ex-post evaluation of the interreg iii community initiative...
Post on 19-Aug-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Panteia and Partners:
• EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg)
• Policy Research and Consultancy (Frankfurt / Germany)
• GÉPHYRES EURL (Roubaix / France)
• The Radboud University (Nijmegen / The Netherlands)
Reference R20090290/30922000/LTR/CWI
January 2010
This study has been financed by European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit.
Quoting of numbers and/or text is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned.
Ex-Post Evaluation of the INTERREG III Community
Initiative funded by the ERDF
Task 5: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE EVALUATION REPORT, elaborated by dr. L. Trofin (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands) drs. W.A. van Putten (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands) drs. F. Saçli (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands) drs. P. van Run (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands)
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 3 January 2010
Foreword
The ex-post evaluation of the Interreg III 2000-2006 Community Initiative
encompasses a number of six tasks interactively and iteratively linked. Under
Task 5 sixteen Interreg III programmes from all three Strands have been in-
depthly evaluated. On the basis of these in-depth assessments an evidence-
based extrapolation of evaluation results at the Community Initiative level will be
conducted in the project final report.
Among the four Strand C programmes, INTERREG III C West Zone was selected
to be evaluated in-depthly, due to the financial, physical and intrinsic
performance of the programme. The previous West Zone Joint Technical
Secretariat and Managing Authority are currently managing the implementation
of INTERREG IVC. Their comprehensive view on both the previous and current
programming period contributes to the policy-level and inter-regional
cooperation-related analysis carried out under this project.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 4 January 2010
Contents
FOREWORD 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
1 INTRODUCTION 7
1.1 Outline and characteristic features of the programme 7
2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY 10
3 IN DEPTH-ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN
TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS & THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC
EFFECTS 11
3.1 The financial implementation of the programme 11
3.2 The effectiveness of the programme 16
3.3 Evaluation at project level 34
3.4 The character of the programme, its constituting features and
factors of barrier and cooperation 63
3.5 Extrapolating results of effectiveness and impacts to INTERREG 69
4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS
OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY 71
4.1 Evaluation of the policy coherence of the programme 71
4.2 Analysis of the intrinsic performances of the programme 76
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 84
ANNEX 1 CRITERIA PER INTERREG III C TYPES OF OPERATION 89
ANNEX 2 INDICATIVE FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS – WEST INTERREG
IIIC 90
ANNEX 3 PROGRAMME INDICATORS AND THE ACHIEVEMENTS PER
31.12.2008 93
ANNEX 4 INDICATORS RELATED TO OPERATIONS’ PERFORMANCE 101
ANNEX 5 EXAMPLES OF POLICIES DEVELOPED, IMPROVED,
INFLUENCED BY INTERREG III C WEST OPERATIONS 103
ANNEX 6 CRITERIA USED FOR THE STRAND C TYPOLOGY 105
ANNEX 7 CRITERIA AND SUB-CRITERIA OF THE SYNTHETIC
INDICATOR 106
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 5 January 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTERREG III C West Zone is one of the four III C programmes implemented during the 2000-2006 programming period: West, East, South and North. Three types of operations were financed under the INTERREG III C West Zone programme: Regional Framework Operations, Individual Interregional cooperation projects, Networks. The operations financed under INTERREG III C, including West Zone, should have targeted one of the 5 topics for interregional cooperation: 1. Exchange of types of
activities supported under Objective 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds, 2. Exchange on Interregional cooperation linking public authorities or equivalent bodies involved in other INTERREG programmes, 3. Exchange on interregional cooperation in the field of urban development, 4. Exchange on interregional cooperation linking regions involved under the three themes of the regional innovative actions for 2000-2006, 5. Exchange on other subjects appropriate to interregional cooperation. The programme has been managed by the Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, assisted by the Joint Technical Secretariat. The ERDF budget that was finally allocated for the INTERREG IIIC West Zone was € 79,575,968.00; the certified expenditures reached € 71,922,693 (latest figures available –November 2009). This means an average achievement rate (for the ERDF contribution) of 90.38%. 