1 / 11

Revised version

Ex ante evaluation guidance. Revised version. Marielle Riché Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy. International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011. Brussels 21st June 2012. Main modifications. Answer to main comments:

Pat_Xavi
Download Presentation

Revised version

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ex ante evaluation guidance Revised version Marielle Riché Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11th November 2011 Brussels 21st June 2012

  2. Main modifications • Answer to main comments: - Proportionality and independence principles- Timing and Evaluation plan • Other changes: - SEA- Robustness and statistical validation- ERDF result indicator - Useful links

  3. Proportionality and independence • Proportionality: • new section 2.5. based on Art. 4(5) CPR. relates to both ex ante evaluations and operational programmes • Independence (developed section 2.4.): - High: external tender or different organisation - Good: differentdepartmentswithin the same organisation • Other solutions: specificmeasures to guaranteeindependence (written job description, no subordination to the programmer) • Reminderadded in introduction: • the final responsibility for the programme design restswith the programmer

  4. Timing and Evaluation plan • Plan "call for tenders" in mid 2012 (2.1.) • Examination of evaluation plans dropped (1.2.4.) • Tooearly • Included in "Monitoring and Evaluation" guidance documents • Support from Ex ante evaluators: - Anticipating data needs for impact evaluations - Advising on main evaluations, timing, methods etc.

  5. Strategic Environmental Assessment • Revised Section 1.5. + Annex 1 • To be completed before the adoption of OP - Environmental report - Consultations - Taking account of report and results of consultation - Information on decision - Monitoring • Important revision of OP after submission to the Commission may require updated SEA process

  6. Robustness and statistical validation of indicators • Annex IV, general ex ante conditionality • Box in section 1.2.1. • Robust: indicator value not influenced by extreme values • Statistical validation: representativeness of samples • Publicly available (baselines, achievement values), definition • Availability of statistical expertise

  7. ERDF result indicators Should not be limited to entities supported (1.2.1.)because: • Result indicators encapsulate a change in the socio-economic situation of a given region/MS/targeted population or sector. • monitoring results for the supported entities gives only an indication of the effectiveness of an instrument, not the progress toward the intended change (policy objective) • Only exception: if the specific objective is to experiment a new tool/approach and test its effectiveness, in this case, the target group are the supported entities

  8. ERDF result indicators, examples Wrong: • Increase in the productivity of supported enterprises • Number of companies benefitting from a risk capital fund Right: • Increase in the productivity of national/regional/sectoral entreprises. • Increase in the growth rate of regional high tech companies (employment, GAV)

  9. ERDF result indicators What does this mean in practice? • To concentrate funding on one of the main factors of change • Challenge for more developed regions/MS: • Focus the intervention on particular sectors, target groups, areas (revised section 1.2.1) • No change in a result indicator should trigger a policy discussion: • Wrong result indicator? • Ineffective intervention(s)? • Insufficient funding to fix the need?

  10. Useful links: Annex 2 • Monitoring and evaluation guidances REGIO/EMPL • EU2020 flagship initiatives • Partnership principle (cf Code of conduct) • RIS3 (Smart Specialisation Strategies) • SEA (Directive, Guidance) • EVALSED (evaluation of socio-economic development)

  11. On Inforegio website, Guidance documents 2014 – 2020 section Guide on ex-ante evaluation (EN, FR, DE) Concepts and recommandations (EN, FR, DE) Result Indicator Pilot Report (EN) Guidance on evaluation of innovation (EN, FR, DE, ES, PL) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/evaluations/guidance_en.cfm#2

More Related