MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR CATALONIA, SUMMARY DOCUMENT

Transcription

1 MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR CATALONIA, SUMMARY DOCUMENT OCTOBER 2010

2 1. INTRODUCTION The present document summarises the findings and recommendations of the Mid- Term Evaluation of the Rural Development Programme for Catalonia , which has been compiled in compliance with the requirements for the evaluation of rural development programmes covered by Regulation (CE) Nº 1698/2005. The territorial scope of the Mid-term Evaluation focuses on the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. The evaluation mainly looks at the period The report has been produced by the consultancy company GAP Recursos, S.L., which was contracted by the Departament d Agricultura, Alimentació i Acció Rural (DAR) of the Generalitat de Catalunya. The findings have been organised in the following sections: Evolution of the operational context and strategy The management and monitoring system Efficiency and effectiveness Early general impact of the programme Adaptation to the needs of the territory Methodology and methodological limitations. EN-II

3 2. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS 1.1. Evolution of the operational context and strategy 1. The validity of the initial SWOT 1 analysis continues, with the number of factors with a positive evolution predominating: advances have been observed, though the economic crisis has exacerbated some needs. 2. The strategy and how it has been applied exhibit a greater adaptation to the needs of rural development with respect to the previous programme period. The modifications to the Programme take into account the context of the economic crisis. 3. Within the RDP, the additional funding that has targeted the new challenges will mainly contribute to maintain biodiversity and help to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climatic change. 4. The implementation of the measures is consistent with both the National Framework (NF) and EU Strategic Guidelines. 5. The logic of intervention is appropriate and is based on an analysis that goes beyond the basic indicators. 6. The RDP exhibits the consistency and complementarity of the RDP with other European Funds and implies the use of a sufficient number of instruments for control and coordination to guarantee that operations are not duplicated The management and monitoring system 7. The experience gained from management in previous periods has enabled us to introduce instruments that foster more efficient management and coordination. 8. There is a tendency towards a more simplified and appropriate regulation of the administrative procedure and the preparation of the documentation required to obtain support, which encourages potential beneficiaries. 9. The first steps have been taken towards strategically monitoring the environment 1.3. Efficiency and effectiveness 10. Increasing the financial allocation to the RDP and maintaining the balance between the different Axis. This increase has been the result of incorporating new challenges, such as the restructuring and promotion of the wine producing sector. 1 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats EN-III

4 11. The joint financing of the FEADER increases on Axis 3 and The low initial outlay had still not been recouped in 2009: 25.8% of FEADER expenditure and 28.0% of Total Planned Public Expenditure has been secured. Even so, it still has complied with financial rule N Difficulties in financial performance, largely due to the Programme s protracted bureaucratic process and its three amendments (introduced in 2008 and 2009), and also to the fact that it coincides with a period of major economic crisis. 14. Great differences in performance between the Axis and Measures: Axis 1 lies above the average for the Programme (35.3%); Axis 2 is at a very similar level (24.5%) and Axis 3 and 4 exhibit very low percentage of performance (11.7% and 1.2% respectively). The delay in Axis 4 is due to the start up process which calls for the Leader methodology. 15. The risk of not meeting objectives for some specific measures, identifying 2 types of measures that require performances to be boosted in order to achieve the financial objectives: They require a moderate boost, although no problems are expected to require specific measures: 111, 112, 113, 124, 133, 215, 226, 227 and 321. They require a major boost and there is the risk of insufficient demand for some measures: 114, 216, 311, although for measures 114 and 311 modifications have already been made, either to reduce their funding allocation or to promote them. 16. Mismatches in the efficiency of public spending on some measures with respect to forecasts (total public expenditure per application or operation). Three groups of Measures have been identified for this point: Measures that are roughly in line with forecasts: Measures 114, 115, 121, 123, 216, 226 and, to a lesser degree, 133. Interventions with a level of public spending that exceeds that forecast: and Interventions with a level of public spending below that forecast, which reflect a greater capacity to meet requests: 112, 124, 132, 227 and Applying the rules for application favours complementarity and internal synergies between the Axis and Measures Early general impact of the programme 18. A considerable impact on maintaining employment in the agriculture and food processing sector and to a lesser extent on creating employment: 507 jobs have been created and it is estimated that actions have helped to maintain a further 9,400 jobs. 19. Interventions relevant to solving problems related with the lack of basic infrastructure for the populations of rural nuclei, which has a detrimental effect on quality of life and the dynamism of economic activity. 20. With respect to some measures, the regional scope of the action has proved greater than initially expected: the objectives related to improving competitiveness EN-IV

