PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 COMMON EVALUATION QUESTIONS FOR RURAL PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 - ENRD
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WORKING DOCUMENT
WORKING
COMMON PAPER
EVALUATION
COMMON EVALUATION
QUESTIONS QUESTIONS
FOR RURAL
FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES 2014-2020
PROGRAMMES 2014-2020
JUNE 2015
MARCH 2015
This document has been drawn up based on the regulations published
in the Official Journal of the European Union on 20 December 2013 and
on the related delegated and implementing regulations published in
2014.
Copyright notice © European Union, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Recommended citation: EUROPEAN COMMISSION – Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development – Unit E.4 (2015): Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020. Working Paper. Brussels. Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this working paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this working paper. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. The Evaluation Helpdesk is responsible for the evaluation function within the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) by providing guidance on the evaluation of RDPs and policies falling under the remit and guidance of DG AGRI’s Unit E.4 'Evaluation and studies' of the European Commission (EC). In order to improve the evaluation of EU rural development policy the Evaluation Helpdesk supports all evaluation stakeholders, in particular DG AGRI, national authorities, RDP managing authorities and evaluators, through the development and dissemination of appropriate methodologies and tools; the collection and exchange of good practices; capacity building, and communicating with network members on evaluation related topics. Additional information about the activities of European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development is available on the Internet through the Europa server (http://enrd.ec.europa.eu).
Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
WORKING PAPER
COMMON EVALUATION QUESTIONS
FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMMES 2014-2020
JUNE 2015
iCommon Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 CONTENT Acronyms 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 2. Why evaluation questions? .................................................................................. 1 3. Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development ....................................... 2 Annex 1 ...................................................................................................................... 5
ACRONYMS
AIR Annual Implementation Report
AWU Annual Work Units
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CCI Common Context Indicator
CEQ-RD Common Evaluation Questions for Rural
Development
CPR Common Provisions Regulation
DG AGRI Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural
Development
EC European Commission
EIP European Innovation Partnership
EQs Evaluation Questions
EU European Union
ExCo Expert Committee
FBI Farmland Bird Index
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG GreenHouse Gases
GVA Gross Value Added
HNV High Nature Value
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IT Information Technology
LAG Local Action Group
LEADER Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de
l'Économie Rurale
MA Managing Authority
MS Member State
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NRN National Rural Network
PSEQ Programme-specific evaluation questions
RDP Rural Development Programme
RDR Rural Development Regulation
R&D Research and Development
1Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
1. INTRODUCTION
This document discusses the role of evaluation questions (EQs) in the assessment of impacts and
achievements of the rural development policy and outlines the set of common evaluation questions for
rural development (CEQ-RD) in the 2014-2020 programming period1. The CEQ-RD have been
developed in ongoing discussions between the European Commission (EC) and members of the
Evaluation Expert Committee. As advocated by many evaluation stakeholders, the set of CEQ-RD has
been reduced to the minimum number capable of assessing the EU rural development policy
framework. For programme-specific aspects, Managing Authorities (MAs) are encouraged to apply
programme-specific evaluation questions (PSEQ) in order to assess specific aspects of their RDP.
2. WHY EVALUATION QUESTIONS?
Evaluation questions (EQs) are an important element of the common monitoring and evaluation
system for rural development. Namely, they define the focus of evaluations in relation to policy
objectives and help to demonstrate the progress, impact, achievements, effectiveness, efficiency and
relevance of rural development policy 2.
EQs are answered with the help of indicators. Judgement criteria specify the success of programme
interventions. Also, judgement criteria link EQs and indicators which allow the design of robust
methodological approaches to formulate answers based on qualitative and quantitative evidence.
Two types of EQs are distinguished in this document: (a) Common evaluation questions for rural
development and (b) Programme-specific evaluation questions.
a) Common evaluation questions for rural development (CEQ-RD) are designed by the EC to be
commonly applied across all EU Member States with the aim to:
• Support evaluation of the EU rural development policies. CEQ-RD help to evaluate the effects of
programme interventions towards the hierarchy of objectives of the EU rural development policy.
• Demonstrate the contribution of EU rural development interventions in addressing the RDP
territorial needs.
