget
OPRG
2014-20
Form of Financing Territory Thematic Objective
Grant Aid
Financial Tools
(without risk and
share capital)
Financial
Tools, with
risk and
share capital
Code Name Code Name
Priority Axis 1. "Sustainable
and integrated urban
development" 724 397 130 62% 566 605 725 148 273 209 9 518 196
1.1. Supporting energy efficiency,
smart energy management and
renewable energy use in public
infrastructures, including in public
buildings, and in the housing
sector
234 054 000 20% 187 243 200 46 810 800 0 01 Urban 04
Support for the shift towards low-
carbon economy
Energy efficiency in the
renovation of public infrastructure
78 018 000 7%
Energy efficiency in the
renovation of the existing housing
stock
156 036 000 13%
1.2 Acting to improve the urban
environment, to revitalise cities,
regenerate and decontaminate
brownfield sites (including
conversion areas), reduce air
pollution and promote noise-
reduction measures 198 945 900 17% 168 128 790 27 735 399 3 081 711 01 Urban 06
Environmental protection and
promotion of resource efficiency
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
136
Integrated schemes for urban
development 152 135 100 13%
Business infrastructure
(including industrial parks and
playgrounds) 15 603 600 1%
Rehabilitation of industrial
sites and contaminated land) 31 207 200 3%
1.3 Investing in education,
training, including vocational
training for skills and lifelong
learning by developing education
and training infrastructure 54 066 474 5% 54 066 474 01 Urban 10
Investments in education, skills and
lifelong learning
1.4 Investing in health and social
infrastructure which contribute to
national, regional and local
development, reducing inequalities
in terms of health status,
promoting social inclusion through
improved access to social, cultural
and recreational services and the
transition from institutional to
community-based services 132 006 456 11% 67 641 606 57 928 365.00 6 436 485 01 Urban 09
Promoting social inclusion and
combating property
Housing infrastructure 19 192 428 2%
Another social infrastructure
conducive to regional and local
development 112 814 028 10%
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
137
1.5. Promoting low-carbon
strategies for all types of
territories, in particular for urban
areas, including the promotion of
sustainable multi-modal urban
mobility and mitigation relevant
adaptation measures 105 324 300 9% 89 525 655 15 798 645 0 01 Urban 04
Supporting the shift towards a low carbon
economy
Clean urban transport
infrastructure and promotion 73 727 010 6%
Intelligent transport systems
(including the introduction of
demand management and tolling) 31 597 290 3%
Priority Axis 2. State education
infrastructure 54 066 474 5% 54 066 474 01 Urban 10
Investments in education, skills and
lifelong learning
Investment in education by
developing education
infrastructure 54 066 474 5% 54 066 474 01
Urban
10
Investments in education, skills and
lifelong learning
Education infrastructure
(higher, vocational and adult
education) 18 022 158 2%
Education infrastructure
(primary, secondary) 36 044 316 3%
Priority Axis 3. Regional Health
Infrastructure 46 810 800 4% 46 810 800 01
Urban 09 Promoting social inclusion and
combating poverty
Health infrastructure 46 810 800 4% 46 810 800 01
Urban
09
Promoting social inclusion and
combating poverty
Priority Axis 4. Regional social
infrastructure 35 108 100 3% 35 108 100 01
Urban 09 Promoting social inclusion and
combating poverty
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
138
Other social infrastructure contributing
to regional and local development 35 108 100 3% 35 108 100 01
Urban
09
Promoting social inclusion and
combating poverty
Priority Axis 5. Regional tourism 105 324 300 9% 52 662 150 47 395 935 5 266 215 01 Urban
06 Environmental protection and
promotion of resource efficiency Development and promotion of public
tourism and services for the cultural and natural heritage. 105 324 300 9% 52 662 150 47 395 935 5 266 215 01
Urban
06 Environmental protection and
promotion of resource efficiency
Priority Axis 6. Regional Road
infrastructure 143 241 048 12% 143 241 048 01 Urban 07
Promotion of sustainable transport
Enhancing regional mobility by
connecting secondary and tertiary
nodes to the infrastructure of the
trans-European transport network 143 241 048 12% 143 241 048 01 Urban 07
Promotion of sustainable transport
Secondary roads to the TEN-T
network and nodes 71 620 524 6%
Other national and regional roads 71 620 524 6%
Priority Axis 7. Risk prevention 14 511 348 1% 14 511 348 01 Urban 05
Promoting adaptation to climate
change, prevention and risk
management
Adapting to climate change and
prevention of natural risks 14 511 348 1% 14 511 348
Priority Axis 8. Technical assistance 46 810 800 4% 46 810 800 - n/a -
TOTAL 1 170 270 000 100% 959 816 445 195 669 144 14 784 411
Source: Operational Program Regions in Growth 2014-2020 г. (September 2013 Project)
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
139
(c) Allocation of the funds under OPRG 2014-2020 according to the form of financing
Extending the use of innovative financial instruments within the new programming period
2014-2020 aims at activating additional resources for the implementation of priority actions in
the context of economic crisis. However, this form of public-private partnership should lead
to increased efficiency, effectiveness and management of the funds invested. In particular, the
Fifth Cohesion Report of the European Commission highlights the possibility of extending the
use of financial engineering for sustainable urban transport, innovation, local development,
environment, etc. Last but not least, the possibility to use repeatedly public funds through
financial instruments for the implementation of various projects should be mentioned.
The measures including possibilities of using financial instruments should be directed to
projects with potential economic benefits and they can be granted in the form of loans,
guarantees, equity and other risk bearing options. Regarding the choice of the particular form
of financing, the areas of intervention where it will apply, and the way of completing this type
of financing with other forms of financing, Member States are free to determine any flexible
solutions according to the specific cases. In general, three types of financial instruments can
be applied: (1) joint financial instruments - established at a general European level and
managed centrally by EC, (2) pre-defined tools (off-the-shelf), and (3) tools addressed to
specific needs (tailored). The latter two instruments should be managed by the respective
Member States.
The figure below shows the general logic for specifying the way of financing at a project
level. Financial instruments are applicable in cases where there is a potential for generating
revenue. If the project is economically viable, it should be financed entirely with private
funds. However, when it is not economically viable and is associated with high risk, but it still
generates income, financial instruments can be used to make social priority projects beneficial
for implementation by the private sector.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
140
Figure 25: Mechanism for defining the type of financing
Source: http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1177/Use_of_financial_instruments_-_the_way_forward_in_the_2014-2020_EU_MFF.pdf
Given the foregoing general parameters of the use of financial instruments, when choosing the
way of financing the interventions under OPRG 2014-2020 the following factors should be
taken into account:
Within the next programming period it is planned to extend the use of financial instruments
The possibility to increase the maximum rate of EU co-financing by 10 percentage points
when there is a separate priority axis that is fully realized through financial instruments, or
through community-led local development, represents an additional incentive for the use of
financial instruments. This possibility, however, is not relevant to the current version of
OPRG, since there are no separate axes based only on funding with financial instruments, or
those based on community-led development.
The possibility of forming a separate priority axis with co-financing up to 100% if it supports
activities implemented through the financial instruments created at EU level and managed
directly or indirectly by the EC, is irrelevant for OPRG.
The decision to use financial instruments for each investment period should be based on a
thorough assessment
IP
proprproproИнвестицио
нен проект
Negative economic rate of
return
Positive economic rate of
return
Negative internal
rate of return
Positive internal
rate of return
(Internal RR)
High risk/
No potential for
revenue
generation
Average risk/
Poor potential
for revenue
generation
High risk/
Average potential
for revenue
generation
Low
IRR
RRRRа
ВътрНВ
High
IRR
ВътрНВ
Lack of public
intervention
Grant aid Financial instruments Private
investments
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
141
o the typology of the projects - the respective activities need to generate revenue,
but they should not be economically viable and should be associated with high
risk;
o potential interest in using this type of financing by the private sector.
Within OPRG 2014-2020 the use of financial instruments is provided as an option in the
projects on:
Energy efficiency. Regarding the improvement of energy efficiency, the use of
financial instruments is justified by the fact that the majority of buildings subject to
remediation are privately owned, which defines the private interest for this type of
projects.
Urban environment. OPRG 2014-2020 provides financial instruments to finance all
investment activities of this priority, and most areas with potential for economic
impact are realized with a combination of grants and financial instruments.
Sports infrastructure. Within the health and social infrastructure projects related to
improving sports infrastructure are to be financed entirely with financial instruments.
It will be possible to fully grant Community centers and libraries.
Promoting low-carbon strategies and sustainable urban transport. There is a
possibility to support through financial instruments the implementation of revenue-
generating projects for integrated urban transport of municipalities from the first to the
third level.
Tourism and preservation of cultural heritage. Due to the ability to generate revenue,
cultural and tourist sites and activities are to be financed partially or wholly with
financial instruments.
Grant aid
Financial
instruments,
with the
exception of
risk and equity
capital
Financial
instruments,
with risk and
equity capital
1. " Sustainable and integrated urban development" 78% 20% 1%
1.1 Providing support for energy efficiency and use of
renewable energy in public infrastructure, including public
buildings and housing
80% 20% 0%
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
142
1.2 Actions to improve the urban environment, including
regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air
pollution
85% 14% 2%
1.5 Investment in health and social infrastructure 51% 44% 5%
1.6 Developing environmentally friendly and low-carbon
transport systems and promoting sustainable urban mobility
85% 15% 0%
5. Regional tourism 50% 45% 5%
TOTAL 82% 17% 1%
Source: OPRG 2014-2020 (Project of September 2013), own calculations
Interventions under OPRG 2014-2020, for which there is no application of financial
instruments are in the field of education, health and social infrastructure, with the exception of
sports infrastructure and regional road infrastructure, where the potential for return on
investment is weak and beneficiaries are state or municipal structures.
The proposed areas of investments with financial instruments are consistent with the types of
urban development projects defined by Kreuz (2010) that are supported through financial
instruments, namely, energy efficiency projects, investment in urban infrastructure,
investment in environment, investment in “smart cities"(for urban environment) and terrain
restoration projects6. In summary, it can be concluded that the types of activities and
projects that can be realized with the use of financial instruments are correctly
identified.
With regard to the relationship between grant funding and financial instruments, it is hard to
find reference points for each investment priority, because of the relatively low use of
financial instruments in the current programming period. According to a research of the
European Commission, in the current period (to 2011 incl.) about 5% of ERDF funds have
been used for the implementation of financial instruments7, and most of them were designed
to support businesses.
The managing authorities of operational programs have a strong incentive to allocate more
funds for financial instruments in order to increase the utilization of funds under the program
and to increase the resources for the respective activities through the so called leverage effect,
as well as because of the revolving character of the financial instruments.
6Kreuz C., 2010,„JESSICA – UDF typologies and governance structures in the context of JESSICAimplementation”, Report to the EIB and European Commission. 7European Commission, 2012,„Financial instruments in Cohesion Policy”, Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2012) 36 final, DG REGIOnal Policy, Brussels.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
143
However, the determination of the amount for financial instruments should take into account
the existing market failures, to be based on an assessment of potential interest for participation
by the private sector and identification of the target beneficiaries, i.e. to be determined after a
thorough assessment of the possibilities for the use of financial instruments in this context.
According to the current version of the European regulations regarding the use of financial
instruments within the programs funded by ERDF, there is no requirement that such
evaluations should be ready at the time of submission of the operational programs, they
should be worked out when planning the introduction of the respective financial instrument.
Regarding financial instruments for urban development, the main challenges for their use in
the next programming period are: 1. this approach is relatively new and has not been
developed sufficiently in comparison with the tools for helping businesses, for example, and
2. According to a study of the results of the implementation of financial instruments,
commissioned by EIB, because of the integrated nature of urban development, the design and
implementation of such projects require good coordination and a sufficiently high return on
investment for the project to be eligible to financial instruments8. At the same time it is stated
that the development of urban development projects needs more time, it is not clear whether
the projects for urban renewal could generate sufficiently high financial returns to justify their
implementation in financial instruments.
Beyond these substantive issues in the implementation of financial instruments for urban
development, there are regulatory uncertainties at EU level to be determined and will have an
effect on the decision of the proportion of financial instruments in the respective priorities of
OPRG 2014-2020. During the next programming period, the strategic EC documents provide
a number of measures to facilitate the use of financial instruments, but still it is not clear how
the rule on the automatic loss of funds (N+3/2 rule) will be applied for the financial
instruments.
