1. Lesson 6: Coherence Macerata, 11 th December Alessandro Valenza, Director, t33 srl

2. Agenda  What does Coherence mean?  Assessing Internal Coherence  Assessing External Coherence  Vertical and Horizontal dimensions

3. 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..

4. 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 )

5. Coherence: Definition Coherence has two dimension:  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 an EU socio-economic 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)

6. 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. (iii) Inter-country coherence: the consistency of aid and non-aid policies across several OECD countries in terms of their aggregate contribution to development. (iv) Donor–recipient coherence: the consistency of policies adopted by rich countries collectively and poor countries individually or collectively to achieve shared development objectives

7. INTERNAL COHERENCE The internal coherence shall investigate: LOGIC of the intervention ( link between objectives – activities - input) SINERGY among different Acitvity of the project or CONFLICT FINANCIAL allocation STARTEGY Activity A Resources Activity B

8. EXTERNAL COHERENCE: TWO DIMENSIONS VERTICAL Coherence It is the consistency of the project with the above superordinated funding Program and (National – International) Policy HORIZONTAL Coherence It is the relation with other parallel Intervention ( Project – Programme) or maintream Policies (Environment – Gender Issue)

9. The External Coherence Evaluation Process STEP 1 Define the subject of investigation STEP 2 Identification of relevant documents STEP 3 Conceptual Analysis STEP 4 Level of Coherence assessment Step 5 Final Assessment

10. 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

11. 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), Organisation (institutions responsible for achieving integration) and Instruments (ways to achieve these goals).

12. 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 checked in the project document referring to 3 main categories: Strategy, Organisation and Instruments

13. 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

14. 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 identiffy a specific area of interaction The Project Objectives represent an exectution 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

15. EXTERNAL COHERENCE: Organisation and Instruments ORGANISATIONINSTRUMENTS 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 Admisitrative – Institutional linkages The Instruments adopted are not aligned (too old – too expensive - etc.) ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Project Organisation identifies ways of comunication 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

16. STEP 5 FINAL ASSESSMENT The final step consists in weighting the level of coherence for the three aspects Strategy/ Organization/ Instruments  Conflict = - 3  Risk of Overlapping = -1  Acknowledgement = 1  Coordination = 2  Complementarity = 3 Example VERTICALHORIZONTAL Programm e PolicyRegional Plan Project “A” SOISOISOISOI Project Under Evaluation 332220112321

17. STEP 5 FINAL ASSESSMENT SUMMATIVE The scoring can provide the following judjement for each dimensions (external – Internal): 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) FORMATIVE The scoring can identify where there is room for improvement in term of better cooperation or exploit potential synergies. For example: there is a potential for collaboration between the evaluated project with a regional plan or Project

18. WORKOUT: EXTERNAL COHERENCE - VERTICAL Coherence Intensity → HIGHMEDIUMLOW Cohesion Policy Program Strategy Prog. I priority Prog. II priority Prog. III priority