Contract no 2010.CE.16.B.AT.041 
Expert Evaluation Network delivering Policy Analysis 

Inception report

February 2011

ISMERI EUROPA

Table of Contents

Tasks to be undertaken and proposed approach
Introduction and Background
Overall methodological approach
The network of experts
The coordinating unit
The preparation of the policy reports on renewable energy and energy efficiency of residential housing (Task1)
Background
The issues to be covered
The approach to be adopted
Draft template
Synthesis report on Task 1
The preparation of the report on the achievements of Cohesion Policy (Task 2)
Issues to be covered
Draft template for the country report
Production of a synthesis report on cohesion policy in Member States
The organisation of the Expert Evaluation Network Meetings (Task 3)
Expert review of selected evaluations and studies (Task 4)
The choice of experts
Meetings of the expert review panel
Organisation and allocation of work
The four tasks to be undertaken
Overall coordination and management
Communication
Proposed timetable
Summary of deliverables
Annex 1 – Cross-border cooperation programmes
Number of programmes managed per country
Cross-border Cooperation Programmes – details by country
Annex 2 – Correspondence between policy areas and fields of intervention (FOI)

Expert Evaluation Network delivering Policy Analysis
–	inception report – 
Tasks to be undertaken and proposed approach
Introduction and Background
Since the EU spends a substantial sum of money on regional development and assisting Member States to pursue the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, it is important to ensure not only that the sums are properly accounted for, but equally importantly that they are used effectively and efficiently. This implies a need not just for effective audit systems to track how the money from the ERDF and Cohesion Fund which goes to Member States is used but also for an effective means of evaluating the programmes and measures carried out and what they have achieved. 
Responsibility for this – and indeed for proper auditing – lies with the Member States as well as with the Commission. Changes in the procedures for the present programming period, however, mean that Member States have more discretion and flexibility than in the past over how they exercise this responsibility and, indeed, how far they exercise it at all. 
An aim of the reform is that, instead of carrying out evaluations covering whole programmes at fixed times, Member States will put in place a system of ongoing evaluations which is best suited to their needs and which, for example, enables them to investigate particular aspects or measures for which it is especially important to obtain evidence of effects. The hope is that both the number and types of evaluation will increase over time along with the use of more rigorous methods. This adds to the importance of monitoring developments across the EU in respect of how Cohesion policy is being implemented and what is being achieved, not only to have up-to-date information about the programmes being carried out and the action being taken to make them more effective, but also to be able to make this information widely available so that Member States are aware of what others are doing and can learn from it. 
One of the main tasks of the Evaluation Network is to compile information on the evaluations being carried out across the EU, to report on the policy areas and issues to which they have been applied as well as the results in terms of what the policies assessed have achieved. This is combined with the more general task of reporting on the performance of policies in the present programming period, on the outputs produced, the results of these and their impact on the regions in which they are being implemented.
The amount of information available to do this is considerable. Distilling this information and producing a meaningful overview of developments, however, remains a major challenge. The information takes the form not just of the results of evaluations but also of various official reports and research studies. Chief among these are the Annual Implementation Reports (AIRs) produced for all individual Operational Programmes co-financed by the Structural Funds, which are complemented by National Strategic Reports produced by each Member State twice during the period, in 2009 and 2012.
The AIRs are intended to give a detailed overview of the progress made in implementing programmes, of what they have achieved over the preceding year in quantitative terms and of how this compares with the specific targets set and the more general objectives of policy, as well as reporting any changes in these objectives since the programmes were first drawn up. As such, in principle at least, they enable the performance of programmes to be monitored and assessed. However, it still remains to put the information contained in the AIRs together in order to form an overview of policy achievements not only in the country in question but also in individual regions, since these typically stem from sectoral programmes conducted centrally, such as on transport or support of enterprise as well as from the Operational Programme for the region concerned. 
In practice, a major task of the evaluation network is to digest and synthesise the information contained in the AIRs, together with that available from other sources, in order to put together a coherent overview of the contribution of the ERDF and Cohesion Fund to tackling regional development problems in the context of prevailing circumstances. These circumstances at present tend to be very different from when programmes were initially formulated, as a result of the global financial crisis and subsequent recession, the current slow recovery and the high level of uncertainty over future economic prospects, all of which have combined to impose tight constraints on public expenditure in most parts of the EU.
The task of producing an overview of policy achievements is made more difficult not just by the quantity of information which needs to be distilled but equally by its quality. Experience in 2010 of preparing reports for the 27 Member States on the first three years of the 2007-2013 programming period has forcibly brought to light the deficiencies of the information contained in many of the AIRs. Not only is the information uneven and often incomplete but there is a general lack of comparability and consistency in the quantitative data included, while the qualitative information, which is supposed to help interpret these data and enable progress in implementing programmes to be assessed, often fails to do so. The lack of comparability applies not only between countries but in many cases between regions within countries, making it difficult to aggregate data to form an overall picture of achievements in individual Member States, let alone across the EU as a whole. 
The deficiencies of the AIRs mean that there is even more need to supplement the information in the reports from other sources, from Strategic Reports and research studies as well as from the findings of evaluations. They also increase the importance of interviewing Managing Authorities, independent evaluators and others who might be able to help fill in the gaps left by missing information in the published reports.
Overall methodological approach
According to the terms of reference, there are four tasks which the network needs to carry out:
1.	to produce short reports (‘thematic policy papers’) for the 27 EU Member States, together with a synthesis report, outlining the policy being followed in a specific area at national and regional level and the role of Cohesion policy, and the associated funding, in contributing to this, the area in the first year being the development of renewable energy supplies and increasing the energy efficiency of residential housing;
2.	to produce national reports for all the Member States plus a synthesis report on the contribution of the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund to regional policy, on the progress in pursuing development strategies and the achievements made in the context of changing economic and political circumstances, together with a review of relevant evaluations carried out and the identification of examples of good practice;
3.	to set up a network of national experts capable of producing the reports described above and organising at least two meetings of the network during the year to discuss the two synthesis reports and to exchange views on the analysis contained in these as well as in the national reports in order to increase understanding of developments;
4.	to organise a panel of experts to review selected evaluations or studies regarded as being of good quality to assess and comment on these, in order to raise awareness of them among relevant authorities and policy advisors across the EU.
Each of these tasks is discussed in more detail below, indicating how it is intended to carry them out and to organise the work involved in doing so. 
The general intention is to adopt much the same approach as in carrying out similar tasks in 2010. This involves preparing, in consultation with Commission officials and the network of national experts (see below), a detailed template spelling out the points which need to be covered in Tasks 1 and 2 together with tables with relevant data either from DG Regio (data on expenditure and commitments up to a particular date and on allocations of funding) or from Eurostat (background national and regional data on, for example, GDP, employment, macroeconomic indicators and special topics, such as sources of energy supply). 
The templates need to be designed in such a way that they indicate clearly the scope of the respective studies and the issues that need to be covered but allow the experts sufficient flexibility to present the analysis in the way which is most appropriate for their particular country and to include points which are important but which may not be specified in the template. 
Equally, they should include all the relevant data available which can be collected and processed centrally, in order to relieve the national experts of the burden of finding national data and, no less importantly, to ensure as much comparability as possible across national reports. National experts can then concentrate on providing data which are relevant but which are not available at EU-level, including more up-to-date statistics than have yet been published by Eurostat.
The core team will then be responsible for preparing the synthesis report for each of these tasks on the basis of the national studies, together with data available centrally which cover all Member States, in order to present an overview of developments at regional level across the EU.
It is important to recognise that though the tasks are similar to those being undertaken in 2010, the fact that an assessment has been made on developments up to that time – or at least up to the point for which information is available – means that the reports produced under Task 2 cannot have the same content as in 2010. In other words, they need to move on from the analysis presented in the previous reports and, in effect, represent a follow-up to these. Accordingly, they should attempt to pick up the points made, or questions raised, in the reports concerned and to focus on the progress made in the implementation of programmes since the previous year and the achievements resulting from the expenditure carried out. However, while they should avoid duplication, they should, at the same time, be stand-alone – i.e. there should not be a need to have to refer back continuously to the previous year’s report in order to follow and understand what is being said. Accordingly, they should perhaps include a short resumé of the main points made in the report for the preceding year and list outstanding issues. Such continuity applies as much to the national reports for 2012 and 2013 as to those for 2011.
Equally, the reports should assess and comment on the adequacy of the AIRs for the task in hand – for monitoring the progress made in implementing programmes and their performance in terms of pursuing policy objectives – and how far issues or concerns raised one year are picked up the next. The same applies to the evaluations of Cohesion policy undertaken in Member States and their strategies in this regard as well as the extent to which these strategies are actually being put into practice.
The network of experts
The experts who form the evaluation network are at the centre of the project and its success in achieving the objectives set out above depends critically on their capabilities. Their selection is, accordingly, of key importance. The experts listed below each have a high degree of understanding of the nature of regional problems in their respective countries and how they are tending to change over time, as well as of wider economic developments. They also have considerable awareness of the policies being pursued to tackle the problems concerned, the contribution of EU funding in this regard and the evaluations carried out to analyse their effects. In addition, they are acquainted with the relevant officials in the authorities responsible for managing policy to contact as well as with the main evaluators and researchers working in this general area. 
Most of the experts have experience of undertaking similar tasks in 2010 and have developed a good understanding of what is required. 
Essentially the same network of experts will be used to undertake Tasks 1 and 2, though they have been selected primarily with Task 2 in mind, as people who can cover all aspects of regional policy and have a good understanding of the issues relating to regional development. Although Task 1 involves covering a specific policy area – the development of renewable energy sources and improving the energy efficiency of residential housing – the experts concerned should be able, with guidance and support, to produce a national report of the kind required. 
The approach to undertaking Task 1
The guidance and support for undertaking Task 1 will be provided by the core team, which, as indicated above, will prepare a template setting out the issues to be covered and detailing the information and analysis which need to be included in the reports. The core team will be assisted in this regard by an expert, who is listed below, who specialises in the economics of energy and who is familiar with the issues involved and the studies which have been undertaken on them. His main task will be to carry out the literature review which is required under the terms of reference to provide essential background material for the experts to prepare their reports and for the core team to produce the synthesis report. He will also advise on the data to be compiled to assist in the preparation of these reports and help in the drafting of the synthesis report.
The same approach will be followed in 2012 and 2013 – to identify a suitable expert, according to the specific topic to be covered, and for him or her to help in the ways indicated above.
Although the national experts in the network do not need to be experts in the particular topic chosen for Task 1 if they receive sufficient guidance to carry out the study, they, nevertheless, may prefer not to take on the task, if only because the amount of work which is required of them if they carry out both this and Task 2. In this case, they will be asked to find a suitable person, possibly in the same institute, to work with them to undertake the study. They will remain responsible for what is produced and will attend the meeting where the output of the study is discussed. 
The coordinating unit
The tasks of the coordinating unit, or core team, as well as identifying suitable experts to be included in the network are: 
•	to direct and manage the activities of the network;
•	to define the scope and contents of the reports to be produced; 
•	to draft synthesis reports summarising the findings of the national reports;
•	to provide support to the expert panel for the review of selected evaluations. 
Together with designing the templates for the national reports and the assessment grid for the expert review, the coordinating unit will provide support throughout the process of preparing the reports, starting from the compilation, processing and provision of relevant data available at EU-level, either in DG Regio or in Eurostat. They will interact regularly with the national experts, respond to queries and give advice throughout the preparation of the reports. These are likely to have to go through a number of drafts before they are in a form and of a quality to meet the standard required. At least two members of the core team will read the first draft of the report carefully and comment on it, returning it to the expert within as short a time as possible with specific requests for revision, such as for the inclusion of additional material or of an extended, or modified, analysis of particular issues. 
The second draft of the report will then go through the same review process, the focus being on ensuring that the comments and requests have been satisfactorily taken into account. If not, the report will be returned to the expert for further work. If they have been, the report will then be edited to ensure that it is sufficiently clear for it to be readily comprehensible before being sent to DG Regio for review and comment. The comments received from DG Regio, together with any comments from the core team, will be relayed to the national experts so that they can incorporate these in the pre-final version of the report. This version will then go through a more thorough editing process by the core team to ensure that the English is of a good standard before being delivered to DG Regio for posting on its website. 
In the case of the report produced for Task 2, the pre-final version will be sent at the same time to the officials in the Member State concerned who have been interviewed by the expert when preparing the report in order to check the accuracy of the contents (rather than to comment on them as such). Any changes suggested will then be taken into account by the expert, who will modify the report as considered necessary before sending it to the core team who will incorporate any revisions into to the edited version of the report. 
Members of the core team will also provide support to the expert panel and will be responsible for organising and running the meetings concerned and for producing reports on these which summarise the reviews carried out on the selected evaluations covered. 
Not least importantly, the coordinating unit will be the main point of contact with DG Regio officials in the Evaluation Unit, who will have the ultimate say over the evaluations to be reviewed by the panel network and the contents of the reports. 
The preparation of the policy reports on renewable energy and energy efficiency of residential housing (Task1)
The first task consists of summarising the policies in place in Member States to promote the development of renewable sources of energy, on the one hand, and increased energy efficiency in residential housing, on the other, and the contribution of the ERDF to these, in terms of the measures supported and their relative scale. It also entails examining whether the rationale for public intervention in these two areas is clearly spelled out in the public documents or statements on the programmes in question, given that in both cases, there are potentially significant private returns from investment. 
Background 
Analysis of renewable energy policy and measures to increase energy efficiency in residential housing merit special attention in the 2007-2013 programming period, as:
•	The EU has given increasing encouragement to the development of renewable energy sources over recent years, culminating in the Directive in April 2009 (2009/28/EC), the so-called “20-20-20” Directive), which is aimed at increasing national support for such development and which requires each Member State to set out in a national Renewable Energy Action Plan how it intends to reach its target for renewables.
•	Since buildings account for 40% of total energy consumption and 36% of CO2 emissions in the EU, improving the energy efficiency of housing represents one of the most important means of reaching the EU Climate and Energy objectives. The Directive on the energy performance of buildings (2010/31/EU) from the European Parliament and the Council of May 2010 put forward a general framework for reducing the energy consumed by buildings.
•	The development of renewable energy sources is increasingly planned at a regional and local level where needs and opportunities can more easily be taken into account, aided by the decentralisation of energy supply which enables local and regional factors to play more of a role.
•	Policies to support renewables and energy efficiency need to be adapted to the features of different regions, the circumstances prevailing there and the potential for the development of new energy sources. This implies a need for suitable indicators on the production and consumption of renewables and energy use in residential housing (as well as in other buildings) in order both to design and monitor such policies. At present, however, the data required are limited and incomplete at regional level (AER, 2010).
•	Policy on renewables and the energy efficiency of buildings in the EU involves different levels of Government. The targets are increasingly set at EU-level, while the choice of the means for achieving these remains a responsibility of individual Member States and regions. Moreover, in a number of Member States, regulatory powers over the construction of new generating plants reside with local governments. Accordingly a need for coordination between the different levels of government is a feature of these two policy areas in many parts of the EU.
•	The 2009 EU Directive on renewables recognises that Member States are differentially placed to expand supply and have different costs of production and, accordingly, stand to gain to different extents. It, therefore, calls on national governments to engage in cross-border cooperation to support their development.
•	The rationale for EU involvement in the development of renewables and in energy saving rests on there being a common interest in such policies since they have the potential to add both directly to economic growth and employment and indirectly through strengthening competitiveness. Equally, there are also potential gains from cooperation. 
Member States, however, start from very different positions as regards the use of renewable energy for electricity generation (see Figure).