Due to the above reasons, it is recommended to carry out further in-depth analysis of the use
of financial instruments for urban development. In order to limit the risk, it is recommended
to consider reducing the financing instruments of interventions related to cultural and natural
heritage and tourism. There are two reasons: 1. a considerable share of the financial
instruments (about half of the total resource) is provided for these activities, and 2. lack of
information on potential interest in financial instruments, especially in terms of cultural
heritage.
Given the experience with the Fund for housing renovation in the current programming
period, a higher share of financial instruments could be set for energy efficiency. However,
given the high share of this investment priority in the budget of the program, it is also eligible
to save 20% share of the financial instruments to reduce the risk of non-utilization of funds
under OPRG 2014-2020.
8 Mazars, Ecorys and EPRC, 2013, Financial Instruments:A Stock-taking Exercise in Preparation for the 2014-2020 Programming Period, Final Report,http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/instruments/doc/fls_stocktaking_final.pdf
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
144
Territorial allocation, allocation by beneficiaries and thematic objectives under OPRG
2014-2020
Most of the financial resources are intended to be used by 67 municipalities identified in the
Concept of spatial development. In addition to the 62% percent of the resources that are
provided by PA1 "Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development", investments under the
program in these communities will be made under the other priority axes as well. Agency
"Road Infrastructure" will also have access to substantial financial resources under PA6
"Regional Road Infrastructure", given the resource consuming activities funded under this
priority axis. Other beneficiaries include the Ministry of Education and Science, Ministry of
Culture, Ministry of Health, universities and research centers, etc.
Taking into account the concentration of large amounts of financial resources under OPRG
2014-2020 over the 67 cities, the regional allocation of resources, in general, is consistent
with the distribution of these cities on the territory of Bulgaria. The concept of spatial
development gives the distribution of cities by region, as they are relatively evenly distributed
throughout the country.
According to the thematic objectives, the interventions under OPRG 2014-2020 address
mainly thematic objectives 6, 7 and 4. It should be noted that, given the impossibility to fund
projects under thematic objectives 1-3 through the program, the high share of thematic
objective 4 is justified both for the needs identified in the socio-economic analysis, and for the
requirements for thematic concentration of interventions in the project on ERDF Regulation.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
145
Figure 26: Financing as per thematic objectives
In the figure above, it is clear that the main focus of OPRG 2014-2020, will be the
environment because of the urban environment, and the low-carbon economy. However, the
program aims to address infrastructure and other aspects of important social issues such as
education and social inclusion, which should have a positive impact on growth and
employment.
Benchmarking against Operational Program “Regional Development” in 2007-2013
(i) Comparison with budget OPRD 2007-2013 on investment priorities
According to the current version of OPRG 2014-2020, the funds under OPRG for the next
programming period would decrease by over one fifth in real terms. In the current
programming period 2007-2013, Operational Program "Regional Development" budgeted
1.361 million (EU funding), which represents 42% of the total ERDF allocation for Bulgaria
and 20% of all budget commitments under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in
Bulgaria.
The table below provides an overall comparison of European funding under OPRD in the
current and next programming period:
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
146
2007-2013 2014-2020 Difference
OPRG, budget commitments, EURO mln., current prices
(EURO)
1 361 083 545 1 170 270 000 -15%
OPRG, budget commitments, EURO mln., 2011 prices
(EURO)*
1 473 280 602 1 170 270 000 -22%
Share of funding under OPRG by ERDF for Bulgaria 42% ??? ??? п.п.
Share of funding under OPRG by SCF for Bulgaria 20% ??? ??? п.п.
Source: National Strategic Reference Framework of Bulgaria 2007-2013 and the Operational program "Regions of growth
2014-2020," (Project of December 2012)
*Budgetary commitments as per 2011 prices are calculated as those under current prices of 2007 are indexed for inflation of
2% per annum, corresponding to the European average annual change in the CPI and the provisions of Article
83 Paragraph 1 of the General Regulation of SCF.
The structure of the program's funding reflects the identified importance of cities as a key
driver of economic and social development of the EU. The greater importance of investments
in integrated actions for sustainable urban development in the next programming period can
be seen from the comparison of resource allocation of OPRG under Priority Axes, which is
presented below.
Program document
2014-2020
Budget
structure
of
OPRG
2014-
2020
Budget
structur
e of
OPRD
2007-
2013
Amendment
ОPRG 2014-
2020/ OPRD
2007-2013
Amendment
ОPRG 2014-
2020/ OPRD
2007-2013
In real terms
Energy efficiency 234 054 000 20% 6% 175% 154%
Urban environment and risk prevention 213 457 248 18% 14% 13% 5%
Sports, culture, education, health and social
infrastructure
322 058 304 28% 24% -2% -10%
Education infrastructure 108 132 948 9% -
Health and social infrastructure 213 925 356 18% -
Integrated urban transport 105 324 300 9% 13% -41% -46%
Tourism 105 324 300 9% 13% -43% -48%
Regional road infrastructure 143 241 048 12% 20% -47% -51%
Information and communication networks and
services
- - 1% - -
Local development and cooperation - - 6% - -
Technical assistance 46 810 800 4% 3% 2% -6%
Total 1 170 270 000 100% 100% -15% -22%
Source: Operational Program Regional Development 2007-2013 (October 2010) and Operational Program Regions in
Growth 2014-2020 (Project of September 2013), own calculations
In most cases the direct comparison of the priority axes of OPRG for 2007-2013 and the draft
OPRG 2014-2020 is not possible, but the rough comparison made within the framework of
this evaluation gives a good idea of the financial expression of the change in prioritization
within the operational program. The scope of the defined priorities for the purposes of
comparison is given in the table below. No direct matches with the measures of OPRG 2014-
2020 were found for sub-priorities 2.2, 4.1 and 4.2 of OPRD 2007-2013
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
147
Priority OPRG 2014-2020,
Priorities and
subpriorities
OPRD 2007-2013,
Priorities and
subpriorities
Energy efficiency 1.1 1.2, 2.3
Urban environment and risk prevention 1.2 1.3
Sports, culture, education, health and social infrastructure 1.3-1.5, 2, 3, 4 1.1
Integrated urban transport 1.6 1.5
Tourism 5 3
Regional road infrastructure 6 2.1
Technical assistance 7 5
Although rather general, the comparison of the allocation of the program's budget in the
current and next programming period gives a good idea of the change in the policy of regional
development. Some of the differences in the share of the priorities and the total budget of the
Program is determined by the new EU-wide priorities, and some are probably associated with
the experience of the Managing Authority of the period 2007-2012.
The most significant difference is observed in terms of investment related to the improvement
of energy efficiency which in the next programming period will be in a separate investment
priority; 20% of the total program budget are expected to be spent for them. As mentioned
above, this type of investments are directly related to Thematic Objective 4 "Transition to a
low carbon economy" and should have a significant contribution to meeting the requirement
of the draft ERDF Regulation related to the requirement for financing activities under this
Thematic Objective in less developed regions with at least 10% of the total ERDF funding.
The overall investments of sports, cultural, educational, health and social infrastructure
and the urban environment and risk prevention are expected to increase slightly, which,
given the overall reduction OPRG 2014-2020, will increase their share by 4 percentage points.
This type of measures are mainly related to Thematic Objective 6 (environment) and partly
with Thematic Objectives 9 (social inclusion) and 10 (education). These thematic objectives
are not priorities for ERDF funding outlined in Art. 4 of the draft Regulation of ERDF, but
they have an important regional dimension and potentially greater positive impact in the
socio-economic aspect as well as on the integration of sectoral policies at territorial level. The
importance of social inclusion and education specifically acquire financial impact in Article
84 of the General Regulation of ESIF where limit is set between 20 and 25 % of the Structural
Funds to be invested for achieving the Thematic Objectives 8, 9 and 10.
Regarding measures for risk prevention in the next programming period allocated funds are
expected to significantly reduce. It is noted in the program document OPRG 2014-2020 that
this is due both to the probability of not meeting the thematic preconditions. Additionally,
probably for the purpose of this investment priority not sufficient resources can be allocated
to achieve the necessary level of fund concentration so that they could have a tangible effect.
Instead, it is planned to finance a small number of landslides prioritized on the basis of a
specially designed methodology.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
148
Significant decrease is observed in the financing of transport projects. Projects in the field
of tourism will also receive less funding in real terms compared with the current
programming period, in spite of the guidelines in the draft of EFRD Regulation for promoting
sustainable tourism, cultural and natural heritage in order to maximize the contribution of
interventions for generating growth based on employment. The lower share of the funds
allocated to tourism development could be partly explained by the relatively low level of
payments under Priority 3 (sustainable tourism) of OPRD 2007-2013. As of October 2012, 15
% of the budget commitments are paid under it, compared with 31% on average for the
program. These results are due to the delay at the start of the implementation of the activities
for development of tourism and can have a negative impact on the results under Priority 3 for
the whole period of 2007-2013.
(ii) Overview of EU funds utilization under OPRG in the current programming period
In terms of effectiveness and efficiency of utilization of funds under OPRG in this period and
potential implications for the next one, only a few general observations can be made. A
thorough study of this issue requires detailed information on the financial and physical
performance of the individual projects supported under OPRG to date, which is not subject to
this evaluation.
Under OPRG 90% are contracted as of October 2012, but less than 30% are paid. Highest
rates of payment are observed under PA 2 "Regional and local accessibility" where nearly
half of the planned budget funds are already paid. The reasonably good financial result is not
fully consistent with the performance of the progress indicators; at present the rehabilitated/
reconstructed roads in kilometers are just over 1/3 of the program's targets. This discrepancy
could be partly due to the specifics of the activities under PA2 in which there could be a time
lag between spending the funds and reporting the physical progress.
Under PA 4 "Local Development and Cooperation" there is also a good financial and physical
performance. Here, however, it seems that the target values of the indicators are set too
conservatively as 36% of the financial resources are actually exceeded targets in terms of
physical progress.
These two different examples show that in terms of successful implementation of the program
in 2014-2020, regarding the connection between financial allocation and indicators, it is
necessary to ensure well-founded logical connection between resources and objectives,
whether at cost principle or based on a benchmark against similar activities in the previous
programming period or such other operational programs.
Only for comparative purposes, the table below presents the financial and physical
implementation under OPRD 2007-2013, at the end of 2011 (data as of October 2012, which
are publicly available, are shown in brackets):
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
149
% total budget
of OPRG
Contracted Disbursed Certified Achieved so far Target
value
Type of
indicator
Indicator: period of reporting
1. Sustainable
and integrated
urban
development
52% 72%
(91%)
20%
(28%)
11% At least 2 years
17 789 (29 293)
33 800
няма пр.д-ри
565 346 (760 000)
Н/П
Н/П
7 (43)
Н/П
0
101 (173)
20 (55)
8
Н/П
0
56
189 000
10 000
600 000
230 000
800
5
200
20
32
45
90
70
10
36
Impact
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Result
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
1. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (kt)
