Summary of the ex-ante evaluation of the EAFRD programme 79 Introduction

This report contains an assessment of the draft for Denmark’s 2014–2020 EAFRD programme drawn up by the Danish AgriFish Agency (version dated 16 October 2013).

Assessment of context and need

The ex-ante evaluator assesses that the analysis of the food sector and rural areas in general is broad and comprehensive in scope and covers the entire territory and all relevant sectors and problems. It explains that Denmark’s territories comprise all of Denmark’s area, apart from areas around major cities and towns and that the rural areas generally face uniform challenges in terms of job creation, population retention, etc., but that the specific challenges and resources can vary from one area to another.

In the ex-ante evaluator’s overall assessment, the analysis constitutes an adequate basis for an assessment of needs, and the needs identified are clearly categorised in relation to the priorities of the EAFRD regulation.80

79

See the ex-ante evaluation of Denmark’s EAFRD programme, COWI, 2014.

80 _{Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for}

rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

It is also assessed that the analysis is generally based on a broadly applicable and relevant indicator basis. The baseline years for the individual indicators are explained, and the value of the individual indicators corresponds with the official available data. The reasons for not using five of the common context indicators are lacking, however.

It is apparent that it would be beneficial if the summary analysis and the analysis of cross-cutting contexts were explained in more detail and that the quality of SWOT could be further improved in terms of systematics and consistency. The evaluator assesses that such a tightening up of SWOT would boost the correlation between SWOT and an assessment of needs and thus clarify the basis for the programme’s strategy and objectives.

Based on the documents available, it is assessed that satisfactory consistency and coherence has been achieved between SWOT and an assessment of needs in relation to the Partnership Agreement, other EU programmes and direct agricultural subsidy (CAP, pillar 1).

The ex-ante evaluator’s recommendations have been accommodated by developing the SWOT text and revising the logic for the choice of measures in relation to the needs described and the priorities laid down in the EAFRD regulation.

Appropriateness and the internal and external coherence of the programme

It is generally assessed that the programme’s measures and intervention logic are relevant and balanced in relation to addressing the Europe 2020 objectives (i.e. promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, innovation and easing pressure on the environment and climate) as well as national objectives (e.g. from the Commission on Nature and Agriculture, 2020 Organic Action Plan, etc.). There is no basis for quantifying the specific contributions, however.

The ex-ante evaluator noted that, in relation to the wording of the programme and the framework described for programme implementation, the process involves a broad, relevant circle of partners. The programme contents are largely consistent with the draft Partnership Agreement, dated July 2013, containing a relatively general description of the EAFRD programme contents. As the draft Partnership Agreement has subsequently been revised, this involves a preliminary assessment. The evaluator also assesses that the European Commission’s recommendations to Denmark, from November 2012, were a significant contribution for determining the objectives of the Partnership Agreement and thus contributed to the preparation of the EAFRD programme.

The EAFRD programme is largely aimed at farmers and the primary agricultural sector, i.e. farmers are expected to receive roughly 86% of the total support, which makes most of the programme measures unique to this programme.

The ex-ante evaluator assesses that especially in relation to the ERDF, there are obvious opportunities to select areas with coordinated actions relating to growth and innovation for enterprises in the food sector, and including interaction with knowledge institutions. In general, the ex-ante evaluator assesses that the programme’s objective hierarchy is logically coherent, so that it is likely that the activities specified will contribute to achieving the envisaged outputs and that these

will affect the specific objectives in the preferred direction which will entail an impact on the general objectives.

The evaluator generally assesses that subsidy is an effective, relevant form of support in relation to the measures chosen. The subsidy is bound to increase the incentive to enter into projects and activities involving extra costs or reduced income (typically area payments for farmers). Project subsidy can be an important driver for establishing development and cooperation activities between new players, and subsidy can make it possible to finance investment which promotes environmental technology, for example.

This very high support percentage for farmers harmonises with the high priority of environmental/natural factors and climate and development of the agricultural business. Thus, the way in which farms exploit their farmland is crucial for the impact on the environment, nature and climate, and at the same time it is an objective to create the prerequisites for an efficient and, at the same time, sustainable production process through development and investment in the primary agricultural sector.

The ex-ante evaluator notes that the budget for the EAFRD programme is not compared to the budget allocation of the other EU programmes.

Moreover, in relation to LEADER, the evaluator assesses that there is an adequate description of the establishment and organisation of the joint selection committee. The remit of the committee is readily apparent but not how the remit is expected to be implemented. In this respect, selection criteria and an explanation of the procedures used are lacking.

