Presentation on theme: "Regional Policy Revised version Marielle Riché Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011 Brussels."— Presentation transcript:
Regional Policy Revised version Marielle Riché Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011 Brussels 21st June 2012 Ex ante evaluation guidance
Regional Policy 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
Regional Policy 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: different departments within the same organisation -Other solutions: specific measures to guarantee independence (written job description, no subordination to the programmer) Reminder added in introduction: the final responsibility for the programme design rests with the programmer
Regional Policy Timing and Evaluation plan Plan "call for tenders" in mid 2012 (2.1.) Examination of evaluation plans dropped (1.2.4.) -Too early -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.
Regional Policy 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
Regional Policy 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
Regional Policy 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
Regional Policy 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)
Regional Policy 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?