414 “Innovative actions” and 415 “Information to the public” have been the intervention codes with the greatest budgetary importance. As no differentiation is made among operations, this code classification cannot reflect in a more nuanced manner the reality of the programme. The peace of the programme physical performance more or less followed the pattern of the financial spending: abruptly after the programme become operational in 2003, until 2007. In most cases the achievements of the programme (output/results/impacts) go significantly beyond the initially envisaged targets. Nevertheless, this is an indication of cautiously set up targets rather than that of significant over-performance. The interpretation of the indicators also varies, among projects, including in the case of the programme core indicator, i.e. good practices. It seems that the major challenge for the MA/JTS was to communicate the “philosophy” of the programme to the target group. Main conclusions and recommendations The programme should have a clear intervention logic, supported by adequate (i.e. relevant and accurate) analysis. If strategic cooperation is also a goal of the programme, this should be properly reflected in the programme strategy, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Further than an adequate programme strategy, a more evaluative thinking should be stimulated, at both programme level (by the European Commission) and at the project level (by the programme itself). To a large extent the system of indicators in place for INTERREG III C West adequately grasp the programme’s achievements. Nevertheless, a series of issues need to be further improved, i.e. labelling, formulating, explaining, ensuring a coherent interpretation and use of indicators. Especially the definition of “best practice”, as concept at the core of the programme rationale,
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 6 January 2010
needs to be clearly defined, coherently applied at operational level and its use monitored by the JTS. The targets for the INTERREG III C West Zone indicators were cautiously set up; consequently significant over-performance was registered. Despite this context and the few deficiencies of the indicator system (e.g. especially the definitions of “best practices” and “policies influenced/improved”), we can conclude that the programme was, to a large extent, effective. INTERREG III C contributed especially to increasing the European territorial identity and to European governance. The INTERREG III C West did contribute to the quality and efficiency of the territory covered, to the extent to which the policies addressed under operation genuinely improved their effectiveness. Regarding cultural differences, the cooperation developed or enhanced under INTERREG III C contributed significantly to an increase of “social capital” among the partners involved. Changes in partnership is one of the factor affecting negatively the financial performance of the programme. Therefore, the commitment of project partners should be better assured from the outset, through the project appraisal and selection criteria applied. Individual and organisational learning could be confirmed to a large extent in virtually all projects analysed. Nevertheless, a more nuanced image of what was learned under INTERREG III C, both at individual and organisational level, needs to be pencilled. Particularly in the case of C programmes, the Managing Authorities benefit to a very limited extent, or not at all, of the funds implemented; in some case it prefers to preserve a neutral position toward the other programme beneficiaries. In this context, the MA structure in C Strand is perceived as artificial and fragile.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 7 January 2010
1 Introduction
1.1 Outline and characteristic features of the programme
INTERREG III C West Zone is one of the four III C programmes implemented during the
2000-2006 programming period: West, East, South and North. This geographical division
was made for management purposes only; the partners involved in an individual
project/network or Regional Framework Operation (RFO) could come from all the
countries covered by the programme (all 4 zones).
Geographical coverage: INTERREG III C West covered the countries: the United
Kingdom (except Gibraltar), Ireland, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The
geographical coverage of the German part of the programme included the districts of
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland and Baden-Württemberg. The
French partner regions were the Alsace, Basse-Normandie, Bourgogne, Bretagne,
Champagne-Ardenne, Franche-Comté, Ile de France, Lorraine, Nord-Pas de Calais, Pays
de la Loire and Picardie.
Types of operations: As prescribed by the Interregional Cooperation Communication,
three types of operations were financed under the INTERREG III C West Zone
programme:
1. Regional Framework Operations
2. Individual Interregional cooperation projects
3. Networks
The Regional Framework Operation (RFO) was set up as the most innovative inter-
regional cooperation instrument and aimed to achieve an enhanced strategic and
sustainable co-operation (art.26 (a) of the Interregional Cooperation Communication).
