Transcript Diapositiva 1

The making of local development: Highlights
from Integrated Territorial Projects
Marco Magrassi
Investment Evaluation Unit
Department for Development Policies - Ministry of Economy of Italy
Evaluation Open Days in Roma
July 4th, 2006
CONTENTS
1. Main features of Integrated Territorial Projects
2. Methods and issues in project identification
and selection
3. Some lessons and open questions
Defining Integrated Territorial Projects (ITPs)....
INTEGRATED TERRITORIAL PROJECT:
Formal Definition from the CSF 2000-06
“Composite project for the development of an
area, which includes a set of different
interventions that all contribute, in interaction
with each other, to a common development
strategy, devised by local actors in response to
concrete needs and opportunities.”
The “WHY” question:
policy goals and assumptions behind ITPs...
“Local knows better”: bottom-up development
planning  better and strategic project choices
Local level coordination of multi-sectoral
interventions  synergies, stronger results
Local level partnerships between municipalities,
public institutions, private sector  stronger
government and governance
It is fair to devolve expenditure power to local
level, elected bodies
The basic ITP scheme…
CORE OBJECTIVE
(Strategic idea: provides coherence, integration)
Example: To increase cultural tourism
Unified Project Management
(one municipal govt. chosen to lead project)
Detailed operations of different nature
Historic preservation
Environment (restoring
buildings, cleaning
polluted sites)
Infrastructure
(Roads,
telecommunications
Tourist Info points)
Productive
sector (Support
to local mfg. of
typical products)
Human Resources
(training skills needed
in the tourism sector)
Measurable Expected Outcomes:
Increased N. of visitors, Employment, reduced out-migration
Local ITP partnership selects single investments (10 to 50) and present
them to the Region as “package”
Single investments at different stages in technical design
Regions evaluate/approve ITP as a whole package of projects
Integrated Territorial Projects are important in Italy…
Almost € 6-billion in 7 ROPs in Southern Italy
OBJ.1 ( 20% CSF resources)
About 160 projects, more than 6,000
investments
In Obj. 2, many Regions autonomously decided
to adopt ITP model.(e.g. Tuscany Region 30%
of the ROP)
Municipalities covered by ITPs in Southern Italy:
almost 2,000 (more than 90% of total)
What are the goals that municipalities have selected to
improve economic and social welfare? Core Objectives…
Distribution of Core Objectives by Thematic Category
60
Number of ITP
50
40
30
57
20
10
23
20
8
12
10
2
0
Industrial
Develop.
Agriculture
Food
Urban
Develop.
Tourism
Culture
Environment
Natural Parks
Category Core Objective
Transport
networks
Generic
objective
ITP with special features:
1. Single-municipality (urban) ITPs: 22 projects in
medium/large cities (more than € 1 billion)
2. Sector-based integrated and inter-municipal projects
(social services, industrial development) --sectors and
target areas selected through Regional plans
A very diversified universe…
Min
Mean
Max
Number of Municipalities
1
16
145
Population
2.509
181.224
(median 86.263)
1.322.612
Total Funding
(millions of €)
3.545
41.764
(median 31.274)
191.478
Investment per capita (€)
30
404
(median 330)
4.129
ITP by Region and incidence on total EU Regional
Funds available (2004 figures. Currently is more)
Obj. 1
Regions
Number
of ITP
Total Public Funding
for ITP (millions of €)
ITP % of Total
Regional Program
Basilicata
8
330
26,3%
Calabria
23
423
11,3%
Campania
51
1.576
22,9%
Molise
7
63
15,0%
Puglia
10
1.102
23,5%
Sardegna
13
265
6,8%
Sicilia
27
990
13,0%
TOTAL
139
4750
16,7%
ITP identification and selection
Issues in ITP identification and selection
ITPs provide opportunity to examine the “negotiated
approach”:
 A selection procedure that pursues quality through
cooperation between Region and final beneficiaries
 Sometimes, it combines cooperative and
competitive elements
 Here, we examine it for ITPs, but was applied in
many priorities and measures (also sector-based)
Competitive, negotiated and mixed slection procedures in the ITP
experience...
