...

Ex Ante Evaluation

by user

on
Category:

pollution

13

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Ex Ante Evaluation
Ex-Ante Evaluation
2014-05-21
Draft final version
(version of the Cooperation Programme (CP) released on 2014-04-30)
P a rc o urir L ’E uro pe
S a n d ra U n g e m a c h - B e n s a i d ,
J e a n n e Ge o f f r o y, C h a r l o t t e G u é r i n
G u i l l a u d , D a n ie l P o u l e n a r d
9 r ue d e l a L a q ue
3 1 3 0 0 To ul o us e / F r a nc e
w ww. r e s e a u - pa r c o u ri r. e u
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
PROGRAMME STRATEGY ....................................................................................................................................... 5
CONSISTENCY OF PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 5
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COHERENCE .............................................................................................................. 8
COHERENCE OF THE STRATEGY WITH THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF PREVIOUS PROGRAMMES............................... 13
LINK BETWEEN SUPPORTED ACTIONS, EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND RESULTS ...................................................... 16
HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................................................. 24
INDICATORS, MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 26
RELEVANCE AND CLARITY OF INDICATORS PROPOSED FOR THE PROGRAMME ................................................ 27
OUTPUT INDICATORS, REFERENCE VALUES AND QUANTIFIED TARGET VALUES ............................................... 31
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY, DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE AND EVALUATION............................................ 39
CONSISTENCY OF FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS ....................................................................................................... 41
CONTRIBUTION TO THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY............................................................................................... 43
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 48
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF THE SEA REPORT ............................................................................................. 49
IMPACTS ANALYSIS: SYNTHESIS......................................................................................................................... 51
OUTLINE PER PRIORITY AXIS .............................................................................................................................. 52
DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES TO AVOID, REDUCE AND COMPENSATE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE
PROGRAMME ON THE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 54
PROPOSED MONITORING MEASURES ............................................................................................................... 58
CONSULTATIONS SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC. .................................................. 61
2.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION .................................................................................................................................. 65
DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE OPERATIONNAL PROGRAMME HAS TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT................................................................................................ 67
CONSIDERATION OF THE EX ANTE RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 71
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
2
INTRODUCTION
Summary of the regulatory framework
Cohesion policy for the 2014-2020 programming period must be strongly orientated towards results
in order to contribute to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (Europe 2020
strategy). To this end the regulation increases the importance of well-designed programmes taking
into account European, national and regional needs, and focused on the results they want to achieve.
The role of the ex-ante evaluation is thus reinforced in the new programming period. It should ensure
that cooperation programmes clearly organise their intervention logic and can demonstrate their
contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy. It should also help to set up functioning monitoring systems
which meet evaluation requirements. Its recommendations should be clear, evidence-based and
adapted to the particular needs of each programme.
Where specific needs arise, the Commission encourages the future managing authority to ask the exante evaluators to look at points other than those mentioned in this guidance. The ex-ante evaluation
should be seen as a useful supporting process and advice from the evaluators should be fully
considered. However, the ultimate responsibility for the design of an effective operational
programme rests with the future managing authority.
Article 55(3) of the Common Provisions Regulation lists different elements of the operational and
cooperation programmes which must be appraised by the ex-ante evaluations.
The tasks of an ex-ante evaluation are grouped into five components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Programme strategy
Indicators, monitoring and evaluation
Consistency of financial allocations
Contribution to Europe 2020 strategy
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
3
Reminder on methodology/Agenda
18 February2014
End of March 2014
Strategic
Environmental
Assessment
Ex-ANTE
Evaluation
(1) Documents for
consultation
(1) Draft report
(2) Consultation EA
+ Public
Report V2
(2014-03-25)
Writing of
MED CP
(3) Final report
(2) Integration of
SEA & final report
May 2014
Sending to Commission
Ex ante evaluation works, as well as environmental strategic evaluation works, have been
undertaken from September 2013 to June 2014
Dates
September 24, 2013
December 12, 2013
February 18, 2014
Events
Task Force Athens
Deliverables Ex Ante/SEA
Methodology presentation
Consultation of the
Task Force Marseilles
partnership
Task Force Marseilles V1 Ex Ante/ ESE
April 9-10, 2014
Task Force Aix enProvence
V2 Ex Ante/ ESE
June 4-5, 2014
Task Force Ljubljana
Draft final version
CP Versions
CP version of August 26
CP version of November 27
CP version of December 20
CP version of February 25
& version released for the
consultation of March 2014
CP version of the 30 of
April 2014
Along with the different CP versions, the evaluators have also used the numerous versions of the
logical framework, produced and modified during the meetings.
Several bilateral meetings, between the evaluation team, the expert in charge of the CP drafting, and
the programme authorities took place during the 8 months of the works.
Phone calls and emails have been exchanged with some programme partners, when necessary.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
4
PROGRAMME STRATEGY
CONSISTENCY OF PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES
MED cooperation programme (CP) 2014-2020 must deal, even more than previous programmes, with
an important contradiction: match thematic objectives with:



One of the wider cooperation areas in Europe. The cooperation area is extended to various
regions (Midi-Pyrénées (FR), Lisbon (PT), Val d’Aosta (IT)) and a new Member State (Croatia)
Local needs and orientations of mainstream national and regional programmes
A decreased gap between projects’ ambitions and feasibility of activities within the
programme’s framework (constraints related to budget, agenda, partnership)
The MED programme supports policy areas already addressed by other European programmes. MED
cooperation area also includes areas covered by other transnational and cross-border cooperation
programmes1.
Current conditions for programme design, as defined by the European Commission, don’t allow
defining a precise and proper articulation with programmes addressing different (mainstream OPs)
or similar (ETC programmes) territorial scales.
In order to evaluate the consistency of programme’s objectives, we have selected 5 questions from
the Ex Ante EC guidance document.

What is the added value of MED transnational cooperation?
The huge number of programmed projects (150), as well as the various shapes of calls for projects
(standard projects, strategic projects, targeted & capitalisation calls), allow the MED programme to
benefit from a significant feed-back in this field. The quality of works conducted by the MED
partnership, together with the continuous assessment of projects’ outputs, strengthens the visibility
of MED 2007-2013’s results.
Assessed results could demonstrate that the programme represents, for several target groups, a first
step towards a cooperation approach concretely issued from an innovation process. The pooling of
results shall be further maintained in order to strengthen this added value.
Deepening this knowledge of results must be continued by using a more territorial perspective, i.e.
by complementing the analysis with an impact evaluation for each territory addressed by the
programme’s actions. This orientation should be realised by improving the knowledge of mainstream
OPs of all supported regions.
1
14 Interreg programmes
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
5
MED Member States share an important number of challenges, some of them being directly related
to the sea. These challenges are well represented in 2014-2020 programme’s objectives. Therefore, it
will be necessary to link this strategy with other international initiatives such as the Action Plan for
the Mediterranean (APM), in particular considering the Plan Bleu.
Other specific challenges related to big urban centres, predominantly remote rural areas and
mountains shall be further detailed in calls for projects in order to improve the added-value of
cooperation.

Which correspondence between programme’s objectives and diagnosis / SWOT analysis?
Selected objectives are coherent with elements mentioned in the diagnosis and the SWOT analysis.
Setting up more complete knowledge databases will be necessary during the programme’s
implementation period. Some specific objectives for Axes 2 (low carbon economy) and 3
(environment) must be capable to rely on more important technical data. To do so, a capitalisation /
pooling approach should be undertaken during this programming period.

Is the level of concentration of ERDF coherent with implementation capacities?
The proposed level of concentration is generally coherent with implementation capacities and
resources in terms of management and coordination, mainly regarding axes 1 and 2.
Axis 3 covers a huge potential field of action. Regarding expected results, relationships between
programme’s authorities and transnational partnership shall be reinforced. Attention must be paid to
target groups so as to match challenges and needs (CPR - Art. 11).
Axis 4 will also require an important joint work of programme bodies, as well as dialogue with other
European and international programmes (e.g. in the fields of maritime pollution and risks)

Are choices consistent with other challenges and available information?
These choices are based on data known since the previous programme (cf § 1), a good level of
exchange between programme partners and an important and efficient work of programme
authorities with long experience.
However, available information issued from other sources than the programme must be
strengthened, where specific objectives (SO) directly match approaches conducted simultaneously by
European and international programmes.
For instance, Axis 3, which integrates sustainable tourism issues, corresponds to an initiative of the
Plan Bleu 2013-2015: The Plan Bleu starts an operational phase for 2013-2015, within the project
« Contributing to the creation of an environment that encourages the improvement of the
sustainability of Tourism in Mediterranean areas (TOTEM) », conducted with pilot touristic sites.
Regarding ERDF regulation and Partnership Agreement sent by France on 2013/12/31, no
discrepancies with the selection of CP’s objectives in their current version can be oserved.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
6

Is information missing to justify the strategy?
The Axis 4 – Mediterranean governance, very important to balance the programme, wasn’t initially
based on a strategic justification comprised in the CP, as it is for other axes. It results from a specific
choice of the programme aiming at undertaking projects contributing to the emergence of a macroregional strategy. It has to be noticed that despite important initiatives taking place in the
cooperation area, a MED macro-regional strategy doesn’t exist yet.

Is the diagnosis having led to the selection of objectives shared?
The diagnosis is shared. It is strengthened by the Strategic Environmental Assessment and its
associated consultations, addressing both general public and national authorities.
Synthesis of questions on consistency
Comments following the TF of the 18 th of February and
the CP’s last version
Initial Evaluation
questions
Synthesis
Added value of MED
transnational cooperation
+
The positioning regarding regional OPs relies on final
selection of strategic objectives and by the programme’s
partnership (Member States)
Correspondence between
objectives and diagnosis /
SWOT
+
From a general point of view, correspondence is good. The
deficit of diagnosis regarding axes 2 and 3 has been
resolved to some extent by the additional elements of the
environmental assessment.
ERDF Concentration
+
Good concentration, especially for axes 1, 2 and 4.
Correspondence with
other challenges
+
Good correspondence with 2007-2013 feedback
(Capitalisation, Evaluations, Results analysis).
Missing elements
+/-
Shared diagnosis
+
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
Axis 4: This axis was not submitted to a specific analysis in
the initial strategy, but is result from a shared choice.
TF works ensured the shared character of the diagnosis
19-05-2014
7
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COHERENCE
Internal coherence:
General comment:
Choices made for Investment priorities (IP) and specific objectives (SO) result from 4 types of data:




Strong cross-cutting orientation towards green growth and blue growth. This strategy is
clearly confirmed in every choice made within the programme.
Continuation and deepening of topics strongly contributing to the development of the
cooperation area. These topics have already been successful in the current programming
period (e.g. innovation, energies).
The choice to concentrate programme resources on specific target groups or territories (e.g
urban mobility thematic – Axis 3). The numerous calls for projects 2007-2013 (targeted and
strategic calls) allowed to assess and experiment new ways of conducting cooperation and
partnerships.
New orientations focusing on new topics (e.g. sustainable tourism) or strategies (TO11 –
Governance), adopted to favour macro-regional approaches and pooling of results on certain
main topics and needs in the Mediterranean.
Analysis of choices made to answer the needs of the cooperation area and the demands in terms
of concentration for 2014-2020 MED programme.
Axis1
Axis 2
Axis 3
Axe 4
SO
1.1
Innovation
2.1
Energy
efficiency
2.2
Energy mix
integrated
strategy
2.3
Low-carbon
Transport
3.1
Natural and
cultural
heritage
3.2
Biodiversity
NATURA
2000
4.1
Governance
Main topic
Orientation:
green and blue
growth
Main topic
Continuation of MED
main topics
(experience 2007-2013)
Main topic
Main topic
Target groups
and territories
Orientation: new
or «strategic»
High degree of coherence Average degree of coherence
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
8
Analysis of coherence between axes
Coherence and programme management.
The level of coherence between axes is relatively high despite concentration-related requirements
that impose a more precise targeting than during the previous programming periods. In the previous
programmes, only calls for projects could target project types, specific territories or target groups. An
important gap was therefore observed when comparing projects’ outputs and the programmes
objectives. Some projects could fall under several thematic priorities.
The new articulation between proposed orientations should reduce this gap. To the contrary,
outputs of projects under a given strategic objective will be much differentiated. This new situation
must be taken into account by the programme authorities. Project selection and monitoring
procedures will be less homogeneous and more technical.
Coherence and expected results.
Specific objectives may require different levels of involvement from beneficiaries.



