Evaluation of EU Structural Funds information and publicity by HC111208063654

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 11

									  Evaluation of EU Structural
Funds information and publicity
     activities in Lithuania
         in 2004-2006
Implementing recommendations
         for 2007-2013

       Dr. Klaudijus Maniokas
    Chairman of the Board, ESTEP
      Objectives of the Evaluation
• The evaluation of information and publicity about assistance
  from the Structural Funds in Lithuania was commissioned by the
  MA (Ministry of Finance)
• The main objectives of the evaluation were:
   – to analyse relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and utility of
     information and publicity activities carried out during the
     programming period 2004-2006 at the levels of the SPD
     programme, measures and projects; and
   – to provide practical recommendations on how to improve
     information and publicity activities for the next programming
     period.
• The situation analysis provided in the Communication Plan for
  Lithuania for the period 2007-2013 is based on the findings of
  this evaluation, about 80% of recommendations have been taken
  into account
          Scope of the Evaluation
• The evaluation activities started in February 2007 and
  lasted for 7 months (the final report was approved in
  August) – the right time for the evaluation results to be
  used for the next programming period;

• For the evaluation purposes, inter alia:
   – a survey of beneficiaries was conducted (488
     respondents      representing    potential   and  final
     beneficiaries);
   – a communication audit was done (in depth interviews
     with 23 communication specialists form the MA, all
     intermediate bodies and implementing agencies, 6 media
     representatives and 4 socio-economic partners)
   – case studies were carried out (18 projects)
                    Conclusions
A lot of positive findings:

•   The Information and Publicity Strategy for 2004 – 2006
    and target groups met the EU requirements and were
    relevant in Lithuanian context;
•   The public awareness regarding the absorption of the
    Structural Funds in Lithuania was regularly measured
    using annual opinion polls;
•   Three monitoring indicators for the information and
    publicity activities set for the 2004-2006 period in the
    SPD were already achieved in the summer of 2007;
•   Institutional arrangements for the planning of
    communication activities were set (inter-institutional
    working group);
•   There were good practice examples of efficient
    communication measures identified at all SPD levels
Conclusions and recommendations
    However, the shortcomings were also identified:
(1) the Strategy did not properly identify the objective to
    increase the transparency of the financial assistance
    process (in 2007 25% of the society thought that the
    absorption of EU funds is transparent and effective)
    Recommendation               to set a clear objective for
    transparency with a quantified target for the new
    programming period
    Recommendation has already been implemented: the
    objective on transparency is set in the Communication
    plan for 2007-2013 (target for the 1st year – 30% of the
    society consider the process of the EU assistance to be
    transparent)
  Conclusions and recommendations
(2) No task in the Strategy was set to measure and evaluate the
    effectiveness of the publicity and information process
    Recommendation            annual planning of communication
    activities should be based on the needs of target groups and
    their feedback. The output, result and impact monitoring
    indicators of communication activities should be defined.
    The output and result indicators should reflect the tasks and
    objectives of annual information plans and the impact
    indicators should be connected with overall aims of the
    Strategy.
    Recommendation has already been implemented: on-
    going annual evaluations are foreseen in the
    Communication plan for 2007-2013; quantified output,
    result and impact indicators are set in the annual
    communication plan
  Conclusions and recommendations
(3) Duplication of communication actions, fragmentation of
    information, lack of effective horizontal coordination were
    the main reasons for incapacity to ensure more efficient
    use of technical assistance recourses
    Recommendation                  more activities should be
    implemented in centralized manner (communication
    campaigns, setting of annual tasks and targets, monitoring
    & evaluation, implementation of capacity building
    measures, maintenance of centralized information source
    www.esparama.lt, etc.)
    Recommendation has already been implemented:
    about 67% of the annual communication budget will be
    allocated for the implementation of centralized activities
  Conclusions and recommendations
(4) In 2004-2006 there were certain communication crises:
  information vacuum in the programming period,
  speculations during the political elections in the media about
  non transparent process of assistance resulted a negative
  image of the system administering the Structural funds’
  assistance

  Recommendation          a prevention plan for communication
  crises should be prepared for the period 2007-2013.

  Recommendation is under implementation:
  implementation of this measure is included in the annual
  communication plan for 2008-2009.
  Conclusions and recommendations
(5) Due to the insufficient administrative capacities
   implementation of information and publicity activities lacked
   efficiency
   Recommendation              to implement capacity building
   activities (centralized trainings, study visits, working
   procedures), strengthen     the interinstitutional working
   group, use technical assistance for contracting public
   relations experts

  Recommendations have already been partly
  implemented
  Conclusions and recommendations
(6) The weakest element of the information and publicity
  system was found at the project level. The case studies
  showed that most of beneficiaries do not have capacities to
  implement publicity measures effectively (successful cases
  were found mostly in those projects where this activity was
  subcontracted).
  Recommendation                  Implementing agencies were
  offered to provide project managers with more methodic
  assistance (to hold more trainings, provide individual
  consultations not only on the form of measures, but on the
  content of information as well), to order some compulsory
  publicity measures in a centralized manner.

  Recommendation has not yet been implemented
Thank you for the attention!

								
To top