• Enhance comparability of evaluation results across Europe. CEQ-RD and the related judgement
criteria and common indicators are part of an evaluation system commonly applied in all
MS/regions. Thus, the comparability of evaluation results among RDPs is enhanced.
• Encourage programme bodies and other RD stakeholders to assess results and impacts. CEQ-
RD ask for results and net impacts of the programme. The answers help to justify EU policy
implementation and support EU policy formulation.
b) Programme-specific evaluation questions (PSEQs) are designed by Managing Authorities
(MAs) of RDPs with the aim to:
• Support evaluation of programme-specific policies. PSEQs focus the evaluation on programme-
specific interventions and their contribution towards programme-specific policy objectives. The
judgement on the success of the programme-specific interventions shall be specified with
programme-specific judgement criteria. Answers to PSEQs are developed with the help of
programme-specific indicators.
1
Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, Art.67; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014, Art. 14.1c), Annex V
2
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, Art. 54 (1); Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 Art. 68 (a)
1Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
• Address evaluation of specific RDP related topics. PSEQs are designed to assess additional
aspects of the programmes which are of particular interest for Managing Authorities (e.g.
assessment of the programme implementation, management, delivery mechanisms, effectiveness
of the communication strategy, etc.).
• Demonstrate the contribution of programme-specific interventions in addressing the identified
specific RDP territorial needs.
• Encourage programme bodies and other RD stakeholders to assess results and impacts. PSEQs
ask for results and net impacts of programme-specific interventions which justify programme-
specific policy objectives.
Figure 1. Purpose of common evaluation questions for rural development (CEQ-RD) and programme-specific
evaluation questions (PSEQs)
Source: Helpdesk of the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development.
3. COMMON EVALUATION QUESTIONS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
A total of 30 CEQ-RD have been designed for the 2014-2020 programming period 3 Judgement
criteria are proposed in this document for each CEQ-RD in order to specify the success of the
intervention implemented within the programme. Common evaluation questions are answered with
common rural development indicators 4 and additional information if needed. The approach applied in
the development of CEQ-RD is as follows:
(1) Development of CEQ-RD linked to RD policy objectives. CEQ-RD ask for the contribution of
the programme interventions in achieving the rural development and overall EU policy objectives
3
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014, Annex V
4
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014, Annex IV and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No
834/2014, Annex - impact indicators
2Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
in terms of programme results and impacts. The set of CEQ-RD are mainly cause-effect
questions (“to what extent…?”).
(2) Development of the proposed judgement criteria. Judgement criteria are proposed for each
CEQ-RD. The judgement criteria set the foundation to assess the success of the intervention in
a given RDP context.
(3) Identification of relevant common rural development indicators linked to CEQ-RD to
provide evidence-based answers. In case the common indicators have not been sufficient to
provide answers to CEQ-RD the collection of additional information is proposed in this document.
The described approach is illustrated with the figure 2 below.
Figure 2. Approach for developing common evaluation questions for rural development (CEQ-RD)
Source: Helpdesk of the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development.
Programme-specific evaluation questions (PSEQs)
A similar approach can be applied when developing programme-specific evaluation questions. In case the RDP contains
programme-specific objectives, the MA/evaluators shall raise evaluation questions in order to explore to what extent the
programme has contributed to the achievement of programme-specific objectives, specifying the matter of success.
Programme-specific objectives and evaluation questions shall be answered by means of programme-specific indicators,
collected evidence and analytical methods.
For the 2014-2020 programming period, three groups of CEQ-RD are designed:
Focus area-related evaluation questions (18 CEQs illustrated in table 1 of Annex 1) are linked to the
objectives of the focus areas of rural development priorities. Focus area-related evaluation questions
capture the contribution of the interventions under the respective focus area (set of measures and
sub/measures) in terms of programme results. Hence, the assessment is conducted on the basis of
judgement criteria and on the evidence provided by common target and complementary result
indicators. Additional quantitative and qualitative information is needed in cases where common rural
development indicators are not sufficient to provide sound answers on the achievements of the focus
area.
3Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
Focus area-related evaluation questions will be answered to present the evaluation results in the
2017 and 2019 enhanced AIRs and in the ex post evaluation 5.
