Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Thomas PEGUY – DATAR
Regional Development and European Policies Team
Administrative organisation in France
Decentralisation Regional communities: - 26 regions, - 100 departments, - 36 783 towns - Overseas communities Relocation Government representatives: - Regional prefects - Department prefects - Sub prefects And relocated govt. services
organised into clusters
European Programs 2007/2013
Role of the DATAR
Interface between: - The European Commission - State departments (central and local
levels) - Regional authorities
Coordination for: - the preparation of NSRF and
operational programs - Coordination of the implementation,
Monitoring and evaluation - Support to services
Management of national technical assistance programs and IT programs (presage)
• 3.2 billion euros for the 4 overseas territory in respect of "convergence", • 10.2 billion euros for mainland France in respect of "regional competitiveness and employment" • 0.571billion euros for "Regional cooperation". (in euros 2004)
14 billion euros for France (€ 2007)
4
A wide range of evaluations
Breakdown of the 59 midterm regional evaluations conducted by 30 consultancies – No in-house evaluations
CONSULTANCIES
Number of evaluations each
Edater 11
Ernst&Young 5
Euréval, Technopolis Group, IT-DEU Europe, Erdyn Consultants, ACT Consultants, Amnyos Group 3
MC2 Consultants, Argos Consultants 2
ACTeon, Adage, Cap'Europe, CM International, Contrechamp, CREDOC, ECD Antilles, E2I, Energies Demain, Epices, Espitalié Consultants, Factea Durable, GemOrca, ID-ACT, Les développeurs Associés (LDA), LesEnR, Mosaïque, Planète Publique, Strasbourg Conseil 1 5
01/12/2011 6
7
OPs remain relevant despite the crisis
Industrial regions severely impacted (compared to regions specialized in service sector)
But variously, depending on their specialization: agro-food and aerospace branches Vs car industry
Industrial leaders over represented among private sector (even when they belong to sectors that are in crisis) offensive strategy of ERDF !
Higher leverage effect on regional economy in regions supporting directly the firms (and no intermediate bodies)
8
OPs remain relevant despite the crisis
Designed in a context of growing economy, they search mid/long term strategies, of structural nature
Responses to economic crisis are provided by other plans (« recovery plans »)
These plans have (usually) an accelerating effect on OPs, for projects already identified and managed by public beneficaries less impacted by the crisis
Significant worries relating to the availability of public financing
9
OPs remain relevant despite the crisis
Negative effects of the crisis for private beneficiaries: projects delayed or abandonned
Positive effects: innovation sensitivity
10
An ERDF/ESF consistance to be improved
Need to orient ESF:
Towards reinforcing high level skills, beyond targeting lower qualification levels
Towards sectors receiving ERDF in order to build regional branchs (renewable energies/ energy efficiency)
ERDF challenged in its capacity to better support human capital in SMEs
The environment is better taken into account thanks to SEA
But room for improvment at the level of criteria :
Not always suited to immaterial projects
A doubt concerning their role: sensibilisation, priorization, eligibility criteria ?
Intervene too late to truly impact the project (as they are often based on self-assessment approaches without support from services)
A need to move forward a real sustainable development approach
11
12
Highly dynamic energy efficiency and renewable energy projects
Solar cell power generation projects overrepresented
Regional structured business set up (beneficiaries call on local firms to install the project)
13
Innovation
Priority of grants towards industry (compared to their share in the economy). Commerce, construction, services are underrepresented in relation to their total economic weight)
Territorial or societal innovation hardly represented
Innovation priority axis move forward well, despite some difficulties to support more immaterial projects than material ones, collective than individual actions
Strong involvment of SMEs in public R&D projects
Constraints due to competition rules (cofinancing rate is lower than planned)
14
Innovation
Recommandations:
Studying the call for projects approach
Targeting financing
Grouping technological transfer structures
Widening up the concept of innovation to societal, territorial, organizational or service related innovation
Strenghtening the human resources dimension
15
Aspects slowing implementation
A more complex policy to implement (especially for immaterial projects making more complex justification and control of expenses (time spent, contribution in kind, net revenue generated …)
Tardy approval of regulation and closure 2000-06
The risk of automatic decomitment that may focus attention of services on spending rather than programming and supporting projects’ design
Aspects slowing implementation
A cofinancing rate sometimes to little to be attractive
A loss of memory with turnover
The need to put cash first before being reimbursed
Monitoring committees unsufficiently dedicated to exchanges of strategic nature and not opened enough to socio-economic partners
16
17
A lack of indicators
Lack of data quality control
Insufficient methodological support
Projects that are less suited to monitoring by indicators than before (because OPs bt on indirect/induced effects that will show up over the long term : R&D, sustainable development)
18
Added value
Trigger effect, accelerator effect, effect in initiating larger scale projects
Qualitative effect (thanks to demanding criteria)
Facilitating dialogue between institutions and firms
Leverage effect on private cofinancing (greater than expected)
But also, some deadweight effects
Main recommendations They relate more to OPs’ implementation than strategy
Confirmation of initial strategy
Some financial transfers (linked to environment or regional innovation strategy)
Closing down some measures (solar cells)
Improve communication for measures not spent
Training of beneficiaries, services, intermediate bodies
Call for projects procedure
Setting up a « one stop shop » approach
Increasing of ERDF cofinancing rate
…
19
Strengths and weaknesses of 2010 midterm evaluations
in France
01/12/2011 20
Limitations Relevance is always legitimated despite crisis
Indicators use and usability very limited
Very hard to assess consistence between funds
Some evaluations too wide in relation to the budget (no operational recommendations)
Evaluation sometimes seen as a mandatory exercise
OPs’ revisions sometimes made without considering evaluation findings (guided by automatic decommitment)
Sometimes, evaluation was oriented to justify choices already made
21
Improved practices Midterm evaluation is taken seriously by partners for it may
have a stronger influence in terms of decision making
Allows collective thinking, bringing together « sector » based services towards an overall perspective, for a mutual interest
Usefulness of evaluation is also in the process
More benchmark between regions and greater projection towards the future (consistance with EU 2020 objectives)
Working groups at the end of evaluation to validate and ensure a hierarchy in the recommendations and factors of success in their implementation
Compatibility with result oriented approach (getting importance 2013+)
22