Feed-back and lessons from difficulties and errors

The case studies show that often, increasing efficiency and effectiveness in implementing RD policies is a result of refining or improving delivery mechanisms over time. Measures, procedures and sometimes even organisations have to be revised and modified. This process is a kind of ‘learning by doing’ method.

Increasing flexibility

An example of this adjustment comes from the application of CTE in Basse Normandie. When it became clear that the set of measures available (despite the large number) were not flexible enough to match the individual context of beneficiaries, in some regions the authorities achieved a high level of uptake by drafting standard contracts with generic measures. This avoided the complexity of creating agreements tailored to specific circumstances, but limited contracts to basic environmental measures rather than achieving

more. As is also pointed out in the Cumbria case study, ‘ there needs to be a better balance between prescription and flexibility in the design of funding schemes, or individual measures’.

Simplification of procedures

Sometimes, procedures need to be revised in order to match the potential demand for support. This happened in some cases: for example, in the application for funds very complex proposals were replaced by simpler “expressions of interest” (as in Cumbria and in Calabria case studies). This enables a pre-selection of ideas, a more informal and less costly presentation by single applicants, reciprocal understanding of needs between the demanders and suppliers of policies, and finally progressive, better definition of project objectives.

Networking and co-ordination

The case study of Cumbria shows very well that the development of networks (also personal relationships) and communication channels between agencies involved in the management of various funding streams and between the region and the central administration (Defra), improved the use of schemes. The setting up of a Regional Advisory Group (different from the Monitoring Committee) to discuss funding options and projects available, increased considerably the awareness of the schemes. It also addressed the problem of how best to combine different funds and programmes in order to respond to territorial need.’ Indeed it allowed them to share funding “which in theory was impossible”, by dividing up projects. For example, the Rural Development Service helped fund the main building of a farm shop near Bootle, whereas Leader funded the subsidiary work, thereby making a bigger pot of funding available overall’. This approach of breaking down a single project into separate bits was also used to combine EU funds and national funds from different schemes. A similar problem concerning the co-ordination of different schemes was evident in Guadix (Andalusia).

Networking and co-ordination should be improved through the work of the National and European Rural Networks which are now a requirement of RDP programming and delivery. However, for these networks to be effective, the potential value of linking activities such as this needs to be recognised in advance by the authorities.

Strengthening human resources and organisation

This issue is usually under-valued in analyses of the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery system. In our case studies, it emerged directly or indirectly in many circumstances. In this field, adjustments consist of trying to improve endowments of human capital in public administration and extension services, quantitatively and qualitatively. A shortage of technical expertise is felt with particular reference to the most delicate and crucial functions (animation, communication, project preparation and design, financial management, project selection, etc.). From the case studies, it emerges clearly that most successful examples devote relevant financial resources to skills and expertise. This is true for Regionen Aktiv integrated projects, where the most successful regions have spent much on high quality consultancy, and for the LAG of Andalucia, whose technical and administrative staff totals 11 people for evaluating individual projects and providing them with appropriate assistance. 5.4.8 Implications for EU level: instrument design, programming framework Relationship between complexity of delivery and efficiency and effectiveness

The results of this analysis confirm that the more complex the initial design of the measures, the less efficient appears the implementation process, at least in the initial phase. However after this, the ‘learning by doing’ method intervenes and pushes stakeholders to address difficulties and the reasons for errors and to try to correct the initial design. One or more of the following solutions is then incorporated: flexibility, simplification of procedures,

149

networking and coordination, more human resources and/or better organisational structures. A mechanism of adjustment is taking place and it follows, more or less, these patterns. The situation is radically different when we explore the relation between complexity of procedures and effectiveness. Case study examples and wider research literature show clearly that complexity in the delivery system does not imply lower effectiveness. Instead, when complexity is associated with integrated measures, vertical and horizontal partnerships, integrated funds and schemes, more time and resources spent for animation, communication and networking, local planning, etc., then complexity tends to go hand in hand with positive effects on effectiveness.

Specification of measures and nature of instruments

The level of specification of each measure should be linked to the strategy pursued at the level of each programme. Due to the great differences in strategies among programmes, it is important to have a level of specification in the EU regulation that is sufficiently high to enable programme authorities to differentiate implementation and delivery according to the needs and specificities of each region. From the case studies it does not seem that there is over-specification in the description of rules for the implementation of most measures.

A high level of specification can introduce rigidities that compromise the effective delivery of single measures. This effect was very clear in the case of CTE, where initial design of AE measures was modified and they became more generic and less farm-specific. Thus while

efficiency was improved, the targeting of positive environmental effects (effectiveness) was

weakened. There are also cases where one might question whether measures’ rationale or key goals are sufficiently explained. For example, if village renewal is intended to provide enhancements to quality of life and the environment, through multi-sectoral action, in those municipalities where it is implemented, this needs to be clearly stated in the regulatory framework. In the selection of instruments now available to programming authorities, the case studies have not found significant issues of inappropriate or inadequate design. Rather, the problems occur in respect of the contexts in which measures are applied, where more detailed aspects of eligibility or delivery have been inadequately tailored to circumstances. Specific requirements concerning RD programmes

This analysis supports the need for a better specification of the programme strategy and thus the choice of a type of delivery which is most consistent with the strategy. This implies that the content of RD plans which describes the delivery system should be sufficiently detailed to allow assessment of whether what is proposed is likely to meet the conditions of efficiency and effectiveness. In particular these sections of RDPs could be more detailed:

• analysis of the current situation in terms of strengths and weaknesses, where specific attention could be devoted to analysing the existing delivery systems;

• the ex-ante evaluation of consistency between the strategy proposed and the existing

and proposed delivery mechanisms;

• a full description of organisations and structures involved in the implementation phase;

• a description of the approaches used to integrate measures, not simply under LEADER;

• a description of how national/regional programmes funded by MS resources are

implemented, and how this is complementary to the EU-funded measures. Specific requirements for programme evaluation

Delivery characteristics, and their impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme, should be an obligatory part of RDP evaluation. They should be included in the tender specifications for mid-term and ex-post evaluations.