The expectations in terms of intensity of cooperation were similar for individual projects,
only their dimension (in financial and partnership terms) was more reduced. The networks
were meant to concentrate on softer cooperation activities, such as exchange and
dissemination of experiences (see Annex 1, for the criteria related to each INTERREG III C
types of operation).
Topics for cooperation: The operations financed under INTERREG III C, including West
Zone, should have targeted one of the 5 topics for interregional cooperation:
1. Exchange of types of activities supported under Objective 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds 2. Exchange on Interregional cooperation linking public authorities or equivalent bodies involved in other INTERREG programmes 3. Exchange on interregional cooperation in the field of urban development 4. Exchange on interregional cooperation linking regions involved under the three themes of the regional innovative actions for 2000-2006 5. Exchange on other subjects appropriate to interregional cooperation
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 8 January 2010
Programme strategy: The programme aimed to make use of the existing stock of
experiences collected in the context of implementation of structural funds programmes
and related to national policies with a view to improving the effectiveness of
policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion. The means to
reach this objective was to create new networks or enhance existing ones. These
networks were to be formed mainly through public authorities acting at both local and
regional, but also at national level.
The INTERREG III C West had three priorities: Priority 1/1 measure): Operations. Under this Priority 1 Measure 1 all 75 INTERREG III C West Zone were implemented. Priority 2/1 measure): Strand C coordination. Priority 3/1 measure): Technical Assistance1. The 4 programmes were similar in terms of goals, objectives and approach, types and
topics of co-operation. Nevertheless, as also differences among them were developing, a
series of inter-zone coordination measures were deemed necessary. Initially they were
carried out by the 4 programmes themselves; at a later stage, the INTERACT POINT III C
COORD took over this role and fulfilled it in a more centralised, and coherent, manner.
Until the INTERACT Point III C COORD started its activities, measures related to the 4-
zone coordination were financed through the four programmes under Priority 2.
Consequently, funds were allocated to this priority only for the years 2001 and 2002.
Each of the zones were responsible with a set of coordination measures, e.g. the West
Zone organized coordination meetings between the 4 JTS’s, INTERREG IIIC Info Days and
Partner Search Forums.
The Mid-term evaluation of the INTERREG III C programme brought new insights into the
needs for inter-regional cooperation existing in the European Union and third-
partycountries. Consequently, the strategy of the programme was slightly streamlined.
Taking into account the topics of cooperation and the expected intensity level of
cooperation four programme objectives were introduced and further used for
monitoring purposes, i.e. the operation’s performance indicators were grouped under
these four objectives:
1. Accessing the experience of other partners 2. Expanding the effects of Structural Funds and/or other regional development
programmes 3. Improving regional policies and instruments 4. Contribution to horizontal EU policies
The INTERREG III C West operations could contribute to achieving several or all four
objectives set up; in any case, all operations had to achieve the first goal (which
corresponds to the first intensity level of cooperation).
1 For an overview of the financial allocation on INTERREG III C WEST see Annex 1, table 2.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 9 January 2010
The thematic scope of the programme was wide. In order to structure, from this point of
view, the programmes activities and achievements a, series of themes of cooperation
were defined:
• Research, technology and innovation • Employment, social inclusion, human resources and education • Heritage, culture and tourism • SME development and entrepreneurship • Environment, Risk Prevention, Energy and Natural Resources • Regional Planning, Territorial Regeneration and Urban Development • Information Society and e-Government • Accessibility, mobility and transport
The issues INTERREG III C addressed are of an intraregional nature, i.e. they exist at
the level of regions; nevertheless, the approach taken to tackle them is interregional,
through co-operation amongst/“inter” regions.