Axes and specific objectives corresponding to a support approach: e.g. regarding innovation
(SO 1.1) or natural and cultural heritage (including tourism) (SO 3.1). These sectors are
eligible to regional OPs and the MED specific contribution mainly addresses orientation
towards green growth and transnational approaches.
Axes and specific objectives coming under a pilot approach: e.g. SO 2.2 (energy mix
strategies) or SO 2.3 (low carbon transport systems).
Axes and specific objectives coming under a structuring approach: e.g. SO 4.1 Governance,
whose purpose is to develop macro-regional strategies on topics specific to the cooperation
area.
Analysis of internal coherence within each axis
Axis 1: No coherence issue within this axis. Synergies could be found with SO 2.1 “Energies” and SO
2.2 “Integrated strategies”. These two topics also address, partly, enterprises.
Axis 2: The dividing line between the three priorities (SO 2.1+2.2+2.3) is consistent with very
different operational objectives and target-groups. Results can be used for a joint capitalisation
approach. Specific objective SO 2.1 (energy mix strategies) is very important for the MED cooperation
area, as ERDF regional OPs mainly support the development of wide-scale technical solutions, not
adapted to specific territories (islands, mountains, etc.)
Axis 3: The dividing line between the two priorities (SO 3.1 and 3.2) is consistent with the choice of
very different topics: natural and cultural heritage and biodiversity. The operational description of
this last topic isn’t detailed enough for an evaluation of internal coherence (expected results,
indicators…).
Axis 4: Governance. Good coherence of the axis that strongly complements previous specific
objectives. Indicators are particularly important in this case, as they will help defining the efficiency
of such an approach.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
9
Evaluation questions
Synthesis
Comments following the TF of the 18th of February and the
CP last version
Articulation Axis 1
+
Synergies between this TO and IP 4c and 4e could be
detailed if necessary
Articulation Axis 2
+/-
Dividing line between the three priorities is relevant, but still
needs to be enhanced when drafting calls for proposals, and
to address clearly identified target groups
Articulation Axis 3
+/-
Dividing line between the two priorities is relevant, but still
needs to be enhanced when drafting calls for proposals.
Target groups should be better defined.
Articulation Axis 4
+
Complementarity with other priorities is clearly defined. Calls
for projects should focus on eligibility criteria that will justify
territorial added-value.
Contribution of the
projects targeted by
the SOs
+
Efficiency is well defined as dividing lines between TOs are
clear enough.
External coherence
Territorial background
MED cooperation area covers 10 cross-border and 4 transnational cooperation programme areas, the
Interreg Europe programme and a cooperation programme with the Southern shore of the
Mediterranean (CBC MED).
A Mediterranean macro-strategy hasn’t been defined yet, although important initiatives exist in this
field:




The European Commission adopted on December 3, 2012, a communication entitled “A
Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas”
Communication from the Commission released on November 11, 2009 - Towards an
Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean [COM(2009) 466
final]
The strategy adopted by the European Commission in November 2009 meets different
maritime challenges (security, fisheries, aquaculture, environmental protection, climate
change, etc.) facing the Mediterranean basin. It is based on improving governance of
maritime affairs which should balance economic development with protection of the
environment. The success of this strategy requires enhanced cooperation with the third
countries concerned.
European Parliament: report on the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present
practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean (2011/2179(INI))
The Plan Bleu: http://planbleu.org/en and more generally the Mediterranean Action Plan
http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?lang=en.
In conclusion:
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
10

Regarding cross-border cooperation, few elements so far illustrate coherence. Collection of
information (e.g. databases) should a minima be operated and made available for
programme managers.

Regarding international initiatives on the Mediterranean and other initiatives related to
macro-regional strategies: these important programmes provide opportunities for the MED
programme. They aggregate analysis and data that fully complement MED 2014-2020
orientations towards Green Growth and Blue Growth.
For instance, links must be organised between these programmes and projects programmed
within the TO 11 (governance). At MED programme’s scale, cooperation can be proposed to
favour the building of a macro-regional knowledge basis.
European thematic programmes (except ETC)
All MED proposals are exposed to a risk of overlapping2 with several other European instruments and
programmes (beyond territorial cooperation), mainly as a result of thematic concentration of EU
2020 strategy. In positive terms, it is an opportunity to complement structuring projects considered
able, to resort to several financial instruments to cover various actions of a same project during the
programming period.
Regional and national programmes
Convergence with European regional policies is partly ensured by the fact that compliance with
EU2020 Strategy is required for all interventions. Nevertheless, a region-by-region analysis would be
necessary. Data cannot be collected within the timeframe of the preparation of MED 2014-2020.
An inventory of the main orientations of regional programmes could be gradually initiated at least
regarding ERDF and ESF. This database would be useful for managers of both regional and
cooperation programmes.
In conclusion:
General orientations and thematic objectives selected by MED CP 2014-2020 ensure for the most
part a good consistency with regional, national and European policies, due to:


Convergence of orientations with EU2020 strategy, common to all programmes, as well as
diagnosis elements shared by all programmes regarding common challenges of the
cooperation area
An effort to concentrate MED specific objectives towards more targeted topics, territories
and specific publics than in the previous programmes. As a consequence, the programme
complements regional and national policies (e.g. energies).
2
Benchmarking analysis MED February 2013
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
11