2. Saving energy renovation of buildings (MWh / yr).
3. Students benefiting from improved educational infrastructure (number)
4. Patients benefiting from improved health infrastructure (number)
5. Population benefiting from refurbished buildings (with the exception of education and
health institutions) (number)
6. Children benefiting from the process of deinstitutionalization (number)
7. Use of urban public transport (incl.people with disabilities) (% increase of population)
8. Projects improving the physical environment, attractiveness of cities and risk
prevention
9. Renovated multifamily buildings and social housing
10. Improved health infrastructure
11. Improved educational infrastructure
12. Improved cultural infrastructure
13. Improved social infrastructure
14. Constructed/reconstructed social institutions/centers as a result of de-
institutionalization of child care (number)
15. Developed/implemented integrated urban plans
2. Regional and
local accessibility
25% 78%
(90%)
27%
(47%)
15% At least 2 years
At least 2 years
няма пр.д-ри
At least 2 years
няма скл.д-ри
Н/П
161.19 (454)
39
208 000
20%
27
500
50
1300
Impact
Result
Result
Result
Result
Output
Output
Output
1. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (kt)
2. Value of time savings in Euro/per annum resulting from reconstructed roads for passengers and
freight
3. Additional population covered by broadband access (key indicator) (%)
4. Increase traffic of passengers and freight on the rehabilitated roads (base 2006) (%)
5. Developed ICT network (km)
6. A gas infrastructure with neighboring countries on the territory of Bulgaria (km)
7. Reconstructed roads (km)
3. Sustainable
development of
tourism
14% 51%
(93%)
4%
(15%)
0.5% няма пр.д-ри
няма пр.д-ри
няма пр.д-ри
няма пр.д-ри
няма пр.д-ри
няма пр.д-ри
няма пр.д-ри
няма пр.д-ри
Н/П
1 475
45%
500 000
80%
1 050
129
95
34
70% вкл. в
мрежа
Impact
Impact
Result
Result
Result
Output
Output
Output
Output
1. Net annual income from international tourism (million Euro)
2. Bed occupancy rate
3. Additional annual number of visitors to supported attractions
4. Visitor satisfaction of attractions and information services
5. Annual number of participants (organizations, companies) in international, national and regional
tourism fairs and exhibitions
6. Total number of projects for tourism development
7. Number of developed tourist attractions/sites
8. Number of national marketing programs iand advertising and projects for product development
and marketing of destinations
9. National operating network of TICs
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program for Regional Development in the 2014-2020
programming period
150
4. Local
development and
cooperation
6% 91%
(93%)
34%
(36%)
24% 122
622 000
109
61
80
166 000
250
40
Result
Result
Result
Result
1. Innovative practices exchanged and applied on the basis of inter-regional cooperation
2. Population benefiting from small-scale investments
3. Completed projects for small-scale investments
4. Interregional cooperation projects
5.Technical
assistance
3% 53%
(65%)
11%
(21%)
6% 0
1 328
6 448
10
184
2
40%
15 500
4 500
14
60
10
Result
Output
Output
Output
Output
Output
1. Level of public awareness about OPRG
2. Technical support, advice, etc. (man-days)
3. Trained employees of the MA (including regional departments) and beneficiaries
4. Meetings of the Monitoring Committee
5. Conducted information campaigns and public events under the Communication Plan
6. Evaluations performed
TOTAL 100% 71%
(90%)
20%
(31%)
11%
Source: Annual Report on the Implementation of OPRD 2007-2013 for 2011, CEAOEF, Report on EU fund management in the Republic of Bulgaria for 2012. own calculations
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
151
Results of a survey on the allocation of financial resources of OPRG 2014-2020
The survey conducted among beneficiaries, representatives of the Managing Authority and
other stakeholders is a useful source of information on the allocation of financial resources
against the objectives of the program. Responses to the survey show a large dispersion of
individual assessments on how to allocate the program budget, but grouped in beneficiaries
and representatives of MA, in an average ratio they approach one another, as well as the
proposed allocation in the current version of the OP. Allocation of financial resources based
on the conducted online survey and according to the current draft of OPRG 2014-2020, is
presented below:
Indicative types of interventions Beneficiaries and
working group MA OPRG9
Energy efficiency in public (administrative) buildings and
houses 16% 12% 20%
Improving the urban environment (public recreation
areas), with the exception of the technical infrastructure
related to business and industrial zones
18% 19% 13%
Preventing floods and landslides
7% 4% 1%
Improving access for people with disabilities as a
horizontal measure
5% 4%
Construction/rehabilitation of technical infrastructure
related to business and industrial zones
7% 4% 4%
Infrastructure development in the field of culture and
development of tourism 13% 15% 9%
Development of education and scientific infrastructure 8% 10% 9%
Development of social infrastructure 8% 5% 14%
Development of health infrastructure 9% 14% 4%
Development of urban transport infrastructure 8% 14% 9%
Regional road infrastructure 12%
Technical assistance 4%
Source: Online questionnaire
9 The questionnaire does not present the issue of budget allocation under PA 5 and PA7
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
152
Based on the results of the consultation with beneficiaries and MA of the program, increased
fund allocations are found against the responses in the questionnaire within the OPRG 2014-
2020, only in terms of energy efficiency and social infrastructure.
As already mentioned several times, the larger share of thе investment priority for energy
efficiency should contribute to Thematic Objective 4, which is a priority for the
implementation of EFRD. In terms of social infrastructure, the current version of OPRG
includes also sports and cultural infrastructure that expands the scope of this investment
priority against the questionnaire and contributes merely technically for its increased share.
The funds allocated for improving the urban environment are lower than the aggregated
responses to the questionnaire, again mainly due to the relocation of the sports and cultural
infrastructure of the urban environment to the social infrastructure.
It can be concluded that the indicative fund allocation under OPRG 2014-2020 as a whole
does not contradict the average responses of the online survey conducted for the project
among representatives of MA, beneficiaries and other stakeholders.
Analysis of the extent of conformity of the financial allocation under OPRG 2014-2020
as per the requirements of the EU regulations.
(iii) Degree of compliance with the formal requirements in describing the financial
framework in the program document and co-financing;
According to the current version of the Common Strategic Framework for EU (Article 87,
item 2 (d)) from November 2012, the financial plan for each operational program must
contain at least two tables:
1. Table of the financial commitments by year under each of the Funds financing the
operational program, in accordance with Art. 53, 110 and 111 of the General
Regulation of ESIF. According to the regulation, the amount of co-financing under
the relevant priority axes of the
operational programs will be
determined by EC. Regarding
OPRG, it cannot exceed 85% (for
the less developed regions of the
Member States whose average
GDP per capita for the period
2007 to 2009 was below 85% of
the average EU-27 for the same
period and for the outermost
regions).
A table with the breakdown of
budget commitments under
OPRG 2014-2020 by year is
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
153
presented in the current version of the operational program (Table 17), but it will
probably be changed when the total financial allocation for OPRG is clarified.
In the current profile of the budget commitments, many low targets for the first two
years of the new programming period are identified, and relatively steady increasing
but higher budgetary commitments thereafter.
On the assumption of applying the N+2 rule for automatic loss of funds, this means
that at the end of 2019 a risk of losing money can be expected, which gives enough
flexibility for maximum utilization of funds, taking into consideration the long
average period of implementation of most projects which will be financed under the
operational program for the next programming period.
2. Table specifying for the whole programming period of the operational program and
for each priority axis, the amount of the total financial budget commitments for each
fund providing resources to the program, and the amount of national co-financing as
well. Regarding priority axes that affect several categories of regions, the table is
necessary to indicate the amount of total financial budget commitments by funds and
national co-financing rate for each category of regions. Regarding priority axes that
combine investment priorities of different thematic objectives, the table indicates the
amount of the total financial commitments of each of the funds and the national co-
financing for each of the respective thematic objectives. When the national co-
financing is made up of public and private financing, the table provides indicative
breakdown between the public and private sectors. It indicates information on the
planned participation of EIB.
Such a table of indicative targets has already been presented in the section related to
the financial plan of the program (Tables 18 and 19). It gives information about the
area of planned interventions, forms of funding and their territorial and thematic
dimension. In the tables, the private national co-financing, EIB contribution and other
financing are not set because at present these types of financing are not planned.
(iv) Consistency and justification of the allocation of budgetary resources as per the
requirements of the European regulations
With the changes of the financial framework for the next programming period, at EU level a
greater importance is given to a number of measures and approaches inherent to the types of
interventions financed by OPRG, such as strengthening the role of cities as centers of growth
and promotion of integrated territorial investments. Generally, a new territorial dimension of
cohesion policy is added, whose aim is to ensure better compliance with and focus on
cohesion policy in response to the specific needs and opportunities arising in specific areas.
A brief description of the most important European priorities and requirements
relevant to OPRG 2014-2020
Strengthening the role of cities, focusing on the priorities defined in Europe 2020
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
154
Strategy and the adoption of integrated approach in supporting by European funds, are
the basis of EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. Art. 16 of the General Regulation of SCF
postulated concentration of support financed by European funds on interventions that
would have the greatest added value for the realization of the objectives of Europe 2020
Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, using the effective potential of
specific areas and taking into account national and regional needs.
Based on this more general framework for the prioritization of interventions funded by
ESIF, the ERDF Regulation projects set minimum requirements on the thematic
concentration of interventions financed by ESIF funds. The project of general
regulation of ESIF (Article 84, item 3), however, sets the target for investments aimed
at youth integration, employment, knowledge, and social inclusion. According to it, in
the less developed regions, and all Bulgarian regions are considered such, between
20% and 25% of the structural funds should be directed to the Thematic Objectives 8
(employment), 9 (social inclusion) and 10 (education ).
The General Regulation for ESIF also determines 0.2% of the resources available
under EFRD for growth and employment to be focused on innovative actions for
sustainable urban development. Achieving this financial goal is not a responsibility of
the Member States, and it is supposed to be implemented on the initiative of the
European Commission.
The ERDF Regulation project sets certain restrictions on the thematic concentration of
aid financed by the Fund. Art. 4 of the Regulation sets minimum thresholds of
financing some thematic objectives that are different for the developed and transition
regions of the EU, on the one hand, and in less developed regions, on the other. Since
all regions in Bulgaria at present belong to the less developed regions, requirements for
them are less restrictive, given that these regions are facing many challenges in the
development and should have greater freedom in determining the various types of
investments as a priority. According to the Regulation, the following is required for less
developed EU regions:
(i) at least 50% of the total funds financed by ERDF nationally, are to be spent on one or
more of the following thematic areas:
(1) Strengthening research, technological development and innovation;
(2) Improving access to ICTs and their use and quality;
(3) Improving the competitiveness of SMEs;
(4) Supporting the shift towards a low carbon economy in all sectors.
(ii) at least 10% of the total funds financed by ERDF nationally, are to be spent for the
fourth thematic area, namely the shift to a low carbon economy.*
The project of ERDF Regulation (Article 5) provides a description of the investment
priorities that can be supported in conjunction with each of the thematic objectives. In
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
155
particular, the following objectives are defined as priority for urban investment:
* Thematic Objective 4: Transition to a low carbon economy, including promotion of
sustainable urban transport;
* Thematic Objective 6(f): Protection of the environment - improving the urban
environment;
* Thematic objective 9 (c): Promoting social inclusion - support for physical and
economic regeneration of deprived urban communities.
Considering the complex interconnection of different types of investments needed to
address the key challenges for cities in the next programming period, a new
management mechanism is introduced - Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), which
provide synergy between different types of measures, often from different sources of
funding. For this purpose, Member States are required to set aside at least 5% of the
available ERDF resources for integrated actions for sustainable urban development,
the management of which will be provided by the cities**.
According to Art. 7, Para 1a of the draft ERDF Regulation, this requirement can be
fulfilled either by ITI or by integrated priority in the Operational Programme, the
second approach being set out in OPRG. Some additional 0.2% of the available
ERDF funds can be spent on innovative measures to ensure sustainable urban
development.
* For comparison, for the more developed and transition regions the minimum thresholds are
respectively 80% for TO 1-4 and 20% for TO 4.
** To this end, Integrated plans for urban regeneration and development (IPURD) have been currently
developed in Bulgaria in 36 towns of the 1-3 hierarchy level, according to the new concept for spatial
development 2013-2025. A new scheme for grants to prepare IPURD for the towns of level 4 should be
launched in January 2013
Above are described specific restrictions on the types of activities to be financed by ERDF
funds in each Member State, depending on the degree of development of its regions. Since
the overall financial framework for Bulgaria for 2014-2020 is unknown, and the financial
allocations to activities under other operational programs to be financed by the ERDF are also
unknown, at present the evaluation of the specific minimums and ceilings set out in the
project of EFRD Regulation is indicative.
Between 20 % and 25 % of the structural funds should be directed to the Thematic
Objectives 8 (employment), 9 (social inclusion) and 10 (education). OPRG 2014-2020
is related to the construction of adequate infrastructure under TO 9 and TO 10. For
this purpose, 20% of the total budget of the OPRG (including health care) have been
allocated, which should be more than a sufficient contribution to observing this
requirement of the General Regulation, given the presence of other ESF operational
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
156
programs that should provide the major funds for implementing the interventions at
national level under these thematic objectives.
At least 50% of ERDF funds should be earmarked for financing activities under
Thematic Objectives 1-4. Of thematic objectives 1-4, OPRG is related to TO 4
"Transition to a low carbon economy." In this allocation of resources under OPRG
2014-2020, about 29% are provided under TO 4 covering both energy efficiency
measures and investments for sustainable urban transport. It should be borne in mind
that most of the activities on priority set Thematic Objectives 1-4 are expected to be
included in the scope of the future Operational Program "Development of
Competitiveness of the Bulgarian Economy" (OPDCBE).
At least 10% of the total funds financed by the ERDF nationally are to be spent on the
transition to a low carbon economy. In terms of available OPRG information, this
requirement is expected to be satisfied. Probably activities under this thematic
objective will be funded under a future OPDCBE.
At least 5% of the total funds financed by the ERDF to be allocated nationally for the
implementation of integrated territorial investment. Currently, virtually all budgeted
funds under PA1 "Urban development" or 62% of all resources of the program are
intended for the implementation of PA1. It should be borne in mind that these funds
are likely to be completed by funds for the realization of PA1 by the future OPE and
OPHRD. While OPHRD is entirely financed by ESF, in OPE 2007-2013, about 30%
of the funding is by ERDF. In this sense, the requirement currently looks like it will
be executed without any difficulty.