Management arrangements
The programme has been managed by the Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, assisted
by the Joint Technical Secretariat. The Paying Authority responsible was the “Caisse des
Dépots et Consignations”, Paris.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 10 January 2010
2 Research interest and methodology The scope of research is closely determined by the terms of reference of the Ex-post
Evaluation for INTERREG III and the method proposed in the Inception Report1.
1 Panteia (and partner institutes) 2009, Ex-post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006 – Inception report to
the European Commission DG Regio, pp. 82 ff. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2006/expo_interreg_report170
209.pdf
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 11 January 2010
3 In depth-analysis of the results and impacts in terms of effectiveness & the socio-economic effects
3.1 The financial implementation of the programme
3.1.1 Financial analysis across the three-digit-codes of intervention
As indicated by “The New Programming period 2000-2006: methodological working paper:
Indicators for Monitoring and evaluation: an indicative methodology”, the main purpose of
applying the fields of interventions categorisation developed by the European Commission
is for the latter to prepare summary information on the activities of the Funds across the
programmes. Using the codes of intervention for reporting, monitoring and evaluation
purposed was recommended by the EC, but was not compulsory.
Due to the broad and innovative nature of the programme and the diversity of its
operations, applying the European Commission classification of areas of intervention in
the context of INTERREG III C, including West Zone, proved challenging. Consequently, C
strand operations were classified under code 414 “Innovative actions” (Programme
Complement 2007, page 22). The Technical Assistance expenditures were classified as for
other programmes, under the heading 4 “Miscellaneous” (see also table 1 annex 2):
- 411: preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity
- 412: evaluation
- 413: studies
- 414: innovative actions
- 415: information to the public
No further classification of the operations was done at a later stage, e.g. after defining
the themes of cooperation. As also the JTS representatives mention, it was from the
outset problematic to find the codes which could appropriately reflect the programme’s
intended achievements. Further than the initial decision on these codes and the initial
budgetary allocation made to the codes, these were not used for any other purposes
further than financial reporting to the European Commission.
All operations financed under the programme were classified as innovative actions (code
414). This particular situation is reflected by the high value of the intensity measure
(IM1) of the 414-intervention code under this programme (in comparison with
INTERREG as a whole) (see table 3.1).
1 The IM is expressed in terms of the share (of the programme-related) of the overall (INTERREG) certified
expenditure for 2000-2006 at the field of intervention level
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 12 January 2010
Table 3.1 Expenditure, absorption rate and comparison with INTERREG1
Title Fields of intervention
Decided amount (Euro)
Certified expenditure (Euro)
Realisation rate %
code expenditure/programme expenditure %
Interreg Realisation rate %
Interreg: code expenditure/programme expenditure %
IM GM
West 411. Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity
1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 80,05 0,07 23,41 0,99
West 412. Evaluation 1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 80,55 0,23 6,49 0,99
West 413. Studies 1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 85,61 0,12 12,43 0,93
West 414. Innovative actions
74.471.568 62.438.547 83,84 93,90 84,35 0,01
6765,56 0,99
West 415. Information to the public
1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 93,53 0,00
3525,37 0,85
Programme 79.575.968,00 66.491.644,85 83,56 The high expenditures (in comparison with INTERREG average) incurred under the 415-
intervention code are explainable by the investments done in communication/information
events organised. Before INTERACT Point III C COORD started its activity, these events
were organized for all four zones by the West Zone under Priority 2 of the programme.
However, the certified expenditure data available for the codes 411, 412, 413, 415 was
not accurate. For example the real sum spent on West Zone only-related communication
and dissemination activities is very limited, i.e. € 178.634,81, in comparison with the
total of EUR 6,6 million available for all zones.
In accordance with the JTS, the same undifferentiated approach was continued for the
2007-2013 programming period; no information on this aspect is provided by the
INTERREG IV C Operational Programme.
From the total budget for 2001 and 2002, respectively €31,2 million euros and €16,57
million euros were decommited in 2005, in accordance with the n+2 rule. This brings the
initial ERDF budget allocated to the programme to €96,153,370. The annual allocations
were done in a relatively flat way (more or less the same allocation for each year of the
programme, including 2001 and 2002) rather than gradually. No shifts in the following
years of the programme were possible, as in the case of INTERACT I.
The ERDF budget that was finally allocated for the INTERREG IIIC West Zone was€
79,575,968.00; the certified expenditures reached € 71,922,693 (latest figures available
–November 2009). This means an average achievement rate (for the ERDF contribution)
of 90.38 %.
During the programme lifetime, the JTS monitored closely the decommitment risk,
discussed within all meetings of the MC, and proposed measures to limit the
1 79,575,968 is the amount left after the de-commitment which took place in 2005 (€16,577,402). The initial ERDF budget was €96,153,370. As a uniform methodology needs to be applied to all 16 in-depth studies, these calculations are made with the data provided by the European Commission. Last figures, provided by the JTS of the programme, are used further in the financial analysis. Please see also Annex 2, table 3, were the latest figures on realisation rate per code of intervention are presented.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 13 January 2010
decommitment of funds and its impact on the programme’s financial performance, e.g.
extending the reporting period, payments to local development funds, submission of
intermediate financial reports (not audited) by project partners.
This risk could be contained to a certain extent through:
• applying a flexible approach (see table 3.2) towards funds re-allocations at
operational level;
• monitor and limit the under-spending of projects.
• intermediate financial reporting:1
Table 3.2 Flexibility rules Rule Reallocation Amount Procedure 1 Between budget
lines, components and partners
Up to EUR 20,000, or if more, up to 10% of the original amount in the respective budget line, the component or the project partner budget given in the approved application
Without prior notification of the JTS
2 Between budget lines, components and partners
Up to 20% of the original total budget given in the approved application, only once during the operation life time.
Prior approval from the JTS required
The under-spending at the level of operations was due mostly to activities
delayed/cancelled/ or carried out but paid at a later stage, or paid out but not reported on
time due to first level control difficulties at national level (especially in Italy and to a
certain extent Hungary). Most of the delays were triggered by re-arrangements in the
partnership arrangements.
80,3% of the total technical assistance budget was finally spent. From the TA an
unabsorbed budget of 86% is unspent money under the “miscellaneous” budgetary line.
In March 2006 the programme shifted € 450,000 from priority 3 to priority 1. At the
beginning of 2007 it was known that the IIIC West JTS would develop into an IVC JTS, the
latter also covered some of the staff costs planned for 2008 under INTERREG III. A
further shift of funds to priority 1 at such a late stage wouldn’t have been efficient or
effective.
3.1.2 Dynamic financial analysis
The dynamics of spending under INTERREG III C West are relatively typical: lower spending in
the first and last years of the programme and increased spending in its second part (see figure
3.1).
1 In order to include as much expenditure as possible, the JTS asked the operations in 2004, 2005, 2006
and 2007 to submit an intermediate financial report. The report covered the reporting period July to November. The expenditure reported in this report had to be actually paid out by 30 November but not necessarily confirmed by an independent auditor.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 14 January 2010
Figure 3.1 Financial Implementation of the programme 1
0
20000000
40000000
60000000
80000000
100000000
120000000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Priority 1Priority 2Priority 3Total
Source: in-depth evaluation INTERREG III C West Zone The limited spending in the first years of the programme is justified by:
• Late start of the programme due to late approval of the INTERREG Guidelines for
C-Strand. At the same time, at the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period
the Member States were focussed on putting A- en B-strand programmes on
track and limited resources were available for this new initiative. The INTERREG III C
West Zone programme started only in late 2002; the first call for proposals was
launched on the 10th of October, 2002. INTERREG III C South started even later and
the need to coordinate among all 4 zones generally hampered their initial activity.
