evaluation of the economic development operative programme scheme 2.1.1 and mirror schemes
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of the Economic Development Operative
ProgrammeScheme 2.1.1 and
mirror schemes
Agenda
1. Introduction of the scheme
2. Amendments to the scheme
3. Progress and allocation of funds
4. Characteristics of the projects
5. Questionnaire
6. Key conclusions and recommendations
1. Introduction of the scheme (1)
• n, hogy hány NSRK pályázat összesen – hány 2.1.1; hány sikeres pályázat összesen – hány 2.1.1.
Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)
NSRF54.4 th.(100%)
EDOP and CHOP 1.28.2 th.(51.8%)
EDOP 2. and CHOP 1.223.8 th.(43.7%)
EDOP 2.1.1 and mirrors19.1 th.(35.1%)
Number of applications granted
1. Introduction of the scheme (2)
Target groupIntensity
of the subsidy
Max. amount
(Mill. HUF)
AMicro enterprises, SMEs
30-70%(25-35%)
10-50(10-20)
BMicro enterprises, SMEs
30-50%(25-35%)
50-150(50-100)
C*Micro e., SMEs, large enterprises
30-50% 400-500
KHGMicro enterprises, SMEs
25-35% 150
M Micro enterprises Max. 45% 4-10
*Available only in EDOP(Different in the CHOP mirror schemes)
Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)
Number of supported projects(total: 19,236)
Amount of commitments(total: HUF 265.5 Bill.)
A53%
B6%
C1%
KHG0%
M40%
A45%
B23%
C14%
KHG0%
M18%
2. Amendments to the scheme
• The initial calls of the scheme primarily focused on enterprises with growth
potential and their needs
• The economic crisis influenced the original planning in many aspects; widening
the circle of potential applicants and easing beneficiary obligations
• The combined micro credit product introduced in 2011 was able to commit
significant amount of funds
3. Progress and allocation of funds (1)
• I
Prognosis for the 2.1.1-A, B , C and M components(contracted grants)
Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)
3. Progress and allocation of funds (2)
Average rate of final payment at different progress phases*
Distribution of granted funds by project progress
* EDOP 2.1.1 schemeSource: EMIR (25.02.2013)
Progress of project portfolio
Average rate of payment
After project selection 71%
After contracting 76%
After the first reimbursement 94%
After project closure 99%
Paid grants47%
Under implementation
34%
Non-reimbursed grants19%
3. Progress and allocation of funds (3)
Reimbursed and non-reimbursed grants
Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)
Non-reimbursed funds29%
Reimbursed funds71%
5%
17%
2%
5% Recall after reimbursement
Non-reimbursed funds at project closure
Contract closure without implementation
Withdrawal before contracting
4. Characteristics of the projects
Distribution of commitments among industry sectors
Distribution of commitments among regions
Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)
South Great Plain18%
South Transdanubia
11%
North Great Plain17%
North Hungary14%
Central Transdanubia
13%
West Transdanubia
13%
Central Hungary
14%
112,5
42,936,4
23,9
37,9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Bill
. H
UF
A B C M
5. Questionnaire (1)
In which phases did you involve consultants?
• The online questionnaire
was sent to 11.5
thousands beneficiaries
• 1.8 thousand answers
arrived, which means
15.4% rate of response
87%70%
25%
13%30%
75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Completion and submission of the
application
Administrative support during the
implementation(e.g. PIR)
Professional support during the
implementation
Without consultant
With consultant
5. Questionnaire (2)
Monitoring responsibilities – To what extent do you agree with the statements below?
15%
13%
34%
52%
53%
47%
-6%
-7%
-3%
-28%
-26%
-16%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
the expectation of monitoring report is clear (interim- and final project implementation reports, follow-up reports), the
related documents are easy to understand
the administative burden of the monitoing reports are acdequate
he number of documents about monitoring and reimbursement is too high
distribution of the answers
fully agree partly agree partly disagree fully disagree
52%
53%
47%
15%
13%
34%
-28%
-26%
-16%
-6%
-7%
-3%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
the expectation of monitoring report is clear (interim- and final project implementation reports, follow-up reports), the
related documents are easy to understand
the administative burden of the monitoing reports are adequate
the number of documents about monitoring and reimbursement is too high
distribution of answers
partly agree fully agree fully disagree partly disagree
6. Key conclusions and recommendations
•
• In its present form direct funding for SMEs has a high absorption capability,
there is no danger of losing funds
• The parallel tasks of closing the present and launching the upcoming period
present an enormous challenge for the institutional system
• The balance between absorption and strategic objectives should be
established while planning the 2014-2020 period: focusing on the
modernisation of growth-supporting technology
• Due to the characteristics of the scheme it is not recommended defining
workforce conditions as a beneficiary obligation
Contact:
János Matolcsy
Evaluation expert
KPMG Advisory Ltd.
+36 70 333 1497
kpmg.hu