Compliance with the funding, set in other strategic documents
With respect to the national strategic documents, the current draft of the Partnership
Agreement of the Republic of Bulgaria, outlining the assistance of EU structural investment
funds for the period 2014-2020, the National Development Program 2020 and the National
Strategy for Regional Development, as these three documents provide information about the
financial security of the proposed measures National Development Programme 2020 and
National Strategy for Regional Development are mainly discussed as these three documents
contain information on the financial security of the measures envisaged.
The strategic priorities of the funding under ESIF are set out in the draft Partnership
Agreement of the Republic of Bulgaria, outlining the assistance of EU structural
investment funds for the 2014-2020 period. The support of EU funds which are generally
implemented within OPRG should be thematically and territorially concentrated, as the
program is focused mainly on the integrated actions within 67 towns in the country identified
in the new Concept of spatial development 2013-2025.
In terms of thematic objectives, given the wide range of measures for regional development,
the program still focuses on 6 Thematic Objectives and more than 2/3 of the total resources of
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
157
the program are allocated for TO 6 (environment), TO 4 (low-carbon economy) and TO 7
(sustainable transport).
Given the identification of strategic territorial dimension of the interventions planned in the
Partnership Agreement and the important complementary role of OPRG 2014-2020,
especially in terms of priorities for education and social inclusion, the successful
implementation of the investments provided by the program has a vital role in achieving the
national objectives in the context of Europe 2020 Strategy and in addressing the key
challenges facing the country in socio-economic terms.
A separate Priority 3 "Achieving sustainable integrated regional development and use of local
potential" is formulated in the National Programme for 2020. There is also a calculated
value of the implementation of measures envisaged in the document. It amounts to 28.347
billion BGN, of which nearly ¾ should be secured by EU funds, 20% - by national and 6% -
by other sources of funding. Obviously the lack of funds compared to the measures referred
to in NDP 2020 on regional development is great. There is no further breakdown of the
valuation on measures, which does not allow a direct comparison with the financial resources
provided by OPRG.
In the National Strategy for Regional Development there is also an estimate of the
resources necessary to achieve the objectives of the strategy. With respect to financing with
funds of ERDF as per priorities supported by OPRG, there is a greater funding for integrated
sustainable urban development, improvement of connectivity of regions and improvement of
access to education, health, social and cultural services, and sports infrastructure. They
generally correspond to the financial priorities of OPRG 2014-2020, but as a share of the total
ERDF resources they are incomparable because operational programs other than OPRG are
also financed by ERDF funds.
EFRD
P 1.1 Activating the specific potential of local and regional economies. 10%
P 1.2 Development of sustainable forms of tourism 7%
P 1.3 Development of the infrastructure for environmental protection (it will be financed mainly by OPE) 17%
P 2.1 Improvement of access to education, health, social and cultural services, and sports infrastructure
11%
P 2.2 Support of labor geographical mobility 1%
P 2.3 Capacity development 4%
P 3.1 Development of cross-border cooperation 5%
P 3.2 Development of interregional and transnational cooperation 2%
P 4.1 Integrated sustainable urban development 31%
P 4.2 Improving the connectivity of regions 14%
P 4.3 Improving life quality in rural areas. (to be financed mainly by OP DRA) 0%
Source: National Strategy for Regional Development of the Republic of Bulgaria for the period 2012-2022, own calculations
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
158
VIII. Evaluation 6 – Assessment of the
management and monitoring systems and
administrative capacity for implementation of
the Program
1. Data collection
Evaluation 6 is based mainly on a desk study of documents, including analysis of the
administrative capacity, namely:
“Assessment of the administrative capacity of OPRG Beneficiaries”
Analysis of the capacity and capability of municipalities to manage and implement
projects, comprising an element of the overall project for preparing a social and
economic analysis for the needs of OPRG 2014–2020
Report by the Committee for European Affairs and Control over the European Funds
(CEACEF) for 2012.
Medium-term evaluation of Operational Programme Regional Development 2007–
2013.
Annual report on the implementation of OP “Regional Development” 2007–2013 in
2011.
The online questionnaire was also one of the ways to take into account the beneficiaries’
opinion of their own capacity to implement OPRG projects, as well as of the capacity of the
MA. At the focus groups held with beneficiaries and representatives of the Working group
for development of OPRG 2014–2020 issues were also discussed related to the administrative
capacity of the MA and the beneficiaries.
What is specific for Assessment 6 was that an online questionnaire was also carried out
among officials from the Directorate General “Programming of Regional Development”
(DG PRD) for the purpose of self-assessment of the administrative capacity, workload,
procedures, training needs, etc. To achieve greater thoroughness, in the course of the
individual interviews held with experts from DG PRD questions falling within Assessment 6
were also discussed.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
159
2. Analysis
(b) 2.1 Analysis of the beneficiaries’ capacity
In Section 3.B.1. of OPRG 2014–2020 the following summarised needs of the beneficiaries
to be addressed through the measures under PA 7 were identified:
continuing need to increase the competence of staff involved in the preparation and
management of projects;
need to increase the motivation and remuneration of experts involved in preparation
and management of projects;
need to provide the units involved in the preparation and management of projects with
facilities and equipment, including computer equipment, specialised software,
vehicles, etc.
In the course of development of this report, the documents containing assessment of the
administrative capacity of beneficiaries were examined for the purpose of establishing how
well they are identified in the OPRG 2014–2020 problem areas.
The General Action Plan to Enhance the Administrative Capacity of 36 Municipalities –
OPRG Beneficiaries (December 2012 version) contains recommendations with regard to the
administrative capacity, related to the next programming period. Some of the conclusions and
recommendations of relevance to OPRG 2014–2020 are specified below.
Conclusions:
“With regard to most beneficiaries the number of staff in the units involved in OPRG
projects is assessed as insufficient, and the workload – as very big
The educational degree of the officials involved in OPRG is assessed in most cases as
appropriate / relevant, and the level of competencies is assessed as meeting the
requirements
There is an acute shortage of funds for training and a critical need for additional, more
targeted specialised training for officials, including training by the OPRG MA
The main difficulties in the awarding of public procurement contracts for projects
co-financed from OPRG are related to:
o development of technical specifications / terms of reference, formulating
criteria for participation, and evaluation of tenders;
o ambiguous interpretation of the Public Procurement Act by various control
and law enforcement agencies;
o increasing the duration of the period for ex-ante control;
o appeals against acts issued by the Contracting Authority.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
160
No problem areas are established in the partnership with other organisations /
municipalities
As a whole, municipalities declare readiness to use PPPs for the implementation of
revenue generating infrastructural projects and for the implementation of JESSICA,
but do not have any specific project ideas for them”
Recommendations
“To analyse the opportunities for using technical assistance (to finance training and
computer equipment, information and communication technologies) from existing
programmes, co-financed by the EU, for increasing the motivation of the staff
To assess the workload of the individual units, involved in projects co-financed from
EU Funds, and the number of staff in relation to the functions and activities in the
administrative units, and to make the corresponding recommendations for
reorganisation of human resources or other changes in the structural units
To improve the capacity for preparation of income generating projects, including
through additional training on the opportunities offered by financial engineering
instruments, Cost-benefit analysis and financial analyses.
Municipalities to be identified during the next programming period as eligible specific
beneficiaries of most operations under Priority Axis “Technical Assistance” of OPRG
for preparing technical / working designs and feasibility studies for infrastructural
projects, as well as for preparation and monitoring of the GDPs of municipalities.”
Source: General Action Plan to Enhance the Administrative Capacity of 36
Municipalities – OPRG Beneficiaries
The General Action Plans to Enhance the Administrative Capacity of the OPRG Specific
Beneficiaries (December 2012 version) contains conclusions recommendations, similar to
these in the general action plan specified above. Some of the conclusions of relevance to
OPRG 2014–2020 are specified below.
Conclusions:
“The majority of the specific beneficiaries have the structural units required for the
implementation of OPRG projects;
As a general trend with regard to the specific beneficiaries the need to increase the
number of staff involved in work related to OPRG is observed;
All specific beneficiaries define the need for more training in connection with OPRG
projects;
The most frequently identified measures for increasing the motivation include:
increased remuneration, ensuring a better work environment, provision of modern
computer equipment and updated software for project management.”
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
161
Source: General Action Plan to Enhance the Administrative Capacity of the OPRG
Beneficiaries
With a view to the above the conclusion can be made that the summarised needs of the
beneficiaries identified in Section 3.B.1. of OPRG 2014–2020 are correct.
The training needs of the beneficiaries, identified in the analyses, was also established in the
course of the online survey carried out within the preliminary assessment. According to the
results of the survey, over 70% of the respondents are of the opinion that the training events
will be a necessity during the next programming period.
Figure 27: Questionnaire - needs of beneficiaries in relation to the preparation and
management of projects under OPRG 2014-2020
As becomes clear from the figure below, the strengthening of the capacity of the beneficiaries
themselves is identified as a main area where strengthening of the capacity for the
implementation of OPRG 2014–2020 is required. This need is also included in the
recommendations of the CEACEF report (2012), namely: “Strengthening the capacity of
specific beneficiaries – government institutions for preparation and implementation of
projects under OPRG” and “Strengthening the capacity of OPRG beneficiaries for
implementation and reporting of projects, as well as for applying financial engineering
instruments”.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
162
Figure 28: Questionnaire – areas, where the administrative capacity needs to be
improved
Over 70% of the beneficiaries and members of the working group, which participated in the
survey, are of the opinion that the administrative capacity of beneficiaries needs to be
enhanced, and the MA shall provide more information and support in the course of the
programme implementation. The participants in the online survey identify the following
qualifications as the ones with the highest priority during the next programming period:
Project management (82%)
Financial Management and Control (68%)
Project preparation (54%)
Language skills, as well as ability to work with software applications, are not identified
among the main qualifications that must be strengthened for the 2014–2020 programming
period. At the same time, the 2011 annual report of the OPRG MA reports the capacity of
beneficiaries to conduct tender procedures as a critical factor in the programme
implementation. It is exactly public procurement that is expected to be the most important
component of the implementation of OPRG projects during the next programming period.
This expectation was confirmed by the focus group held with representatives of beneficiaries
in June 2013. In addition to training related to the PP Act as horizontal training for all
beneficiaries, the participants in the focus group recommended that training is also organised
for enhancing the quality of construction supervision. A more general recommendation by the
participants in the focus group is than UMIS is used to a larger extent, mostly with regard to
electronic invoices and disbursements.
The figure below presents the results with regard to the needs for strengthening the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
163
administrative capacity, which in the opinion of the participants in the online questionnaire
(beneficiaries and representatives of the working group) need to be reflected in OPRG 2014–
2020.
Figure 29: Questionnaire–areas where administrative capacity should be improved
Project management is once again identified as a main area where training needs to be
organised, followed by training in reporting of implementation. According to the participants
in the survey, the guidelines and manuals are not a basic instrument influencing the
administrative capacity.
A specific issue is how municipalities – specific beneficiaries under priority axis 1 can
assume the responsibility, that can be delegated to them pursuant to Article 113 (6) or
Article 113 (7) of the draft CPR, in accordance with Article 7 (2а) of the draft ERDF
Regulation. Pursuant to Article 113 (6-7) CPR, Member States can formally identify
intermediate bodies, to which the management of part of the programmes can be delegated.
Respectively, as stipulated in Article 7 (2а) of the draft ERDF Regulation, towns or regional
authorities shall be responsible at least for the selection of operations. With regard to OPRG
2014–2020, this responsibility for selection of operations is realised by municipalities
through the development of IPURDs and within the discussions of the TWG, where they
have representatives. For the purpose of supporting the capacity of municipalities to develop
IPURDs, under OPRD 2007–2013 two grant schemes are implemented: BG161PO001/1.4-
07/2010 “Support for Integrated Plans for Urban Regeneration and Development” and
BG161PO001/5-03/2013 “Support for Integrated Plans for Urban Regeneration and
Development II”.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
164
(c) 2.2 Analysis of the MA capacity
With regard to the management structure of OPRG 2014–2020, one of the recommendations
in the medium-term evaluation of OPRD 2007–2013 is that during the next programming
period the functions related to the management and implementation of the programme be
assigned to individual organisations, i.e. the MA to be responsible for the policies, and the
IBs to be responsible for the management and implementation of projects. Regardless of this,
neither the majority of the members of the working group for the development of the
programme and the beneficiaries nor the majority of the MA representatives deem it
necessary to include interim bodies in the management structure.