• Although interregional cooperation as such has existed before, also financed by the
European Commission, there was no genuine “predecessor” of the programme;
therefore, the programme implementation structure, including procedures and
team, needed to be built up from scratch.
• Further than the programme implementation structure as such, the strategy,
requirements and procedures for Strand C were also new to the target group. New
partners were involved, coming from different cultural backgrounds and “getting to
know” the programme and each other required more time. As the partnerships were
new, the experience in managing European wide projects (in the INTERREG III C
context) was missing in most cases.
The Priority 1/Measure 1 of the programme had a concave spending trend. As in the first
two years of the programme, 2001 and 2002, no activities were carried out, the JTS
needed to catch up at the beginning of 2003. In June 2004 already the 4th, and last fully
fledged call for proposals was launched. In 2005 the programme was in full swing, with all
operations under implementation. Although the operational activities were closed by the
end of 2007 only 6 operations received the final payment by the end of 2007 (AIR 2007,
page 38) and most of the project’s final payments were affected in 2008 (after granting
them some time extension (1-3 months) for this specific purpose, i.e. closing the project).
However, the spending for the other 2 priorities (each with one measure) was very flat.
Priority 2 and the related financial procedures ran only until 2004.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 15 January 2010
As the programme had a limited number of priorities, most budgetary shifts took place at
operational and not priority, level. As mentioned before, at operational level the flexibility
approach was applied (see Table 3.2). Additional funds were allocated to running
operations, through three calls for additional funding (November 2005, 5 May 2006 and
31 October 2006). Some of these funds were granted for capitalisation activities (see
page 19).
Further than financial changes/shifts, the need for changes within the operational field
was caused by a modification of the partnership, budgets, activities or duration. The
number of changes (e.g. 43 in 2007, the highest number during the programme’s
lifetime), if benchmarked against the number of partners involved in the programme
(930) are actually negligible. Most changes were actually related to partnership, these
occurred due to the high number of partners (>10 average) and, to a certain extent,
due to the “newness” of these partnerships in comparison with the A en B programmes.
These partnership changes seem to be different from Strand B as they do not have a
fundamental impact on the project (especially in the case of networks). Some of these
partnership changes triggered also budgetary changes but to a limited extent. New
partners were proposed or the activities were distributed to other partners. Other changes
referred to the duration of the projects as some projects needed 3 more months to close
the budget (see also the lessons learned from GRDP project, chapter 3.3.).
Regarding co-financing, the initially envisaged private spending was a rough estimation
of what the private parties could contribute under the programme. However, private
actors were not the main target group of the programme; some scope for their
involvement existed under the RFO’s at the sub-project level but it was difficult to
estimate at the beginning how the RFO’s would be designed. On one side less RFO’s were
approved and implemented than initially envisaged; on the other side the lead partners
found it very complicated or difficult to apply all the rules/conditions related to the private
partnership involvement e.g. state aid rules.
Another challenge for the programme were the different co-financing rates. Under this
programme EDRF Funds will finance from50 % (partners coming from non objective 1-
regions) up to 75 % (partners coming from objective one regions) and even up to 85 %
(the outermost regions) of the total eligible cost. For the technical assistance priority,
ERDF co-financing was 50 %. Currently the same differentiated co-financing rates are
applied and a simple calculation mechanism is used for a clear overview of the financial
allocations.
3.1.3 Intermediate conclusions
414 “Innovative actions” and 415 “Information to the public” have been the intervention
codes with the greatest budgetary importance. As no differentiation is made among
operations, this code classification cannot reflect in a more nuanced manner the reality of
the programme. The patterns registered under the West Zone are similar with the other
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 16 January 2010
three C programmes, as the same codes of interventions and funds concentration were
used on 414.
The codes were not used for the monitoring of this programme. The codes of
interventions were not used by the mid-term evaluation, either. One possible explanation
for this situation is the lack of guidance. The working paper on indicators stops at code
category 36 when giving examples of output, results and impact indicators for the codes.
