1. 1 Bölgesel Rekabet Edebilirlik Operasyonel Programı’nın Uygulanması için Kurumsal Kapasitenin Oluşturulmasına Yönelik Teknik Yardım Technical Assistance on Institutional Building for the Implementation of RCOP in Turkey This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey

2. 2 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Structure Overarching conclusions and recommendations: overall relevance, efficiency, effectiveness factors underpinning E&E Evaluation as management tool

3. 3 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS 1&2 Programme strategy (O&P&M) still in line with the underpinning analysis and relevant European, national and regional strategies (M 1.4) still relevant and coherent but overly layered and cumbersome R 1. analysis of the programme to be updated (LR) R 2. three layers: global objective / programme, specific objectives / priority and operational objectives / measure level – indicator system designed in parallel (LR) ! DATA especially at NUTS II level !

4. 4 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey The intervention, sectoral, regional and inter-regional strategies of the programme contribute to this over- complexity of the programme intervention logic. R 3. Intervention& sectoral concentration strategies reformulated - more straightforward and easy to communicate programme (LR). R 4.&5. R egional concentration strategy – consider to be renounced to, programme to cover all 26NUTS II regions (LR). OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 3

5. 5 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 4 SMEs may not directly access RCOP funds R 6. SMEs should become, at least to a limited extent, end- recipients of the programme (LR)

6. 6 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 5 2011 RCOP momentum - difficult to draw an overall conclusion on programme effectiveness. RCOP indicator system is only partially able to gauge the effects of the programme. R 7. (SR) a dedicated mixed team per project - RCOP Project Officer clear and objective sets of guidelines adequate communication - one contact person only adequate support for end-beneficiaries a clear timeline, committed to by all stakeholders – two years phases 1-3 R 8. improve system of indicators (LR) – E-Bs/monitoring/Measure 1.2

7. 7 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 6 Programme has started in 2011 to be partially efficient: no/low de- commitment (10%), varying. Financial management to be improved. GC! Best performing measures € (weight vs. demand vs. absolute absorption vs. payment pace): 1.2 (absolute 1.2/2.1/2.2) The underperforming measures €: 1.4 (absolute 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) Medium performance: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2 R 9. (SR) Measure 1.1 from programming to implementation/~new projects-payments in 2014 up New project(s) under 1.2 – contracted/paid the latest in 2013/4 I Support especially to second package to start spending Reconsider strategy under 1.4

8. 8 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 7 The communication activities carried out by the RCP-CID, mainly directed at the programme potential end-recipients, have been partially effective. R 10. The RCOP communication strategy and activities need improvement and focus. Actions need to be taken (SR): Focused on programme end-recipients: phase 1 (Measures 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 2 nd package) and 4 Focused on programme potential end-recipients: specific GC, 2.1/1.4 CAP improved: all stakeholder groups, clearly design and link activities&messages&target groups&chanels&indicators; Wide public

9. Name of the Training9 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 8 Judging by success rate, the call for proposal less efficient and effective - participation of the regional actors R 11. (SR) 1 st package approach focused on measures with less demand 2.1&1.4 – regional element further call per GC/measure 2.1 and 1.4

10. Name of the Training10 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 9 Overall, the SMC functions more as a communication platform rather than a monitoring body R12. (SR/2014) COMMUNICATION +Rotation principle abandoned Follow up the evaluation recommendations

11. Name of the Training11 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey OVERARCHING CONCLUSION 10 Lack of “unique” and clear ownership and the involvement of several decision-making institutions. R 13. RCP-CID to assume this ownership – experience/ TA support/full accreditation R 14. To be supported by EUD and EC

12. Name of the Training12 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Evaluation as management tool 1 METHODOLOGY GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT

13. SMC 913 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Evaluation as management tool 2 CONTEXT-CHANGE-TELLING THE STORY

14. Name of the Training14 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Thank you!