Figure 30: Questionnaire – necessity of intermediate units
As becomes clear from the figures above, 46% of the respondents – representatives of the
working group / beneficiaries and 53% of the MA representatives do not believe that it is
necessary to establish an IB. The advantages of IB, identified by the participants in the online
survey, are the greater efficiency of such a structure in terms of the easier communication
with beneficiaries and the reduction of the time required to process the application
documentation and reporting of project results. Nevertheless, both the results from the
questionnaire and the discussions within the focus group confirmed the opinion that the
setting up of intermediate bodies would create more structural and functional difficulties and
hindrances than improvements in the work.
The absence of clear need for changing the management structure of the programme is also
evidenced by the fact that the beneficiaries / the participants in the working group do not
believe that the structuring of the OPRG management is a priority area for strengthening the
administrative capacity.
Nevertheless, the results from the additional online survey among MA officials, conducted in
June 2013, demonstrate that it is necessary to clarify the allocation of the responsibilities
between the MA at central level and the regional departments of the MA.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
165
Figure 31: Management structure of OPRG - results of the online questionnaire
conducted in June 2013
As becomes clear from the figure above, 32% of the respondents find the allocation of
responsibilities between the central and regional level of the MA not good or excellent. The
opinion on this question of respondents from the central level of the MA is more negative.
The results with regard to the clarity of the allocation of responsibilities among the MA
departments are similar. The allocation of responsibilities among the sectors within the MA
can be considered relatively clearer.
In the report on the medium-term evaluation of OPRD 2007–2013 the conclusion is made
that the established management and control system, applied by the MA, is effective, but
problems are reported in the tracking of the values of indicators. The report identifies as a key
moment the delays in payments resulting from the requirement for 100% checks of the
verification at regional and central level. In this connection the recommendation is made that
the process of verification of requests for payment shall be entirely delegated to the regional
departments. This question was also asked in the questionnaire sent to the MA, and the
results are presented in the figure below:
Figure 32: Appropriateness of delegation the verification processes on regional
departments - results of the online questionnaire conducted in June 2013
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
166
As becomes clear from the figure, over half of the respondents do not think it is suitable to
delegate entirely the process of verification of requests for payment to the regional
departments. In this sense, the current situation related to the verification of requests can be
regarded suitable.
In order to take into account the opinion of the MA officials with regard to the main existing
procedures, the following question was included in the questionnaire:
Figure 33: Assessment of adequacy of procedures - results of online questionnaire
conducted in June 2013
The figure shows that the mechanisms for obtaining information about the indicators under
the programme are most problematic – 37% of the respondents are of the opinion that this
mechanism is “poor” of “satisfactory”, and 32% of the respondents think it is “good” or
“excellent”. The results regarding the obtaining of data required for conducting evaluations
are similar. Bearing in mind the even greater importance the EC attaches to indicators and
evaluations during the next programming period, these procedures need to be reviewed by the
OPRG MA.
Within this evaluation information was obtained through an online questionnaire about how
sufficient the human resources of the Managing Authority are for carrying out the main
activities entrusted to the MA. The figure below shows the results from the online
questionnaire, excluding the answers that the specific activity is not applicable to the
respondent.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
167
Figure 34: Sufficiency of human resources in MA - answers to the online questionnaire by June 2013
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
168
Based on the results from the questionnaire the conclusion can be made that as a whole the
human resources for the management and implementation of the programme are adequate.
Except for a few areas (listed below), over 50% of the OPRG MA officials, who participated
in the survey, are of the opinion that the human resources are sufficient or “mostly
sufficient”.
The areas in which resources are to a large extent in/sufficient are listed below:
The MA resources can be considered sufficient to the highest degree in the following
5 areas:
o Preparing decisions / orders / contracts for awarding grants
o Preparing payment documents to beneficiaries and contractors
o Receiving and registration of project proposals
o Preparing, conducting and drafting the minutes of the meetings of the MC
o Accounting
The MA resources can be considered insufficient to the highest degree in the
following 5 areas:
o Monitoring of the overall implementation of projects, including through
review of reports, meetings, discussions with beneficiaries, etc.
o Carrying out on-the-spot verifications and follow-up of the implementation of
the recommendations from these verifications
o Developing and updating of procedures, manuals, etc. (this area is identified
by the participants in the survey mostly due to the fact that the developing and
updating of procedures / manuals can be regarded as an accompanying
activity, which results in additional, not envisaged workload)
o Management of document turnover and of the archive within the MA
o Financial control
Therefore, based on these results the recommendation can be made for enhancing the
administrative capacity in the areas where it is regarded as insufficient. The following are
part of the recommendations for enhancing the capacity of the MA:
Involvement of the experts, who actually work using the manuals, in their updates,
and conducting training events for the entire MA staff following the update
Reliance on internal training
More civil engineers or specialists in the specific scheme to be involved in the
evaluation of project proposals in order to reduce possible omissions or confusions in
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
169
the project proposals, which are revealed later in the process of construction10
Simplifying the procedures with regard to document turnover
Introducing electronic document turnover so that documents are not printed and
checked in hard copy
Beneficiaries to be informed in detail of the need for information and publicity
activities so that they do not attach too little importance to these activities
In the medium-term evaluation of OPRD 2007–2013 it was recommended “to develop the
technical capacity of the regional departments through training in the field of public
procurement, financial control and monitoring procedures, use of UMIS and legal
requirements, related to the execution of works contracts”. The need for experts in specific
(technical) areas is also illustrated in the figure below, which shows the MA needs for experts
according to the MA officials, who participated in the online questionnaire. This need was
also identified by the participants in the focus groups with beneficiaries, held in June 2013.
Figure 35: Questionnaire – type of experts needed in MA
In the online questionnaire a question was also included regarding the human resources
management (HRM) at the MA. The results show that improvement of HRM is possible
mainly with regard to encouraging experts in the event of achieving good results (68% of the
respondents are of the opinion that improvements in this area are “very necessary”). The
improved remuneration is also an area for which 85% of the respondents claim that
improvements are “very necessary” or “necessary”. From the point of view of the facilities of
the MA, based on the results from the questionnaire the needs for improvements in the work
premises and the archiving and access to files and information can be identified as most
pressing, but these results were obtained prior to the MA moving to new offices.
With regard to the MA capacity, in the 2011 Annual Report of the OPRG MA it was stated
that mostly because of the exercising of ex-ante and ex-post control of public procurement 10In the course of the focus group with beneficiaries, held in June 2013, the poor bills of quantities and the poor investment design were identified as a serious problem in the implementation of OPRG projects during the current programming period.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
170
procedures and processing of received irregularity alerts, it was necessary to create additional
positions in Directorate General “Programming of Regional Development”. As demonstrated
by the results from the online questionnaire, ex-ante control of public procurement
procedures and participation in evaluation committees for tenders received under the PP Act
are not among the areas considered by the majority of the MA officials as areas where
increase in human resources is most required.
IX. Evaluation 7 – Assessment of the validity,
relevance, consistency, applicability and
reflection of the results of the OPRG 2014-200
environmental assessment
Evaluation 7 has a very specific scope and answers the question to what extent OPRG 2014-
2020 takes into account the results and recommendations of the environmental assessment of
the OPRG. There are two main sources of information:
OPRG 2014-2020;
Environmental assessment of OPRG 2014-2020.
The Environmental assessment assessed the impact of the draft OPRG 2014-2020 on the
environment at two levels: (1) impact at the level of priority axes and sub-priorities, (2)
impact at the level of “eligible activities for funding.” This gives an idea on the nature and
possibilities for positive or negative impact on the components of the environment,
respectively the recommendation of appropriate measures for limiting the negative impact
and monitoring by priorities and eligible activities.
The environmental assessment report makes the following general conclusions regarding the
impact of OPRG 2014-2020 on the environment:
At priority axes and sub-priorities level, the impact of OPRG 2014-2020, on the
environment and human health, as a whole, has a comprehensive positive character. The
implementation of priorities and sub-priorities will lead to reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, improved quality of air in populated areas, reduced noise by public transport in
populated areas and raise of the standard and quality of living;
At the level of eligible activities for funding, the impact is also positive, equivalent
to the impact on priority axes and sub-priorities level. Minor negative impact is expected in
the period of construction under the respective activities, as they are related with an increase
in the air pollution with dust, noise increase, and construction waste. The impact, given the
small scale of each particular activity is temporary and local- within the construction sites
and premises, and reversible;
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
171
At both levels of the evaluation (eligible activities and PA / sub-priorities) exist the
possibility for impact on some the priorities and eligible activities - mainly related to
regional road infrastructure, protected territories and areas, population and human health.
These sites are subject to EIA ( for the specific investment construction project, rehabilitation
or road reconstruction) and to procedure for environmental assessment ( for plot plans for
road projects) under the Environmental Protection Act, as well as to conformity assessment
procedures with the subject and aims of the preservation of protected areas under art. 31 of
the Biodiversity Act.
The analysis of the relevance, validity, applicability, coverage and consistency of the
recommendations of the Environmental Assessment in OPRG is presented below.
Relevance defines whether EAR recommendation is valid for OPRG 2014-2020
Validity defines the extent to which the recommendation continues to be valid to the
changed text of the Operational Programme.
Applicability defines the extent to which the recommendation can be implemented
and at what stage of the Programme.
Coverage and consistency defines the extent to which the recommendation is reflected
in the Operational Programme and coherent with the other elements of the
Programme.
Only some of the recommendations should be reflect in the text of the Operational
Programme. Others should be taken into account only during the contracting process, grant
awarding, or in the process of implementation. The third group of recommendations does not
require a specific action in the programming or implementation processes, as compliance is
legally defined.
The table below provides a detailed assessment of the EAR recommendations and their
coverage.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
172
EAR recommendation Relevance Validity Applicability Coverage and consistency Recommendation
Measures on prevention, reduction and compensation of adverse effects
During construction works related to the implementation of activities under Priority Axis should be taken into account:
Effective implementation of the measures
and conditions of developed Decisions
and / or Opinions on EIA, EE and CA
for the construction phase on the
respective eligible activity
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
implementation of
measures
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG.
It is part of the EIA, EE and
CA regulations, which
ensures its coverage.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
During construction on behalf of the
beneficiary, effective control on the
implementation of measures for relevant
action should be ensured to limit
emissions of dust and pollutants in the
atmosphere ( site sprinkling, loading ,
unloading and transportation of
generated construction waste and
construction materials according to
applicable measures and requirements
under Art. 70 of Decree 1 on emissions
of harmful substances (pollutants )
emitted into the atmosphere from
stationary sources of emissions) ,
respectively, to report how the measures
have been implemented
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
implementation of
measures
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG.
Appropriate levels of coverage
are: in the application
guidelines / call for grants and
the grant contract.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
With regard to the building's plumbing
systems – prioritize construction of
modern water supply and sewerage
systems, their maintenance in good
condition, eliminating losses and leaks
Partly relevant - construction of water
and sewerage systems for buildings is
based on common technical
requirements. Maintenance of the
plumbing system of the building is not
covered by the OPRG. The
Applicable in the
planning process
Addressed in point 3.А.2.1
Description of the typology
and indicative activities for
financing and their expected
contribution to the relevant
specific objectives, such as
Point 3.A.2.2. Guiding
principles for the
selection of operations
(Article 87 (2) (b) (iii) of
the General Regulation)
needs to be
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
173
EAR recommendation Relevance Validity Applicability Coverage and consistency Recommendation
recommendation should be viewed in
the following way: "With regard to the
buildings’ water and sewerage systems
- saving water technology and use of
recycled water, where appropriate
should be given priority"
investment water supply and
sanitation in buildings, are
defined as eligible for
financing under the respective
priority.
complemented with a
description of the
principle of sustainable
development, implying
that in the selection of
program operations the
use of water-saving
technologies and use of
recycled water will be
encouraged.
Restriction of construction activities only
within the scope of the projects. Using
existing access roads.
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
implementation of
measures
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG. It is
appropriate to take it into
account in the process of
implementation.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
Storage of building materials and waste
disposal only in the designated for this
purpose places
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
implementation of
measures
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG. It is
appropriate to take it into
account in the process of
implementation.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
The investment projects of all types of
construction must include an analysis of
noise sources on site and a description of
the measures to reduce noise during
construction, depending on the selected
location of the building, distances to
places with normalized noise regime,
duration and phases of construction,
duration of the work per day and week,
as well as construction machinery and
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
implementation of
measures
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG.
It is appropriate to take it into
account in the investment
projects of the beneficiaries. In
this regard, it is necessary to
specify it as a requirement in
the application instructions (in
the case of construction and
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
174
EAR recommendation Relevance Validity Applicability Coverage and consistency Recommendation
vehicles in use reconstruction, for which no
EIA is required).
Coordination of the Transport plan with
local governments and mayors
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
implementation of
measures
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG. It is
appropriate to take it into
account in the process of
implementation.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
Construction equipment should not be
left to idling
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
implementation of
measures
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG. It is
appropriate to take it into
account in the process of
implementation/ contracts for
grants.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
The tourism development activities under Priority axis should be allowed when:
Compliance with the recreation norms of
the territory
Relevant –
Priority axis 5
Valid Applicable in the
programming process
Not addressed directly in the
text of the OPRG. Compliance
with the recreation norms is a
legal requirement under
Ordinance No 5 on the rules
and regulations of spatial
planning. Its implementation
is guaranteed.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
Priority development of ecotourism and
alternative forms of tourism
Relevant –
Priority axis 5
Valid Applicable in the
planning and
programming processes
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
Priority development of
ecotourism and
alternative forms of
tourism can also be added
to the description of the
sustainable development
as a guiding principle for
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
175
EAR recommendation Relevance Validity Applicability Coverage and consistency Recommendation
the selection of
operations for PA 5.
During the preparation of projects for
new tourist facilities measures must be
earmarked to reduce the negative impact
on water quality and take into account
the need to build a system for the
collection, treatment and disposal of
waste water streams formed and
implementing a system for waste
management
Relevant –
Priority axis 5
Valid Applicable in the
programming process
Addressed in section 3.A.2.1.
Description of the typology
and indicative activities for
financing and their expected
contribution to the relevant
specific objectives (Art. 87 (2)
(b) (iii) of the General
Regulation) of OPRG as
eligible activities.
No need to address it in
the OPRG text.
When developing tourist packages, it
should be taken into account that
activities such as "safari" walks, "off-
road" routes, monitoring of rare and
endangered species of animals are
unacceptable and lead to significant
damage to the environment and
biodiversity
Relevant –
Priority axis 5
Valid Applicable in the
programming process
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
The recommendation for
environmental
assessment may also be
added to the description
of sustainable
development as a guiding
principle for the selection
of operations.
Regarding the activities of Priority Axis 5:
For the location of each new road object
to be offered and discussed options
consistent with the arrangements for the
use of protected territories, protected
areas, protection of cultural heritage,
respect for sanitary protection zones and
sites subject to health protection;
Relevant - Priority
Axis 6
Valid Applicable during the
implementation of the
measures.
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
It can be included in the Calls
for Applications/ the selection
of the predefined projects.
The inclusion in the text
of the OPRG is not
necessary.
The Noise protection measures, if there
is such necessity should be subject to
Relevant - Priority
Axis 6
Valid Applicable during the
implementation of the
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
The inclusion in the text
of the OPRG is not
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
176
EAR recommendation Relevance Validity Applicability Coverage and consistency Recommendation
additional, separate project including
acoustic, architectural and structural
part.
measures. necessary.
The activities under Priority Axis 6 "Risk
Prevention" should provide
environmental risks associated with
possible future flooding and for this
purpose to be considered the developed
Estimates of the risk of flooding by the
Basin Directorates that identify certain
areas that are potentially at risk from
flooding.
Relevant - Priority
Axis 7
Valid Applicable during the
implementation of the
measures.
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
To be included in the
description of the main
principles (sustainable
development) for
selection of operations on
PO 7, if the Risk
Prevention measures are
included in OPRG.
During activities near or within
protected areas, protected territories and
historical monuments the Beneficiaries
should be required to monitor and report
on the observation of the regimes and
restrictions set by the management plans
/orders declaring the relevant territories
and zones.
Relevant Valid Applicable during the
implementation of the
measures.
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
It can be addressed in the
Application Guidelines/
Contracts for Implementation.
The inclusion in the text
of the OPRG is not
necessary.
The boundaries of the areas of water
protection in accordance with Art. 119a
of the Water Act and the relevant
measures provided for their conservation
in the RBMP of the four basin
directorates should be taken into
consideration during the implementation
of activities.
Relevant Valid Applicable during the
implementation of the
measures.
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
It can be addressed in the
Application Guidelines/ Grant
Contracts.
The inclusion in the text
of the OPRG is not
necessary.
Description of the necessary measures related to the monitoring of the implementation of the OPRG 2014-2020
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
177
EAR recommendation Relevance Validity Applicability Coverage and consistency Recommendation
The Indicators on monitoring and
control of the environmental impact
should be integrated and included in the
OPRG 2014-2020 system of indicators.
Partially relevant Valid Applicable in the
planning process as well
as during the
implementation of the
measures.
Some of the indicators are
integrated in the OPRG.
In view of the
recommendations of the
Commission for a limited
number of indicators to
measure the desired
effects and correspond to
the size of the budget ,
which is designed for the
individual measures it is
not appropriate to include
all the indicators
proposed in the table
provided in the EAR in
the indicator system of
OPRG 2014-2020.
At the same time, these
indicators should be used
in the monitoring and
control of environmental
impacts during the
implementation of the
program (e.g., in the
evaluation reports on the
environmental impact of
the results of the OPRG).
The Managing Authority of OPRG 2014-
2020 should require from the
Beneficiaries periodically submission of
information on these indicators, as well
as on the implementation of the measures
Relevant Valid Applicable in the
planning process as well
as during the
implementation of the
measures.
Not addressed in the text of
the OPRG.
It can be addressed in the
Application Guidelines/ Grant
The inclusion in the text
of the OPRG is not
necessary.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
178
EAR recommendation Relevance Validity Applicability Coverage and consistency Recommendation
of art. 7of the EC report relevant to its
activities.
Contracts.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
179
X. Conclusions and recommendations
1. Conclusions
This section presents the conclusions of the Ex-ante evaluation on:
External coherence evaluation (Evaluation 1);
Internal coherence evaluation (Evaluation 2);
Horizontal principles evaluation (Evaluation 3);
Evaluation of the system of indicators (Evaluation 4).
Evaluation of the budget of the programme (Evaluation 5)
Evaluation of the management and control systems and the administrative capacity for
implementation of the programme (Evaluation 6)
Evaluation of the validity, relevance, coherence, applicability, and inclusion in the
OPRD 2014-2020 of the results of the environmental assessment (Evaluation 7)
External coherence evaluation
The objectives and priorities of the OPRG 2014-2020 are coherent with the European and
National strategic documents and follow the National and European framework.
Albeit to varying degrees, OPRG 2014-2020 is also related to the three pillars of the Europe
2020 strategy - smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. OPRG 2014-2020 is expected to
have an impact on four of the seven flagship initiatives to catalyze progress under each
priority theme.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources and sustainable urban development are
expected to be among the main initiatives at European level during the programming period
2014-2020 expected. OPRG 2014-2020 meets this focus and is consistent with the common
understanding of the concentration of EU funds in order to achieve concrete results. Out of
the proposed total of 11 thematic objectives 6 are selected for OPRG. In spite of this large
range, the selection does not violate the principle of concentration of resources. The strategy,
set out in the OPRG, also fits into the priorities of the Territorial Agenda 2020 of the
European Union.
Reduction of the description of the compliance with national documents would improve the
text of the program. Description of the relevant ex-ante conditionalities should continue to be
updated in line with the progress of the preparation of the Partnership Agreement.
The report identifies opportunities to improve the description of the demarcation and
complementarity between OPRG 2014-2020, and the other programs co-financed by the EU.
It should be noted, however, that the demarcation and complementarity between the programs
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
180
has not yet been clarified at the national level, which is related with the progress of the
Partnership Agreement.
Internal coherence evaluation
The current version of the OPRG 2014-2020, contains a number of improvements to the
internal coherence of the program. The OPRG strategy and the relationship between thematic
objectives / investment priorities, specific objectives envisaged activities and needs are
explained in greater detail as compared to previous versions of the program.
The report provides an overview of the links between: needs and envisaged activities;
envisaged activities and specific objective; specific objective and investment priorities /
thematic objective; and output/result indicators and envisaged activities. The conclusion of
the analysis is that after the changes in the programme the link between these elements is
strong enough.
Horizontal principles evaluation
OPRG 2014-2020 describes the application of the principles of sustainable development,
equal opportunities and non-discrimination and equality between men and women.
The description of the principles of equal opportunities and non-discrimination is short, but
adequate and covers the main requirements for this element of the operational program. The
description of the principle of equality between men and women is more general.
Evaluation of the system of indicators
The indicator system of OPRG includes the relevant common output indicators listed in
Regulation 1301/2013. As a whole, it may be concluded that all output indicators are relevant
to the activities and provide good measurement for their direct products.
Result indicators have to fulfil at the same time two conditions - they need to be directly
attributable to the programme and they should not be limited to the supported entities. One of
the main specificities of the OPRG is that it is an infrastructure programme. Hence the
meaningful results, e.g. in the health, social, and education spheres, will be achieved only
through further soft measures and national/regional policies. The evaluation provides
comments for each result indicator that illustrate the difficulties in identifying indicators,
which have as direct as possible influence on effects that extend beyond the supported
entities.
In some cases the baselines and the target values of the result indicators are not in the same
measurement unit, e.g. the baseline is in absolute numbers, whereas the target value is in
percentage. This is due to the fact that the result indicators are formulated in line with the
expected positive outcomes, e.g. “increase of”. Thus, it is recommended to reformulate the
indicators and delete “increase / decrease” in the formulation.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
181
The programmers have developed a methodology (indicator fiches) for estimation of the
baselines and the target values, which is very helpful and increases the transparency of the
calculation methods. For most indicators there are still some issues, related to the data used,
which need to be clarified in the fiches.
The system of indicators is aiming at using as much as possible official NSI data, which is
beneficial in terms of methodological clarity and transparency. In some cases the latest
available data from the NSI was not used, so it is recommended to re-calculate some
baselines and unit costs. In two cases there is a discrepancy between the formulation of the
NSI indicator and the OPRG indicator: “Increase of the net annual revenues from
international tourism” and “Increased passenger and freight flow”.
Calculating unit costs is a very useful approach for the definition of target values. Overall this
is the approach followed in the indicator fiches of the OPRG. However, inflation also needs
to be taken into account in the calculation of the target values.
On the basis of the above analysis of the indicators, the evaluators recommend review of the
result indicators, listed in the table below.
Evaluation of the budget of the programme
The breakdown of the budget of the program as a whole takes into account the identified
investment priorities and requirements contained in the main national and European strategic
documents, and considers the experience with the current programming period and the risks
of non-compliance of certain thematic ex-ante conditionalities. The financial justification of
the budget of OPRG 2014-2020, provides well-synthesized motivation for the selected
priorities and their weight. The justification meets all the requirements for its elaboration, set
in the guidelines for the development of operational programs for the next programming
period.
In terms of the priorities that will be implemented with the use of financial instruments, the
evaluation concludes that they are correctly identified, but no justification is provided for the
correlation between grants and financial instruments into the OPRG 2014-2020. In relation to
financial instruments, it should be considered that the Form for the development of
operational programs for the next programming period provides that it is not required to
perform a preliminary evaluation of financial instruments at the time of submission of the
operational program and that it could be undertaken at a later stage after specifying the details
of the use of financial instruments.
As concerns the European regulations, OPRG 2014-2020 provides adequate financial
consideration of the thematic objectives that should be financed primarily with funds from
the ERDF and that are relevant to regional development. This applies mostly to TO 4
"Transition to a low carbon economy."
Significant funding is ensured for integrated actions for sustainable urban development,
which are likely to significantly exceed the 5% national minimum envisaged in the European
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
182
framework and also for support of the implementation of TO 9 and 10. The 5% threshold
should not be actively limited in the case of Bulgaria, given the high potential contribution of
this type of investment to achieve higher growth and employment if the investment is focused
on activities with a direct impact on regional economic activity.
In terms of compliance with the formal requirements of the financial plan of the program set
out in the Form of an operational program for the next programming period, the programme
already includes preliminary versions of all required tables (Tables 17-19).
In terms of the currently available national strategic documents (Partnership Agreement
2014-2020, National Strategy for Regional development and National Development
Programme 2020), which have or will have estimates in terms of funding, the programme is
generally coherent with the investment allocations by priorities. Direct comparison of these
documents, however, is virtually impossible, given the long planning horizon in these
documents and the wider range of funding sources.
Evaluation of the management and control systems and the administrative capacity for
implementation of the programme
As a part of the implementation of the ex-ante evaluation of the management and control
systems the team of evaluators reviewed the summary action plan for strengthening the
administrative capacity of 36 municipalities - OPRD beneficiaries (version December 2012)
and the Summary Action Plan for improvement of the administrative capacity of the direct
beneficiaries of the OPRD (version December 2012). Both documents contain
recommendations regarding the administrative capacity, which are relevant for the next
programming period.
The need for trainings of the beneficiaries, identified in the above analyses, was confirmed by
the online survey, conducted during the ex-ante evaluation. According to the results of the
study more than 70% of the respondents believe that training in the next programming period
will be necessary. According to the respondents, a key area in which there is a need for
training is project management, followed by training on reporting and monitoring
performance. Beneficiaries' capacity for tendering is a critical factor in the implementation of
the program in the current programming period.
It can be concluded that the needs of the beneficiaries (the enhancement of competences,
motivation and remuneration, as well as providing the necessary equipment), which are
specified in section 3.B.1 of the OPRG, are correct.
The results of the questionnaire and the discussions in the focus groups confirmed the opinion
that establishing intermediate bodies would create more structural and functional difficulties
and obstacles, rather than improvements.
The evaluation of the administrative capacity of the MA shows the need to further clarify the
division of responsibilities between the MA central and regional departments. The most
problematic are the mechanisms for collecting information on the indicators of the program
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
183
and the collection of data needed to perform evaluations. Given the even greater importance
that the European Commission pays to indicators and evaluations in the next programming
period, it is necessary for these procedures to be reviewed by the MA of OPRG 2014-2020.
As a whole the human resources for management and implementation of OPRG 2014-2020
are adequate, but additional resources are needed for:
Monitoring of the project implementation, including through review of reports,
meetings communication with beneficiaries and so on
On-the-spot checks, on-the-spot check reports and follow-up
Development and updates of procedures and manuals
Management of documentation and archives within the MA
Financial control
In addition to these spheres, there is also the need of additional experts with technical
(engineer) knowledge.
Evaluation of the validity, relevance, coherence, applicability, and inclusion in the OPRD
2014-2020 of the results of the environmental assessment
According to the environmental assessment of the OPRG 2014-2020, at the level of priorities
and sub-priorities, the program's impact on the environment and human health as a whole has
a complex positive character. At the level of specific eligible activities, the impact is also
assessed positively as minor adverse effects are expected in the period of construction during
the respective activities.
Only some of the recommendations of the environmental assessment should be reflected in
the text of the OP. Implementing other recommendations should be performed in the
contracting process and the provision of grants, or in the process of implementation. A third
group of recommendations does not require actions in the programming and implementation,
as compliance is legally defined.
The environmental assessment includes the following recommendation: "Indicators for
monitoring and control of environmental impacts should be integrated in the system of
indicators of OPRG 2014-2020." However, in view of the recommendations of the
Commission for a limited number of indicators that measure the desired effects and
correspond to the size of the budget, which is designated for the individual measures, it is not
appropriate to include in the OPRG 2014-2020 system all of the indicators proposed in the
table provided in the environmental assessment. These indicators should be used in the
monitoring and control of environmental impacts during implementation of the program (e.g.,
in the reports with evaluation of the impact of the OPRG on the environment).
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
184
2. Recommendations
The recommendations in this report, along with their relevant conclusions, are presented in
the below table. The table also includes the indicative weight of the recommendation (1 –
“significant”, 3 – “recommended”).
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
185
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
Evaluation 1
1. The text of OPRG 2014-2020 has significantly improved as concerns
the external coherence, but some of the texts on the coherence with
National and European documents are very detailed.
During the uploading of the programme in SFC some
of the texts on the coherence with National/European
documents should be shortened.
3
2. The text on the coherence with the Partnership agreement needs to be
amended in order to consider the latest changes in the Partnership
agreement
Changes in the text are needed with regards to:
o changes in the formulation/deletion of specific
challenges (“Insufficient economic activity of the
population and entrepreneurship (NEET, active
aging)”; “Ineffective usage of resources” and
“Ineffective energy usage”; “Low quality of the
health system”; “Insufficient sector and
geographical mobility of the labour force”)
o adding of challenges, which are relevant to OPRG
2014-2020: Insufficient quality of the education
system, increasing of the illiterate population and
increasing of the share of children not going to
school; One of the highest standardized mortality
coefficient; Ineffective systems for prevention,
management and addressing the consequences of
risks
The recommendation is taken into account in the
3
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
186
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
latest version of OPRG 2014-2020 from
09.09.2013.
3. The intention to use financial instruments partly or in full to finance
investments in sports infrastructure, energy efficiency in buildings,
cultural facilities, and areas with potential for economic development,
urban and integrated public transport is in accordance with the
promoted Community policies with respect to financial instruments.
The experience in the implementation of financial instruments,
however, is still relatively small.
As concerns the financial instruments, it is
recommended to perform an evaluation of the
procedures of the 2007-2013 period. It is
recommended to perform this evaluation before the
start of OPRG 2014-2020, but in case this is not
possible, such an element should be included in the
ToR for the evaluation of the financial instruments
It should be taken into account that the Ministry of
Finances announced a tender for “Ex-ante
evaluation of the implementation of financial
instruments of the national Operational programmes
in the 2014-2020 period”, which is expected to
contain such an analysis.
2
4. The tables for the thematic ex-ante conditionalities are properly filled
in accordance with the Common Regulation and the Partnership
Agreement. The description in Table 24 includes applicable ex-ante
conditionalities, and the description in Table 26 includes relevant
actions that will be taken to implement the outstanding ex-ante
conditionalities, but it is possible to make additions to the text of the
program. It is also necessary to eliminate disparities between Table 26
The missing information for ex-ante conditionalities
4.1 and 10.2 should be filled in Table 24
The inconsistencies with the Partnership agreement
in Table 26 on the actions with regards to the ex-ante
conditionalities 4.1, 7.1, 9.1 and 9.2 should be
corrected
2
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
187
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
and the text of the Partnership agreement. The recommendation is taken into account in the
latest version of OPRG 2014-2020 from 09.09.2013.
5. The description of the demarcation and synergies between OPRG
2014-2020 and the remainingprogrammes, co-financed by the EU is not
complete
In parallel with the clarification of the demarcation
and synergies between the programmes at national
level, the MA should update Section 9 of OPRG, also
taking into account the recommendations of the ex-
ante evaluation (Section 2.2. of Evaluation 1).
2
Evaluation 2
6. There is need for improvements in Table 1 "Synthesized overview of
the rationale for the selection of thematic objectives and investment
priorities".
Chapter IV, section 2, Review of the identified needs
in OPRG 2014-2020 of this report contains specific
recommendations for changes in Table 1.
o Separation of the investment priorities,
o Identification of another need, which is relevant to
the strategy of OPRG 2014-2020 as concerns
energy efficiency
o Identification of needs for investment priority
"Actions to improve the urban environment,
including regeneration of brownfield sites and
reduction of air pollution"
o As concerns IP “Improving regional mobility
1
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
188
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
through connecting secondary and tertiary nodes
infrastructure of the trans-European transport
network” – clarification of the link with the TEN-
T
o Specification of the way OPRG 2014-2020 will
address the identified needs as concerns Thematic
objectives 9 and 10
7. The link between the elements of the strategy of the program
(activities, objectives, needs and indicators) is strong enough for most
of the specific objectives of the program. However, some of the links
should be further clarified.
Additional clarifications in the OPRG 2014-2020 on
specific elements of the strategy of the programme,
which are identified in Chapter IV, section 2, Logic
of intervention:
o Add clarification on the scope of the urban
environment / physical environment – The
recommendation is taken into account in the
latest version of OPRG 2014-2020 from
16.09.2013
o Add to the description of PA1, IP4, SO1 after
expanding its scope – The recommendation is
taken into account in the latest version of OPRG
2014-2020 from 16.09.2013
o Rephrase specific objective 1 of PA1, IP6 – The
3
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
189
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
recommendation is taken into account in the latest
version of OPRG 2014-2020 from 09.09.2013
o Specify shortly the sources of the analyses, used
for PA1, IP6, SO1 (feasibility studies of the cities
that are beneficiaries of projects for integrated
urban transport in the current programming
period) - The recommendation is taken into
account in the latest version of OPRG 2014-2020
from 09.09.2013
Evaluation 3
8. There is a description in OPRG 2014-2020 of the principles of (1)
sustainable development (2) equal opportunities and non-
discrimination, and (3) gender equality. Possible improvements could
be added to the text on the measures to ensure compliance with these
principles in implementing the program.
Add a short description (similar to that in the
Partnership agreement) of the way to ensure during
the implementation of the program keeping of the
principles of sustainable development, equal
opportunities and non-discrimination – The
recommendation is taken into account in the latest
version of OPRG 2014-2020 from 16.09.2013
3
Evaluation 4
9. The programming and reporting of indicators is among the serious
problems in the implementation of operational programs for the period
2007-2013. Challenges with the indicators are also reported in the mid-
Development of a specific methodology / indicator
fiches for the indicators with the aim of overcoming
some of the difficulties in the programming and
1
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
190
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
term evaluation of OPRG. reporting of indicators - The recommendation is
taken into account and such fiches have been
developed.
10. In previous versions of OPRG 2014-2020, the evaluation identified the
following opportunities for improvement in the system of indicators in
order to enhance the relationship between the indicators and activities:
Some output/result indicators (identified in Evaluation and the
developed indicator fiches) are very similar in scope and
definition.
Specification of the wording of the indicators
Possible additions, replacement and transferring of output
indicators to result indicators and vice versa.
In the development of the indicator system could be
used the fiches, elaborated in cooperation between
the evaluation team and the Contractor - The
recommendation is taken into account
Taking into account the changing requirements
towards the indicator system, (on the basis of the
recommendations of this report – Evaluation 2,4, and
the fiches) it is recommended to continue the
discussions on the output/result indicators: (1) within
the Working group for development of OPRG 2014-
2020 and (2) in cooperation with the NSI and the
potential beneficiaries - The recommendation is
taken into account
1
11. The system of indicators of OPRG 2014-2020, includes result
indicators that depend on a number of social factors and investment
activities beyond the program activities. This could hinder their
reporting and the identification of the contribution of the program on
these indicators.
The use of result indicators should be coordinated
with MAs of other OPs for the next programming
period, including during the development of the
Partnership Agreement, as well as with other
institutions. In particular, it is recommended that
indicators be discussed with:
1
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
191
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
o Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
o Ministry of Education
o Ministry of Transport, Information
Technologies and Communications / ARI
o Ministry of Health
o Ministry of Culture
12. The number of indicators for outputs and results in the OPRG 2014-
2020 is the same.
Reduce the number of result indicators – The
recommendation is taken into account in the version
of OPRG 2014-2020 from 16.09.2013
2
13. In some cases the baselines and the target values of the result indicators
are not in the same measurement unit, due to the that the result
indicators are formulated in line with the expected positive outcomes,
e.g. “increase of”, or “decrease of “.
Reformulate the indicators and delete “increase /
decrease” in the formulation
Use target values and baselines with the same
measurement units
1
14. For most indicators there are still some issues, commented in the
analysis, that need to be clarified in the fiches.
Clarify in the indicator fiches the identified issues,
e.g. scope of the indicators, operationalization, data
used, and some methodological issues
1
15. In some cases the latest available data from the NSI was not used. It is recommended to re-calculate some baselines and
unit costs for the indicators identified in the analysis
2
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
192
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
(Chapter VI on Evaluation 4)
16. Due to the relatively low expected influence of the OPRG on some
indicators and/or discrepancies between the NSI and OPRG
formulation, the result indicators listed in the recommendation need to
be reviewed.
Review the following result indicators:
o Reduction of final energy consumption from
public administration, commerce and services –
if feasible, request from NSI data on the final
energy consumption from public administration
o Increase of the net annual revenues from
international tourism – it is recommended to use
the NSI formulation (Internal tourism
consumption, Tourism characteristic products)
o Increased passenger and freight flow – if this
indicator is selected, the NSI indicator is only
partially relevant. So, if available, it is preferable
to use data from the Road Agency, which
includes passengers’ information.
1
Evaluation 5
17. Significant resources (9% of the indicative budget of the program) are
envisaged for regional tourism, but so far the rate of absorption of this
priority under OPRD 2007-2013 is relatively low.
Identify in the text of OPRG the identified measures
for overcoming potential problems, which might lead
to delays in the implementation of the priority in the
next programming period.
3
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
193
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
18. The financial justification of the OPRG 2014-2020, does not contain an
explanation of the principle of estimation of the proportion of financial
instruments in the total financing of the investment priorities. The
experience in the use of financial instruments is still limited and there is
no enough information on the demand this type of financing.
