Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
The programme evaluation according to the European approach. Carmelina Bevilacqua Regione Campania Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici. The new programming period 2007-2013 The EU evaluation approach from 2000-2006 to 2007-2013 The role of indicators
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The programme evaluation according to the European approach Carmelina Bevilacqua Regione Campania Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici Carmelina Bevilacqua – Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici della Regione Campania
The new programming period 2007-2013 • The EU evaluation approach from 2000-2006 to 2007-2013 • The role of indicators • update of the mid term evaluation of POR Campania 2000-2006
An evaluation project example: the mid term update evaluation of Campania OP 2000-2006 • art. 42 Reg. (CE) 1260/1999 provides for each Local Authority carries on mid term evaluation by its updating within 31 December 2005 in agreement with member state and European commission • The objective of update of Mid Term Evaluation is twofold: first, to give recommendations and punctual suggestions for the future programming period, second, to build up a correct logical framework to implement the ex post.
The new programming period 2007-2013 Carmelina Bevilacqua – Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici della Regione Campania
The basic principles of cohesion reform • From a legislative point of view Five new regulations: • Three are about how each structural fund (ESRF, ESF, Cohesion Fund) should work within the new regional programmes • One is the general regulation of the European conceal in substitution of the previous regulation (1260/99) in order to define the common dispositions about the three structural funds • Thelast is the juridical base to use a new tool for territorial cooperation
The new legislative framework drives towards a strong strategic approach: • There are three levels of action programme: • the European Commission will fix strategic objectives of socio-economic and territorial cohesion within a framework of interventions of structural funds. • Each Member State will translate the European strategic objectives in a National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) • each Region will construct, on the basis of the previous lines (European and National) the Operational Programme
Great attention on simplification principle: • The co-financing of the cohesion policy is set for the three structural funds instead of six (as well as the previous programming period) with the same administration rules of the Cohesion fund; • The administration of the funds is activate at priority level instead of at measures level • The centralisation policy about eligibility expenditure rule is replaced with national policy • Each Operational Programme must be one fund based (in this way each Region must do three Operational Programmes) • The financial management and control will be more efficient with a stronger distinction between national and European responsability.
The main innovations of the Cohesion policy Reform of the period 2007-2013 are: • Strategic approach • Financial system • Administration and control system • Evaluation
Strategic Approach • The new architecture of structural funds does not distinguish anymore Operational Programme from single programming document but defines an approach more strategic. • Taking into account the European strategic lines, the National Strategic Reference Framework will describe in a very synthetic way the National Strategy and the main interventions and actions in a such a way each region can elaborate its Operational Programme.
What ‘s up • Three objectives: Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, European Cooperation. • The Convergence Objective: • collects the European regions less developed • is financed by ERSF ESF Cohesion Fund • has substituted the previous objective 1 • The new version of the Convergence Objective involves a several regions belong to new Member States with different pattern of development, even though all are less developed.
2000-2006 2007-2013 Priority Objective 1 Convergence Innovation, Infrastructure, Human Resources, Environmental Risk, Capacity Building, Sustainable Transport Objective 1 Objective 2 Competitiveness Innovation, accessibility, European strategy for employment, Environmental Risk, Interreg Cooperation Innovation, Nature, Culture, Education.
The National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRF) The NSRF represents the opportunity to unify the programming activity of regional policies at European level in order to make a stronger harmony with national policies. The NSRF: ensures the programming coherence with European strategic lines; puts in evidence the links among European, national and regional priorities is the basic orientation to elaborate regional operative programmes. Strategic contents : thematic priority with quantified indicators action to improve the effectiveness of public administration the list of regions involved with respect the two objectives (Convergence and Competitiveness) the executive and operative action to implement the strategic priorities and orientations. The actions to verify the additional request The Member States propose their NSRF to the Europeans Commission after five months to the adoption of European strategic orientations.
The EU evaluation approach from 2000-2006 to 2007-2013 Carmelina Bevilacqua – Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici della Regione Campania
Evaluation Art. 45: The strategic guidelines of the Community, the national strategic reference framework, and the operational programmes shall be subject of evaluation. Evaluations shall aim to improve the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund assistance and the implementation of operational programmes. They shall also appraise their impact with respect to the strategic objectives of the Community, to article 158 of the Treaty and to the specific structural problems affecting the Member States and regions concerned, while taking account of needs of sustainable development and of the relevant Community legislation concerning environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment.
The rationale of evaluation programme can be focused on two peculiarities: • Strategic: when it is relevant to support programming activities in the entire process according to Community and national priorities. • Operational: when it is relevant to support the monitoring of an operational programme in order to make it be successfull
The Commission estabilishes the evaluation methods and standards to be applied (…), while the Member States shall provide the human and financial resources necessary for carrying out evaluations, organise the production and gathering of the necessary data and use the various types of information provided by the monitoring system. • Evaluation is carried out BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the programming period
Phases of the evaluation • ex ante Evaluation : it shall aim to optimise the allocation of budgetary resources under operational programmes and improve programming quality. It shall identify and appraise medium- and long-term needs, the goals to be achieved, the results expected, the quantified targets, the coherence, if necessary, of the strategy proposed for the region, the Community value-added, the extent to which the Community’s priorities have been taken into account, the lessons drawn from previous programming and the quality of the procedures for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and financial management.
