Economics DG REGIO JASPERS Evaluation Second Intermediate Report, 4th October 2012 Prepared by: ............................................................. Checked by: ........................................................................ Evelyn Judge & John Finnegan John Finnegan Principal Regional Director Regional Director Approved by: ............................................................. Bernard Feeney Director JASPERS Evaluation Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date by 1 Ground Floor, Grand Canal House, Upper Grand Canal Street, Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland Telephone: +353 (0) 1 238 3100 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No Reference Date Created Error! Reference source not found. This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited. Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Section A: Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Section B: Task 3 Case Studies .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Section C: Task 4: Analysis of Feedback from Member States and Project Beneficiaries ................................................... 35 Section D: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................... 87 Appendix 1: Case Studies ............................................................................................................................................................ 93 Appendix 2: Workshop Slides ..................................................................................................................................................... 94 Executive Summary AECOM JASPERS Evaluation 1 Capabilities on project: Economics Executive Summary Introduction and Scope of Work AECOM has been engaged by the DG for Regional Policy of the European Commission to carry out an evaluation of the JASPERS initiative from its inception until the end of June 2011. JASPERS was established in late 2005 as a technical assistance facility to increase the capacity of beneficiary countries to make the best use of EU funding. Improvement of the quantity and quality of projects submitted for funding approval was anticipated to increase the benefits of these projects to the new Member States and the European Union as a whole. JASPERS support is extended to projects in a number of sectors including ports, airports, railways, roads, urban infrastructure and services, energy and solid waste, water supply and wastewater, and the knowledge economy. By the end of 2011 JASPERS had provided assistance to Member States for 541 projects which had reached the stage of being approved for funding by the European Commission. It was providing assistance to a further 351 projects which were at various earlier stages of development. The total value of the projects which had reached the stage of approval with JASPERS assistance was almost €64bn. By the end of 2011 JASPERS had 89 staff, and it had annual running costs of €32m. This document is the Second Intermediate Report on the evaluation. It presents the results of Tasks 3 and 4 of the evaluation, as defined in the DG for Regional Policy’s invitation to tender. Task 3 consisted of the preparation of a set of case studies of Major investment projects and Task 4 consisted of the analysis of feedback from Member States and Beneficiaries. Task 3 of this evaluation consisted of 10 case studies of Major JASPERS assisted projects which had been approved for funding by the DG for Regional Policy. The objective of these case studies was to provide an analysis of the effect of JASPERS technical assistance on the timing, quality, project development and preparation for submission to the DG for Regional Policy of Major projects. Each case study examined a major JASPERS assisted project and compared it to another Major project which had not received JASPERS assistance but which was, in all other respects, comparable to the JASPERS assisted project. These case studies: • Compared the length of time the comparable JASPERS assisted and non-JASPERS assisted projects took to be approved by the DG for Regional Policy; • Identified the key issues which arose during the planning process of the case study projects; • Established how these issues were resolved; and, • Evaluated other factors that had a significant influence on project development. The pairs of projects chosen for each of the ten case studies were selected on the basis that: • The projects chosen had to be broadly representative of the JASPERS supported Major projects in terms of sectors, as different technologies and planning processes may be involved; • There should be a broad coverage of Member States, to account for the effect of differing project planning capacities; • There should be a substantial JASPERS involvement in the projects selected, as this would create a better opportunity for learning from the case studies; and, • There should be comparable non-JASPERS supported projects for comparative timeline analysis. AECOM JASPERS Evaluation 2 Capabilities on project: Economics Task 4 of this evaluation consisted of face to face interviews and workshops with key JASPERS stakeholders in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. These interviews and workshops were intended to refine and extend the findings from Tasks 1 to 3 on the impact of JASPERS. In particular, they are intended to analyse the impact of JASPERS on the administrative capacity of these Member States. Specifically these interviews and workshops identified: • The key lessons learned in each country from participation in the JASPERS initiative; • The mechanisms are in place to transfer technical knowledge from JASPERS staff to project applicants and Member State authorities in general; • Whether projects are encouraged to learn from each other within Member States; • Factors affecting or limiting knowledge transfer between JASPERS and project applicants; and, • Factors affecting or limiting knowledge transfer within Member States. In addition the interviews and workshops were used as an opportunity to: • Test preliminary findings from Task 2 “Links between specific areas of JASPERS advice and the DG for Regional Policy project assessment process”, Task 3 “Case studies” and Task 4.1 “Desk research”; • Explore the reputation and value added of JASPERS in the Member States; and, • Discuss the future direction of the JASPERS initiative with regard to preparation of projects for the 2014-2020 programming period, strategic and horizontal support (for example preparation of sector strategies), capacity building (including institutional support) and project implementation support. Results of Case Studies A number of general lessons can be drawn from the case studies on the impact of JASPERS. The principal results are: • In many cases JASPERS was involved in the process of project development relatively late. Often its involvement was confined to the preparation of an application for funding for the DG for Regional Policy. However there are clear illustrations from the case studies of how JASPERS assistance with the preparation of applications speeds up the process of the DG for Regional Policy considering applications and deciding to fund the projects. The Czech railway, Slovenian road, Polish rail, Polish road 2 and Polish Water and Wastewater 2 cases are all examples of this impact of JASPERS work. • The case studies also illustrate the impact of JASPERS assistance on projects going beyond the projects in question, to have a positive impact on project that were not the subject of specific JASPERS assistance. The Czech rail case study is an example of this type of impact. • The case studies reveal a recognition among Member States that late involvement of JASPERS may miss an opportunity to improve the quality of projects themselves, and moves by Member States to involve JASPERS earlier in the development of projects. For example the Slovenian road case study indicates a desire amongst the Slovenian authorities to involve JASPERS in project development at an earlier stage. • The case studies show the flexibility of JASPERS in finding useful support to give where its usual support with the development of a specific project is less relevant. For example, the Romanian case studies describe the alternative sources of technical support such a private consultants and the DG for Regional Policy available to beneficiaries and authorities in Romania, and describe how JASPERS tailored its assistance to the needs of Romania. AECOM JASPERS Evaluation 3 Capabilities on project: Economics • The second Polish road case study demonstrates