Download Lesson 6: Coherence

Lesson 6: Coherence
Macerata, 21st October
Andrea Gramillano, t33 srl
Relevance and Coherence ( EX
ANTE)
Relevance
ce
Programme /
policy
Needs
Resources (inputs)
Output
(implementation)
Result
(Specific Objective)
External coherence
Internal
Coherence
Performance, Efficiency,
Sustainability, Effectiveness (on
going / ex post)
Needs
Performance
ce
Resources (inputs)
Output
(implementation)
Effectiveness
ce
Result
(Specific Objective)
Efficiencyce
Sustainability
Verify the consistency of the analysis of
needs
• Obstacles (needs)
• Potential for solutions
S
T
T
O
Ostacoli – colli di
bottiglia
Agenda
What does Coherence mean?
 Assessing Internal Coherence
Assessing External Coherence
Vertical and Horizontal dimensions
Some examples of Policy Incoherence
• Agricultural policies in OECD countries sustain a cherished way of life
but they benefit very few citizens – mostly prosperous farmers and
agro-industrial firms. They protect domestic supplies of crop and
livestock products that can be produced at a fraction of the cost in
developing countries. Tariffs and subsidies impose heavy costs on
consumers and taxpayers in OECD countries. They undermine
equitable growth in the developing world, where the majority of the
poor live.
• The highest tariffs on industrial goods imposed by OECD countries
affect products that are critical to the economic well being of
developing countries – steel, textiles, clothing and leather. Relatively
low-income consumers in OECD countries consume these products.
• The protection of intellectual property rights under WTO rules
promotes research and innovation but it also restricts access to
essential drugs and other knowledge intensive products and services
in poor countries.
.
Some examples … (2)
• Immigration restrictions are imposed for cultural reasons and to
sustain domestic wages but they restrict increase remittances to
developing countries and aggravate labor shortages in OECD
countries faced by an unprecedented demographic transition.
•
Fishing subsidies of OECD countries absorb $15-20 billion a year,
benefit large companies more than poor fishing communities and
deplete fish populations on which poor countries’ coastal fisheries
depend.
• Industrialised countries (home to 20% of the world’s population)
account for 63% of carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the
atmosphere since 1900. Global warming will impose heavy costs on
developing countries. Small island economies are especially
vulnerable.
(Policy Coherence and Development Evaluation Concepts, Issues and
Possible Approaches – Robert Picciotto )
Coherence: Definition
•
Coherence has two dimensions:


Internal: correspondence between
the different objectives of the same
intervention. Internal coherence
implies that there is a hierarchy
of objectives, with those at the
bottom logically contributing
towards those above.
External: correspondence
between the objectives of an
intervention and those of other
public interventions which interact
with it.
Example: if a national policy and EU socioeconomic programme are implemented
in a complementary manner in the
same territory for the purpose of
developing SMEs, it can be said that
there is external coherence. (European
Commission – DG REGIO EVALSED
GUIDE)
Coherence in the Project
Cooperation Context (OECD)
• (i) Internal coherence: the consistency between goals and objectives,
modalities and protocols of a single policy or program carried out by
an OECD government in support of development (e.g. aid).
• (ii) Intra-country coherence: the consistency among several aid and
non-aid policies of an OECD government in terms of their combined
contribution to development (support for development cooperation and
sale/purchase of weapons).
• (iii) Inter-country coherence: the consistency of aid and non-aid
policies across several OECD countries in terms of their aggregate
contribution to development (e.g. different amount of money).
• (iv) Donor–recipient coherence: the consistency of policies adopted by
rich countries collectively and poor countries individually or collectively
to achieve shared development objectives (e.g. Climate change goals)
INTERNAL COHERENCE
The internal coherence shall
investigate:
STRATEGY
• LOGIC of the intervention ( link
between objectives – activities inputs)
• SINERGY among different
activities of the project or
CONFLICT
• FINANCIAL allocation
Activity A
Resources
Activity B
EXTERNAL COHERENCE: TWO
DIMENSIONS
VERTICAL Coherence
HORIZONTAL Coherence
It is the consistency of the project
with the above superordinated
funding Program and (National –
International) Policy
It is the relation with other parallel
interventions or mainstream policies
(Environment – Gender Issue)
The External Coherence Evaluation
Process
STEP 1
Define the subject
of investigation
STEP 2
Identification of
relevant
documents
STEP 3
Conceptual
Analysis
Step 5
Final Assessment
STEP 4
Level of
Coherence
assessment
STEP 1
Define the subject of investigation
Vertical coherence between the project and:
• the funding programme
• the related policy
Horizontal coherence:
• at the local level, with other sectors or project
• at the regional level, with other Plans or
Programmes
• at the national level across ministries,
• at the international with EU or other donors
STEP 2
Identify Key documents
• Vertical coherence: identification of strategic Programme and
Policy documents which describe the organisation, goals, tools
or instruments that are being used.
• Horizontal coherence: identification of other Policy documents,
which spell out the main actors or organisations identified to play
key roles in implementing the objectives of the organisation.
• The common features of each of the policy documents can be
categorised in terms of Strategy (overall themes  WHY? IN
WHICH FIELDS?), Organisation (institutions responsible for
achieving integration  WHO IS DOING WHAT?) and
Instruments (e.g. - ways to achieve these goals  HOW?).
STEP 3
Conceptual Analysis
Once these documents have been
identified, key words or
concepts regarding 1) the
strategy, 2) the organisation,
and 3) the instruments
There will therefore be key words
associated with the Strategy,
Organisation and Instrument.
Once key words have been
selected for the document, the
next step involves checking
Evaluated Project for the key
words of other related strategic
document.
Example: the Key words of the
documents of The Funding
Program are: Innovation – R&D
– SME support. The key word
have to be checked in the
project document referring to 3
main categories: Strategy,
Organisation and Instruments
STEP 4
Screening the level of coherence
Each time the key words occur in the checked document, the relation
between the project and the programme has to be verified .
The screening has to be done for both: vertical and horizontal dimension.
The aspect to take first in consideration is Strategy for which the
elements to use for the screening are slightly different (see the
following slide).
The aim is to see if the key word :

