Towards a fitting checking and assessment framework for Pioneer: the Dutch point of view September 25 2006 DG Agri, EU, .


76 views
Uploaded on:
Description
Towards a suitable checking and assessment framework for Pioneer: the Dutch point of view September 25 2006 DG Agri, EU, Brussels Dr Diminish Laan Program director LEADER+ MA East-Netherlands National Netwerk Unit, the Netherlands Presentation
Transcripts
Slide 1

Towards a suitable observing and assessment framework for Leader: the Dutch point of view September 25 2006 DG Agri, EU, Brussels Dr Peter Laan Program administrator LEADER+ MA East-Netherlands National Netwerk Unit, the Netherlands

Slide 2

Introduction Remembering the begin of LEADER+ in the Netherlands… Leader rules Promises Leader as a trial project Indicators put forward…

Slide 3

The extent of Leader in the Netherlands Does Leader result in … Similar results that are accomplished in another way, or … In diverse results contrasted with standard projects? - > comparative ventures may bring about an alternate scope of yields and effects

Slide 4

The essential Leader-qualities and the way they are connected in the Netherlands trial methodology inventive methodology open private participation collaboration between on-screen characters inside of the territory restoration of neighborhood administration base up method for working systems administration range based improvement methodologies participation between regions

Slide 5

Reflections on the Leader observing framework Quantitative versus subjective ‘Hard’ financial yield versus process pointers Dynamical advancement versus static assessment frameworks Short-term versus long haul impacts: time to create Integration impacts Scale-impacts

Slide 6

Towards a model for proficiently assessing a Leader-like methodology Elements to be considered zone particular and Leader-process perspectives ought to be fused Both static, ‘hard’ markers and dynamical ones ought to be utilized Use both subjective and quantitative pointers in the framework

Slide 7

Towards a model for productively assessing a Leader-like methodology “reflexive monitoring”: self-assessment ought to be utilized as a part of a checking framework dynamical advancement does not fit into a static method for observing, i.e. “learning process” and move procedures like changing degrees and spotlight on provincial improvement may impact your assessment framework

Slide 8

Organizing the advancement of a satisfactory checking and assessment process (1) the EU master gathering on M&E ought to advance instruments and blueprints for dynamic nearby gatherings working in rustic ranges to help them in the talk and reporting of procedure results beginning from the purpose of lessons learnt” and a genuine inventive methodology, assessment may be centered around the variables that have been vital for the last results (either disappointments or triumphs)

Slide 9

Organizing the advancement of a sufficient observing and assessment process (2) building up a Leader-like assessment framework is essential to push that capacity and position of Leader contrasts fundamentally from different projects . This may be considerably more essential in the new coordinated RDP 2007-2013 Highlighting the Leader rationality can be successfully done by adding to a particular observing framework Incorporate MTR results and self-assessment reports of LAGs into the checking framework

Slide 10

Organizing the advancement of a satisfactory checking and assessment process (3) consider the ‘reach’ of the project as set down in Leader Guidelines and grow all the while with M&E framework (inward process EC) ‘takings risks’, genuine development and ‘learning from experience’ is difficult to make operational so assist this with adopting so as to handle a particular arrangement of pointers for the Leader pivot

Slide 11

Organizing the improvement of a sufficient observing and assessment process (4) be mindful of the distinctive scale levels that must be managed in Leader: checking on the Program level may altogether contrast from that on the LAG-level. Top-down method for observing may not seem, by all accounts, to be suitable for Leader. The base up methodology prompts ‘first hand’ results and records it on the base level. This must be met some place with the top-down marker set from the EC and not generally the right associations

Recommended
View more...