Phases of the evaluation • Mid Term Evaluation: During the implementation of plans and programmes, it is realised to control the achievement level of mid term objectives (set by indicators of impacts, results and outcomes) and to elaborate mixed adjustment to drive the programme to success. • ex post Evaluation : at the end of the implementation of plans and programmes, it is realised to comprehend if the objectives and goals have been reached or not with respect the amount of financial resources used.
SF and assessment • Normative sourches: • (Evaluation in Reg. CE 1260/99) • Evaluation Reg. 2007-2013 • UE Methological framework: • (The MEANS) • Evalsed Guide www.evalsed.info • The working papers
Methodology: • Working Papers on indicators Working paper 1: Vademecum for Structural Funds Plans and Programming Documents Working paper 3: Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: an indicative methodology Working paper 9: The update of the Mid Term Evaluation of Structural Funds Interventions New draft (X) on programming 2007-2013
Indicators for programmes assessment Carmelina Bevilacqua – Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici della Regione Campania
Evaluation process elements: • Evaluation project • Indicators system
The indicator system Indicator measures • An objective to be reached • The activation of resource • The achievement of outputs • The effects reached • The variable of a peculiar phenomenon of the territorial context.
The information given by an indicator is a quantitative measure of variable that represents an important phenomena to control (e.g. percentage of assisted SME by public interventions, percentage of educated people that are satisfied by educational programme, etc..)
An indicator must give simple information that should be easy friendly in order to be correctly used. The indicator should help public administration in the decision making process, therefore it must be linked to a success criterion (e.g. the criterion improving quality of life)
The indicator and its measure unitb must be sensitive, that is the quantified measures must change in a significant way when the change of phenomenon they represent occurs.
output indicators: variables that directly check the achievement level of physical objectives of measures (e.g. km of road, number of attended people to educational programme, kmq of equipped areas) • result indicators: variables that check if the necessary condition to reach final objectives have been implemented. • Impact indicator: variables that check the achievement of final objective (the improvement of welfare, the reached level of development) There are no direct link with each measure of the Operational Programme. They occur with the realisation of many output and result objectives.
EC core indicators “CONVERGENCE” AND “COMPETITIVENESS AND EMPLOYMENT” OBJECTIVES Programme level (1) Jobs created (full time equivalents) (2) for men; (3) for women Thematic fields Research and knowledge economy (01 - 07) (4) Number of RTD projects (5) Number of cooperation projects enterprises – research institutions (6) Research jobs created (preferably 5 years after project start) Direct investment aid to SME (08) (7) Number of projects (8) of it: number of start-ups supported (first two years after start-up) (9) Jobs created (gross, full time equivalent) (10) Investment induced (million €)
Information society (10 - 15) (11) Number of projects (12) Number of additional population covered by broadband access Transport investment (16 – 32) (13) Number of projects (14) km of new roads, (15) of which TEN (16) km of reconstructed roads (17) km of new railroads (18) of which TEN (19) km of reconstructed railroads (20) Value for timesavings in Euro / year from new and reconstructed roads for passengers and freight (21) Value for timesavings in Euro / year from new and reconstructed railroads for passengers and freight (22) Additional population served with improved urban transport
Renewable energy (39-42) (23) Number of projects (24) Additional capacity of renewable energy production (MWh) Environment (44-47, 49) (25) Additional population served by water projects (26) Additional population served by waste water projects (27) Number of waste projects (28) Number of projects on improvement of air quality (29) Area rehabilitated (km2) Climate change (16-19, 39-43, 48, 51, 52, 62) (30) Reduction greenhouse emissions (CO2 and equivalents, kt)
Prevention of risks (53) (31) Number of projects (32) Number of people benefiting from flood protection measures (33) Number of people benefiting from forest fire protection and other protection measures Tourism (55-57) (34) Number of projects (35) Number of jobs created Education (74) (36) Number of projects (37) Number of benefiting students Health (75) (38) Number of projects
Urban issues Physical and environmental regeneration (39) Number of projects ensuring sustainability and improving the attractiveness of towns and cities Competitiveness (40) Number of projects seeking to promote businesses, entrepreneurship, new technology Social inclusion (41) Number of projects offering services to promote equal opportunities and social inclusion for minorities and young people
Cross-border co-operation and Transnational co-operation degree of co-operation (42) Number of projects respecting two of the following criteria: joint development, joint implementation, joint staffing, joint financing (43) Number of projects respecting three of the following criteria: joint development, joint implementation, joint staffing, joint financing (44) Number of projects respecting four of the following criteria: joint development, joint implementation, joint staffing, joint financing
Cross-border co-operation Number of projects (45) encouraging the development of cross-border trade (46) developing joint use of infrastructure (47) developing collaboration in the field of public services (48) reducing isolation through improved access to transport, ICT networks and services (49) encouraging and improving the joint protection and management of the environment (50) Number of people participating in joint education or training activities (51) Number of people getting employment on the other side of the border as a result of CBC project
Transnational co-operation Number of projects (52) on water management (53) improving accessibility (54) on risk prevention (55) developing RTD and innovation networks Inter-regional co-operation (56) Number of projects
Case Study: The Update of Mid Term Evaluation of POR Campania 2000-2006 Carmelina Bevilacqua – Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici della Regione Campania