The ex-ante evaluator remarks that the entire process – from the establishment of EAFRD partnerships until LAG can be approved and have its development strategy approved – is not described with sufficient clarity, and in this respect a description of the criteria to be used in the two stages of the selection process are lacking.

A description of context and synergy with the LEADER action under the EMFF programme is also lacking.

The ex-ante evaluator’s recommendations have been accommodated by adding supplementary text about the principles and process of selecting potential geographic areas for the formation of local action groups under the EAFRD programme, including interaction with potential FLAGs under the EMFF programme.

Measuring the programme’s progress and results

The ex-ante evaluator remarks that the draft programme does not include disaggregated data or analyses covering the unique equal rights aspects, apart for the specified differences in the employment rate of men and women. Similarly, the programme does not include data about context indicators which reflect unique local or geographical factors. The reason for this choice could be that by European standards, Denmark is a relatively homogenous country without vast local/geographical differences and that the LEADER activities are planned so as to take account of local/geographical needs and differences.

Overall, it is assessed that the programme is generally based on a broadly applicable and relevant indicator basis. The ex-ante evaluator remarks that a detailed assessment of the calculation basis for the subsidy rates in administrations with area-based support for farmers and forest owners has not been carried out, which means there is no basis for assessing the quality of these rates. In addition, the monitoring system is not based on a thorough analysis and for this reason data needs and system requirements should be initiated.

The evaluator assesses that the existing data system needs to be improved to ensure easy data collection, structured data storage and easily accessible and systematic data extraction into Excel in conjunction with, for instance, data analysis, evaluations and reporting.

The evaluator assesses that the systems which will be used for registering, filing and managing statistical information about the programme’s implementation which enable punctual reporting are clearly described. The steps taken by the Danish AgriFish Agency to render the standard system BTAS capable of handling the specified requirements for controlling the regulatory basis have also been described.

The evaluator assesses that the Danish AgriFish Agency has clearly described how the agency will ensure that the weighting of the indicators will match the managing authority’s information needs. It is not apparent, however, whether the managing authority has any information needs besides those provided for by the indicators, and how, if so, these will be taken into account.

The extent to which there is continuity with other CSF evaluations and monitoring reports (e.g. annual implementation reports) is not explicitly apparent in the programme.

The evaluator notes that the milestones’ suitability for managing the programme has not been assessed, as values for the milestones have yet to be determined.

The ex-ante evaluator’s recommendations have been accommodated by introducing milestones and performance targets as prescribed by the European Commission. The managing authority has also included information about the need for data extracts and the requirements for IT subsidy administration systems deriving from this.

Review of proposals for programme implementation

The ex-ante evaluator assesses that, all things considered, the system for managing and controlling the programme is comprehensively described, i.e. there is a description of the authorities and entities involved and of the overarching division of tasks between them.

The programme would be strengthened if there were a more detailed description of the division of responsibilities and organisation of the cooperation between the three authorities involved in the programme implementation.

In addition, programme implementation would be strengthened if ongoing monitoring of progress were established at administrative level to monitor administrative challenges, interest in the measure, the quality of projects, deadweight and tempo in projects’ implementation, for the purpose of being able to make quick adjustments if this is required to ensure the desired outputs and results.

The ex-ante evaluator notes that it is not possible to provide a satisfactory assessment of whether the combined human and administrative resources are proportional and of sufficient quality in relation to the needs for programme management and submission of data.

The evaluator assesses that in general there are suitable plans for involving the public. The programme would be strengthened, however, if there was a timetable for the initiatives. There is a particular need to clarify and describe the timeline in relation to the establishment of the local action groups where it can be important to start the process relatively quickly as the LEADER method involves a certain timespan from the commencement of the process until specific activities can begin.

The ex-ante evaluator’s recommendations have been accommodated by introducing more information about the communication activities relating to the programme and an assessment of the human resources available.

Assessment of horizontal themes

The ex-ante evaluator assesses that equal rights and anti-discrimination have not received special focus in the programme preparations, including in the SWOT and needs analyses, and that for this reason the programme strategy does not target specific needs relating to equal rights or anti- discrimination.

The evaluator notes that an important objective of the programme is to promote business development and create new jobs, which the evaluator deems will promote equal opportunity for men and women as well as promote social inclusion.

The programme includes a crucial action relating to the improvement of the environment and nature and in relation to reducing climate impacts (see EU priorities 4 and 5).