Results of task 2

AuthorNaldini, Andrea; Pompili, Marco; Peruccacci, Eleonora
Section 4.Results of Task 2
This section presen ts t he findings and the evidence that have em erged from the
analyses carried out in Task 2. This t ask focu sed o n ap proa ches and processes use d by
MSs to im plem ent th e evaluations requested by t he current EU rules. 48 aid schem es
def ined in the 2014-2019 period and subj ected t o evaluation in 15 MSs w ere
invest igated. An analysis of the evaluation plans of these aid schemes and a survey
distr ibut ed to the authorities responsible for t heir ev aluat ions provided the dir ect
information sources; in addit ion, the nat ional expert s interviewed som e of t he officials
involved in the evaluat ions and provided a general pict ure of t he evaluation pr ocesses.
4.1 .The analy sis of t he eva lua tion pla ns
The an alysi s of the evaluat ion pl ans (EPs) no tif ied and ap proved bet wee n 2015 and t he
end of 2019 had the objective of examinin g how the national authorities outlined t he
process of implementing the aid scheme evaluation. I n total, 48 EPs have been
reviewed, of w hich 45 hav e been implement ed, while the r emaini ng t hree wer e not16.
The minimum cont ents and struct ure of the EPs are set out in the Commission Staff
Wor king Document Com m on methodology for State aid Eva lua ti on” 17 and a
supplement ary infor mation sheet for the notification of an evaluation plan18 has to be
sub mit ted by Mem ber States w ithin the f irst 20 wor king days following the ent ry int o
force of t he schem e.
Thus, the main element s of the EPs have been analysed against t he prescriptions set
out in the Com mission’s St aff Working Docum ent, w it h the aim to ident ify the main
choices of the Member St at es in methodolog ical terms (obj ect ives, evaluation
questions, methods, data) and in relation to t he t im eline and the m ost relevant
milest ones of the evaluat ion, the identification and selection of th e evaluator, the
en visa ged ch oices in m ak ing t he re sult s ava ilab le and in e xpl oit in g t he m to de sign f ut ur e
I t is i mp ort ant t o p oin t out t hat r espe ctin g wha t is en vi saged in t he EPs is a f un dam ent al
element: in all the EPs ap proved, th e Commission u nderlined th at t he Member St ate’s
com m itment t o car ry ing out t he evaluat ion accor ding to t he plan submitt ed was an
essent ial elem ent for app roval.
Table 1 5 b elow summ arises t he ma in cont ents of t he analysis of EPs.
16 SA. 4 034 8 ( ES), SA. 4440 0 ( FR), SA. 462 85 ( LT).
17 SW D(20 14) 179 fin al.
18htt ps: / / ec.europa. eu/ competition/ state_aid /over view/ transpar ency _an d_eval uat ion .ht m l.
Ta ble 15 M ain elem en ts of th e a nalysis of th e Eva lua tion Plan s
Con ten t of EP s
Ma in the me s of an aly sis
Ob ject ive s of
th e a id sche me
Expe cted imp acts of t he a id sch eme and the pote nti al neg ativ e ef fects
Eva lua ti on
qu estions
Whet her all thr ee ev aluat ion quest ions (con cernin g t he d irect eff ects, the
ind irect eff ects and the prop ort ional ity and appr opri atene ss of the aid schem e)
are env isaged and clear ly d escrib ed
Re sult
indicat ors
Selection of m ore com mon result s i ndicators, bot h f or the direct an d i ndirect
eff ects, and th eir rela tion to th e sug gest ed i ndicat ors in Annex I I o f t he Com m on
me thod ology for Sta te a id evaluat ion
Me thod s
Whi ch qu anti tat ive met hods a re g oing to b e used mo re19
How and fo r w hic h p urp oses ar e t he q uali tat iv e m eth ods used, if t hey ar e ap plie d
Da ta coll ect ion
Sour ces of inf orm atio n and th eir conte nts
Whether sp ecific t echn iques t o collect d ata have been env isaged since the
app rov al of aid schem e
Accessi bilit y of dat a
Role of p rim ary data colle cted for the evalu atio n
Ti me line of th e
ev al ua ti on
Id ent ificat ion of t he t ime line and m ilest ones of t he evalu ation
Poten tial risk s ide ntif ied b y MSs in t he EPs a ffect ing the evalu atio n pr ocess
Th e b ody
con duc tin g t he
ev al ua ti on
If the evaluator s had alr eady been select ed from the beginning (when noti fying
th e EP) o r i n a late r ph ase
Whe ther th e eva luat or p arti cipat ed in th e pr epara tion of t he EP
Mecha nism to guar ant ee t he in depen dence of t he evalu ator
Whe ther th e ex perie nce an d sk ills of t he ev aluat or are indic ated
Fina ncial reso urces dedi cated to th e ev aluat ion
Pu blic ity of th e
ev al ua ti on
Descr ipt ion o f t he st rat egy t o m ake the find ings of t he e valua tion pub lic
Type and intensit y o f t he inv olv ement of stakeholder s in t he discussion of th e
res ults of t he e valua tion
How th e r esults will be used t o r eview the State aid schem e or set up new
Sou rce: I smer i Eur opa
The evaluation plans have been analysed in qualitative terms and for each com ponent
of t he EPs a classificat ion syst em and coded infor mation has been extracted, to m ake
the compar ison bet ween EPs st raig htfor war d. When possible, in for mat ion der ivi ng from
the plans has been com plement ed by evidence emerging from the questionnaires
sub mit ted under task 2.
In the following sect ions we present the most relev ant evidence em erging from the
analysis of the EPs.
4.1.1.Distr ibution of t he EPs by count ry and type of scheme
48 ev aluation plans fr om 15 Member States20 w ere reviewed in the analysis. Figure 11
shows the countries which notified t he highest num ber of EPs: Ger many ( 8 plans),
Fran ce (9 plans), Poland (7 plans), Unit ed Kingdom ( 6 plans) and It aly (4 plans). In
m ost cases 21, th ese c ount ri es a lso h ave a n at iona l le gal obl igat ion t o ev alu ate Sta te aid,
19 Previous an alyses on a sam ple of EPs found that amo ng the m ethods suggest ed b y the European
Commission, the Differences-in-d ifferences is t he most f req uently m ent ioned i n t he EPs. See Han s
Friederiszick, Ela Głowicka, Linda Gratz, Simone Lünenbürger, Andr eas Rose nfeld , 2 018, Ex Post Sta te a id
Evalu atio n in Envir onm enta l Aid , in Euro pean Stat e ai d Law Quart erly , v olum e 17 (4 ), Page s 509 524.
20Austr ia, Czech Republic, Ger many, Greece, Spa in, Finland, France, Hung ary, Ir eland, I taly, Lit huanian,
Poland , Port ugal, Sweden, Unite d Kin gdom .
21 Ge rma ny, France and Unit ed Kingdo m.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT