Template for the Operational Programme under the Investment for Growth and Jobs goal

Morten GreveDirectorate General for Regional and Urban Policy01.03.2013 1

Shortcomings of 2007-2013 period

16.01.2013 2

• Double encoding• Information provided in both tables and documents• Information already provided is not used automatically

• Unclear or insufficient reporting requirements• Templates lacking in details and clarity

• Cumbersome modification and decision processes• Lack of programme and data structure led to inefficient

assessments and analysis• Minor modification require assessment and full decision

A long term investment

• Providing everything in a structured way through pre-defined templates and forms• Fast programme modification process• Clear reporting• Enhanced data quality

• Detailed specifications• More work now but more clarity in the future

• Harmonisation• Long term efficiency gains

16.01.2013 3

More structure (templates and SFC2014)

• Everything is structured and organised• Data fields and tables

• Selection Lists(Drop down menus)

• Check boxes + yes/no

• Text fields

16.01.2013 4

1 2 3 4 5xx xx xx xx xx

yy yy zz zz vv

Text box titleProvide a description of no more than x characters of the following items: …

Common Indicators

Additional waste recycling capacity - tonsEstimated reduction in leakage - m3

Total length of new railway line – kmEstimated decrease of GHG in CO2 equivalent - tons

❑✓

More structure (templates and SFC2014)

• Documents are optional and for information• Except where specifically required by regulation

• En-ante evaluation etc.

• In case of inconsistency between documents and data the structured data in the forms prevails

• Links and references cannot be used

• Complete reference documents are produced by the system based on the information• A complete PDF version of the programme with a single click• Will not include information supplied through documents

• Changes compared to previous versions are identified automatically• Correct treatment ensured automatically• Amendments with or without a Commission decision• Text changes are highlighted

16.01.2013 5

Technical details of the template

16.01.2013 6

• Purpose of the template• To identify all elements of a programme• To provide definitions for all elements• To define the relationship between elements• To remove any ambiguity

• The template will not• Define the graphical layout of the SFC2014 input screens

Technical details of the template

16.01.2013 7

• Each field has an identifier• <ID type=" " maxlength=" " input=" " Decision=" " PA=" ">

Description

ID Unique identifier of the element

type N=Number, D=Date, S=String, C=Checkbox, P=Percentage, B=Boolean

maxlength Maximum number of characters including spaces in a text field

input M=Manuel, S=Selection, G=Generated by the system

decision N=Not part of the Decision - article 87(10)

PA Y=Element can be covered solely by the Partnership Agreement – article 87(8)

Defining the priorities

16.01.2013

Defining the priorities

16.01.2013

Defining the priorities

16.01.2013 10

• Simple case:• As a general rule a priority should be mono-fund, cover only

one thematic objective and a single category of region

Priority axis Thematic objective

Category of region Investment priorities

Specific objectives corresponding to the investment priorities

Fund (specify the Fund: ERDF, Cohesion Fund, ESF)

Union support - EUR

Co-financing rate

1 1 Less developed1.1 Obj. 1

ERDF € 89 000 000 70.00 %1.3 Obj. 2

2 3 More developed 3.2 Obj. 3 ERDF € 15 000 000 75.00 %

Defining the priorities

16.01.2013 11

• Complex case:• Can cover more than one fund, more than one thematic

objective and more than one category of region

Priority axis Thematic objective

Category of region Investment priorities

Specific objectives corresponding to the investment priorities

Fund (specify the Fund: ERDF, Cohesion Fund, ESF)

Union support - EUR

Co-financing rate

1

1 Less developed1.1 Obj. 1

ERDF €22 300 00070.00 %1.3 Obj. 2

2 Less developed 2.2 Obj. 3 ERDF€73 000 000

3 More developed 3.2 Obj. 4 ERDF €59 000 000 50.00 %

10 Less developed 10.1 Obj. 5 ESF €163 000 000 75.00 %

1 N.A. 1.2 Obj. 6 CF €19 700 000 85.00 %

2 … … … … … … …

Indicators and other elements

16.01.2013 12

• Priority axis and indicators• All information in particular output and result indicates will

follow the structure of the priority axis• Simple priorities will have a simple indicator table• Complex priorities will have complex indicator tables broken

down in accordance with the intervention logic.• All tables will be created and wherever possible pre-filled on

the basis of the intervention logic

Pre-filled tables

16.01.2013 13

Automatically generated tables

16.01.2013 14

Elements not subject to a Commission decision

16.01.2013 15

Elements that can be provided solely in the Partnership Agreement

16.01.2013 16