Evaluation questions related to other aspects of the RDP (3 CEQs illustrated in table 2 of Annex 1)
are related to additional objectives pursued by the RDPs. Specifically, these CEQs aim to capture the
results achieved by technical assistance, national rural networks and the complementarities and
synergies among rural development priorities and focus areas supported within the programmes
(Operational performance).
The assessment is conducted on the basis of judgement criteria and the evidence provided by
common RD indicators. In this case as well, additional qualitative and quantitative information is
needed where indicators are not sufficient to answer the CEQs.
Evaluation questions related to other aspects of the RDP will be answered to present the evaluation
results in the 2017 and 2019 enhanced AIRs and in the ex post evaluation
Evaluation questions related to EU level objectives (9 CEQs illustrated in table 3 of Annex 1) are
linked to the overall policy objectives (EU2020 objectives and CAP objectives) and aim to capture the
contribution of the programmes in terms of impacts. Common impact indicators, common context
indicators and complementary result indicators will provide the evidence to assess the intervention on
the basis of the judgement criteria. Also here, additional quantitative and qualitative information may
be needed in cases where common RD indicators are not sufficient to provide sound answers on the
achievements of the programme.
Evaluation questions related to EU level objectives will be answered to present the evaluation results
in the 2019 enhanced AIR and in the ex post evaluation.
5
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 808/2014, Art. 15, Annex VII, point 7
4Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
ANNEX 1
Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development
5Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
Table 1. Focus area-related evaluation questions
FOCUS AREA-RELATED ADDITIONAL
RD PRIORITY FOCUS AREA JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS 6
EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION
• RDP projects have been • % of innovative projects
innovative and based on out of all RDP supported
developed knowledge projects
Fostering 1. To what extent have RDP • Operational groups have
innovation, interventions supported
• % of expenditure under Articles • Number and types of
been created 14,15 and 35 of Regulation (EU) partners involved in
cooperation, and innovation, cooperation and
P1A • Variety 7 of partners involved No 1305/2013 in relation to the cooperation projects
the development of the development of the
in EIP operational groups total expenditure for the RDP (FA • Number of supported
the knowledge knowledge base in rural
1A - Target indicator) innovative actions
base in rural areas areas? • Innovative actions have
been implemented and implemented and
disseminated by the EIP disseminated by EIP
operational groups operational groups
• Long term collaboration
Fostering Strengthening the between agriculture, food
knowledge links between • % of cooperation
production and forestry
transfer and agriculture, food 2. To what extent have RDP operations continuing
entities and institutions for
P1 innovation in production and interventions supported the • Total number of co-operation after the RDP support
research and innovation has
agriculture, forestry and strengthening of links between operations supported under the including for the purpose
been established
forestry, and research and agriculture, food production cooperation measure (Art. 35 of of improved
rural areas P1B innovation, and forestry and research and • Cooperation operations Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013) environmental
including for the innovation, including for the between agriculture, food (groups, networks/clusters, pilot management and
purpose of purpose of improved production and forestry and projects…), (FA 1B - Target performance
improved environmental management research and innovation for indicator) • Number and types of
environmental and performance? the purpose of improved
partners involved in
management and environmental management
cooperation projects
performance and performance have been
implemented
Fostering lifelong 3. To what extent have RDP • The number of rural people
learning and interventions supported who have finalised lifelong • Total number of participants • % of trainees receiving
vocational training lifelong learning and learning and vocational trained under Art. 14 of Regulation certificates from
P1C recognized educational
in the agricultural vocational training in the training in the agriculture (EU) No 1305/2013 (FA 1C -
and forestry agriculture and forestry and forestry sectors has Target indicator) and training institutions
sectors sectors? increased via activities supported
6
The methodology to calculate Pillar II common result indicators is outlined in the Working document “Target indicator fiches for Pillar II”, 2015 [the complementary result indicators is no longer part
of this document, H3 removed them so we will have a separate document]
7
Variety is defined by the representation of different socio-economic sectors (private, public, civil, agriculture, food industry, forestry, etc.) and organizations such as academia, banks, NGO,etc.
6Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
FOCUS AREA-RELATED ADDITIONAL
RD PRIORITY FOCUS AREA JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS 6
EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION
by RDP out of the total
number of participants
Improving the
economic
performance of all
4. To what extent have RDP • Agricultural output per • % of agriculture holdings
Enhancing farms and • Change in agricultural output on
interventions contributed to annual working unit of with RDP support for
farm viability facilitating farm supported farms/AWU (FA 2A -
improving the economic supported agricultural investments regarding
and restructuring and Complementary result indicator)
performance, restructuring holdings has increased modernization
competitivene modernisation,
P2A and modernization of • % of agriculture holdings with
ss of all types notably with a view
supported farms in particular
• Farms have been • Economic farm size
to increasing modernized RDP support for investments in structure of supported
of agriculture through increasing their restructuring or modernisation
in all regions market • Farms have been farms
market participation and (FA 2A - Result indicator)
and participation and restructured
P2 agricultural diversification?
promoting orientation as well
innovative as agricultural
farm diversification
technologies Facilitating the • Adequately skilled farmers
and the entry of adequately 5. To what extent have RDP have entered intothe
sustainable • % of agriculture holdings with
skilled farmers into interventions supported the agricultural sector • % of adequately skilled
management RDP supported business
the agricultural entry of adequately skilled farmers in the
P2B • The share of adequately development plan/investments for
of forests sector and, in farmers into the agricultural agricultural sector of the
skilled young farmers in the young farmers (FA 2B - Result
particular, sector and in particular, RDP territory
agricultural sector has indicator)
generational generational renewal?
renewal increased
Improving
Promoting competitiveness of
food chain primary producers • Competitiveness of
6. To what extent have RDP • Agricultural output on
organisation, by better supported primary
interventions contributed to supported farms
including integrating them producers has improved
improving the competitiveness • % of agricultural holdings • Margin of primary
processing into the agri-food
of supported primary
• The shareof the final price of
receiving support for participating producers in the final
and marketing chain through agriculture products retained
producers by better integrating in quality schemes, local markets price of agricultural
P3 of agricultural P3A quality schemes, with primary producers has
them into the agri-food chain and short supply circuits, and products
products, adding value to increased
through quality schemes, producer groups/organisations • % of primary producers
animal agricultural • The added value of
adding value to the agricultural (FA 3A - Result indicator) introducing quality
welfare and products, agricultural products of
products, promoting local schemes with RDP
risk promotion in local
markets and short supply primary producers has
management markets and short support
increased
in agriculture supply circuits,
producer groups
7Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
FOCUS AREA-RELATED ADDITIONAL
RD PRIORITY FOCUS AREA JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS 6
EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION
and organisations circuits, producer groups and • Implementation of quality • Definition of local
and inter-branch inter-branch organization? 8 schemes by primary markets 9
organisations producers has increased • Definition of short supply
• Participation of primary circuits 10
producers in short circuit
schemes, quality-oriented
producer group and/or inter
branch organization has
increased
7. To what extent have RDP • Participation of farms in risk
Supporting farm
interventions supported farm
• % of farms participating in risk
P3B risk prevention and prevention and
management schemes (FA 3B -
risk prevention and management schemes has
management Result indicator)
management? increased
Restoring, • Number of flora and
preserving and fauna species on
enhancing contracted land
biodiversity, 8. To what extent have RDP • % of agricultural land under
including in Natura interventions supported the management contracts
2000 areas, and in restoration, preservation and supporting biodiversity and/or
areas facing enhancement of biodiversity • Biodiversity on contracted landscapes (FA 4A - Result
Restoring, indicator)
P4A natural or other including in Natura 2000 land has been restored,
preserving
specific areas, areas facing natural or preserved and enhanced • % of forest or other wooded areas
and
constraints, and other specific constraints and under management contracts
enhancing
P4 high nature value HNV farming, and the state of supporting biodiversity (FA 4A –
ecosystems
farming, as well as European landscape? Result indicator)
related to
the state of
agriculture
European
and forestry
landscapes
9. To what extent have RDP • Additional information on
Improving water
management,
interventions supported the • % of agricultural land under water quality of the land
improvement of water management contracts to improve under management
P4B including fertiliser • Water quality has improved
management, including water management (FA 4B – contracts
and pesticide
fertilizer and pesticide Result indicator)
management
management?