The issues to be covered 
Tackling prospective energy shortages and protecting the environment are priorities of the Structural Funds, and in particular, the ERDF, and supporting investment in renewable energy sources and in energy efficiency in buildings are among the main ways of pursuing these priorities. Task 1 consists of reviewing the nature of this support across the EU, the specific form which measures take and the contribution of the ERDF to them, as well as the rationale for support, according to official statements, and the relative importance attached to it. To be more specific, the questions to be answered are:
1.	What are the main features of national policies of Member States to promote i) renewable energy sources and ii) the energy efficiency of residential housing? 
2.	What are the main measures to promote these policy aims in ERDF programmes? What is the relative importance of ERDF support in both cases? 
3.	Is there a difference, complementarity or overlap between ERDF measures and national measures in the two cases? 
4.	Do the ERDF programmes or the instruments adopted to implement them state a clear rationale for public intervention? 
5.	Do Member States vary the rate of support depending on the profitability of measures supported (or the potential for self-financing in the case of the increased energy efficiency of residential housing)?
To answer the last question in particular, but also to indicate the context in which the policies concerned are being implemented, there is a need for background information to enable intervention to be put into perspective. Work on carrying out Task 1 will, therefore, begin by setting out the ‘economics’ of expanding renewables in different parts of the EU - the prices and costs entailed and the potential profitability – and how these are changing over time, and by outlining the various obstacles for improving the energy efficiency of residential housing.
One point to note here is the focus of Member State policy is very much on the national level, in line with the terms of reference, but there is also a strong regional dimension to policies for developing renewable energy supply in some of the larger countries, reflecting the differential potential for developing sources of different types across regions. This may also apply to policies for increasing the energy efficiency of housing, given the different climatic conditions across the larger countries. The regional dimension will be picked up in the literature review and included in the template for the national reports. 
The approach to be adopted
The background analysis required to set out the context in which policy measures in support of the development of renewable energy sources and the improvement in the energy efficiency of housing are being implemented will be undertaken through a literature review of the relevant literature. As indicated above, this will be carried out centrally by an expert on the economics of energy under the direction of the core team. It will be supplemented by the production of tables with relevant statistics available at EU-level, primarily from Eurostat, setting out the relative importance of renewable energy supplies from the different sources in each Member State. 
Both the literature review and the supplementary tables will be made available to national experts who will be responsible for preparing a concise report describing the situation and developments in their country as regards the issues set out above. To undertake this task, they will also be provided with a template (see below) prepared by the core team setting out the issues which need to be covered in their reports.
Literature review 
The literature review will cover the two main broad sets of issues which need to be examined in order to give perspective to the measures adopted across the EU for supporting the development of renewable energy sources and for the increased energy efficiency of residential housing. These relate to: 
1.	The typical electricity prices and profitability rates for the main types of renewable energy sources (water, wind, solar photovoltaic and thermal, and bio fuels) in different parts of the EU, differentiated by their geographical features, as compared with the price of electricity generated from fossil fuels, and the way they have tended to change over time 
2.	The various obstacles – financial, regulatory and institutional – which impede the implementation of measures to increase the energy efficiency of residential housing.
The review will begin by summarising the relevant theoretical literature on public intervention in the two areas concerned, covering both the case for intervention and the expenditure of public money in this respect as opposed to implementing other, non-financial, measures in pursuit of the end-objectives. It will also examine the case for EU funding of the expenditure concerned.
For the first set of issues, the starting-point is to compile information on the prices paid by electricity suppliers for renewables of different kinds, or what are referred to as ‘feed-in tariffs’ which tend to be set in order to provide an incentive for the production of electricity from the renewable source in question. These need to be related, so far as possible, to the costs of electricity generation from the source in question, as well as to the prices charged for electricity, in order to indicate both the profitability of production and the extent of the incentive provided to developing the source.
The most recent comparable figures for EU Member States relate to April 2010 which cover the prices for electricity produced by wind power (on-shore and off-shore), solar photovoltaic, biomass and hydro. Data on the prices charged for electricity are also readily available at EU level, but this is much less the case for the cost of generating electricity from non-renewables and, therefore, the profitability of so doing in relation to the use of fossil fuels in different countries In this regard, searches will be made of the literature produced over recent years at EU-level – of official reports, research studies and so on - in order to identify relevant information and analysis. This will start from the theoretical aspects of calculating profitability investigated in the 2008 OPTRES project and the most recent contributions by NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the US Department of Energy) and will review the National Renewable Energy Action Plans produced by each Member State, as indicated above. The aim will be at least to give an indication of the relative rates of profitability of the different types of renewables in different parts of the EU. There will be a particular focus on the profitability of biofuels, since, although they are only a very minor part of the fuels used for electricity generation, they receive a major share of ERDF funding. The literature on the profitability of solar power used for heating in different countries will also be examined, starting from information published by the European Solar Thermal Industry Federation (ESTIF).
Any regional variation in the prices for different types of renewable energy and their relatively profitability will also be covered to the extent that it is possible in the existing literature.
Although not called for explicitly in the terms of reference for the literature review, in order to assist national experts further, the review will also contain an overview of the measures and incentives for encouraging increases in the use of renewable energy for the generation of electricity in the 27 Member States, based on the survey conducted by the CEER in 2009 and updated where possible from more recent information. 
For the second set of issues on the financial, regulatory and institutional obstacles to increasing the energy efficiency of housing, the starting-point will be the documentation produced by the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER). This is concerned to monitor the progress being made to establish free markets in energy across the EU and as such gives an indication of the measures which remain in place to restrict market forces. In this case, however, the concern is as much with the management of markets to ensure that social – and environmental – benefits in the form of energy saving are properly taken into account in prices and/or the subsidies available as with the factors which deter house-owners from improving the energy efficiency of their property.
The review will also cover any regional variations in the obstacles hindering the implementation of measures to increase the energy efficiency of housing as well as the regional dimension of the policies in place for promoting the development of renewable energy sources.
Initial set of references for Literature review 
EU National Renewable Energy Action Plans: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/action_plan_en.htm
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (US Department of Energy), “A Policymaker’s Guide to Feed-in Tariff Policy Design”, Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-44849 July 2010
http://www.energy.eu/publications/A_Policymakers_Guide_to_Feed-in_Tariffs_NREL.pdf
European Commission, “Research Priorities for Renewable Energy Technology by 2020 and Beyond”, 2010, ISBN 978-92-79-11948-4, http://www.energy.eu/publications/a06.pdf
Lorenzoni A., “The Support Schemes for the Growth of Renewable Energy”, IEFE Working Paper n. 33, Università Bocconi, May 31, 2010
http://portale.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/ebdc390edaf07d8/Reviseed-Lorenzoni%20renewables.pdf
EC (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives, 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, Official Journal of the European Union L 140/16-62, 5/6/2009
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF
EC (2009) Commission Decision of 30 June 2009 establishing a template for National Renewable Energy Action Plans under Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document number C(2009) 5174)(2009/548/EC) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:182:0033:0062:EN:PDF
Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER), Status Review of Sustainable Development in the Energy Sector, Ref: C09-SDE-10-03, 1 April 2009
http://www.energy-regulators.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/
CEER_ERGEG_PAPERS/Cross-Sectoral/2009/C09-SDE-10-03_01-Apr-09.pdf
Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER), Status Review of Renewable and Energy Efficiency Support Schemes in EU, Ref: C08-SDE-05-03, 10 December 2008 http://www.energy-regulators.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/
CEER_ERGEG_PAPERS/Electricity/2008/C08-SDE-05-03_RES%20and%20EE%20support_10-Dec-2008.pdf
OPTRES, Assessment and optimization of renewable energy support schemes in the European electricity market, Final Report, Intelligent Energy Europe, 2007 http://www.optres.fhg.de/OPTRES_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
Ninni Augusto (2010), Policies to Support Biofuels in Europe: The Changing Landscape of Instruments, AgBioForum, Volume 13 // Number 2 // Article 5 http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n2/v13n2a05-ninni.htm
Europe’s Energy Portal, 2010, http://www.energy.eu/#feedin
EU (2010), Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, 18.6.2010 Official Journal of the European Union L 153/13 
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/directive_2010-31-eu_energy_performance_of_buildings_19_may_2010.pdf
The data to be compiled 
In addition to the above review, the core team will provide tables of the latest statistics on the shares of the different sources of renewable energy in primary energy consumption and electricity production in Member States and on the way that these have changed over the past few years to give an indication of trends. It should be noted that these data can only be presented at national level since energy statistics are not available at regional level. The data will come primarily from Eurostat (from the online database), supplemented where necessary by statistics from the International Energy Authority (IEA). 
The core team will also prepare tables for the national experts containing the latest data from DG Regio on both the amount of funding made available from the ERDF and national co-financing for the support of the two areas in question, insofar as they can be distinguished, and the expenditure devoted to them up to the end of 2009 (or whatever is the latest date for which there are data). It should be noted in this regard that identifying the extent of ERDF support for improving the energy efficiency of housing will not be easy, since this is not distinguished separately in the FOI classification system used to monitor expenditure (it is included as part of FOI 43: Energy efficiency, go-generation, energy management). 
Draft template
A draft template will be prepared by the core team to provide guidance to the national experts on the structure and contents of the national reports. The issues to be covered in them were set out above. The template will spell these out in more detail. A draft version will be discussed with the national experts at the first meeting of the network in March before being finalised, so as to ensure that the points which need to be covered are explained as clearly as possible and experts know what is expected of them. A preliminary set of the detailed questions which the experts will be asked to respond to under each of the main issues which need to be covered is set out below. 
The template will also indicate the material available for experts to draw upon for this - the literature review, which will set out the context in which policy in the two areas is being implemented and which will also provide summary details of the national measures in place to support renewables and the energy efficiency of housing (insofar as these are available from EU-level sources); the tables on the relative importance of renewable energy sources and the allocation of funding and expenditure on the support concerned; and official reports and studies published on the national - and regional – situation in respect of both the objectives of policy in the two areas and its rationale and the measures, or instruments, being used in pursuit of these objectives. (Official documents include, in particular, the National Strategic Reference Framework and other programming documents, Annual Implementation Reports for the Operational Programmes, National Renewable Energy Action Plans and National Strategic Reports, but there may also be other national reports on energy policy as well as research studies on the issues concerned which national experts will need to search for.)
In addition, the template will make clear the need for experts to interview relevant officials responsible for managing funding in the two areas in order to form a satisfactory view of policy and of the nature and scale of the financial support being provided in relation to other policy measures (such as through the pricing mechanism, regulatory measures or the tax system). This is particularly the case because of the small amount of funding allocated to the two areas concerned in many countries and the difficulty of distinguishing support for increasing the energy efficiency of housing in the statistics collected.
The template will also indicate the need to distinguish between the support provided in regions assisted under the Convergence Objective and that provided in those supported under the Competitiveness and Employment Objective where relevant (i.e. whether there is a difference between the two), as well as the extent to which support is provided by Cross-border Cooperation programmes under the Territorial Cooperation Objective. 
Finally, it will emphasise that the report should be no more than 10 pages long, which means that it needs to concentrate on the main points and be concisely written. Indeed, in some countries, where policies to encourage the development of renewables and energy saving in housing are limited and where very little of the ERDF received goes to supporting such policies, the report can be shorter than 10 pages. In these countries, there should be the same concentration on the main points as elsewhere and the text should be drafted in the same concise way, without attempting to extend the length of the report simply for the sake of it.
The questions to be included in the template
1.	What are the main features of national policies in Member States to promote i) renewable energy sources and ii) the energy efficiency of residential housing? 
•	What is the scale of support provided in each case? In the case of renewables, does support vary between the different types of energy sources? 
•	What is the weight given in each case to direct support through public expenditure (subsidies or grants) as opposed to support through other instruments (e.g. the prices or tariffs set, tax incentives and regulatory measures)?
•	Has policy changed since 2007 and if so how – i.e. have the changes in economic circumstances over the programming period led to any modification in the long-term policy on energy? 
•	Was support for the development of renewables and/or for improvements in the energy efficiency of housing intensified or accelerated during the economic downturn in order to counter its effects? 
•	Has support been reduced or modified because of subsequent constraints on public financing?
•	Do policies in the two cases, and the support or incentives provided, vary between regions or areas? If so, what is the nature of the variation? How far does it reflect the geophysical and other features of regions?
2.	What are the main measures to promote these policy aims in ERDF programmes? What is the relative importance of ERDF support in both cases? 
•	What form does support from the ERDF in respect of the two aims take? In the case of renewables, is support directed more to one type of energy source than others? Does this vary between regions and if so in what way?
•	What is the scale of support in relation to national support for the two aims and in relation to other aims supported under Operational Programmes?
•	Does the scale of support for the two aims vary between regions and, if so, how?
•	Have there been any changes in the scale or form of ERDF support since the programming period began?
•	Is the expenditure which has so far been carried out in line with the funding allocated? Have any particular difficulties arisen over carrying out the spending plans?
3.	Is there a difference, complementarity or overlap between ERDF-supported measures and national measures in the two cases? 
•	Is ERDF financing used to support national measures in pursuit of the two aims or does it take a different form (e.g. support for investment as opposed to the use of tariffs or regulation)? 
•	In the case of renewables, is ERDF support directed at encouraging the development of the same type(s) of renewable energy source as national support or of different types?
•	How far did EDRF support encourage the implementation of measures to increase the production of renewables or the energy efficiency of housing in order to counter the effects of the economic recession?
•	Does the nature of ERDF support vary between regions and if so, is the variation in line with national variations in support? 
4.	Do the ERDF programmes or the instruments adopted to implement them state a clear rationale for public intervention? 
•	Is the case for supporting the development of renewable energy sources and/or increasing the energy efficiency of housing clearly spelled out in policy documents? Is reference made to the profitability of investment in the two areas and/or to the social or environmental returns of investment? 
•	Is a distinction made in this regard between different types of renewable energy sources and between different regions (according to their features)? Is reference made to the profitability of different types of energy source and/or to the relative cost of existing non-renewable sources?
5.	Do Member States vary the rate of support depending on the profitability of the measures supported (or the potential for self-financing in the case of the increased energy efficiency of residential housing)? 
•	Insofar as there is a variation, does this apply to different sources of renewable energy and/or to different regions?
•	Does the rate of support tend to vary over time as the cost of fossil fuels changes or, in the case of residential housing, as the cost of electricity or heating changes?
Synthesis report on Task 1
The synthesis report will have a similar structure to the template and national reports based on it. It will contain a comparative analysis of the national – and, where relevant, regional – policies being followed in respect of the development of renewable energy supply and increasing the energy efficiency of residential housing, of the scale of support provided and of the form that it takes across the EU. It will examine the extent of variation in policies between regions and, in the case of renewables, between different energy sources. It will set out the nature of the contribution of the ERDF to the pursuit of national objectives in the two areas and in the different regions and the scale of the contribution in relation to both the overall financial support provided by the ERDF and national support. It will also examine the changes, if any, in national policies and ERDF support over the programming period, in terms of both their focus and scale, and the underlying reasons for them.
The report will examine, in addition, the extent to which intervention in the two policy areas is justified by a market failure, in the sense of costs and prices not adequately reflecting the net social return over the long-term from investment in the two areas and its contribution to sustainable economic development and the preservation of exhaustible resources. It will consider how far the justification for intervention is spelled out in official policy documents in the different countries, including in those relating to the use of the ERDF, as well as the extent to which in practice the scale of support provided reflects the profitability of developing renewable energy sources and the potential cost savings from investment in increasing the energy efficiency of housing. It will include a review of the relative prices of electricity across the EU and the costs of different primary energy sources and the extent of the imbalance or otherwise in favour of fossil fuels in relation to renewables of various types and how this has tended to change over time
The report will include comparative tables by country and types of region summarising the allocation of funding and the main measures supported in the two policy areas and will compare the development of renewable energy sources in different parts of the EU and, so far as possible, of energy-efficient housing (or of the energy consumed by housing).
It will conclude by setting out the main points to come out of the report (and the national reports on which it is based) and by making recommendations about the future shape of Cohesion policy in these two areas in different parts of the EU.
Provisionally, in line with the above, the report will be divided into four main sections:
1.	A comparative overview of national - and regional – policies in the two areas across the EU.
2.	The contribution of the ERDF in terms of the scale of funding allocated, the expenditure carried out and the types of intervention supported. 
3.	The rationale for policy intervention in the two areas – a review of the profitability of renewable energy sources of different types in different countries and regions and the cost of using them for electricity generation and heating, of the potential (private) returns to increasing the energy efficiency of housing and of the net social returns from investment in both cases.
4.	Conclusions and policy implications, highlighting the main points to come out of the study of relevance for policy.
The preparation of the report on the achievements of Cohesion Policy (Task 2)
Issues to be covered
The central aim of the country reports is to synthesis the evidence on the performance of Cohesion Policy programmes (co-financed by ERDF and the Cohesion Fund) resulting from monitoring developments and the evaluations undertaken in the Member States, as well as research studies carried out, and to analyse and interpret the achievements in the context of economic trends. This includes assessing progress in implementing programmes in relation to targets set or stated objectives and the expenditure incurred as compared with the funding allocated. There is equally a need to review the ongoing effect of the recent recession – or, more accurately, its repercussions on budgets deficits and government debt which have led to a widespread policy across the EU of fiscal consolidation - on the implementation of policy, on the objectives set and on the expenditure in the various policy areas. The focus, in particular, will be on analysing developments since the country reports for 2010 were prepared and, more especially, in relation to the main points and questions raised in them. 
The reports last year provided clear evidence that very limited progress had been made in implementing programmes and in 2011, halfway through the effective period for spending the resources allocated from the ERDF and Cohesion Fund for the 2007 2013 programming period, it is of major importance to understand how far implementation has gathered momentum. It is equally important to identify how far interventions have been adapted to the new economic circumstances and how far long-term structural objectives remain a focus of policy.
To assist the national experts to assess the rate of implementation of programmes, the core team will provide the latest financial data available on this from DG Regio, which will cover much of 2011, to supplement the information published in the Annual Implementation Reports for 2010 which goes up to the end of that year.
An additional task of the national reports is to list the evaluations undertaken by Member States on the deployment of the Structural Funds and the outcome of the programmes co-financed and to comment on the suitability and effectiveness of the methods used in the evaluations. The systems of monitoring and evaluating Cohesion Policy which Member States and regions have set up are, therefore, not only the means of assessing the conduct of policy and what it is achieving but also a focus of evaluation in their own right. Accordingly, the concern is to assess the systems put in place in the different countries for identifying and analysing the outcomes from the expenditure funded under Cohesion Policy and the use made of the results of evaluations to improve the policies implemented. 
A related aim is to consider the adequacy of the information available for policy evaluation. The reports for 2010 demonstrated that the evaluation strategy adopted varied considerably between, with some not yet carrying out any meaningful evaluations of policy at all. It is important at this point of the programming period to understand whether or not authorities are increasing the evaluations undertaken and how far they support the need for more rapid and more effective programme implementation. Equally there is a need to assess how far the more flexible approach to evaluation in the present period is producing results in terms of the diversity, quality and rigour of the evaluations carried out.
The evaluations in question relate not only to programmes co-financed by the ERDF and Structural Fund but also to those undertaken on nationally-funded policies in relevant areas, including research studies on the themes or issues concerned.
A final aim is to identify examples of good practice in evaluation and to describe the methods adopted and the other key features which could potentially be taken up elsewhere.
In sum, the country reports need to include:
•	a synthesis and analysis of information on progress and achievements of EU regional policy in the Member States and of any changes made in the objective set and in the ways of pursuing them. The synthesis and analysis will be based primarily on the qualitative and quantitative information in the AIR 2010 (2011, 2012) on physical performance (output, results, wider effects) and financial performance in relation to the targets set and the stated objectives as well as on interviews with officials and others with relevant information on developments. The reasons for the divergence of outputs from targets, for stated objectives not being achieved and for expenditure falling short of what would be expected given the funding allocated will be discussed drawing on the commentary in the AIR as well as on evaluation evidence in the Member State.
•	an analysis and interpretation of Cohesion Policy evidence in the context of economic and political trends within the Member States
•	an analysis and commentary on evaluation evidence available in the Member States relating not only to the 2007-2013 period but also to the previous programming period if the policies or measures evaluated remain relevant (in that they are continuing to be implemented in the present period) as well as research, studies or other evidence available which is relevant for assessing the effects of the policies in operation. Evaluations analysed by the expert network in 2010 will be excluded unless they have been updated or extended, though each national report should include a list of all evaluations undertaken since the report for 2010 was prepared together with clear bibliographical references or links to the studies concerned. 
•	the identification of examples of good practice in evaluation, up to a maximum of 5, with an indication of why (interesting method, good data etc.). 
The contents of the national reports are spelled out in more detail in the various sections of the draft template set out below. The task of the national experts in each case is to draft the reports by responding to the questions included in the template on the basis, in particular, of the latest Annual Implementation Report together with evaluation evidence available and the results of relevant studies carried out in the country in question. This will be supplemented, and complemented, by information obtained from interviews with relevant officials and others who have an understanding of the way that Cohesion Policy is being pursued and the outcomes in different policy areas. Such interviews are important for obtaining an up-to-date account of developments as well as for gaining a more detailed insight into achievements, changes in policy objectives or priorities and any problems experienced in implementing the different programmes. Not least importantly, they are required in order to fill in the gaps in the official reports, which in some cases are numerous.
Although the main aim of the national reports is to summarise the information in the official reports and obtainable from officials on the conduct and performance of policy in its various aspects, there is also a need to go beyond official statements to assess the appropriateness or suitability of policy in relation to the problems and challenges confronting different regions and the objectives set. Such assessments or reflections by national experts need to be clearly distinguished from official statements or reports and supported so far as possible by empirical evidence or research findings.
The country reports needs to cover, so far as possible, all programmes carried out under the Convergence and Competitiveness and Employment Objectives as well as all cross-border cooperation programmes under the Territorial Cooperation Objective. This does not mean, however, producing a detailed analysis of each and every programme or policy measure. The ultimate aim is to give a concise overview of performance, which in the case of the larger Member States, necessarily involves selectivity – with regard to both the regions and policy areas examined in any detail, as indicated below. 
The task in relation to cross-border cooperation programmes will be shared between the experts of the respective countries involved. The expert in the country where the managing authority of the programme is located will have prime responsibility for summarising and analysing the programme but experts in the other countries concerned will provide a summary of the information available in their countries (particularly in the AIRs) which the ‘main’ expert can incorporate in his or her report as well as feedback on the draft produced. A list of the programmes concerned and the national authority responsible for managing them is included in an Annex to this report.  
The number and volume of the Operational Programmes vary considerably across Member States and are especially large in some of the bigger countries. This variation, and the sheer amount of material which is published for some countries, has to be taken into account when organising the preparation of the national reports and giving guidance to experts on the approach they should adopt to distilling the material concerned. From the experience of organising the Evaluation Network in 2010, it is both desirable and feasible for a review and an analysis of all the programming and evaluation documents to be undertaken for those countries with a relatively small number of programmes (Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark, Bulgaria, Ireland, Romania and Slovenia) or with a moderate number (Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Hungary, Czech Republic and Austria), though perhaps in somewhat less detail. 
However, for Member States with a large number of programmes (France, Italy, Germany, Poland, the UK and Spain), it is unrealistic to expect all of the programmes and all of the policies and measures described in relation to these programmes to be covered in detail. Attempting to do so would not only require more time and resources than are available but would run the risk of a report being produced which was superficial and which failed to give a good indication of developments as regards cohesion policy in the country concerned or of what it had achieved up to that point. While, therefore, the national experts responsible for these countries need to cover all regions when reviewing the quantitative data on expenditure and indicators of outcomes – the core team will provide them with financial data and information on core indicators for all programmes based on the latest DG REGIO statistics - they will adopt a selective approach to analysing qualitative information. Accordingly, they will focus on the regions which are the most interesting or relevant in terms not only of the size of support received but also of the development problems they face. 
It should also be possible to group together regions with similar characteristics and with similar development priorities when selecting the specific regions to cover, so that those chosen are taken from the different groups and together are to some extent representative of the range of different regions in the country. In making the selection, however, there is also a need to cover the regions supported under the Competitiveness and Employment Objective and those in receipt of funding under the Cross Border Cooperation Objective, both of which involve smaller amounts of funding than those receiving Convergence Objective support. The selection of regions, therefore, cannot be determined solely according to the scale of funding.
The core team will give guidance on the regions on which the report for the bigger countries should focus, based partly on the pilot study which will be carried out in advance of the other studies in order to test the template prepared for the purpose (see below). Nevertheless, it will ultimately be for the national expert to select the regions concerned since they are best placed to do this, given their detailed knowledge of the regions in their country and of the development problems they are trying to overcome.
It will also be ultimately the responsibility of the national experts to determine the material they need to compile and examine in addition to the Annual Implementation Reports in order to produce a satisfactory overview of the performance of cohesion policy. Although all experts will need to examine other sources of information, it will be especially important in the larger countries, to do so. (This factor is reflected in the number of days allocated to the national experts in the budget,)
Draft template for the country report 
The template presented below relates specifically to the task of preparing country reports for 2011 and focuses on the issues that are most relevant to cover. The template indicates in some detail the issues which need to be covered for each of the countries but at the same time attempts to give the national experts the scope for covering these issues in the way that they consider is most effective for their particular county. In particular, some leeway is given to experts on how they structure the report, while trying to ensure that it remains coherent and that the main broad groups of issue are dealt with separately.
The structure of the template is essentially the same as that used for the preparation of the country reports in 2010, though the content of the analysis differs in that it is intended to build on that produced in 2010. The reports each year need to have a similar structure (unless it becomes clear that there is a need for change) in order give continuity to the analysis and to show the progress made in implementing programmes as the period proceeds. At the same time, the template for future years needs to reflect developments in the macroeconomic context or new policy issues or major challenges which might arise over the period and to this extent might need to be modified slightly to cover such issues. To this end, the data included in the tables provided by the core to national experts will be updated each year, as well as during the year, so far as the statistics available at EU-level allow.
This approach will make it easier for the experts who produce the reports to build on their previous work and experience which should help them to monitor developments more effectively, to follow-up on specific points and questions raised in the 2010 reports and to identify the most important issues to cover and to seek information on. 
It should be emphasised, however, that the template set out below remains a draft and will be finalised after taking account of the feedback from national experts, most of whom produced the reports for 2010, as well as comments from DG Regio officials. 
Preamble and guidelines for national experts
This note outlines the required content of the country report, which has to cover the following:
1.	A synthesis and analysis of quantitative and qualitative information on progress, achievements and changes of EU regional policy in the member States based on the 2010 Annual Implementation Reports (2011, 2012) including:
•	Physical performance (outputs, results and impacts achieved),
•	Financial performance
•	Reasons for variances compared to targets or the budget allocated drawing on commentary in the report and evaluation evidence available in the Member State
2.	An analysis and interpretation of Cohesion Policy evidence in the light of economic and political trends within the Member State
3.	Analysis of and commentary on evaluation evidence available in the Member States: 
•	List of the evaluations launched and produced in the 2007-2013 period,
•	Research or other evidence available in the Member State;
4.	Identification of examples of good practice in evaluation, up to a maximum of 5, with an indication of why this is the case (interesting method, good data, etc.).
Essentially, therefore, the task is a stock-taking exercise, the purpose of which is to present in a succinct way the evidence available on the progress made in implementing Cohesion Policy in Member States across the EU, the achievements and the problems which have arisen or are arising. At the same time, the concern is to put Cohesion Policy into perspective in relation to the overall regional development strategy being undertaken across the country and the other sources of finance being used to implement this as well as the changing economic and social context.
A distinction should be made where relevant (i.e. where the development policy pursued differs significantly) between the different types of region receiving assistance – i.e. those receiving funding under, respectively, the Convergence Objective, the Competitiveness and Employment Objective and the Territorial Cooperation Objective for cross-border cooperation (i.e. ‘Strand A’ alone) 
The primary sources of information for preparing the report for each of the Member States are:
1) The official documents and the evaluations: 
•	Annual Implementation Reports 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
•	OPs on Convergence, Competitiveness and Employment, Territorial Cooperation
•	NSRFs, 2007-2013 (for reference purposes as to the policy aims underlying programmes)
•	National Strategic Report 2009 (again for reference purposes) 
2) Statistical information collected by the core team:
•	Summary data on socio-economic developments by region (Eurostat)
•	Indicators of national macroeconomic context (Eurostat)
•	Financial data by main policy area (DG Regio)
3) Statistical data collected by the national expert
•	National data on the latest socio-economic developments and macro-economic context (i.e. more up-to-date than those published by Eurostat)
•	Relevant statistics on policy developments other than those provided by core team
3) Evaluation evidence available in the Member States and compiled by the experts:
•	Ongoing evaluations undertaken by national authorities (evaluations launched and produced in the 2007-2013 period and evaluations relating to 2000-2006 expenditure which may be relevant for similar interventions continuing in 2007-2013)
•	Other research, studies, impact assessments available within Member States
•	Information and data from interviews with selected managing authorities
The documents listed under points 1 and 2 above have already been delivered to the experts in the context of the EEN 2010. Most information can be downloaded from the internet site: http://cohesion-evalnet.eu/, which has been specially set up for the project.
In order to complete the report, experts will need to contact and interview managing authorities and other relevant people in order to obtain additional and updated information about the outcome of expenditure, the difficulties encountered and any changes to the published plans as well as about the evaluation process and how this is working in practice, including about evaluations currently underway. Once the report is completed, those interviewed should be given an opportunity to verify that the information included in the report is correct and that the details they gave have been appropriate interpreted. The report, however, will remain independent and will reflect the views of the national expert rather than of the managing authorities.
The report is intended to be on average 30 pages in length for the larger countries, not including annexes, which means that it should concentrate on the main focus and contents of policy in the different regions and the progress made towards achieving policy objectives in these areas. The suggested number of page per section is shown in the table below:
	Number of pages	
Executive summary	1-2	
1) Socio-economic context	1-2	
2) The regional development policy pursed, the EU contribution to this and the achievements over the period	8-15	
3) Effects of intervention	1-2	
4) Evaluations and good practice in evaluation	4-8	
5) Concluding remarks – future challenges 	1	
Total	16-30	
Note that these page numbers are indicative only and the actual number of pages devoted to each section will depend on the material available, though experts should try not to exceed the maximum number of pages suggested by being concise and selective in the information included. 
Outline structure 
Executive summary (1-2 pages)
This should summarise the findings on the main points covered by the report as regards:
•	The regional development policy pursued and the contribution of the ERDF and Cohesion Fund (where relevant) to this, focusing on any changes since the 2010 report and the influence of the changing macroeconomic – and financial - circumstances 
•	The progress made in carrying out the expenditure planned, together with any changes in plans as a result, in particular, of economic developments
•	The output and results achieved from the expenditure undertaken in regions receiving EU support and the effects of this on regional development, focusing again on developments in these respects since the 2010 reports
•	The evaluations carried out in the present programming period and, where relevant, in the preceding one
•	Examples of good practice in evaluation 
•	The main challenges Cohesion Policy is facing in the Member State
Section 1 - Socio-economic context (1-2 pages)
The aim of this section is to outline the socio-economic situation across the country, focusing on how the nature and scale of regional development problems are tending to change over time, especially as a result of the global economic recession and its aftermath. The purpose is to help to interpret Cohesion Policy evidence. 
The core team will provide a table of the main socio-economic statistics, based on the latest data available from Eurostat, for the Convergence and Competitiveness and Employment regions in relation to both the EU27 and country averages. The purpose of the table is to give an indication of regional disparities at NUTS 2 level and how they are tending to change over time. However, experts should feel free to adopt the regional disaggregation which corresponds best to the spatial dimension of development policies in their country and to include data on this from national sources if they wish. 
The core team will also provide a table which summarises the main macroeconomic features and how these have changed in recent years. For both tables, experts are encouraged to add more recent data from national sources if they are available to give a better indication of changes over the past year or two. 
On the basis of the statistical information, existing studies and their own knowledge, experts should briefly answer the following questions:
•	What are the main features of regional, or spatial, disparities which are the concern of policy in the country? What are the main factors underlying these disparities (such as differences in infrastructure endowment, accessibility and the extent of agglomeration)? (Here experts should summarise the main points made in the 2010 report and indicate any significant changes which are relevant)
•	How have the macroeconomic context and recent changes in the economic environment affected the development of the different regions, including the level of employment and unemployment, and the funding allocated to regional development? (i.e. Have the economic recession and macroeconomic policy pursued had a differential effect on regions and/or on the sectoral structure of regional economies? Has budgetary consolidation reduced the funds available for supporting regional development?)
Section 2 – The regional development policy pursued, the EU contribution to this and the policy achievements over the period (8-15 pages overall)
The purpose of this section is to summarise the main thrust of regional development policy in the country in terms of its focus and content; to indicate the way that support from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund is being used in relation to this policy and the expenditure incurred relative to what was planned, and to identify the main achievements of policy so far over the programming period. 
The regional development policy pursued (1-2 pages)
This section should build on the policy assessment in the 2010 country report by briefly summarising: 
•	the main priorities of development policies in the regions eligible for support under the Convergence and Competitive Objectives
•	the main priorities as regards the cross-border activities under the Territorial Cooperation Objective
•	the nature of support to regional development provided by EU funding 
It should then outline any changes that have occurred since the 2010 country report was prepared by answering the following questions:
•	Has there been a shift in priorities and/or the allocation of funding and if so what is the nature of these?
•	What are the main reasons for such a shift? Are they related to the changes in economic circumstances or constraints on public finance?
 Policy implementation (1-2 pages)
The purpose here is to review the progress made in pursuing the development strategies being funded by the ERDF and Cohesion Fund (where relevant) in the four (five, six) years of the programming period up to end-2010 (end-2011, end-2012) on the basis of the information contained in the 2010 (2011, 2012) Annual Implementation Reports. The analysis should focus in particular on the progress in implementing the policy since the previous report and identify whether and to what extent there has been any acceleration in the implementation of programmes. Two kinds of statistical information should be used – the expenditure which has been carried out and the commitments which have been made. 
Experts should answer the following questions:
•	How far is the implementation of programmes in line with what was planned? 
•	What are the main reasons for any delays in implementing programmes? Are these reasons the same as indicated in the 2010 report or do they differ?
•	To what extent have unfavourable economic circumstances adversely affected the implementation of programmes (e.g. by reducing the demand for assistance from firms or the funding available for co-financing)? 
•	Have any initiatives been undertaken to accelerate implementation and were they effective?
•	Has there been any acceleration in the implementation of programmes? If so, how has this been achieved?
Achievements of the programmes so far (6-11 pages)
The purpose here is to review the achievements made by the programmes funded by the ERDF and Cohesion Fund in the current programming period up to end-2010 and in particular since the 2010 report. The primary source of information for the questions listed below is the Annual Implementation Report for 2010 and, in particular, the quantitative and qualitative data they contain on the outcome of expenditure financed by the ERDF and Cohesion Fund. This information should be supplemented, where relevant, by the findings of evaluation reports lunched and produced for the 2007-2013 period. Experts should focus on tangible outputs and results in different broad policy areas, as defined in the Annex to this report. (This indicates the fields of intervention which make up each of the five broad policy areas - enterprise support (including RTDI), human resource development, transport and communications, the environment and energy and territorial development – into which expenditure is divided.) In doing so, they should avoid describing intentions or expectations. Where the tangible outcome of intervention is limited or is yet to materialise, they should report this. Equally, they should also report cases where the quantitative data included in the Annual Reports are inadequate to assess achievements in a meaningful way. The core team will provide data for the core indicators, insofar as they are available centrally, to assist national experts carry out this exercise. The core team will also examine the possibility of establishing a database with the most relevant output and result indictors for the main policy areas within each Operational Programme together with the targets set, including the core indicators, which, in principle at least, can be aggregated across programmes (or regions). (Since indicators are reported by policy axis rather than policy area, to build such a database entails identifying the specific objectives of each intervention and assigning it to a specific policy area and it remains to test the feasibility of doing this for all the countries.)
The following questions should be covered:
•	What are the main outputs and results so far in the policy areas in which support is mainly concentrated? Please include qualitative as well as quantitative information.
•	Are the output and results of funding in line with the targets set or with stated policy objectives? How far are the targets or indicators set meaningful in terms of assessing the achievements of policy? 
•	Is there any evidence that the expenditure financed is having the intended effects in the different policy areas? (e.g. in increasing innovation in SMEs, improving their competitiveness, boosting tourism, reducing congestion in cities through investment in urban transport, and so on)
•	To the extent that intended results or targets have not been achieved in particular policy areas, what are the main reasons for this (such as the economic situation turning out to be different from what was initially assumed)?
•	How far are innovative measures being used rather than standard ones (e.g. the use of equity finance to support enterprises rather than non-repayable grants)?
Section 3- Effects of intervention (1-2 pages)
While the previous section was focused on achievements in different policy areas, the purpose of this section is to comment on the wider effects of intervention on regional development in the light of economic developments in the country, as outlined in Section 1 above. The aim is to give an indication of how far the measures supported and the projects funded are having positive effects on the ultimate objectives of policy - on strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion – as well as how far economic developments are affecting the context in which policy is being implemented and its effectiveness. Experts should draw on whatever evidence is available, in particular commentary in the AIRs the results of evaluations, findings of research studies and information from interviews as well as recent statistical data and use their judgement and experience in assessing this evidence. 
Experts should try to answer the following questions: 
•	What has been the contribution so far of the projects supported in the various policy areas to the development of regions receiving EU funding? How far are there indications of intervention strengthening the capacity of the regions concerned to sustain economic development or improving the quality of life? 
•	To what extent has the support provided from the ERDF and Cohesion Fund (where relevant), helped to combat the after-effects of the economic recession by maintaining public investment levels? 
•	Is there any evidence that EU support under Cohesion Policy is helping regions to respond to major long-term challenges (such as the increased competition resulting from globalisation, demographic change, climate change and energy security)?
Section 4 – Evaluations and good practice in evaluation (4-8 pages)
The purpose of this section is to list and comment on the evaluations which have carried out in the present programming period and to identify examples of good practice 
Experts should answer the following questions:
•	What evaluations and studies have been carried out in the country to assess Cohesion Policy performance during the programming period in addition to those referred to in the 2010 report? Please provide a list of the evaluations and give the main details as indicated in the table prepared by the core team (i.e. the policy area, scope, etc.) as well as bibliographical references or links to them. 
•	What are the main features of these evaluations? Please outline (1) the content – policy area and evaluation questions - and coverage, (2) method of evaluation, (3) main findings and recommendations. 
•	What is your assessment of the evaluations which have been undertaken (e.g. pertinence, usefulness and reliability of results and methodological appropriateness and the use which has been made of them?
•	What are the plans for evaluations over the remainder of the programming period?
•	Are there examples of evaluations which have been, or are being, carried out which exemplify good practice? If so, please select up to 5 which you regard as the best examples, indicate why and for each of these complete the assessment grid prepared by the core team (see Table below for an illustrative example).
Section 5 - Concluding remarks – future challenges (1 page)
The purpose of this section is to enable experts to draw any conclusions they wish to make from the previous sections, paying particular attention to the implications for policy over the remainder of the programming period (e.g. identifying any problems which need to be resolved or developments which are likely to affect the policy or its impact, including in particular the effect of budgetary constraints stemming from fiscal consolidation). 
Note that a summary of the main points from the previous sections should not be included here but in the Executive Summary.
References
Experts should list here, giving bibliographical details:
1. Relevant evaluations by type, indicating the coverage and focus, the method used, when they were carried out and the period they relate to:
•	nation-wide evaluations across operational programmes
•	Evaluations of specific operational programmes
•	Evaluations of specific aspects of operational programmes 
2. Other relevant research studies and impact assessments carried out in the Member State 
3. Other references
Interviews
List of the people interviewed and their positions.

