Evaluation of the Economic Development Operative

ProgrammeScheme 2.1.1 and

mirror schemes

Agenda

1. Introduction of the scheme

2. Amendments to the scheme

3. Progress and allocation of funds

4. Characteristics of the projects

5. Questionnaire

6. Key conclusions and recommendations

1. Introduction of the scheme (1)

• n, hogy hány NSRK pályázat összesen – hány 2.1.1; hány sikeres pályázat összesen – hány 2.1.1.

Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)

NSRF54.4 th.(100%)

EDOP and CHOP 1.28.2 th.(51.8%)

EDOP 2. and CHOP 1.223.8 th.(43.7%)

EDOP 2.1.1 and mirrors19.1 th.(35.1%)

Number of applications granted

1. Introduction of the scheme (2)

Target groupIntensity

of the subsidy

Max. amount

(Mill. HUF)

AMicro enterprises, SMEs

30-70%(25-35%)

10-50(10-20)

BMicro enterprises, SMEs

30-50%(25-35%)

50-150(50-100)

C*Micro e., SMEs, large enterprises

30-50% 400-500

KHGMicro enterprises, SMEs

25-35% 150

M Micro enterprises Max. 45% 4-10

*Available only in EDOP(Different in the CHOP mirror schemes)

Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)

Number of supported projects(total: 19,236)

Amount of commitments(total: HUF 265.5 Bill.)

A53%

B6%

C1%

KHG0%

M40%

A45%

B23%

C14%

KHG0%

M18%

2. Amendments to the scheme

• The initial calls of the scheme primarily focused on enterprises with growth

potential and their needs

• The economic crisis influenced the original planning in many aspects; widening

the circle of potential applicants and easing beneficiary obligations

• The combined micro credit product introduced in 2011 was able to commit

significant amount of funds

3. Progress and allocation of funds (1)

• I

Prognosis for the 2.1.1-A, B , C and M components(contracted grants)

Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)

3. Progress and allocation of funds (2)

Average rate of final payment at different progress phases*

Distribution of granted funds by project progress

* EDOP 2.1.1 schemeSource: EMIR (25.02.2013)

Progress of project portfolio

Average rate of payment

After project selection 71%

After contracting 76%

After the first reimbursement 94%

After project closure 99%

Paid grants47%

Under implementation

34%

Non-reimbursed grants19%

3. Progress and allocation of funds (3)

Reimbursed and non-reimbursed grants

Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)

Non-reimbursed funds29%

Reimbursed funds71%

5%

17%

2%

5% Recall after reimbursement

Non-reimbursed funds at project closure

Contract closure without implementation

Withdrawal before contracting

4. Characteristics of the projects

Distribution of commitments among industry sectors

Distribution of commitments among regions

Source: EMIR (25.02.2013)

South Great Plain18%

South Transdanubia

11%

North Great Plain17%

North Hungary14%

Central Transdanubia

13%

West Transdanubia

13%

Central Hungary

14%

112,5

42,936,4

23,9

37,9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Bill

. H

UF

A B C M

5. Questionnaire (1)

In which phases did you involve consultants?

• The online questionnaire

was sent to 11.5

thousands beneficiaries

• 1.8 thousand answers

arrived, which means

15.4% rate of response

87%70%

25%

13%30%

75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Completion and submission of the

application

Administrative support during the

implementation(e.g. PIR)

Professional support during the

implementation

Without consultant

With consultant

5. Questionnaire (2)

Monitoring responsibilities – To what extent do you agree with the statements below?

15%

13%

34%

52%

53%

47%

-6%

-7%

-3%

-28%

-26%

-16%

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

the expectation of monitoring report is clear (interim- and final project implementation reports, follow-up reports), the

related documents are easy to understand

the administative burden of the monitoing reports are acdequate

he number of documents about monitoring and reimbursement is too high

distribution of the answers

fully agree partly agree partly disagree fully disagree

52%

53%

47%

15%

13%

34%

-28%

-26%

-16%

-6%

-7%

-3%

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

the expectation of monitoring report is clear (interim- and final project implementation reports, follow-up reports), the

related documents are easy to understand

the administative burden of the monitoing reports are adequate

the number of documents about monitoring and reimbursement is too high

distribution of answers

partly agree fully agree fully disagree partly disagree

6. Key conclusions and recommendations

•

• In its present form direct funding for SMEs has a high absorption capability,

there is no danger of losing funds

• The parallel tasks of closing the present and launching the upcoming period

present an enormous challenge for the institutional system

• The balance between absorption and strategic objectives should be

established while planning the 2014-2020 period: focusing on the

modernisation of growth-supporting technology

• Due to the characteristics of the scheme it is not recommended defining

workforce conditions as a beneficiary obligation

Contact:

János Matolcsy

Evaluation expert

KPMG Advisory Ltd.

+36 70 333 1497

Janos.Matolcsy@kpmg.hu

kpmg.hu