8
The questions concern the share of primary producers at the final price of the agricultural products proposing various scenarios, e.g. quality schemes, adding value to primary products, participation
in short supply circuits, promoting local markets etc.
9
Local market is defined at the RDP level considering the programme context
10
Short supply circuits is defined at the RDP level considering the programme context
8Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
FOCUS AREA-RELATED ADDITIONAL
RD PRIORITY FOCUS AREA JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS 6
EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION
• % of forestry land under
management contracts to improve
water management (FA 4B –
Result indicator)
• % of agricultural land under
management contracts to improve
soil management and/or prevent
10. To what extent have RDP • Soil erosion has been soil erosion (FA 4C – Result
Preventing soil
interventions supported the
• Additional information on
erosion and prevented indicator) soil erosion of the land
P4C prevention of soil erosion and
improving soil • Soil management has • % of forestry land under under management
improvement of soil
management improved management contracts to improve contracts
management?
soil management and/or prevent
soil erosion (FA 4C – Result
indicator)
• % of irrigated land switching to
more efficient irrigation system
11. To what extent have RDP (FA 5A – Result indicator)
Increasing
P5A efficiency in water
interventions contributed to • Efficiency in water use by
increasing efficiency in water agriculture has increased • Increase in efficiency of water use
use by agriculture in agriculture in RDP supported
use by agriculture?
Promoting projects (FA 5A - Complementary
resource result indicator)
efficiency and
supporting the • Total investment for energy
shift towards efficiency (FA 5B - Target
Increasing 12. To what extent have RDP indicator)
a low carbon
P5 and climate
efficiency in energy interventions contributed to • Efficiency of energy use in
P5B use in agriculture increasing efficiency in energy agriculture and food • Increase in efficiency of energy
resilient use in agriculture and food-
and food use in agriculture and food processing has increased
economy in processing in RDP supported
processing processing?
agriculture, projects (FA 5B - Complementary
food and result indicator)
forestry
sectors Facilitating the • Total investment in renewable
13. To what extent have RDP • Total investments for the
supply and use of • The supply of renewable energy production (FA 5C - Target
interventions contributed to use of renewable energy
renewable sources energy has increased indicator)
the supply and use of supported by the RDP
P5C of energy, of by-
renewable sources of energy, • The use of renewable • Renewable energy produced from
products, wastes • Renewable energy used
of by-products, wastes, energy has increased supported projects (FA 5C -
and residues and in supported holdings
residues and other non-food Complementary result indicator)
of other non food
9Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
FOCUS AREA-RELATED ADDITIONAL
RD PRIORITY FOCUS AREA JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS 6
EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION
raw material, for raw material for purposes of
the purposes of the the bio-economy?
bio- economy
• % of LU concerned by
investments in live-stock
management in view of reducing
GHG and/or ammonia emissions
(FA 5D – Result indicator)
• % of agricultural land under
Reducing green management contracts targeting
14. To what extent have RDP
house gas and
interventions contributed to
• GHG and ammonia reduction of GHG and/or
P5D ammonia emissions from agriculture ammonia emissions(FA 5D –
reducing GHG and ammonia
emissions from has been reduced Result indicator)
emissions from agriculture?