Table: Illustrative evaluation grid for examples of good practice

BASIC INFORMATION	 	
Country	 	
Policy area	(Enterprise support, RTDI, Transport, etc.)	
Title of evaluation and full reference	 	
Period covered	(2000-2006; 2007-2013; specific years)	
Timing of the evaluation	(when it was carried out)	
Evaluator	External evaluator, internal evaluator, EC	
Method	(counterfactual, process analysis, case study, econometric model, analysis of indicators, etc)	
Main objectives and main findings 	(very short description - 5-10 lines)	
Appraisal 	(why the evaluation is important: - 4-5 lines)	
UTILITY	5 Very Good	4 Good	3 Fairly good	2 Fair	1 Poor	
Report Clarity and Balance	 					
Purpose, methods and findings clearly described	 					
Conclusions clearly supported by analysis	 					
Complete and Fair Assessment	 					
Programme's strengths fairly assessed and reported	 					
Programme's weaknesses fairly assessed and reported	 					
Outcomes (intended and unintended) clearly reported	 					
RELIABILITY OF FINDINGS	 					
Documentation of programme/intervention	 					
How programme was meant to function clearly described	 					
How the programme actually functions clearly described	 					
Context	 					
Economic, social, political, institutional, technical context clearly set out	 					
Effects of context on outcomes clearly described	 					
Information Sources	 					
Information/data from a suitable range of relevant sources 	 					
Reliability of the data fairly assessed and documented	 					
Quantitative analysis	 					
Appropriate procedures/techniques used to analyse data	 					
Suitable procedures used to check validity of findings	 					
Statistical interactions identified and analysed	 					
Qualitative analysis	 					
Appropriate procedures/techniques used in analysis						
Reliability of findings confirmed from multiple sources, incl stakeholders	 					
Meaningfulness of findings and conclusions demonstrated	 					
COMPARISON WITH OTHER ANALOGOUS EVALUATIONS	 					
Method(s) used more rigorous	 					
More relevant or reliable information sources used	 					
Findings/recommendations more robust and useful 	 					
Production of a synthesis report on cohesion policy in Member States 
The synthesis report will be produced by members of the coordinating unit. The structure of the report will broadly follow that of the national reports, though in the same way as the latter, it will build on the analysis included in the 2010 report and pick up the main points made there. The main objective will be to bring out the main findings as regards both the pursuit of policy and its performance in different regions across the EU – and in particular in the different types of region receiving support under the three Objectives of cohesion policy. Tables summarising the socioeconomic context across the EU and the progress in implementing programmes will be included in order to give an overall view of the situation and developments, focusing on the changes in relation to the 2010 report.
It will attempt to summarise the achievements of policy in different parts of the EU, insofar as they can be identified, focusing on those where hard evidence exists on the positive consequences of the measures supported. The synthesis will also review how far the problems of implementing programmes identified in the 2010 report have continued, or have been replaced by new ones, and how the problems are being tackled and the effectiveness of the measures used.
The report will consider how far the comments made in the 2010 report on the suitability and adequacy in the different countries of the evidence available to assess assessing the performance of Cohesion Policy and its achievements remain valid and what improvements have been made in this respect in the 2010 Annual Implementation Reports. It will also examine how far the 2010 AIRs pick up points made in the 2009 reports and provide a degree of continuity to enable progress in implementing programmes to be meaningfully tracked.
A related aim will be to highlight the progress made across the EU in putting in place effective monitoring and evaluation systems and what these have produced in terms of results, again in relation to the situation reported in the 2010 report. It will, in addition, summarise examples of good practice in evaluation to illustrate what can be achieved. These will relate, so far as possible, to a number of different countries and policy areas.
Draft outline
The structure of the report will, therefore, be broadly as follows: 
•	The changing economic circumstances in which cohesion policy is being pursued across the EU, drawing attention to the effect of the global recession and its consequences for public finances in particular.
•	The form of cohesion policy in the different types of region across the EU, its relationship with national, or regional, development policy and any changes that have occurred since the 2010 report.
•	The progress made in implementing policy, especially over the year up to the end of 2010 and how far there has been an acceleration or further falling behind of implementation in relation to plans, together with the reasons for this. 
•	The performance of policy in different regions and in different policy areas (in terms of the output and results achieved insofar as they can be identified as well as in terms of the wider impact on regional development to the extent that any evidence exists), again focusing on the evidence for 2010.
•	The progress made in monitoring and evaluating cohesion policy across the EU since the 2010 reports were produced, the results produced and the remaining deficiencies, together with Member State plans for tackling these.
•	Examples of good practice in evaluation (from different Member States and in different policy areas) 
•	Conclusions – main challenges and policy recommendations.
Under each head, an attempt will be made for presentational purposes to group countries with similar features or experiencing similar developments as a means of indicating the state of play so far as the pursuit of policy objectives and the capacity to assess progress in this regard are concerned. In addition, a clear separation will made throughout between the different types of region receiving support under the three Objectives.
Method of preparing the synthesis report
As indicated above, the coordinating unit, or core team, will be responsible for producing the synthesis report, summarising and interpreting the main points to come out of the country studies. 
Members of the coordinating team will work together to identify the main points which ought to be included in the synthesis report, the four main members of the team reading all of the country studies and making suggestions in this regard. The task of preparing an initial draft of the various sections will be allocated to a team member. Drafts will then be consolidated into a coherent report before being circulated for comment both to DG Regio officials and to members of the expert network. A revised draft will then be prepared taking account of these comments for wider circulation and discussion by the steering Committee and in a restricted meeting with a small number of national experts.
The organisation of the Expert Evaluation Network Meetings (Task 3) 
Although the contract specifies that two network meetings will be held each year, it is intended to organise an early additional meeting to clarify the tasks to be carried out, especially Task 1. It will also discuss the literature review for Task 1 as well as draft template for the preparation of the policy papers. The second meeting will focus on the draft synthesis report of Task 1 as well as on preparing for Task 2, the third meeting on the country reports for Task 2 but will also discuss what should be included in the synthesis report. The meetings will be organised to encourage the active participation of experts and to ensure an effective exchange of information and experience among them. This means short introductions and presentations, round table discussions and sufficient time for open debate. The structure of the meetings will be adapted to the issues to be discussed 
Following the positive experience of the third network meeting in 2010, it is suggested that part of the afternoon session of the third meeting be devoted to bilateral meetings between the national experts and the country-desk officers in DG REGIO in order to exchange comments on the draft national reports, together suggestions of additional of information that the experts might refer to when finalising their reports. 
A note with the key issues to be presented and discussed at each meeting will be prepared by the Coordinator and circulated to all participants one week before each meeting. 
In addition to the full network meetings above, a restricted meeting will be organised with a selected number of national experts (to be agreed with REGIO) to discuss the pre-final draft of the synthesis report for Task 2 2-3 weeks before the delivery deadline of the final report.
Expert review of selected evaluations and studies (Task 4)
Given that Member States have discretion to carry out evaluations as and when they consider it necessary or important to do so, there is a growing need to encourage them both to undertake more rather than fewer and to use rigorous methods, suited to the policy area or measure concerned, when they do so. Such evaluations are an inherent part of evidence-based policy-making and an essential means of improving the policies in place, or even determining whether or not intervention in certain areas is worthwhile at all. This is increasingly important in a situation where there are growing constraints on funding as a result of the financial problems of governments in most parts of the EU.
To this end, DG Regio has established a data base of evaluations that managing authorities or others with a role in regional development policy can consult. Part of Task 2 is, therefore, for national experts to review the evaluations which have been undertaken in their countries and to identify those which are examples of good practice, summarising the details and indicating the good features which they demonstrate. The intention now, under Task 4, is to take this process a step further by subjecting the best examples of evaluations to a peer review process, where the peers in this case are evaluation experts whose task will be to critically appraise the evaluation concerned, pointing out the strong feature but also the weaknesses and how they might be overcome. 
The rationale is that this will both encourage the relevant authorities to carry out more evaluations and give them a better indication of the form which these should preferably take and the methods they should use, as well as the techniques best able to produce meaningful and reliable results and the pitfalls they should avoid. As such it represents a potentially important step towards spreading both the principle and the practice of evidence-based policy-making and through this of improving the design and implementation of Cohesion policy.
The Task will begin by selecting a panel of high-level experts to carry out the reviews (see below). A number of evaluations will be chosen for review by DG Regio in consultation with the core team (based partly on the output of Task 2). To assist the choice, the core team will provide an initial assessment of the evaluations identified by the national experts as being examples of good practice and indicate those which seem to be the most worthwhile to subject to expert review. These will then be discussed with DG Regio, together with other evaluations which have come to the notice of the Evaluation unit, and the ones for review chosen from among them. Once decided, they will be sent for review to selected members (2-3 for each review) of the panel of high-level experts. This process will take place twice a year in line with the two meetings of the expert panel which it is proposed to hold.
As indicated above under Task 2, the core team will draw up a schema (see illustrative table) to assist the national experts to identify examples of good practice in a systematic way and to assist the choice from among these. This will cover the following elements:
•	Basic information - the country and region (where relevant), the programme or policy area concerned, the authors, the authorities responsible for commissioning it, the date when it was undertaken, as well as the scale and importance of EU funding.
•	Scope of the evaluation – the intervention examined, the time period and regions covered.
•	Aim(s) of the evaluation – the general purpose of the exercise (such as for planning future policy, on-going accountability, support for the implementation of the policy or as part of an ex ante, mid-term or ex-post evaluation) and the main issues covered. 
•	Evaluation approach or method used – such as econometric modelling, case studies, impact assessment, surveys of beneficiaries, analysis of indicators and so on.
•	 Quality of the evaluation – applying a rating system with scores from 1 to 5 covering the main criteria, such as:
o	suitability of the method used, given the programme or measures concerned, in relation to the evaluation questions;
o	the results and their potential importance for policy
The review by the panel of experts will focus primarily on the methodological aspects of the evaluations and their suitability for use in the policy area concerned as well as potentially in other policy areas and for other types of intervention. To assist them to do this, the panel will use a more detailed and focused grid. This will be discussed and refined with the Evaluation unit in DG Regio as well as members of the panel of experts themselves. It will be specific to each of the main methodological approaches adopted for the evaluations, since the issues which it is important to cover differ between them (e.g. the details of reference group or sample used in the case of a counterfactual evaluation is of critical importance when assessing its findings, while in case studies consistency between aims of the evaluation and selection criteria is crucial). 
In suggesting the criteria and in selecting the case to be reviewed, the intention is to have an entirely open approach to the methods and techniques used for evaluations, recognising the complexity of the task which they are very often attempting to perform and, not least importantly, the practicalities involved in carrying out the analysis (whatever the theoretical niceties), and to consider each evaluation on its merits.
In the case of evaluations not available in English, a summary of the contents (5-6 pages) will be prepared by the core team with the help of members of the expert network.
The choice of experts
A panel consisting of 6 experts will be chosen to carry out the review of the evaluations selected. Each of them will have a high-level of expertise in evaluation methodology, since the main focus of their review will be on the methods used and the way that they have been applied in practice in the cases in question. The choice of the panel will be made in consultation with DG Regio. Potential candidates are as follows:
•	Alberto Martini, Associate Professor of Economic Statistics at the University of “Piemonte Orientale” and Director of Progetto Valutazione
•	Ray Pawson –Professor of Social Research Methodology, University of Leeds and father of the realistic evaluation approach
•	Elliot Stern, Professor of Evaluation Research at Lancaster University, Editor of the “Evaluation” journal of the Tavistock Institute and founding President of the UK Evaluation Society
•	Robert Picciotto, ex Head of the Evaluation Department of the World Bank and Visiting Professor at Kings College, London
•	Eric Monnier, Managing Director and co-founder of Euréval – Centre for European Expertise and Evaluation and founding member of the European Evaluation Society as well as of the French Evaluation Society
•	Franz Leeuw, Netherlands Open University and University of Utrecht
•	Andrè Martinuzzi, University of Vienna, with a special interest in sustainability
•	Maria Bustelo, Associate Professor in the Department of political Science and Public Administration at the Complutense University, Madrid, public policies and gender equality policies. 
•	John Mayne, independent advisor and consultant on public sector performance, Ontario, Canada 
•	Hallie Preskill, Executive Director of Strategic Learning and Evaluation Center at FSG social impact; Professor of Organizational Learning and Instructional Technologies at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 
•	Jennifer Greene, Professor of Quantitative and Evaluative Research Methodologies, University of Illinois, President of American Association of Evaluation.
•	William R. Shadish, Merced School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Art, University of California
These cover a range of different evaluation methods through their areas of expertise. The initial idea is to choose 2-3 of these to review each evaluation selected, the choice being based on the method used in the evaluations.
The experts selected to be members of the panel should not only specialise in evaluation methodology but have some practical experience of carrying out evaluations relating to regional development, if not necessarily of programmes supported by the Structural Funds, so that they are aware of the difficulties involved in undertaking them. The practical problems of evaluations in this broad area ought not to be neglected when reviewing the particular cases just as much as theoretical considerations surrounding the method used itself.
The reviews which the experts are asked to produce will be relatively short and will consist in large measure of completing the evaluation grid described in general terms above, together with supplementary comments. Their reviews will be exchanged between the 2-3 making up the panel for a particular set of evaluations, which will then be discussed at a meeting between them organised by the core team (see below). The meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss the evaluations they have reviewed and to reach, so far as possible, a consensus on their merits and deficiencies as well as indicating ways in which they could be improved – given, as always, the practical possibilities of making such improvements in view, in particular, of the information likely to be available. A senior member of the core team will act as rapporteur for the meeting and will produce a summary report on the outcome of the review process with regard to each evaluation considered.
Meetings of the expert review panel 
According to the terms of reference for the project, 7 evaluations should be reviewed by the expert panel in 2011 and up to 10 each in 2012 and 2013. The initial intention is to organise two one-day meetings of the expert panel each year (more might prove difficult given the likely busy schedules of the experts). In 2012 and 2013, each meeting would discuss up to 5 evaluations which had been reviewed by the experts (‘up to 5’ because while the target would be to discuss this number, meeting this target will depend on finding 5 evaluations twice a year which are suitable for review). The agenda for these meetings will largely consist of discussing the reviews carried out in turn, the discussion being based on the evaluation grid completed by each of the experts and going into more detail on the points indicated in them. 
For 2011, however, when 7 reviews need to be carried out, the intention would be to devote the first meeting in large part to a discussion of the grid for the experts to use for reviewing the evaluations. The intended approach is to draft a grid in consultation with DG Regio and then send this for comment to the experts. The grid will then be revised in the light of these comments, circulated once again to experts for further comment and then finalised in the light of these. This grid will be used for evaluating the first two or three evaluations selected for review, each of which would be sent to the three experts chosen for the task, the intention being to involve all 6 experts in the first meeting, each reviewing at least one evaluation. They will then carry out the reviews using the template. Their reviews would be discussed at the meeting, the idea being that the discussion of the template and its suitability will accordingly be based on two practical examples, so making it more concrete than if it were discussed in abstract. The second meeting in 2010 would then discuss the 4 or 5 remaining evaluations for 2011, which in the meantime would have been reviewed by the experts on the basis of a template revised, if it proved necessary, in light of the experience of the first two reviews and of the discussion at the meeting.
The intention will be to select the evaluations for review twice a year well in advance of the meetings to give the experts sufficient time to review the evaluations selected and to exchange views among themselves before the meetings, a process which in practice will be centrally coordinated by the core team according to an agreed schedule. The meetings themselves will not necessarily be held in Brussels but perhaps in Rome (where Ismeri is located) or in a country in which one of the experts works, the choice being made in part for the convenience of the experts. The timing of the two meetings remains to be determined, but a suggestion would be to hold one in the Spring and one in the Autumn.
Organisation and allocation of work
Work on the project will be directed by a coordinating unit, or core team, consisting of Terry Ward and Lydia Greunz of Applica and Enrico Wolleb and Andrea Naldini of ISMERI Europa, as described more fully below. These will share responsibility between them for work on the individual tasks as indicated below. They will be supported by economists and researchers from their two respective organisations and by Loredana Sementini, who will be responsible for the day-to-day administrative management of the project to ensure that the work proceeds efficiently and on schedule and that administrative support is provided as necessary. Although each member of the core group will have responsibility for a particular task, they will follow closely the work undertaken by the others and will provide advice and comment throughout the process.
Terry Ward will be the principal project coordinator and will be the main point of contact with DG REGIO on scientific and technical issues. He will therefore be responsible for conveying the results of the work undertaken on the project and for relaying any comments and suggestions from the Commission to other members of the team. He will attend progress meetings with DG Regio as envisaged in the terms of reference. Since he is based in Brussels, such meetings can be arranged at short notice as the need arises (and indeed could exceed the number envisaged if required). He will be accompanied by other members of team as necessary. He will also be the final editor of all published deliverables, ensuring consistency of presentation and uniformity of style. 
The four tasks to be undertaken
Task 1 involves the coordination of 27 policy papers and the production of a literature review and synthesis report on the topic of renewable energy and energy efficiency of residential housing. The policy papers will be prepared by the national experts on the basis of common template provided by the core team; the literature review will be prepared by Augusto Ninni and the synthesis report by the core team. Terry Ward will direct the work on the Task and will be responsible for producing the comparative synthesis report in consultation with the other members of the core team, as well as with DG Regio officials. 
Task 2 involves the coordination of the Country Reports on Achievements of Cohesion Policy and the production of a synthesis report. The country reports will be prepared by the national experts on the basis of a common template under the joint responsibility of Lydia Greunz and Andrea Naldini. With Enrico Wolleb and Terry Ward, they will also be responsible for preparing the draft comparative synthesis report, which will be circulated widely for comment as indicated above.
Task 3 involves the organisation of two Expert Evaluation Network Meetings, which will discuss the draft synthesis reports but also deepen the analysis, and two annual restricted expert meetings, which will be dedicated to the discussion of the two synthesis reports of task 1 and 2 with the senior management of DG Regio and a few national experts. This task will be the responsibility of Loredana Sementini, in cooperation with the core team and in consultation with DG REGIO. 
Task 4 involves the organisation of a panel of high-level experts on evaluation methodology, who will review selected evaluations which are considered examples of good practice, and of with meetings – two are proposed – at which the reviews are discussed. In addition to organising and attending the meetings, the core team will select, in consultation with DG Regio, suitable examples of good practice, primarily from the national reports prepared by the network of experts, design an assessment grid, again in consultation with DG Regio, to be used by the high-level experts to review the evaluations, organise summaries of evaluations which are produced in the national language, if this is not English, and draft a report on the reviews after the meetings. The four senior members of the core team, Terry Ward, Enrico Wolleb, Andrea Naldini and Lydia Greunz will be responsible for carrying out these tasks, with Loredana Sementini arranging the meetings and coordinating the review process.
Overall coordination and management
Responsibility for this task will be shared between Terry Ward (scientific coordination) and Loredana Sementini (administrative coordination and day-to-day management). They will be supported by other qualified Applica personnel to ensure that technical as well as administrative aspects of management support are carried out effectively.
Communication 
The means of monitoring the work and validating the various phases by the Commission, as required by the terms of reference, will take the form of steering meetings, expert meetings and the approval by DG REGIO of all interim and final deliverables. In addition to these, progress meetings will be held with DG REGIO according to the needs of the project. These will be aimed at reviewing the progress of the work and resolving any problems arising.
Moreover, in order to ensure fast and effective communication with the experts, use will be made of a dedicated website: http://www.cohesion-evalnet.eu/ This will store the large amount of material necessary for carrying out Task 2. The reports of the meetings and all interim and final deliverables will also be uploaded on to the website and made available to the experts.
Proposed timetable

Ta1
Finalised

The timetable set out below is based on the schedule for delivery of reports and for meetings specified in the terms of reference. It is subject to modification with the expressed agreement of the Commission as the project proceeds, if it seems desirable to alter the schedule in order to achieve the ultimate objectives more effectively.

