CAPITULO 4. EL SECTOR DE TÉ
4.3. LA CADENA Y ACTORES DEL SECTOR DEL TÉ
4.3.2. Los secaderos de té
Table 3.15 below shows information on the financial implementation and the reach of planned number of beneficiaries in each of 15 cases evaluated. This information is important in the evaluation to assess whether the allocated monies have been used as intended. If the allocated public funds are not used, there is an opportunity cost as they could have been used elsewhere to implement public policies.
The budget implementation rate shows the extent to which the approved EGF funding was spent in each EGF case to fund the measures planned to assist the dismissed workers. The rate differs significantly across the 15 cases evaluated, from 3% to 99%. There is a range of factors behind this variation, ranging from the arrival of the EGF funding at the locality, adequate communication, planning, capacity and coordination structures, local economic climate and rapidly changing conditions on the labour market.
The beneficiary reach rate shows the extent to which the numbers of dismissed workers planned to be assisted in the application were actually assisted with the EGF co-financed provision. Here, the variation is lower (compared to the budget implementation rate), from 1% to 101% of planned beneficiaries assisted during the implementation. This demonstrates that although the financial implementation rates varied, the assistance was still delivered to a high proportion of planned beneficiaries – albeit at lower-than-planned scale and extent (i.e. not all services were implemented as planned to all beneficiaries as planned).
Table 3.15 EGF cases implementation and reach rates
MS Case Sector EGF amount approved (EUR) Final EGF amount spent (EUR) Budget impleme ntation rate Planned number of benefici aries Final number of benefici aries Benefic iary reach rate DE BenQ Mobile phone 12,700,000 10,270,092 81% 2,511 2,528 101% DE Nokia Mobile phone 5,553,850 5,135,646 92% 1,316 1,305 99% ES Castilla y Leon and Aragon Automot ive 2,694,300 1,926,060 71% 588 534 91% ES Catalonia Textile 3,306,750 491,821 15% 1,100 587 53% ES Delphi Automot ive 10,471,778 10,319,649 99% 1,589 1,589 100% FI Perlos Mobile phone 2028538 1,321,253 65% 1,104 921 83% FR PSA suppliers Automot ive 2,558,250 2,353,583 92% 267 267 100%
IT Lombardy Textile 12,534,125 591,331 5% 1,816 174 10% IT Piedmont Textile 7,798,750 953,689 12% 1,537 1,298 84% IT Sardinia Textile 10,971,000 277,137 3% 1,044 11* 1% IT Tuscany Textile 3,854,200 803,279 21% 1,588 1,352 85% LT Alytaus Tekstile Textile 298,994 296,385 99% 600 619 103% MT Textiles Textile 681,207 318,920 47% 675 671 99% PT Lisbon- Alentejo Automot ive 2,425,675 458,045 19% 1,124 558 50% PT North- Centre Textile 832,800 246,492 30% 1,504 720 48%
*Expenditure on 11 beneficiaries was approved after the final audit; the EGF assistance targeted all 1044 dismissed workers.
Source: case evaluation reports.
There is a range of factors behind the variation of implementation rates, ranging from the arrival of the EGF funding at the locality, adequate communication, planning, capacity and coordination structures, local economic climate and rapidly changing conditions on the labour market. These are further elaborated in Table 3.16 which shows that:
▪
Difficulties in strictly following the planned mix and size of measures were encountered even in cases with high implementation rates. This is occurred mainly due to the variations in demand and interest from beneficiaries, which arguably was difficult to predict at the application stage. Noteworthy is also the flexibility of EGF as an instrument which was generally welcomed by the stakeholders as it allowed them to implement measures following the changes in demand from beneficiaries.▪
Another factor was the worsening economic climate, which constrained the implementation of certain types of measures such as entrepreneurship promotion (which requires beneficiaries to see realistic business opportunities) and hiring subsidies (which requires employers to create new jobs and hire dismissed workers).▪
Compressed period of implementation did affect the extent to which measures could be implemented. For example, training measures require a period of planning and actual learning which were difficult to implement due to shorter than 12 months implementation periods.Table 3.16 EGF cases implementation and reach rates – contributing factors
Member State
Case Factors affecting the implementation rates
DE Nokia High overall implementation rates. Underspent on certain types of measures occurred as follows:
• Training – less demand from beneficiaries; compressed implementation period of training measures
• Support for self-employment – the cost of delivering measures was lower than anticipated.