Provide additional justification of the chosen amount
of the contribution of the financial instruments to
each investment priority
Consider reducing the proportion of financial
instruments in the investment priorities related to
natural and cultural heritage and tourism, due to the
risk associated with the allocation of substantial
resources for financial instruments (about half of
their total resources) and lack of information about
potential interest in financial instruments,
particularly in terms of cultural heritage.
The recommendation can be considered after the
implementation of the above-mentioned evaluation of the
financial instruments.
3
Evaluation 6
19. Based on the conducted desk research and focus groups as critical
factors in the implementation of OPRD may be accounted for
beneficiaries' capacity for tendering and implementation of quality
inspection of construction supervision.
It is recommended that the text of the OPRG 2014-
2020, specifically focus on the need for training on
cross-cutting themes such as PPA and
implementation of construction supervision. It
should be borne in mind that this is a horizontal need
that needs to find its place in OP Good Governance.
3
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
194
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
20. В
т
е
Although the overall human resources of the MA of OPRG can be
considered to be sufficient, it is recommended to increase the human
resources especially in the areas of monitoring and engineering
disciplines.
Include in the OPRG text specific needs for
increasing the administrative capacity of the MA,
also taking into account the findings of this report
(Evaluation 6, section 2.2)
1
21. The evaluation identified as problematic the procedures for gathering
data on the indicators of the program and for collecting information
needed to conduct evaluations.
Given the great importance given by the EC to
indicators and evaluations during the 2014-2020
period, in the development of the MA Manual and
Guidelines for beneficiaries in the next programming
period, it is necessary to review the procedures for
gathering information on Programme indicators and
collection of data necessary to conduct evaluations.
2
Evaluation 7
22. Overall, the compliance with the recommendations of the
environmental assessment of the OPRG 2014-2020, should be done in
the process of contracting, or in the process of implementation.
A recommendation, which may be included in the
text of the OPRG 2014-2020, because it is related to
sustainable development that is referred to as a
guiding principle for the selection of operations in
the program is:
Prevent the development of tourist packages for
surveillance activities of rare and endangered
species because they lead to significant damage to
the environment and biodiversity
3
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
195
№ Conclusion Recommendation Weight
The recommendation is taken into account in the
latest version of OPRG 2014-2020 from
09.09.2013, which says that “the programme does
not contain activities, which may lead to mass
tourism becoming a threat for the cultural and
natural heritage”.
23. The environmental assessment includes the following recommendation
"The indicators for monitoring and control of environmental impacts
should be integrated in the system of indicators of OPRG 2014-2020”,
but given the EC's recommendations for a limited number of indicators
it is not appropriate to include in OPRG 2014-2020 all of the indicators
proposed in the table provided in the environmental assessment.
The indicators suggested by the environmental
assessment of OPRG 2014-2020 should be used in
the process of monitoring and control of the impact
on the environment during the implementation of the
programme (e.g. in the reports for assessment of the
impact of OPRG on the environment).
2
3. Follow-up of the Consultant’s Recommendations
In order to monitor the implementation of recommendations included in the First Interim Report and the first version of the Second Interim
Report (submitted in January 2013), this report reflects their status as of October 2013.
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
196
No Recommendation Reference to the
report
Status Comment (if available)
1. To add additional brief explanatory elements regarding the compliance
of the Program with the following strategic documents:
NDP B2020
National Strategy for Regional Development
Evaluation 1 Implemented
2. In view to certain discrepancies between the criteria for targeted
support of regions, within the national/European framework, the
rationale needs to be completed.
It should be also determined what constitutes the targeted support.
Evaluation 1 Not applicable The current version of OPRD does
not include an explicit text in terms
of targeted support for the
Northwest region.
3. Given the limited experience and results achieved during the current
planning period, it is advisable to briefly describe in the Program the
steps to implement Art. 32 of the General Regulation, namely –
implementation of ex-ante evaluation.
Evaluation 1 Implemented
4. Inclusion of thematic objective 5 in p. 2.5
Inclusion of Investment priority “Enhancing regional mobility
through connecting secondary and tertiaty nodes to TEN-T
infrastrucutre” in the description of thematic objective 7 in p. 2.5.
Evaluation 1 Implemented
5. More attention to be paid to the Territorial Agenda 2020 in the
description of the identified needs of the Program (p. 2.1. of OPRG
Evaluation 1 Implemented
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
197
No Recommendation Reference to the
report
Status Comment (if available)
2014-2020).
With a view to the identified risks in the Territorial Agenda 2020
(Section II, p. 23), to add an explanation that PA4 “Regional
tourism” does not contain activities which may in some way result
in a mass tourism becoming a threat for the cultural and natural
heritage.
6. The specific requirements to the prerequisites identified in the
present report need to be specified in the subsequent versions of the
Program, including the commitment to develop Draft National
Program for Renovation of Residential Buildings in Republic of
Bulgaria 2011-2020 (the commitment is mentioned in the version of
the NRP updated in 2012).
Evaluation 1 Outdated
7. In order to take account of risks in the implementation of Sub-priority
1.1. “Energy efficiency in administrative and residential buildings”, the
MA of the OPRG should provide for the following options:
To provide for a Mid-term evaluation of the results achieved
under Sub-priority 1.1., where necessary, to undertake adjustment
measures, including modification of OPRG 2014-2020.
Evaluation 2 Discussed during
the evaluation
It is expected to take into account
this recommendation during
programme implementation
8. To mention all data sources of used for analysis purposes Evaluation 2 Not applicable The text of the social and economic
analysis is not a separate part of
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
198
No Recommendation Reference to the
report
Status Comment (if available)
To use the most recent available statistical data OPRG 2014-2020 anymore
9. Specific needs related to the OPRG should be presented in the
text 2014-2020
Some of the elements of the analysis should be removed
Evaluation 2 Not applicable The text of the social and economic
analysis is not a separate part of
OPRG 2014-2020 anymore
10. The specific link between the chosen thematic
objectives/relevant investment priorities and the identified needs
should be included in the text of the Program.
Evaluation 2 Implemented
11. The SWOT analysis should be revised and should take into
account the options for improvement identified in this report.
To discuss the opportunity for inclusion of quantitative SWOT
analysis in the Program.
Evaluation 2 Implemented
12. To briefly indicate more specific objectives/needs in the
intervention logic
Evaluation 2 Implemented
13. To redefine/remove/add some of the specific objectives
mentioned in this report
It is necessary to include in the text of OPRG 2014-2020
additonal reasoning for the links between some activities,
investment priorities and specific objectives.
Evaluation 2 Implemented
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
199
No Recommendation Reference to the
report
Status Comment (if available)
14. The rationale and the description of the specific objectives
should be worked out in more details in OPRG 2014-2020
Evaluation 2 Implemented
15. In order to further reinforce the logical link between investment
priorities, specific objectives and indicators, it is recommended
to add/revise/redefine some of the indicators, in accordance
with the proposals made in the report.
Evaluation 2 Under discussion The issue of indicators will
continue to be discussed at sessions
of the working group
16. To add the specific objectives as well as:
Main identified target groups
Specific territories which will be subject to interventions (where
applicable)
Use of financial instruments
Evaluation 2 Implemented Information about the use of
financial instruments and
beneficiaries has been included in
the subsequent versions of OPRG
2014-2020.
17. There should be mentioned in the description of the horizontal
principles that improving the access for disabled people is among the
horizontal activities of the Program
To consider the inclusion of a horizontal indicator which shall
measure the results achieved at program level towards the access for
disabled people
To take account of the conclusions/recommendations of the Interim
Evaluation 3 Partly
implemented
The issue of the inclusion of
horizontal indicator to measure
performance in terms of access for
people with disabilities at program
level will be discussed at the
meetings of the Working Group
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
200
No Recommendation Reference to the
report
Status Comment (if available)
evaluation of OPRD 2007-2013 on horizontal principles
To pay special attention to the measures provided for inclusion of
vulnerable groups at risk of dicrimination, such as ethnic minorities,
migrants, elderly and younger people
18. The implementation of the partnership principle can be explicitly
explained in the text of the Program. It may be also specified in
Item 1.1. what mechanism is used for reflecting the comments of
the working group members.
Evaluation 3 Implemented
19. The formulations of part of the indicators should be further specified Evaluation 4 Under discussion The issue of indicators will
continue to be discussed at sessions
of the working group
20. Development of specific Manual of indicators in order to overcome
the difficulties in the programming and reporting of indicators
(outside the text of OPRG 2014-2020).
Evaluation 4 Under discussion The issue of indicators will
continue to be discussed at sessions
of the working group
21. Other output indicators should be developed
Some of the mentioned output indicators could be added to the table
containing result indicators
To add new result indicators according to the proposals made in this
Evaluation 4 Under discussion The issue of indicators will
continue to be discussed at sessions
of the working group
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
201
No Recommendation Reference to the
report
Status Comment (if available)
report
22. When setting the baseline values, a review of Eurostat databases
should be carried out and/or more recent data should be required
from NSI
Evaluation 4 Implemented
23. It is recommended that the number of indicators under SP1 be
reduced.
Evaluation 4 Implemented
24. To re-examine the conclusion drawn about the existence of
difficulties and delays in implementing projects only in 6.1% of
the municipalities
When analyzing the needs in terms of administrative capacity,
the identified issues/difficulties under PPA in the programming
period 2007-2013 should be considered
Among the needs in terms of administrative capacity, the need to
inform the local authorities on the new Cohesion Policy should
be included
Evaluation 6 Not applicable The text referring to the
administrative capacity of
beneficiaries and MA is no longer a
separate part of the Program.
25. After approval of these two documents by MA of OPRG, the
conclusions and recommendations that will be addressed within
OPRG 2014-2020, should be included in the program text
Evaluation 6 Implemented
26. The need of training can be identified in the text of OPRD 2014-2020, Evaluation 6 Not applicable The text referring to the
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
202
No Recommendation Reference to the
report
Status Comment (if available)
mainly in the field of:
• project management
• reporting and accounting on implementation
administrative capacity of
beneficiaries and MA is no longer a
separate part of the Program.
27. In the inclusion of the text under 8.1., the measures for reducing the
administrative burden for beneficiaries should be considered and
indicated in:
The summarized action plan for strengthening the
administrative capacity of 36 municipalities - OPRD
beneficiaries
The summarized action plan for strengthening the
administrative capacity of the direct beneficiaries of the OPRD
Law on the Management of EU Funds
Evaluation 6 Implemented
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
203
Annexes
1. List of key consulted documents
№ Name of the document
1. Various versions of OPRG 2014-2020
2. National Development Program: Bulgaria 2020
3. National Reform Program 2012-2020
4. National Regional Development Strategy of Republic of Bulgaria (NRDS) for the
period 2012-2022
5. Ex-ante evaluation of OPRD 2007-2013
6. Review of the first opened schemes under OPRD 2007-2013
7. Socio-economic analysis for the purposes of the OPRG for the period 2014-2020
8. National Spatial Development Concept of Bulgaria
9. Analysis of the beneficiaries’ capacity under the project “Preparing action plans to
strengthen the administrative capacity of the beneficiaries under the OPRG”
10. Interim evaluation and interim report on the implementation of the National
Regional Development Strategy for the period 2005
11. Regional plans for development of the regions at level 2 for the 2014
12. Interim evaluations and reports on the results of the interim evaluations of the
implementation of the Regional plans for development of the regions at NUTS 2 for
the period 2007
13. Mid-term evaluation of OPRD 2007-2013
14. Environmental assessment of OPRG 2014-2020
15. Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
16. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific
provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment
for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
17. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common
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 covered by the Common Strategic
Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
204
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006
18. Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an Inclusive, Smart and
Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions, agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting
of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development
19. EU Strategy for the Danube Region
20. National Reform Programme (2011-2015, update from 2012), Convergence
Programme of the Republic of Bulgaria (2011-2014 ) in the conclusions and
recommendations of the report of the European Commission's Annual Growth
Survey ( 2012)
21. Regional Development Act in force from 31.08.2008 and subsequent updates
22. Partnership Agreement
23. Concepts and/or projects of other programs included in the Partnership Agreement
24. Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership Agreement
and programmes in Bulgaria for the period 2014-2020
25. Annual reports of the MA on the implementation of OPRD 2007-2013
26. Reports of the Committee on European Affairs and Oversight of the European Funds
27. Guidance Document On Monitoring and Evaluation – European Regional
Development Fund And Cohesion Fund – Concepts and Recommendations
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
205
2. List of participants from the focus groups in the
evaluation
Ex-ante Evaluation of Operational Program Regions in Growth in the 2014-2020 programming period
215
3. Results of the online questionnaires
The results of the online questionnaires were electronically delivered to the Contracting
Authority.
4. Indicator fiches
The indicator fiches were electronically delivered to the Contracting Authority.