Task 2
Finalisd

Project timeline (2011)
Deliverable	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	
Kick-off meeting	26/1												
Progress meetings 		As need arise	
Inception Report		 											
1st Steering group meeting 		15/2											
Task 1		Policy papers						
Literature review													
Template for policy papers 													
Draft policy papers (internal deadline + REGIO deadline)													
2nd Steering group meeting 						21/6							
Finalised Policy papers and synthesis report 													
Task 2 			Country Reports	
Template country report													
Pilot country report													
Progress meeting (3)												
Draft country reports (internal deadline + REGIO deadline)													
Draft synthesis report 													
3rd Steering group meeting											17/11		
Finalised country reports and Synthesis Report													
Task 3 				Meetings of Evaluation Expert Network		
1st network meeting (template T1 and evaluation section T2)			23/3										
2nd network meeting (template T2)						16/6							
3rd network meeting (draft country reports and outline synthesis report T2)										20/10			
Task 4													
Meetings of expert panel 													

Summary of deliverables
Deliverable	Language	Format	
1.	Inception report, outlining the approach to all tasks and including templates and annotated contents of synthesis reports 
(The inception report applies only to year 1. In years 2 and 3, working instructions for guidelines for carrying out tasks 1 and 2 will be produced instead by the coordinator)	EN	Electronic format (Word)	
2.	27 policy papers on renewable energy and energy efficiency of residential housing(different topic in years 2 and 3)	EN	Hard copy and electronic format (word + pdf)	
3.	Synthesis report on renewable energy and energy efficiency of residential housing (different topic in years 2 and 3)	EN	Hard copy and electronic format (word + pdf)	
4.	27 Country Reports on the achievements of Cohesion Policy	EN	Hard copy and electronic format (word + pdf)	
5.	Synthesis Report on the achievements of Cohesion Policy	EN	Hard copy and electronic format (word + pdf)	
6.	Executive summary of the two synthesis reports	EN, FR, DE	Hard copy and electronic format (word + pdf)	
7.	Presentation material for each of the two synthesis reports, for the use of Commission services	EN 	Electronic format (PowerPoint)	
8.	Three one-day meetings of the Expert Evaluation Network			
9.	One restricted meeting with senior management of DG Regional Policy and some few additional experts			
10. Documentation for the work of the expert panel, including for each selected evaluation:: 
- an abstract (if missing) 
- a summary (up to 4 pages)
- the judgment of the panel 	EN		

Annex 1 – Cross-border cooperation programmes
Number of programmes managed per country
Country	Number of programmes	
Austria	4	
Belgium	2	
Czech Republic	1	
Denmark	2	
Estonia	1	
Finland	1	
France	6	
Greece	3	
Germany	6	
Hungary	2	
Ireland	1	
Italy	6	
Latvia	1	
Lithuania	1	
Netherlands	1	
Poland	3	
Romania	1	
Slovakia	1	
Slovenia 	2	
Spain	3	
Sweden	4	
UK	1	
TOTAL	53	

Cross-border Cooperation Programmes – details by country
Country	National expert	Cross-border cooperation programme	Countries and regions involved	
Austria	Andreas Resch 	Operational Programme Objective European Territorial Cooperation Austria - Czech Republic 2007-2013	AT/CZ – Austria (Waldviertel, Weinviertel, Wiener Umland Nordteil, Mühlviertel and the city of Vienna) /Czech Republic (South Bohemia, South Moravia and the Highlands)	
		Operational Programme Objective European Territorial Cooperation Slovakia-Austria 2007-2013	AT/SK – Austria (Weinviertel, Wiener Umland-Nordteil, Wiener Umland-Südteil, Nordburgenland, Wien - core Programme area) /Slovakia (Waldviertel, Mostviertel-Eisenwurzen, Sankt Pölten, Niederösterreich-Süd and Mittelburgenland, as well as the self-governing regions of Bratislava and Trnava	
		Operationelles Programm Ziel Europäische Territoriale Zusammenarbeit Deutschland/Bayern - Österreich 2007-2013	AT/DE – Austria (Land Oberösterreich, Land Salzburg, Land Tirol, Land Vorarlberg)/Bavaria (Niederbayern, Oberbayern, Bodensee, Allgäu, Schwaben)	
		Operational Programme Objective European Territorial Cooperation Austria - Hungary 2007-2013	AT/HU – Austria (Austrian Länder of Burgenland and Wien and the NUTS III region Wiener Umland-Südteil) /Hungary (NUTS II region Nyugat-Dunántúl with the counties of Győr-Moson-Sopron, Vas and Zala)	
Belgium	Lydia Greunz 	Grensregio Vlaanderen - Nederland - Operationeel programma ETS 2007-2013	BE/NL – Belgium (Vlaanderen) /Nederland	
		INTERREG IV France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen	BE/FR – France (Nord-Pas de Calais / Champagne-Ardenne / Picardie ) Belgium (Wallonie/Vlaanderen)	
Czech Republic	Jiri Blazek	OP Česká Republika - Polska	CZ/PL - Czech Republic (Liberec, Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Olomouc and Moravia-Silesia) /Poland (Jelenia Góra-Wałbrzych, Opole, Rybni-Jastrzębie and Bielsko-Biała)	
Denmark	Peter Plougmann 	INTERREG IV Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N.	DK/DE – Denmark (Syddanmark)/ Germany (Schleswig-Holstein - K.E.R.N. - Landeshauptstadt Kiel, Stadt Eckernförde, Stadt Rendsburg and Stadt Neumünster)	
		INTERREG IV "Fehmarnbeltregion" (Sjælland-Ostholstein-Lübeck-Plön)	DK/DE Denmark (Sjælland)/ Germany (Schleswig-Holstein)	
Estonia	Tarmo Kalvet 	ESTONIA , LATVIA PROGRAMME 2007-2013	EE/LV – Estonia (Lääne-Eesti, Lõuna-Eesti)/Latvia (Kurzeme, Riga, Pieriga and Vidzeme)	
Finland	Seppo Laakso	Central Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme 2007-2013	FI/SE/EE/LV – Central Baltic (including the Åland Islands)	
France	Michel Lacave 	Programme des 2 mers	FR/NL/BE/UK – France (Nord and Pas de Calais)/ UK (Norfolk, Suffolk, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock, Essex CC, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex CC, West Sussex, Portsmouth, Southampton, Hampshire CC, Isle of Wight, the Medway Towns, Kent CC, Bournemouth and Poole, Dorset CC, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, Plymouth, Torbay, Devon CC) / Belgium (the districts of Antwerpen, Brugge, Oostende, Veurne, Eeklo, Gent, Sint-Niklaas) / Netherlands 5 Delft en Westland, Groot-Rijnmond, Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, Overig Zeeland and West-Noord-Brabant)	
		Programme opérationnel INTERREG IV A Rhin supérieur	FR/DE/CH – Germany (Baden-Württemberg and southern Rhineland-Palatinate) / France (Alsace) / Switzerland (cantons of Basel-Stadt (Basle-City), Basel-Land (Basle-Country), Jura, Solothurn and Aargau	
		Interreg IV A programme de coopération transfrontalière France (Manche) - Angleterre 2007-2013	FR/UK – France (Somme, Seine-Maritime, Calvados, Manche, Côtes-d'Armor, Finisterre, Ille-et-Vilaine) / UK (Norfolk, Suffolk, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock, Essex CC, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex CC, West Sussex, Portsmouth, Southampton, Hampshire CC, Isle of Wight, the Medway Towns, Kent CC, Bournemouth and Poole, Dorset CC, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, Plymouth, Torbay, Devon CC)	
		Programme opérationnel CTE France-Suisse	FR/CH – France (départements of Doubs, Jura, Territoire de Belfort, Ain and Haute-Savoie / Suisse  (Berne, Jura, Neuchâtel, Vaud, Genève and Valais). The départements of Haut-Rhin, Côte d'Or, Saône-et-Loire, Haute-Saône, Rhône, Isère and Savoie in France and the canton of Fribourg in Switzerland can also take part in the programme as neighbouring territories.	
		Programme opérationnel CTE Amazonie	FR/BR/SU – The non-member countries and regions involved in this cooperation programme are Suriname  and Brasil (Amapa, Para and Amazonas)	
		Programme transfrontalier Grande Région	FR /DE/BE/LU – Belgium (Wallonia and the German-speaking Community) / France (Lorraine) / Germany (Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland) / Grand Duchy of Luxembourg	
Greece	Lena Tsipouri 	Greece - Cyprus 2007-2013	GR/CY – Greece (Samos, Lesbos, Chios, Dodecanese, Heraklion, Lasithi, Rethymno and Chania) /Cyprus	
		Greece – Bulgaria	GR/BG – Greece (Evros, Xanthi, Rodopi, Drama, Thessaloniki and Serres) /Bulgaria (Blagoevgrad, Smolyan, Kardzhali and Haskovo)	
		Greece – Italy	GR/IT – Greece (les nomes d’Étolie-Acarnanie et d’Achaïe (Grèce occidentale); les nomes de Corfou, Leucade, Céphalonie et Zakynthos (région des îles Ioniennes); nomes de Ioannina, Préveza et Thesprotie (région d’Épire) /Italy (NUTS III - Bari, Brindisi et Lecce)	
Germany	Oliver Schwab 	Ziel 3-Programm zur grenzübergreifenden Zusammenarbeit Freistaat Bayern-Tschechische Republik 2007-2013	DE/CZ –Germany (Cham, Freyung-Grafenau, Hof, Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Regen, Schwandorf, Tirschenreuth and Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebierge, die kreisfreie Städte Hof and Weiden, Amberg-Sulzbach, Bayreuth, Deggendorf, Kronach, Kulmbach, Passau, Regensburg, Straubing-Bogen, die kreisfreie Städte Amberg, Bayreuth, Passau, Regensburg and Straubing) /Czech Republic (Plzeňský kraj, Karlovarský kraj and Jihočeský kraj)	
		Programm Ziel 3 / Cíl 3 zur Förderung der grenzübergreifenden Zusammenarbeit Sachsen - Tschechien	DE/CZ –Germany (Vogtlandkreis, Aue-Schwarzenberg, Annaberg, Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis, Freiberg, Weißerritzkreis, Sächsische Schweiz, Bautzen and Löbau-Zittau as well as kreisfreie Stadt Plauen)/Czech Republic (Karlovarský kraj (with the counties of Karlovy Vary, Sokolov and Cheb), Ústecký kraj (with the counties of Chomutov, Most, Teplice, Louny, Litoměřice, Ústi nad Labem und Děčín) as well as Liberecký kraj (with the counties of Česká Lipa, Liberec, Jablonec nad Nisou and Semily)	
		Operationelles Programm zur grenzübergreifenden Zusammenarbeit Sachsen – Polen	DE/PL –Germany (Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis, Löbau – Zittau and Kreisfreie Stadt Görlitz)/ Poland (two Polish sub-regions, Jeleniogórsko-Wałbrzyski and Zielonogórski, which respectively form part of the voievodships of Lower Silesia and Lubuskie)	