agriculture
• Reduced emissions of methane
and nitrous oxide (FA 5D -
Complementary result indicator)
• Reduced ammonia emissions (FA
5D - Complementary result
indicator)
• Carbon conservation and
sequestration in agriculture
Fostering carbon 15. To what extent have RDP and forestry has increased • % of agricultural and forest land • Additional information on
conservation and interventions supported • Agricultural and forestry under management contracts carbon conservation and
P5E sequestration in carbon conservation and land under enhanced contributing to carbon sequestration of the land
agriculture and sequestration in agriculture management contract sequestration and conservation under management
forestry and forestry? contributing to carbon (FA 5E - Result indicator) contracts
sequestration has been
enlarged
Promoting • % of small enterprises in
Facilitating • Small enterprises have
social the non agricultural
diversification, 16. To what extent have RDP been created
inclusion, sector created with the
creation and interventions supported the
P6
poverty
P6A development of diversification, creation and
• Small enterprises have • Jobs created in supported RDP support
reduction and diversified their economic projects (FA 6A - Result indicator)
small enterprises, development of small • % of new small
economic activity
as well as job enterprises and job creation? enterprises created with
development
creation • Jobs have been created the RDP support
in rural areas
10Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
FOCUS AREA-RELATED ADDITIONAL
RD PRIORITY FOCUS AREA JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS 6
EVALUATION QUESTION INFORMATION
• Services and local
infrastructure in rural areas
has improved
• Access to services and local • % of rural population covered by
infrastructure has increased local development strategies (FA
in rural areas 6B – Result indicator) • Number of
• Rural people have projects/initiatives
• Jobs created in supported
supported by the Local
Fostering local 17. To what extent have RDP participated in local actions projects (Leader) (FA 6B – Result
Development Strategy
P6B development in interventions supported local • Rural people have benefited indicator)
rural areas development in rural areas? from local actions • % of RDP expenditure in
• % of rural population benefiting Leader measures with
• Employment opportunities from improved services/
respect to total RDP
have been created via local infrastructures (FA 6B – Result
expenditure
development strategies indicator)
• Rural territory and
population covered by LAGs
has increased
Enhancing the • % of rural population benefiting
18. To what extent have RDP
accessibility, use from improved services/
interventions enhanced the
and quality of infrastructures (Information and • % of rural households
P6C information and
accessibility, use and quality • Access of rural households
communication technologies – accessing ICT with the
of information and to ICT has increased
communication ICT) (FA 6C – Result indicator) RDP support
communication technologies
technologies (ICT)
(ICT) in rural areas?
in rural areas
Source: Helpdesk of the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development.
11Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
Table 2. Evaluation questions related to other aspects of the RDP
OTHER
EVALUATION QUESTIONRELATED ADDITIONAL
RDP POLICY OBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS
OTHER ASPECTS OF RDP INFORMATION
ASPECTS
Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013,
Art 3:
The EARDF shall contribute to • Positive and negative
• The supported RDP interactions among the
the development of a Union 19. To what extent have the synergies measures are supported RDP
Operational agricultural sector that is more among priorities and focus areas complementary so as • All result indicators and measures 11
performance territorially and environmentally enhanced the effectiveness of the to produce synergy complementary result indicators
balanced, climate-friendly and RDP? through their • Secondary effects of
resilient and competitive and interaction supported RDP
innovative. It shall also contribute measures
to the development of rural
territories.
• Number of staff
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, • Institutional and involved in RDP
Art 59(1): administrative management
At the initiative of a Member capacities for the
effective • Skills of staff involved
State, the ESI Funds may in RDP management
support actions for preparation, management of the
management, monitoring, RDPhave been • Types and number of
evaluation, information and strengthened capacity building
communication, networking, • Capacities of relevant activities
20. To what extent has technical
complaint resolution, and control assistance contributed to partners as defined • Functionality of the IT
Technical and audit. The ESI Funds may achieving the objectives laid down by the Regulation system for programme
assistance be used by the Member State to in Art. 59(1) of Regulation (EU) No (EU) No 1303/2013, • Not available management
support actions for the reduction 1303/2013 and Art. 51(2) of Art. 5(1) have been • Number of RDP
of the administrative burden on Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013? reinforced communication and
beneficiaries, including electronic • RDP has been dissemination
data exchange systems, and communicated with activities
actions to reinforce the capacity the public and
of Member State authorities and • Number of people
information has been receiving information
beneficiaries to administer and disseminated
use those Funds. The ESI Funds about the RDP
may also be used to support • Monitoring has been • Information on the use
actions to reinforce the capacity improved of evaluation results
11
MAs of RDPs and evaluators shall identify the methodology, information and data needed to capture and evaluate the complementarities among RDPs measures for capturing the interactions
among the different RDP measures.
12Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
OTHER
EVALUATION QUESTIONRELATED ADDITIONAL
RDP POLICY OBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS
OTHER ASPECTS OF RDP INFORMATION
ASPECTS
of relevant partners in line with • Evaluation methods • The length of the
point (e) of Article 5(3) and to have been improved application and
support exchange of good and have provided payment process
practices between such partners. robust evaluation
results
• Information on
evaluation practices
has been exchanged
• The RDP
implementation has
been improved
• Administrative burden
on beneficiaries has
been reduced
• Number and types of • Number of
stakeholders involved stakeholders (by type)
in RDP participating in the
Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, implementationhas implementation of the
Art 54(2): increased RDP due to activities
• The quality of of the NRN (including
a) Increase the involvement of
implementation of the • Number of thematic and those through LAGs)
stakeholders in the
RDP has been analytical exchanges set up • Number of RDP
implementation of rural
improved through the with the support of NRN (Output modifications based
development
activities of the NRN, indicator) on evaluation findings
21. To what extent has the national e.g.
National b) Improve the quality of • Number of NRN communication and recommendations
rural network contributed to
rural implementation of rural • Improved capacity tools (Output indicator) from thematic working
achieving the objectives laid down
networks development programmes of RDP groups organized by
in Art. 54(2) of Regulation (EU) No
(NRN) beneficiaries the NRN
c) Inform the broader public and 1305/2013? • Number of ENRD activities in
• Improved
potential beneficiaries on rural which the NRN has participated • % of RDP
evaluation
development policy and (Output indicator) implemented projects
awareness
funding opportunities encouraged by
• Lessons from NRN(P) activities
d) Foster innovation in evaluations are
agriculture, food production, taken into account • Number persons that
forestry and rural areas in programme have been informed
implementation about the rural
• Broader public and development policy
potential beneficiaries and funding
13Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
OTHER
EVALUATION QUESTIONRELATED ADDITIONAL
RDP POLICY OBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS
OTHER ASPECTS OF RDP INFORMATION
ASPECTS
are aware of the rural opportunities through
development policy the NRN
and funding communication tools
opportunities through • % of innovative
activities of the NRN projects encouraged
• Innovation in by NRN out of the total
agriculture, food number of innovative
production forestry projects supported by
and rural areas has the RDP(s)
been fostered by the
NRN
14Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
Table 3. Evaluation questions related to EU level objectives
EU EVALUATION QUESTIONRELATED TO ADDITIONAL
POLICY OBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS
OBJECTIVE EU LEVEL OBJECTIVES INFORMATION
• Rural employment rate (Impact
a) The employment rate of the 22. To what extent has the RDP indicator 14)
population aged 20-64 contributed to achieving the EU 2020
• % of expenditure under Articles
should increase from the headline target of raising the • The rural
14,15 and 35 of Regulation (EU)
current 69% to at least 75%, employment rate of the population employment rate of
No 1305/2013 in relation to the
including through the greater aged 20-64 to at least 75%? population aged 20-
total expenditure for the RDP
involvement of women, older 64 has increased
23. To what extent has the RDP (FA 1A - Target indicator)
workers and the better • Investment for R&D
contributed to achieving the EU 2020 • Total number of co-operation
integration of migrants in the has increased
headline target of investing 3% of operations supported under the
work force
EU’s GDP in research and • Innovation has been cooperation measure (Art. 35 of
b) 3% of the EU's GDP should development and innovation? fostered Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013)
be invested in R&D&I (groups, networks/clusters, pilot
24. To what extent has the RDP • The environment has
c) Reduce greenhouse gas contributed to climate change improved projects…) (FA 1B - Target
emissions by at least 20% mitigation and adaptation and to indicator)
• Climate change has • Employment rate of
compared to 1990 levels or achieving the EU 2020 headline been mitigated and • Emissions from agriculture the population aged
by 30%, if the conditions2 are target of reducing greenhouse gas the agricultural, (Impact indicator 7) 20-64
right; increase the share of emissions by at least 20% compared forestry and food
EU 2020 • Increase in efficiency of energy • RDP expenditure in
renewable energy sources in to 1990 levels, or by 30% if the sector has been
headline use in agriculture and food- R&D as a % of the
