Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Towards an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system for Leader: the Dutch perspective September 25 2006 DG Agri, EU, Brussels Dr Peter Laan Program manager LEADER+ MA East-Netherlands National Netwerk Unit, the Netherlands Introduction
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.
Dr Peter Laan
Program manager LEADER+
National Netwerk Unit, the Netherlands
Remembering the start of LEADER+ in the Netherlands…
Leader as an experimental program
Indicators put forward…
Does Leader result in …
Similar results that are achieved in another way, or …
In different results compared to mainstream-programs?
-> similar projects may result in a different range of outputs and impacts
cooperation between actors within the area
renewal of local governance
bottom up way of working
area-based development strategies
cooperation between areas
Quantitative vs. qualitative
‘Hard’ socio-economic output vs. process indicators
Dynamical development vs. static evaluation systems
Short-term vs. long-term effects: time to develop
Elements to be considered
area-specific and Leader-process aspects should be incorporated
Both static, ‘hard’ indicators and dynamical ones should be used
Use both qualitative and quantitative indicators in the system
“reflexive monitoring”: self-evaluation should be used in a monitoring system
dynamical development does not fit into a static way of monitoring, i.e. “learning process” and transition processes like changing scopes and focus on rural development may influence your evaluation system
the EU expert group on M&E should put forward tools and outlines for active local groups working in rural areas to help them in the discussion and reporting of process results
starting from the point of lessons learnt” and a real innovative approach, evaluation may be focused on the factors that have been important for the final results (either failures or successes)
developing a Leader-like evaluation system is important to stress that function and position of Leader differs significantly from other programs. This may be even more important in the new integrated RDP 2007-2013
Highlighting the Leader philosophy can be effectively done by developing a specific monitoring system
Incorporate MTR results and self-evaluation reports of LAGs into the monitoring system
think about the ‘reach’ of the program as laid down in Leader Guidelines and develop simultaneously with M&E system (internal process EC)
‘takings risks’, real innovation and ‘learning from experience’ is very hard to make operational, so help this process by adopting a specific set of indicators for the Leader axis
be aware of the different scale levels that have to be dealt with in Leader: monitoring on the Program level may significantly differ from that on the LAG-level.
Top-down way of monitoring may not appear to be appropriate for Leader. The bottom up approach leads to ‘first hand’ results and records it on the base level. This has to be met somewhere with the top-down indicator set from the EC and not always the right connections between the two levels can be made.