This evaluation focuses on the ESF Reunion Operational Programme 2014-2020. It will cover the implementation of the programme from its adoption (December 12, 2014) to the transmission of the document review tools to the provider. The evaluation shall aim in particular to: * Draw up a detailed state of play of the programme (programming, certification, automatic decommitment and performance framework); * Analyse the explanatory factors of possible internal bottlenecks (implementation process, animation/communication, targeting of measures...) and external (socio-economic context, regulation, etc.); * Ensure that the indicator management and data collection system contributes to their quality and reliability; * Study and argue the desirability of a possible revision of the programme strategy and the performance framework; * Measure the contribution of the programme to the horizontal principles of the European Union. The aim will be to produce a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the situation, a perspective and proposals. Proposals must be operational and compatible with minor OP amendments or implementation documents. The launch meeting and framing interviews will clarify the scope of the evaluation. 1. **Evaluative questions** Evaluative questions are likely to evolve and will be finalised at the launch meeting with the provider. 1. **What is the dynamic of programming and certification of expenditure on the programme axes?** \- Situation: a. What is the situation with regard to linear programming? B. What is the status of programme-level expenditure certification against the target for the next automatic decommitment? \- Perspectives: What are the prospects for programming and certification of expenditure and what are the implications for future automatic decommitments? —Proposals: What proposals can be made to eliminate the risks of automatic decommitment and to stimulate programming? **2\. What are, for each axis, the risks and blocking factors determining the dynamics of programming and certification of expenditure? (The following elements could constitute risk factors or blocking and do not constitute an exhaustive list.)** a. Context (socio-economic, impact of the closure of OPs 2007-2013, impact of the IEJ NOP...) b. Strategic targeting, eligibility criteria, type of actions, logic of co-financing... c. Choice of governance and steering (OP management system, global grant, animation of the OP, dematerialised tool, communication...) d. Instruction and management procedures (organisation of appraisal, regulatory difficulties, completeness of application and payment files, CSF...) and others... **3\. What is the dynamic by axis in relation to the objectives of the performance framework?** \- Situation: a. With regard to the allocation of the performance reserve b. In view of the risks of suspension of payment \- Perspectives: What are the prospects for achieving the targets by 2018 and 2023? What are the possible blocking factors? What are the financial implications to be expected in relation to these simulations (reallocation of the performance reserve from priority or non-performing priorities, possible suspensions of payments, or even financial corrections to the expenditure/output ratio)? \- Proposals: What proposals can be made to unlock the performance reserve? **4\. Do the procedures developed contribute to the quality and reliability of the data and indicators monitoring system?** a. Quality of tools and definitions and modalities of dissemination to beneficiaries/participants b. Chain of collection and monitoring of participating data and indicators c. Quality control management/CSF d. Pilotage and information systems e. other... **5\. In the light of previous evaluation questions, c** omment to boost programming while optimising the information of the participating data that feeds into the performance framework? 6\. To what extent does progress in implementation meet the objectives and strategy set by the ESF Réunion OP? An analysis of the OP’s intervention logic, financial aspects and outputs is expected. 7\. To what extent does programming contribute to the integration of horizontal principles in programme management and operations? * Gender equality * Non-discrimination * Sustainable development What are the levers of the GA to strengthen this consideration? How can the GA value the most outstanding projects? **5\. Methodology** * **Methodology envisaged** Table c