		Ziel 3-Programm zur grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit MV/BB - Polen	DE/PL – Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg) / Poland (Zachodniopomorski)	
		INTERREG IVA Programm Deutschland-Niederlande	DE/NL – Germany (Landkreis Aurich, Kreis Borken, Kreisfreie Stadt Emden, Landkreis Emsland, Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim, Kreis Kleve, Kreisfreie Stadt Krefeld, Landkreis Leer, Kreisfreie Stadt Mönchengladbach, Kreis Steinfurt, Kreis Viersen and Kreis Wesel ) /Netherlands (Achterhoek, Arnhem/Nijmegen, Delfzijl en omgeving, Midden Limburg, Noord Friesland, Noord Limburg, Noord Overijssel, Noordoost, Noord Brabant, Oost Groningen, Overig Groningen, Twente and Zuidoost Drenthe). The areas Landkreis Ammerland, Landkreis Cloppenburg, Kreis Coesfeld, Kreisfreie Stadt Duisburg, Landkreis Friesland, Kreisfreie Stadt Münster, Landkreis Osnabrück, Kreisfreie Stadt Osnabrück, Rhein Kreis Neuss, Kreis Warendorf and Landkreis Wittmund in Germany and Flevoland, Noord Drenthe, Veluwe, Zuidwest Drenthe, Zuidoost Friesland, Zuidwest Gelderland as well as Zuidwest Overijssel in the Netherlands can participate in the projects as adjacent areas.	
		Interreg IV Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein	DE/AT/LI/CH – Germany (Baden-Württemberg, Bodensee, Allgäu, Bayern) / Austria (Land Vorarlberg) / Lichtenstein / Switzerland 	
Hungary	Gabor Balas 	Hungary-Romania Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013	HU/RO – Hungary (Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Hajdú-Bihar, Békés, Csongrád ) / Romania (Sutu-Mare, Bihor, Arad, and Timis)	
		Hungary-Slovakia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013	HU/SK – Hungary (Győr-Moson-Sopron, Komárom-Esztergom, Pest, Nógrád, Heves, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Budapest) / Slovakia (Bratislavský kraj, Trnavský kraj, Nitriansky kraj, Banskobystrický kraj and Košický kraj)	
Ireland	Patrick Drudy 	Ireland Wales Programme	IE/UK – Ireland (Dublin, Mid-East and South-East) / UK (Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd, Conwy and Denbighshire as well as South West Wales)	
Italy	Andrea Naldini 	PO Italia-Francia frontiera marittima	IT/FR - Italy (provinces of Sassari, Nuoro, Cagliari, Oristano, Olbia-Tempio, Ogliastra, Medio Campidano, Carbonia-Iglesias, Imperia, Savona, Genoa, La Spezia, Massa-Carrara, Lucca, Livorno and Grosseto) /France (departments of Southern Corsica and Upper Corsica)	
		PO Italia-Francia Alpi (ALCOTRA)	IT/FR – Italy (Val d’Aoste, Piemonte and Liguria) / France ((Rhône-Alpes and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur) / the Principality of Monaco.	
		Programma Operativo di Cooperazione Transfrontaliera Italia - Svizzera 2007-2013	IT/CH – Italy (Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta, the region of Piedmont (the provinces of Verbano-Cusio-Ossola, Biella, Vercelli and Novara), the region of Lombardy (the provinces of Varese, Como, Lecce and Sondrio), the Autonomous Province of Bolzano and, as neighbouring areas, the provinces of Turin and Alessandria (Piedmont) and the provinces of Pavia, Milan, Bergamo and Brescia (Lombardy) ) /Switzerland (cantons of Valais, Ticin and Grisons.)	
		Programma per la cooperazione transfrontaliera Italia-Slovenia 2007-2013	IT/SI – Italy (Trieste, Gorizia, Udine, Venezia, Rovigo, Padova, Ferrara and Ravenna ) / Slovenia (Goriška, Obalno-Kraška and Gorenjska)	
		PO Italia-Malta 2007 -2013	IT/MT –Italy (provinces of Agrigento, Caltanisetta, Ragusa, Siracusa and Trapani and the provinces of Catania and Palermo adjacent to the eligible areas in Sicily) / Malta (whole of Malta, including Gozo and Comino)	
		INTERREG IV A Italia/Austria	IT/AT – Italy (Bolzano/Bozen, Belluno, Udine) / Austria (Klagenfurt-Villach, Oberkärnten, Pinzgau-Pongau, Tiroler Oberland, Innsbruck, Tiroler Unterland and Osttirol). Gorizia, Pordenone, Treviso, Vicenza, Außerfern, Lungau, Unterkärnten, Salzburg und Umgebung can also participate in the projects as adjacent areas.	
Latvia	Alf Vangas 	Latvia - Lithuania Cross border cooperation programme	LV/LT – Latvia (Kurzemi, Latgali and Zemgali) /Lithuania (Klaipėdos, Šiaulių, Telšių, Panevėžio and Utenos. The Kauno region of Lithuania may take part in projects as an adjacent area.	
Lithuania	Agne Miseliuniene 	Lithuania - Poland 2007-2013 European Teritorial Cooperation Objective Operational Programme	LT/PL – Lithuania (Marijampolės and Alytaus) /Poland (Białostocko-suwalski and Ełcki). The regions of Tauragės, Kauno and Vilniaus (excluding Vilniaus Municipality) in Lithuania, and Łomżyński and Olsztyński in Poland, can take part in projects as adjacent areas.	
Netherlands	Frans Boekema 	Operationeel Programma Euregio Maas Rijn 2007-2013	NL/BE/DE – Belgium (Liège and Limburg) / Germany (Aachen region and the districts of Bitburg-Prüm and Daun) / Netherlands (south and centre of the Dutch province of Limburg)	
Poland	Grzegorz Gorzelak 	Program wspó¿pracy przygranicznej Polska-Niemcy (woj.lubuskie - Brandenburgia) (Operational Programme 'Poland - Germany')	PL/DE – Poland (Lubuskie - Gorzowski und Zielonogórski) / Germany (Brandenburg - Märkisch-Oderland, Oder-Spree, Spree-Neiße and die kreisfreie Städte Frankfurt (Oder) as well as Cottbus)	
		Program wspó¿pracy przygranicznej Polska-S¿owacja (Operational Programme 'Poland - Slovakia')	PL/SK – Poland (Bielsko-Bialski, Nowosądecki and Krośnieńsko-Przemyski) / Slovakia (Žilinský kraj and Prešovský kraj). The areas of Oświęcimski Powiat, Pszczyński Powiat, Rzeszowski Powiat and Rzeszów Powiat Grodzki in Poland may take part in projects as an adjacent area.	
		Program wspó¿pracy przygranicznej Po¿udniowy Ba¿tyk (Operational Programme 'South Baltic')	PL/SE/DK/LT/DE – Poland (Szczeciński, Koszaliński, Słupski, Gdański and Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot sub-regions) / Sweden (Kalmar, Blekinge and Skåne counties) / Germany (Greifswald, Rostock, Stralsund, Wismar, Bad Doberan, Nordvorpommern, Nordwestmecklenburg, Ostvorpommern, Rügen and Uecker-Randow - sub-regions of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) / Denmark (the regional municipality of Bornholms) / Lithuania (Klaipėdos county)	
Romania	Dragos Pislaru 	Romania¿Bulgaria Cross-Border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013	RO/BG – Romania (counties of Mehedinti, Dolj, Olt, Teleorman, Giurgiu, Calarasi and Constanta ) /Bulgaria (districts of Vidin, Vratsa, Montana, Pleven, Veliko Tarnovo, Ruse Silistra and Dobrich). In addition to these districts, Razgrad district in Bulgaria has been included in the eligible programme area	
Slovakia	Frank Karol	Program cezhrani¿nej spolupráce Slovenská republika - ¿eská republika 2007 ¿ 2013	SK/CZ – Slovakia (Trenčín, Trnava and Žilina) /Czech Republic (South Moravia, Moravia-Silesia and Zlín)	
Slovenia 	Kavas Damjan	Operational Programme Slovenia-Austria 2007-2013	SI/AT – Slovenia (Gorenjsko, Koroško, Savinjsko, Podravsko and Pomursko) / Austria (Oststeiermark West and Südsteiermark, Klagenfurt – Villach, Unterkärnten and Südburgenland). The areas of Graz, Obersteiermark Ost, Obersteiermark West and Oberkärnten in Austria and Osrednjeslovensko in Slovenia may take part in projects as an adjacent area.	
		Operational Programme Slovenia-Hungary 2007-2013	SI/HU – Slovenia (regions of Pomurje and Podravje) /Hungary (counties of Zala and Vas)	
Spain	Faiña Andres 	Programa Operativo FEDER Cooperación Transfronteriza España-Portugal	ES/PO – Spain (Pontevedra, Ourense, Zamora, Salamanca, Cáceres, Badajoz y
Huelva ) / Portugal (Minho-Lima, Cávado, Alto Trás-os-Montes, Douro, Beira
Interior Norte, Beira Interior Sul, Alto Alentejo, Alentejo Central, Baixo Alentejo y
Algarve) 	
		Programa Operativo FEDER Cooperación Transfronteriza España-Francia	ES/FR – Espagne (Gipuzkoa, Navarra, Huesca, Lleida, Girona) / France (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, Hautes-Pyrénées, Haute-Garonne,  Ariège, Pyrénées-Orientales)	
		Programa de Cooperación Territorial Transfronteriza España-Fronteras Exteriores 2008	ES/MA – Spain (Almería, Granada, Málaga, Cádiz, Huelva, Sevilla, Córdoba, Jaén and the Autonomous  Cities  of Melilla and Ceuta, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria y Santa Cruz de Tenerife), /External Borders (Tánger-Tetuán, Taza-Alhoceima-Taounate and the East Region, Guelmin-Es-Smara, Souss Massa Dràa and Laâyoune-Boujdour-Sakia El Hamra)	
Sweden	Nilsson Jan-Evert	Sweden - Norway	SE/NO – Sweden (Jämtlands län, Värmlands län, Dalarnas län and parts of Västra Götalands län) / Norway (Nord-Trøndelags fylke, Sør-Trøndelags fylke, Hedmarks fylke, Østfold fylke and Akershus fylke). The areas of Västernorrlands län, Gävleborgs län and Örebro län in Sweden, and Oppland fylke and Oslo kommun in Norway may take part in projects as an adjacent area.	
		Interreg IV Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak	SE/DK/NO – Oresund/Kattegat/Skagerrak	
		Botnia-Atlantica	SE/FI/NO – Finland (Keski-Pohjanmaa, Pohjanmaa and Satakunta) / Sweden (Västerbottens län, Västernorrlands län and a small part of Gävleborgs län) / Norway (Nordland fylke)	
		Nord INTERREG IVA	SE/FI/NO – Finland (Lappi, Pohjois-Pohjanmaa and Keski-Pohjanmaa) / Sweden (Norrbottens län and parts of Västerbottens län) / Norway (Finnmarks fylke, Troms fylke and Nordlands fylke). The remaining part of the region of Västerbottens län in Sweden can participate in the projects as an adjacent area.	
UK	Tyler Peter	EU Programme for Cross Border Territorial Cooperation (INTERREG IV) 2007-2013 - Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland	UK/IE –Ireland (the Border Region, East of Northern Ireland, North of Northern Ireland, West and South of Northern Ireland) / UK (Dumfries and Galloway; East Ayrshire; North Ayrshire mainland; and South Ayrshire – as well as for the regions of Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh, Arran and Cumbrae and Argyll and Bute). The regions Belfast, Outer Belfast and Eilean Siar (Western Isles), in the United Kingdom, can participate in the projects as adjacent areas.	