a programme focusing on approaches in which investment part is very low and where effort
is rather oriented towards exchange and pooling of “good practices”.
Level of convergence or complementarity: very important, important, average
SO
Axis1
Axis 2
Axis 3
Axe 4
European
thematic
programmes
ETC
Programmes
Regional &
National policies
Other initiatives &
programmes
(e.g. Mediterranean Action
Plan, of which Plan Bleu,)
1.1
Innovation
2.1
Energy
efficiency
2.2
Energy mix
integrated
strategy
2.3
Low-carbon
Transport
3.1
Natural and
cultural
heritage
3.2
Biodiversity
NATURA
2000
4.1
Governance
Evaluation questions
Synthesis
Comments following the last CP version.
Coherence with
interregional and
transnational instruments
(ETC)
+
Coherence with regional
instruments
+/-
Keep taking into account this issue in the strategic
developments during the implementation phase
Influence of other
instruments on results
+/-
New justifications should be added if necessary during
the implementation phase
Contribution of MED to
macro-regional challenges
+
Strategic positioning should be completed, and possible
synergies with ongoing approaches regarding the
Mediterranean (e.g. Plan Bleu) should be sought.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
Further analysis should be made regarding availability
of information
19-05-2014
12
COHERENCE OF THE STRATEGY WITH THE ACHIEV EMENTS OF PREVIOUS PROGRAMMES
In addition to the elements described in the previous chapters on the choices made for the 20142020 period. These choices can be put into perspective with the 2007-2013 and 2000-2006
programming periods.
The two sources used for this comparison are: (1) ex-post evaluations of the 2000-2006 ETC
programming and (2) the in-itinere evaluation of the 2007-2013 MED programme.
Synthesis the general
evaluation 2000-2006
Appraisal of the in-itinere
evaluation and achievements of
the 2007-2013 programme
Consideration in the 2014-2020 CP
1
The variable quality of the
initial diagnosis of needs
and issues may be a
handicap for measuring
the impact of the projects
The diagnosis of the 2007-2013 OP
is complete, but far removed from
the operational objectives of the
classic calls for projects for
example.
The diagnosis of the CP is complete
regarding the cooperation area, but
it does not target certain
orientations of the programme (Blue
and Green Growth).
2
Programme objectives
are frequently overoptimistic
The MED OP is still an excessively
generalised document,
insufficiently linked to project
results.
Thematic concentration realised by
the CP should foster a better
adequacy between the CP’s
orientations and expected results.
3
Standard projects occasionally
have too many partners, which
The scanty financial levers diminishes the impact of the
fail to facilitate the
finance provided. Strategic projects
visibility of the impacts
have budgets which should allow
better impact measurement in this
field.
4
Interaction between
programmes is limited
A procedure has been initiated with
the ENPI MED programme,
INTERACT and the Pre-Accession
Assistance (IAP) countries. A
document has been produced to
compare MED/ENPI and MED.
5
Strand B programmes
have not achieved the
progress expected in
comparison with the
previous programme
period due to continuing
administrative
complexity.
The general regulatory framework
remains complex, particularly due
to the different certification
methods in each Member State.
There has been very significant
progress in the general
management of the programme
and its projects by the JTS/MA in
comparison with the previous
period.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
A more precise targeting of the
budget towards each of the specific
objective (axes 1 and 2) should
contribute to a better readability of
the results. The precision of calls for
projects and above all of expected
deliverables will complete this
scheme.
Section 6 of the CP (Coordination)
shows that interactions are taken
into account in a better way. No
permanent mechanism on this topic
has been forecast so far.
Section 7 of the programme plans
major administrative modifications
and simplifications, e.g. the pursuit
of the dematerialisation process and
the transition to electronic signature
planed after 2015.
The common system of certification
of expenses proposed during the
previous period is no longer
considered.
13
Appraisal of the in-itinere
evaluation and achievements of
the 2007-2013 programme
Consideration in the 2014-2020 CP
Preparation must begin
for cooperation
programmes after 2013,
particularly for those
which still do not have a
territorial development
scheme.
A specific call for projects has been
planned in this area.
The JTS/MA have undertaken a
specific work to link evaluation and
capitalisation approaches.
The partnership process for the
drafting of the CP took place during
the whole year 2013 and the first
semester 2014.
Evaluation and capitalisation works
of the 2007-2013 programme
allowed choosing orientations based
on real achievements.
7
Public sector and semipublic bodies on various
levels in the authorities
must be involved, but also
private sector and civil
society players.
The Partnership of Strategic
Projects partially addresses this
need. There are few civil society
players in the programme as a
whole.
No opening of the partnership was
noted during the CP’s drafting.
A public consultation on the CP’s
priorities - alongside with the SEA’s
public consultation - and the « online » release of the works, have
been realised.
8
The level of integration
already achieved by the
programme should be
taken into account and
ways should be found to
improve it.
This objective should be taken into
account in the course of
capitalisation, along with the
approach of pooling results to serve
as a basis for the future
programme.
Several precisions are added in the
CP, in order to make mandatory the
consideration of previous works. This
objective will have to be
strengthened in the calls for
projects.
9
Transnational
programmes should also
complete their
evaluations by
introducing qualitative &
quantitative empirical
research instruments
allowing practices and
intrinsic cooperation
problems to be taken into
account on an ongoing
basis.
The informal "new programme"
working group has proposed to set
up an "feedback" working group to
apply a “case study-type” method
during the coming months.
The works realised in the framework
of the capitalisation process partially
satisfy this expectation.
10
In future, the process of
creating joint programme
governance systems will
remain as a search for
practical solutions in
compliance with the legal
and regulatory
arrangements in force in
each programme area.
Strategic Project implementation
works represent an experiment in
shared governance.
The MA/JTS, currently included in
the PACA Region departments, is in
charge of organising general
programme governance.
The works realised in the framework
of the capitalisation process partially
satisfy this expectation.
The CP propose in the section 5
(5.6.2) a better participation of the
MED partnership in the
programme’s implementation and
governance processes.
Synthesis the general
evaluation 2000-2006
6
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
14
Synthesis the general
evaluation 2000-2006
11
More active and
sustainable trans-border,
transnational and interregional cooperation
processes should be
established to yield more
specific and tangible
effects on socio-economic
development
Appraisal of the in-itinere
evaluation and achievements of
the 2007-2013 programme
Consideration in the 2014-2020 CP
The partnership structure of
projects in the cooperation area
does not yet involve many
European Groupings of Territorial
Cooperation (GECTs)
The declared requirements of the
results of strategic projects should
contribute to improving the
situation.
The axis 4 of the programme aims to
provide sustainable cooperation in
the fields considered as strategic for
the cooperation area.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
15
LINK BETWEEN SUPPORTED ACTIONS, EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND RESULTS
It consists in a general analysis of the feasibility of proposals. The ex-ante comments address both
possible further precisions to add to the CP, as well as future implementation documents.
Analysing the logical linking (causal links) between objectives, types of proposed actions and
expected results or changes is the main aim of the approach. This analysis of the intervention logic
must also check that the expected achievements will lead to the changes (or results) expected
(Guidance document on ex ante evaluation).
Expected
achievments
Well adapted
or not to
reach the...?
...expected
changes?
Can these
results
generate...?
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
...expected
results?
16
Intervention logic
Specific Objectives and justification
Ex-ante analysis and comments
Types of actions and expected results
1/ Designing common approaches and
strategies at transnational level :
2/ Pilot demonstration activities
3/ Transfer, dissemination, capitalisation:
SO 1.1 : To increase transnational activity
of innovative clusters and networks of key
sectors of the MED area
The specific objective targets to improve
innovation capacities of public and private
actors involved in green and blue growth
sectors, creative industries and social economy
through stronger transnational cooperation and
better connections between actors of the
quadruple helix (research bodies, businesses,
public authorities, civil society).
The objective is especially to improve
empowerment of these actors with, within and
between existing clusters, economic sectors and
networks.
Ex-ante analysis and comments
This priority’s justification shall be
pursued in calls for projects’ terms
of reference.
- Need for a definition of
enterprises and organisations
corresponding to criteria of
creative industries of « blue
and green » sectors
- Idem for social innovation
Dividing line between R&D projects and
other projects shall be further detailed in
the calls for proposals
For this specific objective, the main change
sought is to improve the innovation
framework conditions, strengthen and
empower innovation clusters and networks,
in particular in their transnational dimension,
in the field of green and blue growth,
creative industries and social innovations
(connection between clusters, between
research and SMEs, between research and
public administration, between SMEs and
clusters; support to living labs; mobilisation of
end users (businesses or consumers)…).
It includes the evolution of existing clusters
and networks, with increasing partnerships or
increasing share / transfer of innovation
between actors of the quadruple helix.
In a general way, a specific attention will be
paid to the promotion of eco-innovations
aiming to promote sustainable development
principles (smart use of resources, reduction
of environmental impact of activities, etc.).
The definition of the types of action is very
precise and can be used for calls for
projects.
The first type of action should be
limited in quantity as well in financial
allocation in order to avoid duplication
with already available works.
Conclusion: This priority is very well defined, in compliance with the programme’s objectives and conditionality for its implementation includes guarantees for a good
level of feasibility.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
17
Intervention logic
Specific Objectives and justification
Ex-ante analysis and comments
Types of actions and expected results
Ex-ante analysis and comments
SO 2.1 To raise capacity for better
management of energy in public buildings at
transnational level
1/ Designing common approaches and
strategies at transnational level :
2/ Pilot demonstration activities
3/ Transfer, dissemination, capitalisation:
The specific objective targets to improve
innovation capacities of public and private
actors involved in green and blue growth
sectors, creative industries and social
economy through stronger transnational
cooperation and better connections
between actors of the quadruple helix
(research bodies, businesses, public
authorities, civil society).
The objective is especially to improve
empowerment of these actors with, within
and between existing clusters, economic
sectors and networks.
The main change sought for this specific
objective is an increase of the capacity of
owners and managers of public buildings to
elaborate and implement energy efficiency
practices.
The MED programme will be especially
focused on the way energy efficiency
innovative solutions are promoted,
disseminated and adopted by public buildings
owners, managers and end users.
It includes the mobilisation of bodies in
charge of public or public owned buildings, of
housing and construction, of end-users, the
dissemination of innovative systems,
awareness raising and information activities,
the use of carbon footprint tools, collective
actions with quantitative objectives regarding
the management of energy consumption, etc.
Projects shall ensure coherence and
complementarity with ERDF regional and
national OPs and/or other relevant plans,
taking into account on-going actions and, if
relevant, supporting the transfer of results
from the MED programmes to these
programmes.
Justifications allow defining the dividing
line with regional OPs which all handle
this specific topic.
The remaining difficulty will be to justify
the transnational added value for each
project.
Definition of pilots (type 2) and
dissemination of results (type 3) may be
monitored with easily identifiable criteria,
issued from previous programme’s
experience.
Type 1 actions rest on elements that will
require priori definition work in terms of
monitoring.
Conclusion: The dividing line with regional OPs is clearly defined. Criteria for transnational added-value of programmed operations should be defined on the basis of
capitalisation process issued from 2007-2013 projects
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
18
Intervention logic
Specific Objectives and justification
2.2 To increase the share of renewable local
energy sources in energy mix strategies and
plans in MED territories
2.3 To increase capacity to use existing low
carbon transport systems and multimodal
connections among them
2.2 The specific objective is to increase the
share of renewable energy sources in
local/territorial energy mix strategies taking
into account the specificities and diversity of
MED territories.
2.3 The specific objective is to increase the use
of sustainable transport systems by
developing connectivity and low-carbon
mobility plans and implementing rail and sea
services and applications for passengers and
freight in the MED territories. Actions will
have to pay a specific attention to the
different categories of end users (taking into
account the specific needs, economic, social
and geographical situations).
Ex-ante analysis and
comments
Types of actions and expected results
Ex-ante analysis and comments
1/ Designing common approaches and strategies at
transnational level :
2/ Pilot demonstration activities
3/ Transfer, dissemination, capitalisation:
The priority gathers
different categories of
projects and target groups.
Each type of project is
detailed in the justification
chapter.
These target groups and the
boundaries of eligible
actions shall be carefully
specified in the calls for
projects, particularly
regarding transport.
2.2 For this specific objective, the main change sought is an
increased development of local renewable energy sources
in energy mix strategies and plans of MED territories and
the strengthening of such strategies, taking into account
territorial specificities.
Smart cities approach will be supported especially
regarding energy management systems and the adaptation
between energy production and consumption.
Blue energy sources represent important development
perspectives at territorial level and will be supported in
energy mix strategies (especially biomass and micro-algae).
Forest biomass and agriculture biomass (including
agriculture waste) constitute also significant green energy
sources to be developed in MED regions.
Projects shall ensure coherence and complementarity with
ERDF regional and national programmes and/or other
relevant regional/local plans, taking into account on-going
actions and, if relevant, supporting the transfer of results
from the MED programmes to these programmes.