Sardinia
competitive, bottom-up
Molise
Negotiated, mixed
Puglia
Negotiated, top-down
Campania
Negotiated, mixed
Basilicata
Negotiated, mixed
Sicily
Competitive, bottom-up
Calabria
Negotiated, top-down
Two types of identification and selection procedures
A: competitive, bottom up
B: negotiated, top down
Regions established bidding criteria
for municipalities and published a
call for projects
Regions divide all territory, group
municipalities, allocate funds exante
Municipalities associate. Prepare
and submit detailed project
proposal
Municipalities associate; prepare
project following Regional
geographical, financial, and
sometimes sectorial decisions
Regions appraise and approve
projects according to project
quality and other criteria
Regions appraise and approve
projects once they reach a minimum
quality standard
Regional Criteria for ITP identification and selection
Competitive CfP (Sicily)
Proposals evaluated and
attributed max 100 points
•Planning/project quality (max 30 points)
•Contribution to regional priorities (20
points)
•Technical sustainability (8 points)
•Environmental sustainability (8 points)
•Financial sustainability (8 points)
•Socioeconomic and institutional
sustainability (8 points)
•Administrative and management
sustainability (18 points)
Negotiated ex-ante (Calabria)
•Max 25 projects in all Region
•ITP areas cannot be in more
than one Provincial territory
(gminas) and should be subprovincial in size
•7 Medium and large cities
would be granted specific
resources
•Funds distributed ex-ante
according to demographic
criteria
Tuscany example: role of the Provinces (powiats) in
ITP identification and selection…
1. Region established rules; divided funds
equitably among Provinces
2. Then delegated to 10 Provinces tasks of
“animating” and assisting the territory to
organize and prepare project proposals
(Reg provided TA funds)
3. Inter-municipal associations presented
projects
4. Provinces developed a first scoring and
ranking of projects
5. Regions evaluated and approved; but
Provincial ranking incorporated in the
scoring formula…
Advantages and risks in competitive CfP
+ more freedom for municipal
initiative (demand-based)
+ better project quality
+ in theory, more transparent
- increases conflicts/political costs
- difficult to properly evaluate
- can penalize poorer final
beneficiaries who are more in need
Advantages and risks in ‘negotiated’ procedure
+ more equitable in distributive
terms
- reproduce top-down, centralized
policy process (supply-based)
+ implement regional strategy
- less incentive for quality (but…)
+ reduce political conflict
- less freedom for territory to selforganize
From goal setting, to programming, to
implementation:
General lessons from urban ITPs
Evaluation evidence from 2000-2006: the South…
Lessons from 22 Integrated Projects in medium/large
cities totaling € 1 billion+ currently in implementation
Ambitious goals of combining economic transformation
with social development
Were strategic goals reached? A proxy answer from
types of investments actually financed...
Sectorial distribution of 490 investments in 20 urban projects (% of total funds)
ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
SPORT AND LEISURE INFR.
15%
4%
14%
SOCIAL/CULTURAL INFR.
21%
PARKING, TRANSPORT
PUBLIC SPACE/RESTORATION
29%
6%
OTHER INFRASTR.
9%
SME SUBSIDIES
TRAINING
0%
3%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Half of total resources in transport,roads and public
space ...“traditional” investments prevail.
30%
If this was programming of 22 urban projects, how is
implementation going? Apparently, it confirms mixed results...
NEW INVESTMENT ONLY
Urban Infrastructure
Facilities for social/public services
Facilities sport/leisure
Plans, stuides, monitoring
Training fo employed workers
Transport infrastr.
Transfers to No-profit org.
Contracts
Closed
(€481M)
53%
12%
11%
8%
4%
3%
2%
Urban infrastructure still dominates, but also well on
social services
Economic and innovation investment (enterprise support,
economic infrastr.) very slow implementation
In Central-Northern Italy, things don’t go much better (EU
zoning problem)...
Evaluation evidence that fed negotiation strategy for 2007-13...
 Minor investment in urban competitiveness, economic
infrastructure, FDI promotion, internationalization
 Little financial engagement of the private sector
 Very few projects involve metro-area or city-region (e.g.
Catania, Cagliari)
 Urban development strategies were rushed, often week
 “Institutional” bottlenecks: financial administration,
municipal internal organization, project management, CityRegion inter-govt. relations, engineering/procurement
cycles....
Also...lack of strategic planning negatively affected
effectiveness of urban development funding
Overall lessons
Overall lessons (1)…
1. In weaker territories, a “radical” bottom-up approach
has strong limitations…Regions and other actors must
assist continuously
2. In stronger territories or larger urban areas, you can
decentralize more and have ambitious goals (innovation,
growth). But still does note come “naturally”...
3. Partnership with civil society and private economic
actors crucial, but very difficult to build...
4. Better projects where local govts. have some
capacity/experience in development planning?
5. Financial streamlining, project management
design/resources, crucial issues to fix in 2007-13
Other questions to discuss…
1. What role for Regions in defining boundaries and
selecting territories? Better piloting or comprehnsive
policy ? What balance b/en top-down and bottom-up?
2. (a) Larger cities, (b) small (or rural) municipal
networks, (c) sector-based local policies…should
we diversify strategic and operational approaches?
How?
3. The “timing” issue:local coalition & strategy-building
takes time, but projects must advance and
disburse…How to pursue both?