our final energy consumption conditions are right, to increasing the adapted
targets processing in RDP supported GDP
to 20%; and a 20% increase share of renewable energy in final
• GHG and ammonia projects (FA 5B -
in energy efficiency energy consumption to 20%, and • Additional information
emissions have been Complementary result indicator)
achieving 20% increase in energy on ecosystem
d) The number of Europeans efficiency? reduced • Renewable energy produced services
living below the national from supported projects (FA 5C
• Energy efficiency
poverty lines should be 25. To what extent has the RDP - Complementary result
and the use of
reduced by 25%, lifting over contributed to achieving the EU 2020 indicator)
renewable energy
20 million people out of headline target of reducing the
have increased • Degree of rural poverty (Impact
poverty number of Europeans living below the
national poverty line? • The number of indicator 15)
e) Halting the loss of people living below • Farmland Bird Index (FBI)
biodiversity and the 26. To what extent has the RDP the national poverty (Impact indicator 8)
degradation of ecosystem contributed to improving the rate has decreased
services in the EU by environment and to achieving the EU • High nature value (HNV)
2020,and restoring them in Biodiversity strategy target of halting • Biodiversity and farming (Impact indicator 9)
so far as feasible, while the loss of biodiversity and the ecosystems services
• Water abstraction in agriculture
stepping up the EU degradation of ecosystem services, have been restored
(Impact indicator 10)
contribution to avertingglobal and to restore them?
• Water quality (Impact indicator
biodiversity loss
11)
15Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
EU EVALUATION QUESTIONRELATED TO ADDITIONAL
POLICY OBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS
OBJECTIVE EU LEVEL OBJECTIVES INFORMATION
• Increase in efficiency of water
use in agriculture in RDP
supported projects (FA 5A -
Complementary result indicator)
• Soil organic matter in arable
land (Impact indicator 12)
• Soil erosion by water (Impact
indicator 13)
• Viable food • Definition of
production: innovation
27. To what extent has the RDP o The agricultural • Quantitative and
• Viable food production: Sectoral
contributed to the CAP objective of entrepreneurial qualitative information
impact indicators (Impact
fostering the competitiveness of income has on innovation 12
indicators 1-3)
agriculture? increased
a) Fostering the • Sustainable management of
28. To what extent has the RDP o The agricultural
competitiveness of natural resources and climate
contributed to the CAP objective of factor income has
agriculture change: Environmental impact
ensuring sustainable management increased
indicators (Impact indicators 7-
b) Ensuring thesustainable of natural resources and climate o Agricultural 13)
management of natural action? productivity has
CAP resources and climate action increased • Balanced territorial
29. To what extent has the RDP development: Socio economic
objectives • Sustainable
c) Achieving a balanced contributed to the CAP objective of impact indicators (Impact
territorial development of achieving a balanced territorial management of indicators 14-16)
rural economies and development of rural economies natural resources
and climate change: • Innovation: % of expenditure
communities including the and communities including the
under Articles 14,15 and 35 of
creation and maintenance of creation and maintenance of o GHG and ammonia Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013
employment employment? emission from in relation to the total
30. To what extent has the RDP agriculture have expenditure for the RDP (FA 1A
contributed to fostering been reduced - Target indicator)
innovation? o Farmland bird
index has
increased or
maintained
12
Innovation is defined at the RDP level by Managing Authorities considering the programme context. Managing authorities identify the additional information needed to answer the common
evaluation question 30 according to their specific definition of innovation.
16Common Evaluation Questions for Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020
EU EVALUATION QUESTIONRELATED TO ADDITIONAL
POLICY OBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT CRITERIA COMMON RD INDICATORS
OBJECTIVE EU LEVEL OBJECTIVES INFORMATION
o The % of HNV
farming land has
increased or
maintained
o Water abstraction
in agriculture has
been reduced
o Water quality has
improved
o The content of
organic carbon in
soils has increased
o The share of
agricultural area
affected by soil
erosion by water
has been reduced
o Soil loss by water
erosion has been
reduced
• Balanced territorial
development
o Rural employment
rate has increased
o Degree of rural
poverty has
decreased
o Rural GDP per
capita has
increased
• Innovation in rural
areas and sectors
has been fostered
Source: Helpdesk of the European Evaluation Network for Rural Development.
171
You can also read
