Ex-post evaluation of Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) 2000-2006

The objective of the evaluation was to analyse the Commission's rural development policy as financed by the EAGGF during the 2000-2006 programming period. It drew conclusions on the relevance, coherence, effectiveness and efficiency of the different measures and programmes, and sought to identify examples of good practice. Furthermore, it provided a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the 2000-2006 rural development framework, and made recommendations for future policy design. In addition, in order to provide the greatest added-value in the context of preparing the policy framework for the post-2013 period, the evaluation also sought to identify factors influencing the contribution of rural development measures to the new priorities under the Health check, and to EU priorities for the post-2013 period.
When formulating the conclusions, the relevance of the Common Evaluation Questions (CEQs) for the evaluation of rural development policy should be accounted for.  Moreover, supplementary questions, criteria and indicators need to be identified in order to be used in future evaluations. Other key considerations included: 

• Existing M&E systems; 
• The recommendations in the MTE and subsequent improvement of the programmes, if applicable; 
• The extent to which rural development programmes achieved competitiveness, environmental and quality of life objectives;
• The extent to which the efficiency of programme implementation was affected by the delivery mechanisms and programming approach used; 
• The extent to which the potential for coherence, synergy or contradiction between different rural development measures was taken into account in programme design and implementation; 
• The extent to which the measures selected, and the associated budgetary resources, were consistent with the strategy, priorities and quantified objectives established in the RDPs;
• The absorption capacity of rural development measures/programmes as an indication of their efficiency;
• The extent to which the targeting of measures contributed to maximising impact in relation to objectives;
• Activities which contributed successfully to mitigating climate change or adapting to the effects of climate change; 
• Activities which contributed successfully to protecting and enhancing biodiversity; and,
• Activities which had an impact on water management.

The overall approach for project coordination consisted of developing geographical clusters based on a Northern, Southern, Central and Eastern division of countries. Each cluster was managed by a Cluster Co-ordinator who guided his/her own Country Experts under the direction of the Project Director. The Core Team was made up by the Project Director, the Cluster Co-ordinators, an Evaluation Methodologies Specialist and a specialist Survey Team, all supported by an Expert Panel.