shows risks of conflict or

overlapping

Defines different areas of actions – acknowledgement

Implies some form of coordination, complementarity

Assures synergies - integration
EXTERNAL COHERENCE:
Strategy
Horizontal (with other
intervention)
Vertical (with the Program/
Policy Funding)
CONFLICT
The Project Objectives could
negatively impact on the Strategy
The Project Objectives could
negatively impact the Strategy
RISK OF
OVERLAPPING /
INCONSISTENCY
The Project Objectives are in the
same policy domain but without
relation or awareness
The Project Objectives are
inconsistent with the Strategy
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Project Objectives take in
consideration explicitly the other
interventions
The Project Objectives refers the
“superior” Strategy
COMPLEMENTARITY
The Project Objectives identify a
specific area of interaction
The Project Objectives represent an
execution of the superior strategy on
the specific sector/ territory
INTEGRATION
The Project is explicity a “follow
up” , an “execution”, or “part of”
other interventions
The Project Objectives are
functionally related to the superior
Strategy and represent a “condition
sine qua non” for its realization
EXTERNAL COHERENCE:
Organisation and Instruments
ORGANISATION
INSTRUMENTS
CONFLICT
The Project organisation does not recognise
the other Institution or is not eligible by the
Funding Program (e.g. conflict of interest)
The Instruments used by the project
are not compatible (not eligible)
RISK OF OVERLAPPING/
INCONSISTENCY
The Project Organisation works in the same
area without taking in consideration the
administrative – institutional linkages
The Instruments adopted are not
aligned (too old – too expensive etc.)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Project Organisation identifies ways of
communication and exchange of information
“una tantum”
The Instruments are aligned and
compatible
COMPLEMENTARITY
The Project Organisation establishes stable
form of cooperation (e.g. joint meeting)
The Instruments can work in parallel
in a complementary and synergistic
manner
INTEGRATION
The Project Organisation is:
- part of the same Administrative body exchange of same human resources
-Adopt a common management system
The Instruments are interconnected
by financial and/or administrative
point of view
STEP 5
FINAL ASSESSMENT
Example
The final step consists in weighting
the level of coherence for the
three aspects
Strategy: Are there any similarity on
the strategic level?
(=same/similar/ objectives)
Organization: Are the actors involved
in the implementation the
same/similar?
Instruments:

Conflict = - 3

Risk of Overlapping = -1

Acknowledgement = 1

Coordination = 2

Complementarity = 3
Project
Under
Evaluation
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
Programm
e
Policy
Regional
Plan
S
O I
S O I
S
O
I
S
O I
3
3
2 2 0 1
1
2
3
2
2
Project
“A”
1
STEP 5
FINAL ASSESSMENT
SUMMATIVE
FORMATIVE
The scoring can provide the following
judgement for each dimensions
(external – Internal):
• The scoring can identify where
there is room for improvement in
term of better cooperation or
exploit potential synergies.
A) The overall level of Coherence
(total average of the scoring),
e.g. whether the project has “full
complementarity” or, on the
opposite side, is “rather
conflictual”
B) The level of coherence for
different aspects (Strategy –
Organization – Instruments)
C) The level of coherence for
different interventions (Policy –
Program – other interventions)
For example: there is a potential
for collaboration between the
evaluated project with a regional
plan or Project
WORKOUT: EXTERNAL
COHERENCE - VERTICAL
Coherence HIGH
Intensity
→
Cohesion
Policy
Program
Strategy
Prog. I
priority
Prog. II
priority
Prog. III
priority
MEDIUM
LOW