5 in the agrifood sector in Catalonia have had their greatest impact in differentiating products on the basis of quality (Measures 132 and 133) and through modernising the sector by improving agricultural infrastructure. 21. The economic crisis has limited the predicted effects with respect to the economic results of agricultural exploitations and transforming industries, though the Programme has made a clear contribution to improving the competitiveness of the agrifood sector. 22. A push towards the greater environmental sustainability of agrifood and forestry related activities: sustainability can be incorporated in the sector through specific measures and activities, such as through guidelines for receiving financial support. 23. The Programme seems to foster female participation in the RDP: 26.6% of all beneficiaries have been women. Participation in the decision-making bodies of the RDP has been almost equal (with 46% of women on the Monitoring Committee), though this participation remains low in the Organs of the LAG 2 (13%) Adaptation to the needs of the territory 24. Distribution of public spending in line with the strategy, with a greater level of weighted spending in the Deprived Areas, especially in Mountain areas (see Map 1) 25. The Programme is being implemented according to the criteria for rural areas recommended in the territorial distribution of aid. Map 2 shows the comarcal (local district) distribution of public spending weighted according to population density. 26. The current implementation of the Programme shows the high level of specialisation by comarca. 2 Local action groups EN-V

6 Map 1: Distribution of FEADER aid expenditure by Deprived Area (index of public expenditure weighted by population density) Map 2: Distribution of FEADER spending , by comarca. Mapa 1. Distribución comarcal del gasto FEADER Methodology and methodological limitations 27. The CMEF 3 Guides are not yet sufficiently clear in how they define their indicators and methodologies; this can give rise to different interpretations of the same indicator. 3 Common monitoring and evaluation framework EN-VI

7 3. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1.7. Recommendations relating to strategy 1. Work to promote the complementarity of the rural development of the RDP with other Funds, mainly those in the OP of the ESF and EAFRD by facilitating information to managers relating to distribution forecasts for their main activities. This would provide a comprehensive view of possible synergies and of the impact of European Funds on rural development and help to promote complementary Measures corresponding to the RDP in the corresponding areas (through such activities as information campaigns and general dissemination). 2. In the specific field of rural road infrastructure and in others in which a certain confusion has been detected amongst beneficiaries (such as promoting the incorporation of workers in consultancy organisations), there is a greater need for coordination with the many Administrations involved in order to exploit synergies Recommendations relating to the management and monitoring system 3. Give continuity to the Monitoring Unit and suitably equip it in line with the work load that needs to be assumed, bearing in mind the key performance period ahead. 4. Monitor and regularly update the actions undertaken to ensure the dissemination of information about the Programme and undertake specific action with regard to certain measures that are not incorporated within the Global Operating Agreement: a) Information about the dissemination of forestry measures b) Work to transmit information relating to the level of involvement in, and commitment to, agricultural and environmental matters in order to prevent withdrawals from this sector and low levels of implementation. 5. Maintain the regularity of processes offering grant aid, processing periods, and deadlines for approval and implementation, which no doubt help to improve the planning of support for beneficiaries and therefore the all levels of performance. 6. Continue work to simplify the administrative process within the narrow margins already detected and consolidate the great progress that has already been made with the establishment of the DUN 4 and the Global Operating Agreement. 7. Continue to promote the use of the Intranet and improve its content by incorporating additional information of interest, such as results and notifications from the European Commission and consultations with relevant socio-economic agents. All of this is to be done with the aim of promoting a greater awareness of these issues and of incorporating task managers, in compliance with the RDP. 4 Unical Agriculture Declaration EN-VII

8 8. Monitoring the Strategic Environmental Evaluation is considered to have great importance for the evaluation of specific types of environmental impact, but this must allow the effects of specific actions undertaken within the Programme to be clearly identified. 9. Advance in the integration and internal coordination of different territorial levels of regional administration and to specifically establish consolidated mechanisms with external support bodies. 10. Advance as far as possible towards making the most habitually employed software applications more flexible and agile; this will help to make the information used by the different operators more compatible. 11. Continue to progress with the implementation of priority criteria. This is an essential task in this second phase of the introduction of programmes that are aimed at guaranteeing that the proposed strategy is as efficient as possible. This is particularly important when we are in a period in which resources are clearly limited. 12. Focus on the task of informing and explaining potential beneficiaries so that they understand the meaning and focus of the proposed actions with a view to setting priorities. 13. It is considered of great interest to establish a system of continuous assessment during the next stage, to introduce a new instrument based on the participation of groups of experts, to compare and contrast the results obtained from the Mid-term evaluation, and to use these as references for the final evaluation. 14. Given the low level of payment of the LEADER Axis and the late presentation of the guide drawn up by the Network of Evaluation Experts: calculation of the repercussions of LEADER and of the measures aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas, it is recommended that local action groups should monitor the indicators and prepare procedures for assessing the impact Recommendations relating to efficiency and effectiveness 15. Take measures to improve the physical performance where a greater risk of not reaching the foreseen objectives had been identified giving priority to modifying the contents and management of the budget objectives. 16. Monitoring of the extension of operations relating to Measure It is considered appropriate to redistribute the Public Expenditure foreseen in Measures 131, 114 and 115 through measures whose level of performance highlight the greatest current financial needs: Measures Compensation payments in deprived areas. The subsequent reviews should also consider an increase in the allocation for Measure 125, mainly relating to Intervention relating to the modernisation of existing irrigation systems and aimed at Irrigation Communities. 18. Evaluate the possibility of increasing the intensity or average value of the aid associated with activities that exhibit a level of public spending per applicant that is well below the predicted level. This is of particular interest when the financial EN-VIII

