Diapositiva 1

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
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)
      
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
  20002006 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 Human and 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 ATTENTION
• for more information
• Direzione Generale Programmazione territoriale e
  negoziata, intese. Relazioni europee ed
  internazionali
• Nucleo di Valutazione e Verifica degli
  Investimenti Pubblici
• Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone]
• www.fondieuropei2007-2013.it