2.3 Enlarged capacity to use low carbon transport systems
in MED regions
Conclusion: The priority is very selective; it should favour experimentations useful for the cooperation area.
Conditions for territorial added-value must be defined in the calls for projects for type 2 actions (pilot demonstration activities)
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
19
Added-value of supported actions will lie
on the part represented by concrete and
field actions (type 2) as well as on
projects’ partnerships.
Participation of local actors as direct
beneficiaries will be necessary.
As actions often consist in pilots, a multilevel partnership will be necessary in
order to guarantee the sustainability of
actions.
If not, results may be limited to definition
of models potentially non-applicable or
non-applied.
Intervention logic
Specific Objectives and justification
3.1 To enhance sustainable development
policies for more efficient valorisation of
natural resources and cultural heritage in
coastal and adjacent maritime areas
The specific objective is to enhance sustainable
development policies and increase the
coordination of strategies between territories
at interregional and transnational level to
better protect and valorise natural and cultural
heritage in coastal and maritime adjacent
areas.
Ex-ante analysis and comments
Types of actions and expected results
Ex-ante analysis and comments
Indicative types of actions
1. Knowledge management
2. Networking and strategy building
Clear and precise justification for the
objective but no dividing line nor
synergy demonstrated with other
cooperation programmes covering the
MED area (while synergy is included in
the result indicator).
The specific objective define a territorial
and thematic boundary in compliance
with 2020 strategy
For this specific objective, the main change
sought is an improvement of strategies,
policies and plans for a more efficient
valorisation of natural resources and cultural
heritage in coastal and maritime areas.
It includes improvement of coastal zone
management and maritime spatial planning,
the adaptation of public policies, economic
activities and planning tools, a better
cooperation between stakeholders,
coordinated actions between public
authorities of different MED territories, an
increase of transnational and interregional
cooperation and action plans, an increase of
the number of regions involved in such
strategies.
Diversity of possible types of actions should
be further specified, between projects with
research objectives (studies) and projects
conducted by operators directly responsible
for risk mitigation.
Partnership should be precised in order to
ensure feasibility of actions included in the
projects. A multilevel partnership can
ensure this feasibility.
The expected results do not precise if a
differentiation will be made between
operational projects and research projects.
Conclusion: The priority corresponds to a major need for the cooperation area. Synergies with SO 4.1 governance could be found. The important diversity of types of
projects and situations gathered in this priority represents an important difficulty for the definition of indicators.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
20
Intervention logic
Specific Objectives and justification
Ex-ante analysis and comments
Types of actions and expected results
Indicative types of actions
1/ Designing common approaches and
strategies at transnational level
2/ Pilot demonstration activities
3/ Transfer, dissemination and
capitalisation activities
3.2 To maintain biodiversity and natural
ecosystems through strengthening the
management and networking of protected
areas
The specific objective is to adapt and improve
protection measures in order to decrease
threats to coastal and marine ecosystems. It
includes a better integration of protected
areas in regional development strategies and
more intensive cooperation between MED
regions (exchange of information, strategies,
regulations…). This shall be done in close
coordination with the implementation of the
EU Marine Strategy Framework directive and
in cooperation with the Barcelona Convention
is needed.
Ex-ante analysis and comments
The objective remains very open even if
geographical characteristics are
precised.
For this specific objective, the main change
sought is a strengthening of the management
and of the cooperation between protected
areas in order to increase their capacities to
improve for instance water management,
fight against invasive species and monitoring
of fishing and tourism activities.
The proposed types of actions open wide
opportunities for potential beneficiaries.
The selective aspects of projects, if desired,
should be strongly specified in the call for
proposals (see type of actions).
Conclusion: The feasibility of this priority is ensured by a wide range of possible themes and actors acting in this field. Specific expectations regarding research
projects and operational projects could be further précised, as well as the transnational added-value due to the possible complementarity with other European
programmes.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
21
Intervention logic
Specific Objectives and justification
4.1 To support the process of developing
multilateral coordination frameworks and
strengthening the existing ones in the
Mediterranean for joint responses to common
challenges
The specific objective is to develop the
cooperation process and agreements by
strengthening on-going initiatives and
strategies at macro regional and sea basin
level on issues of Mediterranean and
European importance. This process will include
authorities of all eligible participating
countries and will necessitate multilevel
discussion processes involving local, regional
and national authorities.
Ex-ante analysis and comments
Types of actions and expected results
Ex-ante analysis and comments
Indicative types of actions
1. Knowledge management
2. Networking and strategy building
The justification of the priority serves as
strategy as there is no feedback for this
priority in the previous programmes
The objective must remain open to
address priority’s expectations, and
particularly supports the emergence of
new approaches.
For this specific objective, the main change sought is the
setting up of a governance process between all
participating countries. This shall take into account
cooperation initiatives already launched or tested in the
different intervention fields of the MED programme.
A specific attention should be paid to economic and
environmental issues, with the promotion of
sustainable Mediterranean development (Axis 2 and 3
of the CP).
The main result will be the setting up of planned
cooperation measures between participating countries.
It will include discussion and exchange processes,
multilateral cooperation platforms, definition of
objectives, of a strategy and of an action plan for the
implementation of shared measures. Possibilities to
connect with mainstream programmes implemented in
MED regions are vitally important.
The priority shows an important
potential in terms of feasibility. It
will be necessary to set up
specific communication for this
type of projects in order to
precise the programme’s
expectations.
A co-building process between
beneficiaries and the
programme’s partnership will be
necessary to avoid too many
applications too distant from
expected results.
Conclusions: This priority is innovative and ambitious for this programme. Ensuring success of this approach can serve as a general indication on the added-value of
cooperation.
Cooperation approaches under this priority will have diverse objectives and agendas. Intermediary indicators should be defined to measure acquired progress at the
end of the programming period.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
22
Compared analysis of the level of ex-ante feasibility of priorities of the MED CP 2014-2020
SO
Axis1
Axis 2
Axis 3
Axis 4
+ 2 criteria
to precise
2 criteria to
precise
1 criterion
to precise
All criteria
presents
1.1
Innovation
2.1
Energy
2.2
low carbon
integrated
strategy
2.3
Low-carbon
Transport
3.1
Protecting and
promoting
Mediterranean
natural and
cultural
resources
3.2
Biodiversity
4.1
Governance
List of criteria:
Definition for ex-ante analysis
Precise indicator
Indicator to be precised if not representative enough of
expected results, or in contradiction with an EC
recommendation
Dividing line to define
Can address all types of national, regional or European
programmes and policies.
Precise target-group or territory
Target-groups or territories can be targeted at the priority
level or later on, during calls.
Clarification between research
oriented projects and field projects
Expected results depend a lot on this clarification.
Correspondence with identified
needs
Matching a need strongly present is a prior criterion for
success of a priority. Mainly for new priorities.
Experience acquired during the
previous programming period
Capitalisation and analysis works issued from 2007-2013
programming period can be used as feasibility criteria.
Horizon 2020 and EC regulations
Correspondence with 2020 orientations and compliance
with regulation.
Intentionally, the criterion of budget allocation for each priority hasn’t been taken into account at
this stage.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
23
HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLES
Sustainable development:
In terms of sustainable development, the following elements are to be taken into account:




The programme doesn’t include infrastructure projects. A part of the supported approaches
may generate over time investments related to infrastructures or buildings. Terms of
reference of call for projects shall, as mentioned in the CP, take into account eco-conditional
recommendations.
One of the programme’s priorities provides an opportunity for projects searching for
sustainable energy solutions in buildings. Guarantees for integration of all applicable
regulations and standards should be integrated in implementation documents.
Other priorities of the programme (Axes 2 & 3) integrate in their objectives sustainable
development criteria. All eligible actions will be oriented towards compliance with these
rules in this field.
Regarding implementation, the programme foresees recommendations in terms of reference
of calls for projects:
Whether projects are directly concerned by sustainable development issues or not, they are invited to
take specific measures to reduce the impact of projects implementation on the environment. This can
include for example:
o
o
o
o
o
o
use of video conference to reduce travelling
publications on FSC-certified paper
use of “green public procurement” procedures and innovative public procurement
use of short supply chains in the implementation of projects activities
raising awareness of partners, beneficiaries and target groups on sustainability issues
Promotion of activities with limited use of energy and natural resources
Equal opportunities for men and women and prevention of discriminations
Regarding equal opportunities for men and women, the programme doesn’t foresee specific
priorities. Priority 1 – Innovation can include, according to the programme, social innovation,
including in this field.
These criteria will be directly integrated in calls for projects and selection process of application
forms, programme and project evaluations shall apply criteria allowing classification in these fields.
For projects integrating directly these objectives, a way to measure progress in the targeted domain
will be proposed.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
24
In terms of compliance:
Propositions of V2 of the CP are in compliance with the 3 regulatory sources mentioned as reference
(p. 126) for equal opportunities and against discriminations:



Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE I: COMMON PROVISIONS Article 3 (ex Article 2 TEU), Official Journal 115, 09/05/2008 P. 0017 - 0017
Article 8, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,
Official Journal of the European Union C 83/49 of 30.3.2010.
Article 7,CPR, COM(2011) 615 final/2, Brussels, 14.3.2012, p. 34
And with regulations related to sustainable development: The Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)
states: “Member States and the Commission shall ensure that environmental protection
requirements, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity and
ecosystem protection, disaster resilience and risk prevention and management are promoted in the
preparation and implementation of Partnership Agreements and programmes.” (art.8).
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
25
INDICATORS, MONITORING A ND EVALUATION
Reminder of the ex-Ante evaluation’s EC guidance document: With the increased focus on results in
the programming period 2014-2020, the identification of indicators and the arrangements for
monitoring and data collection gain an increased importance. In particular, the evaluators should
verify that result indicators reflect the most significant intended effects of the programme priorities.
Result indicators provide information on the progress towards the change that the programme
intends to bring to the Member State or the region. Each priority axis should include at least one
result indicator. To be relevant, these indicators need to be responsive to the policy5, i.e. their value
should be influenced in as direct way as possible by the actions funded under the priority axis. Please
note that responsiveness to policy largely depends on the quality of the intervention logic. Result
indicators should cover the most important intended change.
Output indicators measure what is directly produced/supplied through the implementation of the
supported operations. The evaluators should assess if the output indicators are relevant to the actions
to be supported and if the intended output is likely to contribute to the change in the result indicators.
Note for the ERDF, that the indicator type "number of projects" used in the current period was
dropped from the list of common indicators as it does not actually measure an output (which could
lead to results): the evaluator should verify that this kind of indicator is not selected for ERDF
programmes.
The Commission recommends that the ex-ante evaluation also assesses the robustness of the selected
programme-specific result indicators and their statistical validation. An indicator is robust if its value
cannot unduly be influenced by outliers or extreme values.
In the case when indicator values are collected by means of surveys, the representativeness of
samples should be statistically validated. The evaluators may analyse whether the future managing
authority can benefit from the support of an internal or external statistical expertise on which to rely,
for example to design a survey to establish baseline or achievement values.
They may also check whether the data sources for result indicators are identified and verify whether
they are publicly available, i.e. the baselines, target values and definitions of the indicators should be
made public. These requirements are amongst the quality criteria set out for result indicators in CPR,
annex IV.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
26
RELEVANCE AND CLARITY OF INDICATORS PROPOSED FOR THE PROGRAMME
General remarks regarding the choice of indicators

Targeting of the programme regarding axis 2, and partially axis 3, leads to a specific difficulty
as the programme’s support falls within a continuous process (renewable energies,
sustainable transports…) while financial support is targeted on a few specific outputs and
elements of each project. As a consequence, measuring this paradox does not refer to the
direct effects of an investment, but to effects that can be qualified as “side-effects”.
In this situation, the available databases will not be completed at the beginning of the
programme, and a special effort shall be made during the implementation process to
document the indicators in a relevant way. The relevance of the chosen indicators will
strongly depend on the direct link between the indicator and the “relevance” of the defined
target value.
The elements needed to draft such a data repository are mostly available in recent works on
these topics (energetic efficiency, tourism impacts, sustainable qualification of areas…) or in
territorialised analysis (ESPON, Plan bleu, etc.)

