Search Evaluation Publications

Total results: 334.
nl_6_cover

Discover articles on:

  • EvaluationWORKS! 2016 experiences from the Member States
  • Preparing the evaluation of innovation in RDPs 2014-2020
  • Fourth Good Practice Workshop: 5-6 December Bordeaux, France

Expand your knowledge of:

  • Evaluation at the local level
 
Good Practice Workshop Report, Bordeaux France

This report summarises the major outcomes of the Good Practice Workshop, “Targeted data management for evidence based evaluation of RDPs 2014-2020”, which took place on 5 - 6 December 2016 in Bordeaux, France. This Good Practice Workshop provided a forum for the discussion and exchange of practices used in different RDPs in 2014-2020. The workshop was hosted by the Region Nouvelle Aquitaine and was well attended by more than 60 participants.

This Good Practice Workshop provided a forum for Managing Authorities, Paying Agencies, LAG-representatives, data providers and evaluators, to:

  • discuss the approaches for data management in RDPs 2014-2020;
  • exchange on the availability and quality of the data to be used for the AIR to be submitted in 2017 and beyond;
  • reflect about potential data gaps and bottlenecks in data management in order to find solutions to overcome them.

Case studies from France, Finland, Italy, Austria and Denmark were presented during this workshop and are summarised in this report.

This factsheet highlights NRN self assessment tools to demonstrate achievements and their use for evaluation.

 
LEADER/CLLD Evaluation: Laying the Conceptual Foundation of the Approach

The history of LEADER  and its evaluation is extensive and has grown progressively over the past twenty-five years. LEADER began as a pilot initiative in 1991 (LEADER I) and has evolved with numerous iterations (LEADER II, LEADER +) into a widespread, mainstreamed policy instrument used to support the development of rural areas across the European Union. 

The findings and recommendations of various LEADER evaluations proves that this policy tool has played a critical role in improving and developing the conceptual foundation of the LEADER approach. The path of LEADER evaluations conveys a particular story, one of institutional and societal learning. 

LEADER/CLLD Evaluation at a Glance

In the programming period 2014-2020 LEADER is implemented as part of Community-Led Local Development (CLLD). The CLLD strategies prepared and implemented through the LEADER method include the description of specific monitoring and evaluation arrangements. These arrangements are the basis for Local Action Groups (LAGs) to carry out the CLLD strategy’s monitoring and evaluation activities. This factsheet provides a brief understanding of the evaluation of LEADER/CLLD. 

This factsheet highlights the complexities in evaluating NRNs and delivers recommendations on how to meet these challenges.

 
 
Danish Case Study - LAG Operations Database for the monitoring and evaluation of LEAder/clld

This factcheet explores the PROMIS – Project Result Oriented Management Information System. PROMIS is an integrated web-based solution, which helps to:

  • manage the application and selection process of LEADER/CLLD supported projects; and
  • carry out the monitoring and evaluation of LEADER at two levels: RDP and LAG. This factsheet further highlights potential strengths and weaknesses of LAG Operations Databases. 

This case study from Finland focuses on the evaluation of the impacts of EU rural development measures and programmes on climate stability at the macro level using a multi-regional dynamic partial equilibrium modelling approach.

 
 
Rural Evaluation NEWS Issue 5

Discover articles on:

  • Data management for evidence based evaluations
  • High Nature Value (HNV) Farming: survey results of Member States' approaches
  • New modules for EvaluationWORKS! 2016

Expand your knowledge of:

  • Annual Implementation Reports (AIRs)

The case of Estonia offers a unique example of innovative evaluation methods focusing on protecting and enhancing biodiversity through the use of complementary indicators.

 
 

Pages