9 performance in question is low, as in Measures 311 and 124, whose financing has been increased in order to assume new challenges Recommendations relating to the impact of the Programme 19. Continue with the line of contrasting and evaluating the different types of impact, as this has been done in the present evaluation, studying key factors, such as: employment, innovation and TICs on farms, integration within the agrifood chain, and the efficient consumption of water and energy, in greater depth and with greater precision; Also study the use of alternative sources of energy that allow a better adaptation of the methodologies suggested by the CMEF to the needs and contributions to the RDP of Catalonia. 20. Close monitoring of the introduction of innovation on agricultural holdings in order to meet the expected performance objectives and levels of impact. 21. Specifically assess the impact of innovation on the whole agri-food sector, even at the early stage of development, and its contribution to the impact of encouraging cooperation. 22. As previously seen in the Programme, it is necessary to note the positive discrimination in favour of women on the decision-making boards of the LAG. 23. Include positive action in favour of the community of rural women, in order to encourage female participation in the Programme. Measure 111 and the Leader Axis offer an appropriate framework. 24. The survey about the perception of the rural world (Fundació Mon Rural) is an instrument with which it is highly recommendable to coordinate and which can be used as a means of evaluation Recommendations relating to the distribution of Public Spending within the territory 25. Evaluate the increase in spending in the rural comarcas (local districts) with the lowest levels of investment, working with administrators based in the local district offices in question to analyse possible actions related with dissemination and promotion. 26. Maintain the priority criteria of Less Favoured Areas when deciding which areas should be the beneficiaries of the measures to be applied. 27. Boosting the demand for Axis 3 Measures, aimed at improving quality of life and maintaining the local population, and applying Intervention 12302, in rural comarcas that are not otherwise covered by the Leader initiative. 28. Further analysing the distribution of public spending with a view to the final evaluation, and territorial specialisations, in order to identify needs and to cover priority complementarities. EN-IX

10 1.12. Recommendations relating to methodologies 29. A larger amount of information and more up-to-date data are expected to be available for the final evaluation. This should make it possible to obtain a better final result with respect to the evaluation of the repercussions and impact of the Programme without too much extra effort. This will be achieved by taking advantage of the experience of existing analytical and evaluative methodologies that have already been used in the intermediate evaluation and then further developing them with the help of other complementary tools. 30. Ensure that reliable values are obtained for outcome indicators relating to the VAB of each exploitation. This requires using new tools to collect information during the next phase of the continuous evaluation. It is possible to analyse the possibility of establishing collaborations involving the advisory boards of the Agricultural Advisory System, which could provide integrated services (advice about agrarian/livestock farming and economic questions). 31. Review the methodology used for making calculations and the values of some performance indicators, focusing on Measures 132 and 123 (revise the classification) and on Interventions and (see Part II, where reference is made to the specific indicator). 32. Clarify the interpretative criteria used for calculating some of the least clear monitoring indicators with the Commission. 33. Review the goals for measures 113, 133 and 216, in order to harmonise the different methodologies used for calculating the objectives and the corresponding indicators (see specific proposals in Section II). 34. The common indicators of environmental impact have not identified a specific objective because when the Programme was approved, the methodology for establishing the basic indicators was still at the development stage. It will be necessary to quantify the foreseen objectives once the starting position is known. 35. Revise down the target impact indicator with respect to the creation of employment, the level set in the initial evaluation was too high. 36. In the indicators for measures 112, 121 and 123, differentiate between the types of investment that contribute to objectives relating to environmental efficiency in the use of water resources, energy efficiency, and the production and use of alternative sources of energy. EN-X