Setting Up Local Public Goods in Mountain Areas of Emilia-Romagna: Evaluation & Implementation Plan

1. BORN BY COMBINATION. Key resources and tools for setting up local public goods in mountain areas of Emilia Romagna Antonella Bonaduce, ERVET - Emilia Romagna Region - Evaluation Unit Bruxelles - 22th September 2009

2. The Evaluation Plan The Integrated Approach: important challenge for the Emilia Romagna Region • (1) Focusing on evaluations • NOT ONLY at level of operational programme • BUT ALSO at level of sub-regional areas or policy field across operational programmes; • (2) Building and fostering the evaluation capacity • NOT ONLY within administration • BUT ALSO outside it, challenging professional networks and partnerships

3. The Evaluation plan The overall framework for ex post and on-going evaluation • Traditional programme evaluation • Evaluation in order to understand the specific contribution of a single operational programme (ERDF, ESF) towards regional policy objectives • Example: • Ex post impact evaluation of the ERDF operative programme 2000 – 2006 • Evaluation across programmes • Combined effects of actions funded under different programmes at territorial level and the value added of the integration of various policies • Example: • Evaluation of intervention in mountain areas

4. Why Mountain areas? The mandate of the Regional Government

5. Why Mountain areas? The mandate of the Regional Government

6. Why Mountain areas? The mandate of the Regional Government • Mountain areas were interested during the 2000–2006 programming period by different policy and financial resources, but… • … not always expected results have been achieved. In these areas there are persistent and structural development needs; • Mountain areas were confirmed as strategic territories for regional policy for the 2007-2013 programming period and so financial resources and tools were identified; • It was considered important to understand why what worked actually worked, in order to learn how to better design, implement and deliver public policies for regional marginal areas.

7. The Evaluation Goals The Choice of the Unit of Analysis • Evaluation activities should capture the inception of long term changes • Evaluation should analyse the interaction between different policies / programmes/ interventions • Evaluation should derive general level criteria as possible reference for future operational programmes • Focus on successful interventions • Analyse why, how, and what were the mechanisms enabling policy interventions (development, implementation, etc) • The definition of Local Public Good as criterion to identify successful interventions

8. The choice of the unit of analysis • “The successful interventions” able to change the conditions of a specific area: • HOW? • Increasing the Humanand Social capital (training and vocational centres) training centre) • Improving the access to service for firms and population of the area (telematic infrastructure); • Reducing the environmental impact and improve the competitiveness of the local firms (environmental certification); • Increasing the value of cultural and environmental resources of the area.

9. The choice of the unit of analysis • The “territorial context” of the intervention became an important aspect to take into consideration in the evaluation analysis of local public goods: • WHY? • Territorial Context can influence the mechanisms enabling the setting up of local public goods and this means that it can influence the impact of the policy; • ; • Coordination is important in order to provide local public goods, it is important to understand WHO place this role in the different contexts.

10. The evaluation questions The first evaluation question is: How was the provision and the setting up of local public good? • Which local needs have been satisfied? • How have local needs been recognized? • Who were the institutions and the other actors involved in project implementation? • Which are the mechanisms enabling the setting up of local public goods? The second evaluation question is: Is it possible to recognize common aspects, fruitful mechanisms in order to provide inputs to local needs? • What factors can influence these mechanisms? • Have Operational Programme characteristics influenced the process?

11. The choice of the method and organisation of the activity • Case study analysis; • Direct interviews with different actors involved in the process; • Project Team: • with different competence and experience • internal to the regional administration: • The role of the evaluation unit as coordinator of the project team; • The role of operational programmes managing authorities in the selection of successful interventions (50 projects); • The establishment of a Steering group.

12. Lessons about the provision and setting up of local public goods • Provision and implementation process can be different and different are the resources involved: financial and administrative resources, know how and competences, agreement and consensus between different actors; • Resources involved are not only local; • Different resources have different importance in the process;

13. Lessons about the provision and setting up of local public goods FOUR POSSIBLE MECHANISM The first mechanism is where the consensus is the driving resource: a group of people, sharing the same need or interest, moves in search of the solution for change. In the second mechanism knowledge is the driving resource. An exogenous model of intervention moves in search of the relevant stakeholders, as a response to the social need. The third mechanism is where the administrativecompetence is the catalyst. The project design and organization are defined and managed strategically at administrative level as a response to a collective need identified before its emergence. In the fourth mechanism knowledge and consensus are activated together and feed each other.

14. Lessons we are trying to convince Managing Authority to learn • The architecture of the operational programme can contribute to the production process of local public goods: selection criteria, actors involved, institutional tools; • The story of the implementation of public good is longer than the programming period; • Integration of financial resources and different policy intervention;

15. Lessons about about evaluation practice • It has been difficult but we could manage (not impossible); • TRUST and a COORDINATION ROLE: • Inside the team project • In the relationship with the managing authority • External experts (Steering Group) to help in understanding where and when something is wrong; • Involvement of stakeholders during the evaluation activities but also discussion/decision/ choice within the team project

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION for more information Direzione Generale Programmazione territoriale e negoziata, intese. Relazioni europee ed internazionali Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici Tel. 051/6395820 – Fax. 051/6395504 www.fondieuropei2007-2013.it