DE BenQ High implementation rates. Underspent on certain measures occurred because of the lower demand from beneficiaries.
compressed implementation period of EGF assistance.
ES Catalonia Low implementation rates. All the measures did not attract the planned number of beneficiaries due to compressed implementation period in the situation where local partners did not want to advance funds without the EGF application approval. EGF co-financed measures were implemented over the course of two months. Issues specific to the nature of measures were:
• One (training tailored to the needs of hiring companies) measure was not implemented at all due to the lack of demand from companies.
• Entrepreneurship measures did not attract enough beneficiaries due to the worsening economic situation and perceptions of own capabilities
• In employment promotion measure public works local authorities had lesser demand for publicly useful works. ES Delphi High implementation rates. Some measures were not implemented due
to the worsening economic situation and low demand from beneficiaries (promotion of geographical mobility, hiring incentives for companies).
FI Perlos High implementation rates. Some measures did not attract the planned number of beneficiaries due to a combination of factors of beneficiary demand and other existing support measures.
FR PSA suppliers High implementation rates. Measures utilised to a lesser extent were: • Training - planned training was too long for beneficiaries who
preferred shorter courses.
• Validation of informal and non-formal learning measure was not suitable to beneficiaries due to its long duration, significant level of investment required and profile of beneficiaries (older workers).
IT Lombardy Very low implementation rates, following the ex-post revision of the initially reported results, due to various factors:
• Some workers were identified as double-counted in benefiting both from EGF and ESF resources and hence the initial implementation claims were revised significantly downwards • ESF monies used to provide assistance to dismissed workers IT Piedmont Very low implementation rates, following the ex-post revision of the
initially reported results, due to various factors:
• Measures implemented before EGF start date (January 2007) • Some workers were identified as double-counted in benefiting
both from EGF and ESF resources and hence the initial implementation claims were revised significantly downwards • ESF monies used to provide assistance to dismissed workers IT Sardinia Very low implementation rates, following the ex-post revision of the
initially reported case results, due to various factors related to double- counting of beneficiaries and the use of ESF monies.
IT Tuscany Low implementation rates, following the ex-post revision of the initially reported case results, due to the double-counting of the beneficiaries LT Alytaus Tekstile High implementation rates. Underspent on certain measures occurred
because they did not attract the planned number of beneficiaries and/or costed less than planned initially.
MT Textiles Medium implementation rates, reflecting that the resources requested were more than was required to address the level of demand for assistance from dismissed workers
PT Lisbon-Alentejo Low implementation rates, due to this being the first EGF in the country and the lack of experience of budgeting for such activities
PT North-Centre Low implementation rates, due to a combination of factors. The most popular measure (vocational training) attracted almost three times more participants than planned, and the costs were significantly lower than budgeted (around eight times). Measures which require active participation of the beneficiary – individual training grants, entrepreneurship support – were less popular than expected.
Source: case evaluation reports.
The stakeholders were also asked whether they thought that the resources deployed via the EGF had been used efficiently. It should be noted that this analysis presents the opinions of stakeholders and independent experts, each of whom may have a different definition regarding what constitutes an efficient labour market intervention and a successful outcome for the beneficiary group concerned in the particular case which they were being asked about.
A total of 61 interviewees answered this question. The majority of interviewees (69 %) were of the opinion that the resources had been used efficiently as can be seen in Figure 3.9 below. 25 % were of the opinion that they had been used very efficiently. This means that 94 % of all respondents thought that resources were used efficiently or very efficiently. A key emerging observation in this regard is the reference to the fact that the absolute majority of EGF resources is spent on delivering actual services to the intended beneficiaries – and the proportion devoted to technical assistance/administration of the assistance remaining low. This is extremely welcomed amongst the stakeholders interviewed. Only 7 % of respondents answered that the resources had not been used efficiently. For all of the different groups of stakeholders the most frequently selected answer was that the resources were used efficiently. Noteworthy is a very positive view of independent experts who have all considered that resources have been used efficiently and very efficiently.
Figure 3.9 Stakeholder view on the efficiency of the use of resources (proportion of all respondents) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All Stakeholders (%) Independent Experts (%) 25% 25% 69% 75% 7% 0% I. Very efficiently II. Efficiently III. Not efficiently