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
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
2
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
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
3
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
Why Mountain areas? The mandate of the Regional
Government
Objective 1
Objective 2
Objective 1
Objective 2
Phasing-out (till
31/12/2006)
Objective 2 (partly)
Phasing-out (partly)
(till 31/12/2005)
Phasing-out (till
31/12/2005)
4
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
Why Mountain areas? The mandate of the Regional
Government
5
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
Why Mountain areas? The mandate of the Regional
Government
1. 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;
2. Mountain areas were confirmed as strategic territories for
regional policy for the 2007-2013 programming period and so
financial resources and tools were identified;
3. 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.
6
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
The Evaluation Goals
The Choice of the Unit of Analysis
1. Evaluation activities should capture the inception of long term changes
2. Evaluation should analyse the interaction between different policies /
programmes/ interventions
3. Evaluation should derive general level criteria as possible reference for future
operational programmes
A. Focus on successful interventions
B. Analyse why, how, and what were the mechanisms enabling
policy interventions (development, implementation, etc)
C. The definition of Local Public Good as criterion to identify
successful interventions
7
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
The choice of the unit of analysis
“The successful interventions” able to change the
conditions of a specific area:
HOW?
1. Increasing the Human and Social capital (training and vocational
centres) training centre)
2. Improving the access to service for firms and population of the
area (telematic infrastructure);
3. Reducing the environmental impact and improve the
competitiveness of the local firms (environmental certification);
4. Increasing the value of cultural and environmental resources of
the area.
8
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
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;
1. ;
2. Coordination is important in order to provide local public
goods, it is important to understand WHO place this role in
the different contexts.
9
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
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?
10
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
The choice of the method and organisation of the
activity
A. Case study analysis;
B. Direct interviews with different actors involved
in the process;
C. Project Team:
D. with different competence and experience
E. internal to the regional administration:
D. The role of the evaluation unit as coordinator of the project team;
D. The role of operational programmes managing authorities in the selection of
successful interventions (50 projects);
D. The establishment of a Steering group.
11
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
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;
12
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
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.
In the fourth mechanism knowledge
and consensus are activated
together and feed each other.
The third mechanism is where the administrative
competence 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.
13
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
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;
14
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
Lessons about about evaluation practice
 It has been difficult but we could manage (not impossible);
 TRUST and a COORDINATION ROLE:
1.
2.
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
15
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici
THANK YOU FOR 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
16
Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli Investimenti Pubblici