For axis 1, no specific difficulties, as the topic of intervention (related to SMEs) relies on
important experiences in this field, as well as on a good availability of target values. Here the
relevance rests mainly in the measure of the transnational added value of the financed
activities.

Regarding axis 4, as specified in the CP’s chapter on justification of priorities, there is no basis
directly linked with the measurable effects of the proposed interventions. Beyond the result
indicator that should be unique, we suggest the use of a multiple indicator for the
implementation of this axis, i.e. aggregating several sub-indicators contributing to the same
expected impact. This multiple indicator would be documented with qualitative elements,
but also with specific quantitative ones.
The risk to consider the activities of axis 4 as scarcely measurable because of its specificity
has to be avoided.

At this stage of the choice of result and outputs indicators, direct or indirect references to
the notion of territorial added-value remain limited.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
27
Reminder on results indicators
SO 1.1
Share of innovative clusters (i.e. including RDI activities) involved in transnational
activities concerning key sectors of the MED area
SO 2.1
Share of regional and sub-regional energy efficiency action plans including
initiatives for public building stock
SO 2.2
Share of renewable energy from local sources, in energy mix of MED remote
areas
SO 2.3
Share of urban plans/strategies which include low carbon transport and
multimodal connections soft actions
SO 3.1
Share of integrated regional development strategies applying sustainable
management objectives for cultural and natural heritage sites
SO 3.2
Share of protected areas meeting their conservation goals and objectives (thanks
to their improved management)
SO 4.1
Number of joint thematic action plans allowing to implement coordinated
strategic operations3.
3
Such as depollution of coasts, fight against sea litter, wastewater management, integrated
coastal zone management plans, maritime spatial planning.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
28
First analysis of the level of relevance of results indicators realised from 5 evaluation questions.
Axis 1
2.1
Number of joint thematic action plans
allowing to implement coordinated
4
strategic operations
n. d.
Axis 4
3.2
Share of protected areas meeting their
conservation goals and objectives
(thanks to their improved management)
Share of renewable energy from local
sources, in energy mix of MED remote
areas
n. d.
3.1
Share of integrated regional
development strategies applying
sustainable management objectives for
cultural and natural heritage sites
Share of regional and sub-regional
energy efficiency action plans including
initiatives for public building stock
n. d.
Axis 3
2.3
Share of urban plans/strategies which
include low carbon transport and
multimodal connections soft actions
Share of innovative clusters (i.e.
including RDI activities) involved in
transnational activities concerning key
sectors of the MED area
The questions are
directly issued from the
ex-ante evaluation
guidance document.
Axis 3
2.2
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
Result indicators provide
information on the
progress towards the
progress realized.
Be responsive
to the policy, i.e. their
value should be
influenced in as direct
way as possible by the
actions funded under the
priority axis
Intermediate steps
n. d.
Robustness of
the selected
programme-specific
result indicators and
their statistical validation
Complementarity and
consistency of results
and outputs indicators.
n. d.
Level of relevance
Strong
Average
Weak
n.d Not documented at this stage
4
Such as depollution of coasts, fight against sea litter, wastewater management, integrated
coastal zone management plans, maritime spatial planning
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
29
Comments, strengths / weaknesses of indicators:
The level of consistency between results and outputs indicators is high. This element is determining
for the relevance of the chosen results indicators.
Results indicators for Axis 2 and SO 3.1 cover general references such as the % of plans and
programmes. However, the addressed regions are already covered by programmes, charters and
labels related to the Programme’s themes, in most cases and particularly regarding SO 2.1 and 2.3.
The quantitative measure on the impact of the programme will therefore remain difficult to assess.
Only specifications issued from outputs indicators ensure the relevance of the system.
Indicators fact sheets have to specify this complementarity. The use of multiple indicators remains a
possible option.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
30
OUTPUT INDICATORS, REFERENCE VALUES AND QUANTIFIED TARGET VALUES
Reminder on the ex-ante evaluation guidance document
In some cases, baselines will not be readily available and data to establish the baseline will need to be
collected. When deemed necessary by the programmer, the Commission recommends that the ex
ante evaluators precise the sources and methods for informing indicators.
General comments regarding output indicators and the information system
The output indicators can be categorised according to 3 types:
Indicators based on quantitative data directly related to projects’ progress (% or number of ?). The
information can be collected thanks to a database, built at the beginning of the programme.
Indicators based on qualitative data measurable thanks to the analysis of projects results (e.g. SO
2.2; Number of strategies to develop energy consumption management plans for public buildings).
This type of indicators will require:


Prior definition of the measure unity (e.g. « model »)
In each project, a qualitative analysis on the input of the « model » experienced, compared
to the current approaches in the field. This categorisation will need the implementation of a
reference framework for each associated SO.
Indicators using elements that are not directly linked to the projects, but to contextual elements
(e.g. SO 2.2; Number of regions and sub-regions engaged …)
These indicators are important, as they aim to measure the input of the programme compared to the
general context of the concerned regions. They will need to be completed by a prior analysis in order
to be efficient. In this chosen example, all the regions of the cooperation area are committed, due to
the orientations of the 2020 strategy regarding an energy efficiency approach.
As a consequence, the indicator could focus on the contribution of the project through its results and
contribution to the national strategy. A complementary work will be needed in order to implement
this indicator.
It should be noted that, at this stage of the programme drafting, milestones are not defined5.
5
«When we talk of « milestone » we refer to an intermediate target value established to reach the specific objective of a
priority, and that expresses the expected results towards the target values established for the end of the period » (annex I of
RPDC).
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
31
Analysis table of input indicators and basis of calculation
Promoting business investment in innovation and research, and developing links and synergies
between enterprises, R&D centres and higher education (…)
ID
Output Indicator
Measurement
unit
Target
value
(2023)
Source of data
Analysis of input
indicators
Frequency of
reporting
Number of operational
instruments to favour
innovation of SMEs
Experiences
70
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
% of expenses declared
to the EC
Percentage
100%
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Indicators that need
methodological precision
Assessment of target
values and strength of
indicators
(collect of data to update
indicators)
No basis for data sources at
this stage
Suitable and relevant
indicators
PI 1.b
SO 1.1
Number of enterprises
receiving grants
Enterprises
Programme
monitoring tools
Number of enterprises
receiving non-financial
support
Enterprises
4.000
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable indicator
Number of transnational
innovation clusters
supported
Clusters
10
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
Annually
32
A methodological clarification
is needed
Fostering low-carbon strategies and energy efficiency in specific MED territories, cities, islands
and remote areas
Supporting energy efficiency and smart energy management and the use of renewable energy in
public infrastructure, including public building, and in the housing sector
Target
Measurement
Output Indicator
Frequency of
ID
Value
Source of Data
unit
reporting
(2023)
Number of available
planning tools to
PI 4.c
Programme
Tools
manage energy
13
Annually
SO 2.1
monitoring tools
consumption in public
buildings
% of expenses declared
Programme
to the EC
Percentage
100
Annually
monitoring tools
Number of strategies to
develop energy
consumption
management plans for
public buildings
PI 4.c
SO 2.2
Number of targets
participating in capacity
raising activities on
energy efficiency
Number of regions and
sub-regions engaged
(through charters,
protocols, MoU) in
developing energy
efficiency
plans/strategies
Analysis of input
indicators
Suitable and relevant
indicator
13
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Participants
570
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Annually
Uncertain indicator in
terms of comparative
measures (all regions
have at least one energy
strategy)
208
Programme
monitoring tools
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
(collect of data to
update indicators)
Suitable indicator
Models
Territories
Assessment of target
values and strength
of indicators
33
Need for a prior definition
of « model ».
The use of a specific
analyse could be
necessary.
Need for a prior definition
of « participants »
Promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories in particular for urban areas, including
the promotion of sustainable multi-modal mobility and mitigation relevant adaptation measures
ID
Output Indicator
Number of planning tools to
develop energy plans
including local RES
% of expenses declared to
the EC
PI 4.e
SO 2.2
PI 4.e
SO 2.3
Target
Value
(2023)
Measureme
nt unit
Source of Data
Analysis of input
indicators
Frequency of
reporting
Tools
13
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Percentage
100
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Population of islands
covered by plans
Population
15% de la
populatio
n
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Population of other remote
areas covered by plans
Population
5-10%
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable indicator
Number of models to
develop action plans
including local RES in
energy mix
Models
13
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Territories
208
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable indicator
Tools
6
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Percentage
100
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Models
7
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Number of regions and
sub-regions engaged
(through charters,
protocols, MoU) in
increasing share of local
RES in energy mix
Number of ICT available to
foster the use of LC
transport solutions,
including multimodal ones
% of expenses declared to
the EC
Number of models to
develop urban plans
including low carbon
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
34
Assessment of target
values and strength
of indicators
(collect of data to
update indicators)
Need for a prior definition
of“tools”
By definition, the values
will be weak as they deal
with « remote regions ».
Need for a prior definition
of « model ».
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary.
Need for a prior definition
of « model ».
The use of a specific
transport and multimodal
connections soft actions
Number of pilot actions
implemented to foster the
use of LC transports
Population involved in
awareness raising activities
Number of urban areas
engaged (through charters,
protocols, MoU) in
developing urban
plans/strategies including
low carbon transport and
multimodal connections soft
actions
analysis could be
necessary.
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Population
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Territories
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Uncertain indicator in
terms of comparative
measures.
Pilots
12
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
35
Need for a prior definition
« pilot »
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary.
Protecting and promoting Mediterranean natural and cultural resources
Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural heritage
ID
PI 6.c
SO
3.1
Output Indicator
Number of cultural and
natural heritage sites
covered by sustainable
tourism evaluation tool
% of expenses declared to
the EC
Number of territorial
authorities participating in
supported transnational joint
projects to mitigate natural
aleas and threats
Number of planning tools on
sustainable tourism policies
in the Mediterranean
OR
Number of planning tools for
better protection of natural
and cultural heritage
Number of strategies
applying sustainable
management criteria
Number of regions and subregions engaged (through
charters, protocols, MoU) in
implementing regional
development strategies
respectful of cultural and
natural heritage
Measurement
unit
Target
Value
(2023)
Source of Data
Analysis of input
indicators
Frequency of
reporting
Sites
272
Programme
monitoring tools
Percentage
100%
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Territories
140
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Tools
7 ou 15
Strategies
Territories
22
280
Programme
monitoring tools
Programme
monitoring tools
Programme
monitoring tools
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Annually
Uncertain indicator in
terms of comparative
measures. (all regions
have developed this kind
of plans)
36
Assessment of target
values and strength
of indicators
(collect of data to
update indicators)
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary.
Need for a prior definition
« tools »
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary.
Need for a prior definition
« strategy »
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary.
Protecting and restoring biodiversity, soil protection and restoration and promoting ecosystem
services including NATURA 2000 and green infrastructures
ID
PI 6.d
SO 3.2
Output Indicator
Measurement
unit
Target
Value
(2023)
Source of Data
Frequency of
reporting
Analysis of input
indicators
Number of joint
governance plans
Plans
80
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
% of expenses declared
to the EC
Percentage
100%
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Hectares
1.250.000
Programme
monitoring tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Annually
Uncertain indicator in
terms of comparative
measures. (all the regions
have developed this kind
of plans)
Surface of habitats
supported to attain a
better conservation
status
Number of protected
areas engaged (through
charters, protocols,
MoU) in implementing
management strategies
Areas
50
Programme
monitoring tools
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
37
Assessment of target
values and strength
of indicators
(collect of datato
update indicators)
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary
Enhancing Mediterranean Governance
Target Value
(2023)
ID
PI 11
SO 4.1
Analysis of input
indicators
Source of
Data
Frequency of
reporting
Number of
stakeholders
(structures) involved
in supported
initiatives (per
category
representing public
and private
stakeholders)
Organisations
1.200
Programme
monitoring
tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
% of expenses
declared to the EC
Percentage
100
Programme
monitoring
tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Number of thematic
transnational joint
action plans (on
themes covered by
other SO)
Action plans
3
Programme
monitoring
tools
Annually
Suitable and relevant
indicator
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
38
Assessment of target
values and strength
of indicators
(collect of data to
update indicators)
The use of a specific
analysis could be
necessary
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPAC ITY, DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE AND EVALUATION
All required elements to proceed to this part of the analysis are not issued from the CP.
The level of information required implies a specific work between the evaluator and the staff
responsible for the programme.
This chapter will be completed when the elements needed for the final report will be available. If the
mechanism is not completed when the CP is submitted, the type of process that will be implemented
will be however mentioned.
The following table is a summary diagram of requirements, in term of indicators updating and
monitoring/evaluation of the programme.
Monitoring and
evaluations
Indicators
system
2014 2020
CP
(public
document)
Evaluation system
and timetable.
Indicators updating
system
Means
Sources6
6
Ex ante evaluators must verify that processes will be implemented in order to guarantee the quality of data,
e.g. defining precisely the content and the source of each indicator in a guidance document.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
39
As an example, the indicators chosen by the 2014-2020 MED programme can use several sources of
information.
Output indicators
(previous chapter)
Indicators based on
quantitative data
directly related to
projects progress.
Indicators based on
qualitative data
measurable thanks to
the analysis of
projects results.
Indicators using
elements that are not
directly linked to the
projects, but to
contextual elements
Type of method for data
collection
Technical database built
with reference values
confronted with projects
results
Example
% or number of.
Number of
« models »
Definition of a reference
framework through
internal or external
expertise.
Number of regions
concerned by…
Database allowing a
comparative analysis
between projects results
and evaluation processes
within the cooperation
area.
Prior work
Data collection and
representative set of
studies existing in the
addressed fields.
Mechanism and resources for the implementation of
this mechanism.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
40
CONSISTENCY OF FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS
Current indicative financial allocation
Proposal for the budget allocation per Priority Axis
M€
%
71.778.794
32,00
Priority Axis 2: Low-carbon economy
44.861.746
20,00
Priority Axis 3: Environment
76.264.969
34,00
Priority Axis 4: Enhancing Mediterranean coordination
17.944.699
8,00
13.458.524
6,00
224.308.732
100
Priority Axis 1: Innovation capacity
Technical assistance
8,00
6,00
Priority axis 1
32,00
Priority axis 2
Priority axis 3
34,00
Priority axis 4
20,00
Priority axis 5
Ex-ante analysis of financial allocation:
We will successively take again each evaluation question and the answer that can be done at this
stage of the programme’s evaluation.
(1) Financial allocations are concentrated on the most important objectives addressing
challenges and needs
They are for Axis 1 Innovation (32%), that is considered as strategic by the programme, and
for Axis 3 Environment (34%) that addresses a major orientation of the programme and
where needs are considered as very important by both CP’s diagnosis and SWOT.
(2) Appraise the consistency of the allocations looking at the identified challenges and needs
that informed the objectives
Basis that have allowed the budget breakdown proposal at this stage are:
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
41




Elements from the diagnosis
Data generated by evaluation, result analysis and capitalisation processes realised
during the 2007-2013 period
Elements issued from financial evaluation of 2007-2013 programme (by category of
project)
Task force’s works.
In order to put into perspective the financial breakdown together with the expected results and the
result indicators as mentioned in the intervention logic, we can notice that the Axis 3 Environment,
with the bigger allocation, comprises support modes and target groups that should be further
defined regarding the territorial added value while drafting calls for proposals, in order to limit
overlapping with other European programmes.
Financial allocations comply with expectations and specifications described in the chapter section
1.1.2 of the CP.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
42
CONTRIBUTION TO THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY
Guidance document, p. 17: The evaluators should appraise the "contribution of the programme to
the Europe 2020 strategy, having regard to the selected thematic objectives and priorities, taking into
account national and regional needs" (Article 48(3)(a) CPR). In addition to verifying the consistency of
the programme with the Europe 2020 strategy, the intervention logic and the intended results, the
evaluators should assess to what extent the programme is likely to contribute to the strategy's
objectives and targets.
The appraisal of the contribution of the programme should be expressed in accordance with the five
quantitative targets fixed in the EU2020 strategy, as described here below:
Topic
Employment
R&D
Climate change and
energy sustainability
Target
o 75% of the 20-64 year-olds to be employed
o 3% of the EU's GDP to be invested in R&D
o
o
o
Greenhouse gas emissions 20% (or even 30%, if the conditions
are right)lower than 1990
20% of energy from renewables
20% increase in energy efficiency
Education
o
o
Reducing the rates of early school leaving below 10%
At least 40% of 30-34–year-olds completing third level
education
Fighting poverty and
social exclusion
o
At least 20 million fewer people with or at risk of poverty and
social exclusion
This approach is not realistic as MED specific contribution cannot be assessed in direct quantitative
terms, as well as all ETC programmes; the ETC contribution complements national and regional
programmes using ESI funding, and ETC doesn’t support big investments and infrastructures.
Therefore, the MED contribution to EU2020 strategy will be identified through the programme’s
intervention logic, starting from the main findings of the strategic diagnosis and SWOT analysis, and
ending with the description of activities foreseen under each priority axis (and specific objectives
included in each axis).
The coherence of the programme (and diagnosis) are also analysed through their compliance to the
following set of documents:
- EU2020 documentation
- Common Strategic Framework 2014 to 2020
- Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020
- European thematic strategies relevant for the MED space, such as blue growth / maritime
integrated management, energy, water... papers.
- National position papers related to MED Member States (ETC sections)
- Partnership agreements of MED Member States (chapters regarding ETC)
Coherence with mainstream regional and national programmes is analysed within the “external
coherence” chapter.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
43
Coherence with horizontal principles such as sustainable development and equal opportunities is
analysed within the chapter dedicated to Section 8 of the programme.
The MED programme and strategic diagnosis mainly comply with the objectives of EU2020
strategy, as illustrated in the following analysis. However, some improvements can be sought
mainly regarding:
- The coherence with national papers related to EU2020 strategy (EC position papers /
partnership agreements – ETC sections). Coherence with mainstream regional
programmes, to which the programme often refers, could also be further described, but as
the programme comprises a geographical area of 57 regions, a global coherence analysis at
national level could be considered as sufficient, considering that a checking of
complementarity with regional programmes will be realised in the projects’ selection
process, and that all regional programmes will mainly focus (80%) on investments linked to
TO1 to 4.
- The justification of the programme’s strategy when it doesn’t follow diagnosis/SWOT
recommendations, e.g. regarding TO3 (competitiveness of SMEs) and TO 5 (climate change
/ risk prevention)
1) Strategic diagnosis and SWOT analysis:
The diagnosis clearly builds its analysis in line with the three pillars of EU2020 strategy (smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth) and the 11 thematic objectives (TO) listed by EC regulation.
It identifies 6 TO of major interest to position MED programme’s strategy, after having excluded
“inclusive TOs” for justified reasons (ERDF funding, priorities already dealt with by cross-border
programmes or ERDF…).
MED fundamental
strategy
1) Strengthening research,
technological development and
innovation
4) Supporting the shift towards a lowcarbon economy in all sectors
6) Preserving and protecting the
environment and promoting resource
efficiency
Smart growth
positioning
Sustainable growth
positioning
1b
4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e (for
integrated management
of MED cities)
All PI
11) Enhancing institutional capacity of
public authorities and stakeholders and
efficient public administration
3) Enhancing the competitiveness of
SMEs
5) Promoting climate change
adaptation, risk prevention and
management:
3a, 3b
5a, 5b
Source : MED diagnosis final report, 2013-08-30
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
44
TO2 (ICT) and TO10 (competences / training) are considered as topics of interest for the programme,
but that should be treated as cross-cutting issues, included as horizontal principles in other TOs.
TO3 and TO5 are considered as important, but not fundamental. The programme could add these
TOs if a clear smart (TO3) or sustainable (TO5) growth orientation is sought by the programme’s
partnership.
The programme has followed diagnosis / SWOT orientations by selecting all “fundamental” TOs.
TO10 has been undertaken through the inclusion of social economy in targeted sectors within TO1.
TO3’s targeting on SMEs has been clearly included within TO1, by including this group as a major
target, as reflected in the choice of the result indicator (% of SMEs), justified by the fact that
measuring SMEs progress relevantly illustrates the achievement of the programme’s specific
objective.
TO5 was firstly included as a specific objective (SO) dedicated to risk management in coastal areas
within PI 6c, but further to a recommendation of the European Commission, the “risk topic” was
included as a cross-cutting condition included in a new SO dedicated to integrated management of
natural and cultural heritage, and mainly focusing on sustainable tourism. The justification of this
evolution can be further developed in order to set up clearly the position of the programme
between the PI6c and PI 5b.
TO6 is only partly included in the programme, considering the analysis made in the
diagnosis, which highlights strategic priorities related to waste and water management.
These priorities are not directly addressed by the programme. Further justification on this
choice is expected in Sections 1 (chapter 1.1.1.4.g and 1.1.2) and 2 (chapter 2.A.1. on Priority axis 3
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
45
2) Correspondence with strategic priorities of EU2020 and associated strategic papers and
directives
The selection of TO 1, 4, 6 and 11 is relevant considering EU2020 objectives, Annex 2 of CSF working
document and Territorial Agenda 2020 regarding ETC.
The following table displays how the programme takes into account the strategic position of these
documents in each selected SO. Further analysis including national positions (partnership
agreements / sections related to ETC) on ETC could be usefully added to the justification of MED
position, mainly in the section 6 dedicated to coordination with other funds and initiatives.
Contribution
EU2020
Axis
PI
SO
1
1b
1.1: To increase transnational activity of
innovative clusters and networks of key
sectors of the MED area
2
2
4c
4e
2
4e
3
6c
3
6d
4
11
2.1: To raise capacity for better
management of energy in public buildings
at transnational level
2.2: To increase the share of renewable
local energy sources in energy mix
strategies and plans in MED territories
2.3: To increase capacity to use existing low
carbon transport systems and multimodal
connections among them
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3.1: To enhance sustainable development
policies for more efficient valorisation of
natural resources and cultural heritage in
coastal and adjacent maritime areas
3.2: To maintain biodiversity and natural
ecosystems through strengthening the
management and networking of protected
areas
Yes
4.1: To support the process of developing
multilateral coordination frameworks and
strengthening the existing ones in the
Mediterranean for joint responses to
common challenges
Yes
Yes
Comments
Cluster approach aligned with EU
papers
Targeting of SMEs / innovation
coherent
Targeting on public building OK
Territorial targeting could be
welcome (e.g. urban areas)
Targeting on islands and remote
areas OK
Focus on local energy sources OK
Targeting OK.
Focus on urban areas would better
comply with EU expectations in
the wording of the PI
Focus on tourism OK. Clear
positioning on the place of risks in
the SO would be welcome
Targeting OK.
Focus on coastal areas would
better comply with strategic
papers on ICZM and
Mediterranean sea basin
integrated management.
Targeting OK, in line with EU
Position on sea basin and macroregional strategies.
Specific territories: As mentioned in the diagnosis, islands are clearly targeted within the PI 4e (SO
on renewable energies), as well as urban integrated development, partly covered by one SO on low
carbon transport system. A complementary target is selected within the PI 4e (renewables): remote
areas. Another important focus could be made on coastal areas, mainly within Axis 3 (TO 6) in
order to ensure a better coordination between MED axes, as the programme clearly target blue
growth as a key sector for the MED area in Axis 1 (PI 1b) and therefore in Axis 4 (TO11), and in
compliance with strategic EU documents on integrated maritime spatial planning and sea basin
strategies. It was present in the former versions of the CP, and the concentration process finally
excluded this specific positioning in Axis 3 of the programme. If this target is not to be addressed
anymore by the programme, further justification should be provided.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
46
3) Concentration: evolution since the beginning of the programme’s drafting process
A significant effort regarding concentration has been made since the first draft of the CP (V0),
reducing the number of TO and PI addressed by the programme, as showed in the table below. This
concentration also reflects a clearer and tighter scope of intervention for the selected SOs of the
programme.
Deadline of
validation
CP Version
Concentration
Ex-ante
comments
TF Sept2013
TF Dec2013
TF Feb2014
TF Apr2014
V0
6 TO and 8 PI: 1b,
4c, 4e, 6c, 11 and
to add 5b, 6d, 7c
priorities to be
submitted to the
consultation
V1
4 TO and 6 PI: 1b, 4c,
4e, 6c, 6d, 11.
2 SO for PI 4e and 6c
V3
Same as February TF
Clarification of PI 6c
(risks + tourism),
better integrated in
a concept of
integrated
management
Too wide, and
basis for
discussion limited
to strategy
section (section 2
less developed)
Section 2 better
developed, reduction
of TO from 6 to 4, but
with inclusion of
other TO in the
description of several
SO (TO5 in SO linked
to PI 6c, TO7 partially
included in SO linked
to PI 4e
V2
4 OT and 6 PI: 1b, 4c,
4e, 6c, 6d, 11.
Limitation of 6c to 1
SO covering
sustainable
management and
including risk and
tourism issues
through integrated
approaches
Better concentration
in terms of targeting
of programme’s SO
(e.g. limitation to
public buildings in PI
4c)
Efforts still to be
made regarding PI 4e
(limitation to urban
transports?)
The notion of ICZM
disappears in PI 6c.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
In order to obtain
measurable targets
and results, further
efforts are expected
mainly regarding axis
2.
47
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Reminder of the guideline: P27 point 4
The European Commission needs the following information. The programming authority submits this
information: either in a separate document annexed to the ex ante evaluation or incorporated in a
specific part of the ex ante evaluation:




A non-technical summary of the information provided in the environmental report, as
foreseen by Annex I(j) of the Directive;
The description of the measures decided concerning monitoring foreseen in Articles 9(1)(c)
and 10 (monitoring);
Information on the consultations with the public and the environmental authorities
concerned (Article 6 of the Directive);
A summary of how environmental considerations and the opinions expressed have been
taken into account.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
48
NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF THE SEA REPORT 7
State of the environment in the territories covered by the programme and existing problems
Wide and quite diversified, the MED cooperation is considerably heterogeneous. Nevertheless, the
different regions covered by the programme also present common characteristics; and therefore
allow pointing out major trends regarding environmental issues.
Generally speaking, MED territories are relatively densely populated, more particularly as regards
coastline and important urban centres, putting aside sparsely populated rural areas.
From an economic point of view, tourism is a major challenge for the MED area, due to its
exceptional natural and cultural heritage. Agriculture and fishery sectors are also quite dynamic. A
dense industrial fabric in coastlines and large floodplains completes this economic picture. Different
activities related to these sectors, along with an important demography, create pressures on
environmental resources (water, air, soil, biodiversity, etc.) of the area. In terms of demands; these
pressures have an impact on the quality of resources (pollutions), but represent also .a potential
source of significant hazards (shortage and drought, erosion, fires). These effects are moreover
worsened by climate change that affects all the area (increase of average temperatures and decrease
of rainfalls).
Regarding energies, consumption, even still in the European average, remains quite high, and fossil
energy (petrol, coal and gas) still dominates energy supply in MED countries. Transition to energy mix
and renewable energies production is not increasing sufficiently regarding sustainable development
strategies.
Air pollution: between 1990 and 2009, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel keep increasing in
most Mediterranean countries, in spite of a slowing this last decade. Presence of polluting industries
and increasing use of terrestrial transport (above all: individual vehicles), but also maritime transport,
are the main causes of this evolution.
Soil quality: amongst all types of territories, coastal soil quality is particularly threatened in the MED
area. Coastline stability is affected by the increase of artificial structures, both within water
catchment areas and along coastline. Coastline is furthermore impacted by erosion, partially
controlled by seawalls. From a general point of view, the soil in the MED area is impacted by and
intensive and non-sustainable use (over-use of good quality soil in an arid environment).
Water quality: On the whole, the evolution in water demand is alarming in the Mediterranean
because of scarcity of the resource. The share of water for agriculture remains high; and summer
tourism also represents a main pressure on the coastline. The resort to efficient water sanitation
(waste water treatment plants) is not systematic in MED main cities, which worsens land-based
pollution around the coasts. Moreover, organic matter in coastal and marine waters originates
mostly from urban/domestic and industrial wastewater entering marine waters through direct point-
7
Extract from the non technical summary.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
49
source discharges or through rivers. Sea water quality is also impacted by maritime transport
(tourism, freight), but also by punctual pollutions (discharge of hydrocarbons).
Biodiversity: if the Mediterranean climate allows the existence of a very rich biodiversity, terrestrial
and marine, the numerous pressures issued from human activities remain threatening for numerous
species. Regarding marine biodiversity, this phenomenon can be observed in particular with fish
fauna, quite diversified; even if fish stock levels are generally declining. Of the 900 or so known fish
species, approximately 100 are commercially exploited. The globally dry climate of the MED area,
worsened by climate change during these last decades, is also threatening biodiversity, e.g.
Mediterranean forest facing increased fire hazard. Indeed, the MED area covers European territories
most affected by this risk.
Assessment of potential effects of the MED programme on environment
The following analysis presents the likely significant effects of the programme on environment. It
emphasizes a substantial range of uncertainty, as the Operational Programme only defines the
framework and type of actions and/or projects supported by the programme. The implementation of
the action plan, the nature and scope of projects that will be effectively supported are not yet
known. Analysis is thus focusing here on an estimate of potential and non-quantifiable impacts. The
effectiveness of these potential risks will depend on the orientations followed by the projects, but
also on external forces.
The objective of this report is therefore to carry out a strategic and qualitative assessment of
potential effects of the programme, and to highlight items requiring particular attention.
The analysis of impacts on environment is based on a synoptic grid of questions; that will show, for
each action, positive as well as negative effects on environment.
On October 24, 2013, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a general action programme
regarding environment and covering the period up to December 31, 2020, called «Seventh EU
Environment Action Programme ». This plan is based on a list of priority objectives.8
The assessment of potential impacts on environment, through its main tool - a question grid -, is built
using these objectives as an intervention logic.
The list of questions is not exhaustive9. Many topics, yet part of environmental issues, are not
addressed: for instance no question addresses hazardous substances, or natural predators’
management.
By contrast, the main environmental issues are addressed: biodiversity, water, air, soil, climate as
well as issues related to human health and well-being.
Above all, the list of questions covers the issues identified as being the main challenges (regarding
sustainable growth) faced by the MED area in the CP diagnosis..
Answers to these questions allowed us to describe the likely impacts of programme’s actions,
regarding their nature.
8
Listed in the full report
9
Presented in annex 1
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
50
Moreover, this estimation was completed by assumptions on each potential impact10:
With which probability may this impact occur?
If it happened, would the impact be frequent and/or occur in numerous areas? (Frequency
throughout space and/or time)
If it happened, would it last on a long-term or short-term?
If it happened, would the impact be reversible (or not)?
If it happened would the impact have cross-border effects? (We are talking here of the borders
of the MED area)
Detailed analysis grids as well as complete comments are available in the full report and its
annexes.
IMPACTS ANALYSIS: SYNTHESIS
The following table enumerates the potential impacts ratings regarding the nature of incidence11 .
This counting is not mathematically weighted by the other elements of evaluation.
Axes and actions priorities
Positive
impact
Negative
impact
Neutral
impact
Mixed
impact
Lack of
rating
Axis 1
TO 1 – IP 1b « Innovation »
10
2
5
9
0
Axis 2
TO 4 – IP 4c « Better management
of Energy in public buildings »
4
0
20
2
0
TO 4 – IP 4e 1 « Share of
renewable energy in the primary
energy production»
9
5
7
5
0
TO 4 – IP 4e 2 « Low carbon
transports»
7
0
14
5
0
TO 6 – IP 6c « Sustainable
development policies in coastal and
coastline areas»
13
0
9
1
3
TO 6 – IP 6d « Biodiversity and
natural ecosystems»
12
0
14
0
0
55
7
69
22
3
2
0
0
0
24
57
7
69
22
27
Axis 3
Sub-total (without TO 11)
Axis 4
TO 11 – « MED Governance»
Total
It appears that:
- Only few measures are judged completely negative, regarding their impacts on the
environment.
10
11
The grading scale is presented in annex 2
Detailed grids, per SO, are to be found in Annexes
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
51
-
-
-
Concerning the “mixed” or “contrasted” ratings: they concern mostly the objective related to
innovation, then, in a lesser extent, SOs related to energy mix strategies and to low carbon
transports.
Regarding measures from axes 2 and 3, the share of “neutral” impacts is rather high: fields of
actions are well targeted.
Thematic Objective 11’ drafting (axis 4) is particularly wide. Without more (environmental)
targeting, we could not rate many potential impacts.
Moreover, the deeper analysis of the most probable impacts gives more understanding elements:
 There is no very probable (VP) negative incidence.
 Only one “mixed” incidence is considered as “very probable”.
 There is no issue on which would cumulate only negative impacts. On the contrary, there is
one issue for which “contrasted” ratings are not counterbalanced by positively rated
measures: it concerns the waste production issue.
 Issues for which several positive incidences (probable and very probable) cumulate are the
following :
o Water resources withdrawals
o Continental water quality
o Domestic energy efficiency (including buildings)
o Increase of the renewable energies share in the primary energy production
o Energy efficiency for the productive sector
o Urban planning sustainability.
OUTLINE PER PRIORITY AXIS
Axis 1: Promoting Mediterranean innovation capacities to develop smart and sustainable growth
The programme aims at strengthening innovation capacities, in the sectors covered by « green » and
« blue » growth.
Potential impacts on the environment are widely indirect (impact of the activities developed thanks
to innovation support) and will probably take place with a time delay.
Potential impacts are mainly rated positive or mixed, with several items requiring vigilance:
-The development of certain Blue Growth-related activities, which could induce harmful impacts on
the environment, for example cruise (including new harbours), but also the construction and
exploitation of energy producing facilities or the development of fishery and aquaculture. Other Blue
Growth-related activities have not been taken into account in this assessment12 but their evolution
could also produce negative environmental effects (e.g.: shipbuilding, short sea shipping).
12
Se reporter au rapport complet, pages 50 et 51
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
52
-The development of ICT, due to the complexity of IT waste recovery.
-The development of biomass-based energy, which has already given birth to a reflection on land
usage as well as on the use of land for non-agricultural purposes (as well as research on second and
third-generation biofuels).
Axis 2: Fostering low-carbon strategies and energy efficiency in specific MED territories; cities,
islands and remote areas
Axis 2 combines, on the one hand, measures targeting the reduction of the society’s demand for
energy (buildings’ energy efficiency and sustainable low-carbon transports), and, on the other hand,
actions aiming to develop the supply of renewable energy. Axis 2 is thus consistent and rather welltargeted.
Items requiring specific attention are the following:
-All methods for producing renewable energy are not equivalent, as far as their potential effects on
environment are concerned. Whatever the choice of energy to study and develop is, the
implementation of production facilities would induce impacts, even at a very local scale (during
works, then during exploitation phases). Potential negative impacts must be taken into account, in
particular during the projects selection phase, as well as in the impact studies prior to the
deployment of pilot demonstration activities.
-Interconnection of transports and optimisation of existing networks have very positive leverage
effects. But the development of coastal accessibility by boat, if not avoidable, has to be studied
thoroughly, because the effects of maritime transports are rated rather negatively.
Axis 3: Protecting and promoting Mediterranean natural and cultural resources
Axis 3 gathers measures targeting the protection of MED area’s natural heritage, and the
strengthening of development strategies which would integrate human pressures (among which
tourism) as well as natural hazards.
Potential effects are rated positive.
Axis 4: A shared Mediterranean Sea
For most of investment priorities, the programme’s impact is positive regarding the consolidation of
MED knowledge database that will support environmental policies of the MED area. Moreover, the
programme advocates quite efficiently in favour of integration and consistency of environmental
dimension in the building up of policies.
The Specific Objective 4 (« To support the process of strengthening and developing multilateral
coordination frameworks in the Mediterranean for joint responses to common challenges »)
therefore presents a very positive impact. Nevertheless, the qualification of impacts is only based on
cross-cutting criteria, as the definition of the SO is rather open.
A narrower targeting of actions would allow a more thorough evaluation.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
53
DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES TO AVOID, REDUCE AND COMPENSATE SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS OF THE PROGRAMME ON THE ENVIRONM ENT
Cross-cutting measures:
The section 8 of the programme (« horizontal principles») underlines the importance of criteria
regarding sustainable growth in the project selection process.
But in the drafting of the « guiding principles for the selection of operations », for each priority axis,
quality criteria should precise the “effects in the mid-term” notion, and include the direct and
indirect effects on environment.
Moreover, the dedicated chapter in the application forms already constitutes an interesting tool for
the prior environmental assessment of projects.
The programme indicates that “A special eye (will be) kept to project proposals giving clear
measurable output indicators on environmental issues (where applicable according to the objectives
of the project)”. Project partners could present a Logical Framework, in their applications.
13
Typical structure of a Logframe Matrix (source: EuropeAid )
This logical framework should identify, per project, its environmental objectives (overall objectives
and purposes).
The programme could thus impose that the following issues appear in the analysis led by the project
partner:
- Contribution to efficiency in the use of resources (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy
use, reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, efficient water supply, waste-water
treatment and water reuse, sustainable land use, waste management and recycling etc.)
- Contribution to the development of green infrastructures
- Contribution to sustainable integrated urban and regional development
- Contribution to better awareness for the adaptation to climate change and risk prevention
- Promotion of employment opportunities, education, training and support services in the
context of environment protection and sustainable development.
13
European Commission (2004). Aid Delivery Methods. Volume 1: Project Cycle Management Guidelines.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
54
The programme could also impose that the applications integrate environmental impact indicator(s),
defined in respect to the environmental objectives of the programme. These indicators would then
be common to all projects.
Furthermore, in case of pilot demonstration activities’ launchings/deployments, each project should
present a prior study for environmental impacts. This impact assessment shall study, in particular,
how the project localisation is related to protection areas classified in respect to environmental
regulations.
Concerning Natura 2000 sites:
The « Habitats » Directive describes the required impacts assessment measures when a Natura
2000 site may be affected.
Article 6
(…)
Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a
significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to
appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the
conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the
competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not
adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the
general public.
4. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a
plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of
a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the
overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which
may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance
for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public
interest.
Article 7
Obligations arising under Article 6 (2), (3) and (4) of this Directive shall replace any obligations arising under the first
sentence of Article 4 (4) of Directive 79/409/EEC in respect of areas classified pursuant to Article 4 (1) or similarly
recognized under Article 4 (2) thereof, as from the date of implementation of this Directive or the date of classification
or recognition by a Member State under Directive 79/409/EEC, where the latter date is later.
For the purposes of Article 6 assessments, Natura 2000 sites are those identified as sites of Community importance
14
under the habitats directive, or classified as special protection areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive . The European
15
Commission released an interpretation document . This document makes clear that where a project is likely to have
significant effects on a Natura 2000 site, it is also likely that both an Article 6 assessment and an EIA (in accordance
16
with Directive 85/337/CE, 97/1/CEE, Directive 2003/35/EC et Directive 2009/31/EC) will be necessary .
Moreover, in case of the use of public procurements (especially for works), the payers shall use the
tools offered by respective national procurement regulations in order to select offers which would
minimize the environmental effects of (construction) works: mobility plans, noise and odour
pollution prevention plans, waste prevention and treatment plans, grey waters treatment, in
particular.
14
European Commission, Environment DG (November 2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 site s.
Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4)of the Habitats Directive 92/13/CEE
15
« Managing Natura 2000 sites : The provisions of article 6 of the « Habitats » Directive 92/43/CEE »
16
European Commission, Environment DG (November 2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites.
Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4)of the Habitats Directive 92/13/CEE
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
55
Objective « To increase transnational activity of innovative clusters and networks of key sectors of
the MED area»:
Reinforce the “eco-targeting” of innovation-related projects. Innovation related to Blue Growth
should be explicitly directed towards projects aiming to develop eco-friendly solutions (ecomanagement, eco-design, decrease of carbon print foot, production and exploitation processes
sustainability, etc.). What is at stake is to eco-condition the purpose of the innovation and not only
the cooperation project in itself.
The concept of eco-innovation could thus appear explicitly in the detailed drafting of the specific
objective, and in the expected results drafting, as well.
Objective « To increase the share of renewable local energy sources in energy mix strategies and
plans in specific MED territories »:
The particular points to consider, which have been described in the previous chapter, underline the
potential negative impacts of energy production facilities and/or infrastructures, regarding several
environment dimensions17. Preventive measures described above (cross-cutting measures) apply
particularly well to that field of actions.
Moreover, in the description of the « types and examples of actions and expected contribution to the
specific objectives », the assessment of potential environmental impacts for energy mixes should be
more explicitly integrated to the strategy (models, plans …) and feasibility studies.
Furthermore, studies concerning forest and/or agricultural biomass should include comparisons
between different generation of solutions (e.g.: log vs pellet).
Finally, in addition to studies related to energy production, attention could be paid to energy
transportation and distribution modes (e.g.: underground networks or not, integration of undersea
networks)
Objective « To increase capacity to use existing low carbon transport systems and multimodal
connections among them »:
The particular points to consider, which have been described in the previous chapter, underline the
potential negative impacts of the maritime accessibility development, especially regarding marine
water quality, marine habitats integrity and air pollution.
Regarding maritime transports: the development of accessibility on peripheral and touristic
cities/sites could be more explicitly conditioned par the concomitant deployment of « greenshipping » solutions (direct measures, like the use of new technologies, or indirect ones, like the
development of new management modes for loading or for energy on-board). The development of
maritime transport could also be fostered in the only cases, like isles, where this solution is much less
avoidable compared to continental areas.
Furthermore, in town, transport optimisation is major for carrying out a sustainable urban planning.
One has nevertheless to remain vigilant concerning the estimate for behaviour adaptation time. The
transition and adaptation period to new mobility plans has to be integrated into diagnoses,
especially regarding possible GHG impacts (traffic jams…).
17
Detailed grids are available in the full report annexes
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
56
Other objectives (To raise capacity for better management of energy in public buildings at
transnational level, To enhance sustainable development policies for more efficient valorisation of
natural resources and cultural heritage in coastal and adjacent maritime areas, To maintain
biodiversity and natural ecosystems through strengthening the management and networking of
protected areas, To support the process of strengthening and developing multilateral coordination
frameworks in the Mediterranean for joint responses to common challenges) : no proposal for
dedicated corrective measures.
This report does not introduce alternative solutions: mitigation measures have indeed been proposed
for the main potential negative effects that have been outlined in the previous detailed assessment
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
57
PROPOSED MONITORING MEASURES
According to the guidelinse of the European Commission, the monitoring system presents the
following items (non-comprehensive list)18:





Monitoring covers in principle the environmental effects included in the environmental
report. It may, however, focus on some environmental effects or include additional aspects
which were not apparent.
It is useful to identify and select the environmental information which is necessary for
monitoring the relevant environmental effects. Environmental effects may also be indirectly
monitored through the monitoring of the causes of the effects. Indicators or a set of
questions may provide a framework which helps to identify the relevant environmental
information. They also help to condense environmental data to understandable information.
Sources of environmental information can be found at project level. Environmental
information at project level addresses pressure factors and environmental effects.
General environmental monitoring systems provide environmental data detecting changes in
the environment. These data help to verify the achievement of environmental objectives and
targets, but they allow only to a limited extent the changes in the environment to be
attributed to the implementation of the plan or programme.
Monitoring can be integrated in the planning system. Efficient monitoring demands a
determination of the responsible authority/ies, as well as the time and frequency of
monitoring measures. Monitoring arrangements should also include the evaluation of the
environmental information.
It may be useful to determine criteria which trigger the consideration of remedial action.
Remedial action can be undertaken on planning level and implementation level.
Regardless of the monitoring measures frequency, a mid-term review will be necessary to assess the
relevance and the efficiency of the monitoring system.
This monitoring will contribute to thinking on the programme efficiency, and to anticipating its expost assessment, by preparing it during the programme development. This will ease an assessment
execution, as fast as possible, and, in the same time, the drafting of the potential next programme,
2021-2028.
The following tables propose a set of indicators aiming to monitor the projects impacts. These
indicators correspond to the environmental themes for which negative effect (- or -/o) have been
assessed with a “P” probability.
18
Implementation of directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the Environment
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
58
Thematic
Noise and odour pollution
Type of indicator
environmental impact monitoring
Indicator
Noise source mapping
Definition
Strategic noise mapping, according to the Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 25 June 2002, relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise
Source
Comment
members states and/or cities above 100 000 inhabitants
A strategic noise mapping enables to assess globally the exposure to noise, in an area submitted to
different noise sources, as well as to establish overall forecasts for the zone.
This mapping would enable to assess the evolution of the number of zones where the sound levels
cross legal thresholds, without then with the implementation of projects financed with the OP.
Thematic
Noise and odour pollution
Type of indicator
environmental impact monitoring
Indicator
Number of complaints for noise / odour
Definition
Source
Comment
member states and project
Number of complaints, before, during and after the implementation of new production plants for
renewable energy.
Thematic
Space consumption
Type of indicator
environmental impact monitoring
Indicator
Area of artificial surfaces / non-artificial
Definition
Urban fabric,
Industrial, commercial and transport units,
Mine, dump and construction sites,
Artificial, non-agricultural vegetated areas.
Source
Project
Comment
Estimate for artificial surfaces, in the frame of the projects: analysis with and without the project.
Thematic
Soils Erosion
Type of indicator
environmental impact monitoring
Indicator
Area of impervious surfaces
Definition
Surfaces covered permanently with an artificial paving material, or compacted enough, especially for
roads or buildings constructions.
Source
Project
Comment
Estimate for the pavement: monitoring before and after the projexts implementation.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
59
Thematic
Waste
Type of indicator
environmental impact monitoring
Indicator
Tonnes of domestic waste per inhabitant
Tonnes of industrial waste
Tonnes of hazardous waste
Definition
Per year and per municipality : measurement of collected tonnes
Source
Comment
Municipalities responsible for collecting wastede la collecte de déchets ménagers.
Projects.
Weighting quantities of waste, in order to assess their evolution and geographic distribution
Thematic
Waste
Type of indicator
environmental impact monitoring
Indicator
Share of works engaged in the frame of a project, financed with the OP, which integrate one
environmental issue relating to waste management.
Definition
-
Source
Projects.
Comment
-
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
60
CONSULTATIONS SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC.
Have been received: a total of 30 participations (7 answers were completed, 23 uncompleted).
Certain questions of the consultation were not at all replied to.
After an analysis of all answers, they have been classified into 3 categories:
A: Those which have induced a modification of the assessment report.
B: Those which have not been integrated into the SEA, even if they were relevant, because they
addressed PO choices.
C: Those which have not been integrated into the SEA, because the topic was already discussed in the
assessment.
Note: the answers are listed in the following tables list; they are quoted in their original language.
A translation is proposed below the table.
SECTION 1: Strategic Environmental Assessment and description of the initial status of the
environment.
1/ Do you have any comments (objection, additional comments) on the drivers of the MED area (chapter 5 of the report)
thematic : [Main economic activities
Except tourism, agriculture and fisheries we consider other drivers like
education
C
Except tourism, agriculture and fisheries we consider other drivers like
aquaculture, recreational activities and maritime activities
C
thematic : [Remarkable heritage]
Except landscape it is important to consider the protected areas and
their ecosystems
A
[Other comments]
Remarque valable pour toute la partie 5 . L'état initial gagnerait à être
davantage conclusif, à hiérarchiser les enjeux/constats et à faire un lien avec les résultats des
précédents programmes européens.
B
Translation: « This remark concerns the whole Chapter 5. The initial status would be improved if it
was more conclusive, if it prioritized issues and findings and if it established a link with the
previous European Programmes results.”
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
61
2/ Do you have any comments (objection, additional comments) on the pressures of the MED area (chapter 5 of the
report)
thematic : [Soil occupation & artificialisation]
This pressure may focus not only on urbanisation but also
on open coastal areas
C
This pressure may focus also on open coastal areas
thematic : [Pressure on forests]
This pressure is focusing only on forests instead on biodiversity which is
broader
A
3/ Do you have any comments (objection, additional comments) on the description of the characteristics of the
environment (chapter 5 of the report)
thematic : [Biodiversity]
This may include coastal and marine ecosystems
C
This characteristic may include as well the coastal ecosystems
[Other comments]
Add climate change and energy
C
Another characteristic of the environment that is important is climate
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
62
SECTION 2: impacts on the environment identified in the report
1/ Investment priority 1b, Specific Objective: “To increase transnational activity of innovative clusters and networks of
key sectors of the MED area”
[Likely environmental effects]
Effects from blue biotechnology have not been assessed
A
[Corrective measures]
No corrective measures have been identified
C
[Other comments]
Remarques applicables à toute la partie 6 : Les axes retenus dans le PO
mériteraient d'être justifiés, notamment au regard du diagnostic mais également des plans
précédents. Les méthodes de notations au sein des grilles d’analyses croisées nécessiteraient
d'être explicitées, ainsi que le lien avec les questionnement retenus. Les conclusions relatives
aux résultats obtenus sont très généralistes et le rapport gagnerait à les illustrer par des
réponses plus concrètes.
B : concerning axes
choice.
A : concerning the
request for
explanations
concerning the crossanalysis tables.
C : concerning the
request for more
concrete answers.
The activities at mature stage (p.50) may be include in the MED
Programme
C
Translation: « These remarks concern the whole Chapter 6: Axes retained in the OP would deserve
to be justified, especially in regards to the diagnosis, but also to previous plans. Rating methods
within the cross-analysis grids would need to be explained, as well as the link with the retained
questions. The conclusions related to the obtained results are very general and the report would
be improved if they were illustrated with more concrete answers.”
3/Investment priority 4e, Specific Objective: “To increase the share of renewable local energy sources in energy mix
strategies and plans in MED territories”
[Corrective measures]
No corrective measures have been identified
C
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
63
4/ Investment priority 4e, Specific Objective: “To increase capacity to use existing low carbon transport systems and
multimodal connections among them”
[Likely environmental effects]
The impacts of access to low carbon maritime public transport are not
well defined
A : The chapter
related to Martitime
Transports has been
enriched with
additional
information.
Unfortunately, due to
the lack of data
aiming particularly
public maritime
transports we were
not able complete
the assessment.
8/ Implementation: Do you have any comments on the potential environmental impacts of the implementation strategies
described in the OP (draft version)
Aucun indicateur n'est proposé à ce stade alors qu'ils devraient être
définis au sein de l'évaluation environnementale
A
Translation: « No indicator has been proposed at this stage, whereas they should be defined in the
Environmental Assessment.”
9/ Articulation (between MED and other national/European funds and instruments): do you think that the coordination
strategy described in the OP (draft version) takes into account the other national/European funds existing on the
environment sufficiently ?
L'évaluation environnementale ne décrit pas le lien du PO MED avec les
autres instruments européens. La partie 3 laisse entendre que la mise en œuvre du programme
veillera à cette articulation. L'articulation devrait cependant être traitée en amont.
A
Translation: « The Environmental assessment does not describe the link between the MED OP and
the other European tools. The Chapter 3 implies that the implementation of the Programme will
ensure this linkage. This linkage should nevertheless be treated in advance.”
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
64
2.1 Public Consultation
Out of a total of 345 participations: 78 answers were completed, 267 uncompleted.
Certain public authorities have also participated.
After an analysis of all answers, they have been classified into 3 categories:
A: Those which induced a modification of the assessment report.
B: Those which have not been integrated into the SEA, even if they were relevant, because they
concerned PO choices.
C: Those which have not been integrated into the SEA, because the topic was already discussed in the
assessment.
1/ Do you have any comments (objection, additional comments) on the description of the initial status of the
environment (chapter 5 of the report)
[Biodiversity and natural ressources]
Marine Biodiversity is weakly evaluated but presents major consequences for the
economic sector
C
[Risks]
Are limited. Earthquakes-Tsunami are not included even id it is the most crusila risk
in MED region
A
Drough risks are insufficiently explored/presented
A
[Other comments]
Natural HAZASRS are very important issue in MED area and is missing
A
The data provided as the basis for discussion is in sme cases severely outdates as it
referes to 2004 publications. This may
These data have not
been identified in the
report.
For coherence with other territorial cohesion related policy documents, the terminology
"territorial capital" could be introduced. Essentially this identifies the existing rich heritage environmental, cultural, etc.
B
2/ Do you have any comments (objection, additional comments) on the potential significant impact in the environment of
the MED programme (chapter 6)
[To increase transnational activity of innovative clusters and networks of key sectors of the MED area]
define the sectors
B
[To increase the share of renewable local energy sources in energy mix strategies and plans in MED territories]
Il conviendrait de comparer les incidences de la production renouvelable avec les
incidences de production conventionnelle.
B
Translation: « It would be relevant to compare the impacts of renewable production with the impacts of conventional production.”
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
65
3/ Do you have any comments (objection, additional comments) on the recommendations to improve environmental
impacts of the MED programme (chapter 7)
[To raise capacity for better management of energy in public buildings at transnational level]
Etant donné qu'aucune incidence négative n'est identifiée sur ces activités, pourquoi
demander des études d'incidences environnementales préalables aux opérations pilotes ? Cellesci sont inutiles.
B
[To increase the share of renewable local energy sources in energy mix strategies and plans in MED territories]
Les études d'incidences environnementales sont réglementaires et obligatoires pour les projets
de production d'énergie renouvelables, lorsqu'elles sont pertinentes. En effet, les différentes
technologies ne sont pas équivalentes, et donc, les études préalables ne sont permaentes que
dans quelques cas. Par ailleurs, les études d'utilisation de la biomasse sont déjà bien connues
en Europe. Il n'est pa sutiles de les renouveler.
C
To maintain biodiversity and natural ecosystems through strengthening the management and networking of protected
areas
Apart from protected areas and Natura 2000 sites, the programme needs also to take
in account wider biodiversity objectives and their importance for the landscape.
B
We should preserve strictly the obligations undertaken by NATURA and prevent
flexible policies and private interests that could even lead to the gradual declassification of such
protected areas
This expresses an
opinion. It does
seem necessary to
integrate it into the
report.
Translations:
1/« As no negative impact has been identified for these activities, why ask environmental impact studies before pilot
operations? Those are useless.”
2/« Studies for environmental impacts are regulatory and compulsory for renewable energy production projects, when
they are relevant. Indeed, different technologies are not equivalent, and, thus, preliminary studies are permanent only in
a few cases. On the other hand, studies for biomass use are already well known in Europe. It not useful to renew them.”
4/ Do you have any comments on the Strategic Environmental Assessment in general
It is important to ensure that projects coming forward under particular objectives, mainly T01 and
T04 do not prejudice the implementation of other important environmental objectives such as
those on biodiversity and eco-systems. The recommendations in the Environmental Report
should be taken forward in the revision and implementation of the programme including those on
pre-environmental assessment of projects. Subsequent detailed environmental assessments
may also be required once the details of individual proposals are available at a later stage.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED
19-05-2014
C
66
DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE OPERATIONNAL PROGRAMME HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME NT
Recommandations, suggestions
Basis= SEA report V2 (as of the 12th of
March 2014): this version was released for
the consultations and included proposals for
mitigations measures
Complete the projects quality criteria
mentioned in the « guiding principles for the
selection of operations »:
- direct and indirect effects on the
environment
- mid-term effects
Insertion in the successive CP versions
YES, in the CP version V4, as released on April 30
-quality criteria for projects selection mention « the attention paid
to mid and long-term direct and indirect environmental effects of
the project ». (pages 50, 58)
-« When relevant, additional requirements will be included in the
terms of reference of the calls for projects, especially regarding
environmental issues” (pages 50, 58, 67, 77, 84, 92)
Final recommendations
(Concerning the CP and/or its implementation,
Calls for projects, …)
It is indeed necessary that judgment criteria for
projects quality are available for all potential
partners and appear explicitly in the Terms of
Reference.
Note: in the PO version V3« bis » as of the 25th of March, the
phrase concerning the attention paid to mid and long-term direct
and indirect environmental effects of the project was present on
pages 69, 78, 86 and 93, as well, but has disappeared afterwards.
Require from project partners that they
present a Logical Framework, in which they
should identify the environmental objectives
of the projects
Require from project partner that their
applications integrate environmental impact
indicators
Not directly integrated
The request for a logical framework could be
introduced in the methodology for Projects
Calls.
Not directly integrated
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED, draft V2
25-03-2014
67
Recommandations, suggestions
Basis= SEA report V2 (as of the 12th of
March 2014): this version was released for
the consultations and included proposals for
mitigations measures
In case of pilot demonstration activities
launchings / deployments: prior study of
environmental impacts
Insertion in the successive CP versions
Final recommendations
(Concerning the CP and/or its implementation,
Calls for projects, …)
Not directly integrated: no systematic request for a prior incidence
assessment;
Note : the following phrase was present in the PO version V3« bis »
as of the 25th of March (page 69), but it has disappeared since: «In
the case of projects focused on the promotion of renewable energy,
strategic studies or feasibility studies will have to include an
analysis of the environmental impact of energy mix development. »
Public procurements: implement rating tools
allowing to select offers which would
minimize the operations impacts
Not directly integrated
SO 1 : reinforce eco-targeting of projects
related to innovation
YES (in the CP version V3 bis as of the 25th of March, page 43 and
in the V4 version as of the 30th of April, page 46)
« In a general way, a specific attention will be paid to the
promotion of eco-innovations aiming to promote sustainable
development principles (smart use of resources, reduction of
environmental impact of activities, etc.).»
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED, draft V2
25-03-2014
The section 8 mentions the use of green public
procurement procedures (page 140).
Nevertheless, the stake is well beyond the use
of paperless procedures: it is about developing
tender modes which would allow to select the
best bidder offers as far as environment respect
is concerned.
It would be decisive for SO 1 related projects
that their « eco innovative » characteristic
appears among the selection criteria, in the
Terms of Reference.
68
Recommandations, suggestions
Basis= SEA report V2 (as of the 12th of
March 2014): this version was released for
the consultations and included proposals for
mitigations measures
SO 2.2 : explicitly integrate the assessment of
potential environmental impacts into strategy
and feasibility studies
SO 2.2 : pay attention to energy
transportation and distribution modes
Insertion in the successive CP versions
Final recommendations
(Concerning the CP and/or its implementation,
Calls for projects, …)
Not directly integrated
Note : the following phrase was present in the CP version V3« bis »
as of the 25th of March (page 69), but it has disappeared since: « In
the case of projects focused on the promotion of renewable energy,
strategic studies or feasibility studies will have to include an
analysis of the environmental impact of energy mix development.
Where relevant, projects will have to take into account impact of
modes of transport and modes of distribution of energy».
SO 2.2 : include comparisons between
different generation of solutions into studies
concerning forest and/or agricultural biomass
Not directly integrated
Note: the following phrase was present in the CP version V3« bis »
as of the 25th of March (page 69), but it has disappeared since: « In
the case of projects focused on the promotion of biomass, projects
will have to include a comparison between the different types of
solutions (wood, granules…)».
The calls for projects can develop the content of
the requested comparisons: beyond the
production technical issues, it would be relevant
to address concerns related to chains and supply
channels, for each studied solution.
SO 2.3 : condition the development of
maritime transport to the deployment of
greenshipping solutions
Not directly integrated
Note: the following phrase was present in the CP version V3« bis »
as of the 25th of March (page 69), but it has disappeared since: “In
the case of projects focused on transports, applicants will have to
pay attention to the potential impact of the development of
infrastructures, of new types of transports or of the increase of
flows on the environment (impact on water quality, soil, natural
habitats and air pollution…)”.
The PO indicates (page 62) that « it will focus on
soft measures related to transport policy
building, as well as transport procedural,
technology and organizational innovations”:
concerning maritime transport, calls for projects
could link systematically the deployment of such
innovations and eco-orientate them explicitly.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED, draft V2
25-03-2014
69
Recommandations, suggestions
Basis= SEA report V2 (as of the 12th of
March 2014): this version was released for
the consultations and included proposals for
mitigations measures
SO 2.3 : target isles for the development of
maritime transport
SO 2.3 : in multimodal studies, pay attention
to transition periods
Insertion in the successive CP versions
Final recommendations
(Concerning the CP and/or its implementation,
Calls for projects, …)
Not directly integrated
Not directly integrated
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED, draft V2
25-03-2014
70
CONSIDERATION OF THE EX ANTE RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to complete the evaluation works, this chapter aims to meet the requirements of the ex-ante evaluation guidance document, by measuring the degree of
consideration of the recommendations and suggestions made by the evaluator along the delivery of the successive CP versions.
At this stage, the draft CP answers almost all remarks produced since the beginning of the evaluation process.
The evaluation team integrated the complexity of the choices that the programme partnership had to make, as well as the limits of the ex-ante exercise, e.g. the
constraint regarding concentration, that imposes more targeted choices compared to the previous programming period. These more targeted choices de facto
requires more precisions.
All the precisions being sometimes not developed enough in the programme, we suggest in the right column of the following table some « final recommendations »
that could be repeated at a later stage, and by 2020, in the implementation and evaluation phases of the programme.
Ex Ante recommendations & suggestions
(V1, V2 and final)
The strategy of the programme and the
choice regarding the priorities strongly
integrate the requirements of concentration
of 2014-2020 programmes, as well as the
orientations of the 2020 strategy. Regarding
the justification of these choices, elements
such as diagnosis and SWOT analysis appear
to be insufficient to some extent. Regarding
the programme implementation, other data
should be used, in particular the data
available issued from other programmes
covering the Mediterranean area (MAP
Mediterranean Action Plan incl. the Plan
Bleu, etc.)
Consideration within the CP
successive version.
The last CP version
underlines the need to
enlarge the documentary
basis on which the
programme must be based
on (Green and Blue Growth),
especially for the
implementation (section 3)
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED, draft V2
Comments
The concentration of the
programme towards specific
objectives is a requirement of the
2014-2020 ETC programming
process. It is also a choice of the
partnership. The drafting’s
timeframe of the programme could
not allow targeting the diagnosis to
that extent.
25-03-2014
Final recommendations
(For the CP and/or the implementation of the
programme, calls for projects…)
The implementation procedures will have to
overcome this gap:
 To meet conditions regarding indicators.
 Closer ties between MED and the
programmes covering the Mediterranean
area (for instance the Blue Plan / MAP) are
necessary in order to reach the strategic
objectives of the programmes, particularly
when referring to a macro-regional
strategy.
A mechanism of permanent partnership with
these programmes could be organised in
order to complete at least a joint database.
71
Recommendations, suggestions Ex Ante
(draft V1, V2 and final)
Consideration within the
CP successive version.
Comments
Final recommendations
(For the CP and/or the implementation of the
programme, calls for projects…)
Dividing lines and complementarities between
MED and other programmes are difficult to
establish given the geographical coverage of the
programme, more particularly with regional
policies. This element is important regarding
most targeted (energies, low carbon transport)
and most open priorities such as biodiversity.
These information elements can be useful for
the assessment of applications and the
evaluation of the programmes impacts.
The CP’s last version
integrates this remark
(section 6).
To some extent, the CP
relies on the in itinere
evaluation works, which
had analysed overlaps
between MED and all
other European
programmes.
Recommendations were taken into
account in a satisfying way, through
precisions added in the CP (section
6).
This information is limited, due to
the fact that the main programmes
covering the MED cooperation area
are under drafting.
A specific work with the programme partners
could be engaged during the 2014-2020
period. This element could be integrated as an
objective for future in itinere evaluations.
Recommendations were taken into
account in a satisfying way, with
precisions added in the intervention
strategy for axes 1 and 2. Some
elements still need to be detailed, as
SO 3.1 covers (too) much different
topics.
The readability of the programme is satisfying
as a whole. The axis 3 will need some
clarifications concerning the feasibility of
sustainable tourism and risks projects, as
these topics represent two major stakes for
the cooperation area.
This clarification can be specified in calls for
projects and through the programme
communication activities.
This option can possibly lead to
projects of various natures, which
represents a main opportunity. It is
also a risk, as each topic does not
have the same needs e.g. in terms of
studies or pilot actions
The results achieved for each cooperation
topic will depend on the precisions that will be
added on this point, and on the budgetary
balance that will be operated between these
different types of actions
The logic intervention of the programme allows
a general analysis of the feasibility of the
proposed axes and specific objectives. Axis 3’s
targeting appears in sufficient for certain
actions.
Complements have been
added in the intervention
logic, in particular
regarding indicators. Two
SOs have been gathered
in the axis 3.
Each SO can be oriented
Elements still to be precised: the expected share towards 3 types of
of SOs open to research projects and the share actions : Studies, Pilot
of actions more operational.
actions, or Capitalisation
projects
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED, draft V2
25-03-2014
72
Recommendations, suggestions Ex Ante
(draft V1, V2 and final)
Consideration within the CP
successive version.
The axis 4 « governance » includes a
specific strategic dimension. Precisions
could be added on types of actions and
expected form of results in order to ease
its implementation.
Comments
Final recommendations
(For the CP and/or the implementation of the
programme, calls for projects…)
Recommendations were taken into
account in a satisfying way, through
Elements still to be detailed in calls for
precisions added in the intervention
projects: the form of results
strategy, with outputs indicators and
types of actions.
The new requirements in terms of
indicators for the 2014-2020 period rely
on a good balance between the definition
of expected results and the selected
indicators. At this stage of the
programme, some priorities don’t define
enough their targets. As a consequence,
the expected results are rather « open »,
and measuring their coherence with
indicators remains difficult. Precisions
could be added in this field.
Recommendations related to
indicators have been integrated
in successive CP versions.
Indicators are consistent with
selected strategic objectives
Programme’s expectations regarding
indicators must be a part of communication
actions prior to the launching of calls for
projects. New rules for collecting data to
update indicators must be defined in the calls’
specfications.
The reference situation for indicators shall
be further precised.
Implementation, monitoring, evaluation
Information concerning this
chapter are partly included in
the CP, and will be subjected to
a specific work, between the
evaluator and the programme
authorities in order to be
integrated in the relevant
sections.
Ex Ante Evaluation 2014-2020 MED, draft V2
25-03-2014
73
Fly UP