Annex 2 – Correspondence between policy areas and fields of intervention (FOI)
Policy area		code	Priority themes	
1. Enterprise environment	RTDI and linked activities	01	R&TD activities in research centres 	
		02	R&TD infrastructure and centres of competence in a specific technology	
		05	Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms	
		07	Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation (...)	
		74	Developing human potential in the field of research and innovation, in particular through post-graduate studies ...	
	Innovation support for SMEs	03	Technology transfer and improvement of cooperation networks ...	
		04	Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs (including access to R&TD services in research centres)	
		06	Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of environmentally-friendly products and production processes (...)	
		09	Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs	
		14	Services and applications for SMEs (e-commerce, education and training, networking, etc.)	
		15	Other measures for improving access to and efficient use of ICT by SMEs 	
	ICT and related services	11	Information and communication technologies (...)	
		12	Information and communication technologies (TEN-ICT)	
		13	Services and applications for citizens (e-health, e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion, etc.)	
	Other investment in firms	08	Other investment in firms 	

2. Human resources	Education and training	62	Development of life-long learning systems and strategies in firms; training and services for employees ...	
		63	Design and dissemination of innovative and more productive ways of organising work	
		64	Development of special services for employment, training and support in connection with restructuring of sectors ... 	
		72	Design, introduction and implementing of reforms in education and training systems ...	
		73	Measures to increase participation in education and training throughut the life-cycle ...	
	Labour market policies	65	Modernisation and strengthening labour market institutions	
		66	Implementing active and preventive measures on the labour market	
		67	Measures encouraging active ageing and prolonging working lives	
		68	Support for self-employment and business start-up	
		69	Measures to improve access to employment and increase sustainable participation and progress of women ...	
		70	Specific action to increase migrants' participation in employment ...	
		71	Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people ...	
		80	Promoting the partnerships, pacts and initiatives through the networking of relevant stakeholders	
3. Transport	Rail	16	Railways	
		17	Railways (TEN-T)	
		18	Mobile rail assets	
		19	Mobile rail assets (TEN-T)	
	Road	20	Motorways	
		21	Motorways (TEN-T)	
		22	National roads	
		23	Regional/local roads	
	Other transport	24	Cycle tracks	
		25	Urban transport	
		26	Multimodal transport	
		27	Multimodal transport (TEN-T)	
		28	Intelligent transport systems	
		29	Airports	
		30	Ports	
		31	Inland waterways (regional and local)	
		32	Inland waterways (TEN-T)	
4. Environment and energy	Energy infrastructure	33	Electricity	
		34	Electricity (TEN-E)	
		35	Natural gas	
		36	Natural gas (TEN-E)	
		37	Petroleum products	
		38	Petroleum products (TEN-E)	
		39	Renewable energy: wind	
		40	Renewable energy: solar 	
		41	Renewable energy: biomass	
		42	Renewable energy: hydroelectric, geothermal and other	
		43	Energy efficiency, co-generation, energy management	
	Environment and risk prevention	44	Management of household and industrial waste	
		45	Management and distribution of water (drink water)	
		46	Water treatment (waste water)	
		47	Air quality	
		48	Integrated prevention and pollution control 	
		49	Mitigation and adaption to climate change	
		50	Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land	
		51	Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (including Natura 2000)	
		52	Promotion of clean urban transport 	
		53	Risk prevention (...)	
		54	Other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks	
5. Territorial development	Social Infrastructure	10	Telephone infrastructures (including broadband networks)	
		75	Education infrastructure 	
		76	Health infrastructure	
		77	Childcare infrastructure 	
		78	Housing infrastructure	
		79	Other social infrastructure	
	Tourism and culture	55	Promotion of natural assets	
		56	Protection and development of natural heritage	
		57	Other assistance to improve tourist services	
		58	Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage	
		59	Development of cultural infrastructure	
		60	Other assistance to improve cultural services	
	Planning and rehabilitation	61	Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration	
	Other	82	Compensation of any additional costs due to accessibility deficit and territorial fragmentation	
		83	Specific action addressed to compensate additional costs due to size market factors	
		84	Support to compensate additional costs due to climate conditions and relief difficulties	
6. Technical assistance		81	Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation ...	
		85	Preparation, implementation, monitoring and inspection 	
		86	Evaluation and studies; information and communication