No examples are given for 414.
Financial absorption was negatively affected by two main factors: the late start of the
programme and under-spending at operational level. The latter was triggered by
partnership re-arrangements, activities delayed/cancelled/ or carried out but paid a later
stage/paid out but not reported on time due to first level control difficulties at national
level (especially in Italy, to a certain extent in Hungary), to a certain extent tight project
management and reporting procedures.
The concave spending trend of the Priority 1/Measure 1 does not imply that the projects
were not experimental and/or innovative. On the contrary, all of them could be labelled in
this way. The concave form of the implementation curve is given by the implementation
approach chosen by the programme, i.e. through calls for proposals, not through rolling
application. Consequently, the project preparation phase is not reflected in the Figure 3.1
graph, only the implementation as such (from call for proposal/signing the subsidy
contract/funds commitment to funds reimbursement). Nevertheless, the projects were
even being prepared in some cases for two years before the application was submitted.
No ex-ante budgetary earmarking was done for non-Member States; no data is available
regarding the precise share of funds spent by non-Member States.
3.2 The effectiveness of the programme
3.2.1 Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and trend patterns
We address the effectiveness of INTERREG III C West zone in three steps: 1. General assessment of the achievement rate: reaching the targets initially set 2. Differentiated assessment the programme effectiveness: programme intervention logic
versus performance of the operations/programme 3. Assessment of the intensity of cooperation having taken place under INTERREG III C
West Zone and its sustainability: cooperation as both means and goal in itself 1. General assessment of the achievement rate: reaching the initially set up targets
The programme IIIC West has the highest overall achievement rate (139 %) of all IIIC
programmes (the overall C Strand average achievement ratio is 123 %). The graphs
below illustrate the success in meeting the target values of the output, result and impact
indicators for programme IIIC West zone:
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 17 January 2010
Figure 3.2 Achievement rates INTERREG III C West Zone per output, result and impact
Source: INTERREG III ex-post evaluation , programme fiche Figure 3.3 % of indicators whose targets were achieved between 10 and 90%, 90 and
110% and greater than 110% Source: INTERREG III ex-post evaluation , programme fiche A large share of the West Zone indicators (59%) have an achievement rationale between
90 and 110%. Nevertheless, the indicators falling into this category are related to
programme and operations management and coordination, rather than to the
genuine performance of the operations. The indicators related to the programme
performance are to be found in the first category, i.e. 33 indicators (28% of all indicators)
with an achievement rate of more than 110% (see table 3.3). As the system of indicators
139133
243
148
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Mean Output Impact Resul t
0
17,94871795
0
46,15384615
11
66
36
100
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Out put Impact Result
great er t han 110%
90% t o 110%
0% t o 90%
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 18 January 2010
was common to all C problems, this trend is in general most probable: realistic targets
are difficult to set, especially for the physical performance of the programme operations.
Table 3.3 Indicators related to the programme performance and their achievement
rates Indicator Achievement rate (%)
No of staff members with increased capacity (awareness / knowledge / skills) based on the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events
289,76
No of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events
266
No of good practices identified related to Structural Funds 165,3
No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies 151,3 No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred
199 No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred 184,5 No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed 375 In setting up the targets for the programme indicators, 0 was considered as baseline. Due
to the broad, open and innovative nature of the programme, setting realistic targets
proved a challenging exercise. The approach taken in 2005 was to base the programme
targets on the targets proposed by the already approved projects and on the achievement
rates reported at that moment. For the management, coordination and, to a certain
extent, dissemination of activities, the targets were easier to approximate.
The uncertainty about the number of possible operations, their outputs, results and
impacts lead to increased caution in carrying out this exercise; therefore, lower targets
were set up in order to avoid under-performance1. Except the number of partners
involved, in the end all targets related to the indicators aimed to measure the
operations performance were significantly exceeded. Some targets were set up when
the final achievements were already known (e.g. no. of applications submitted per call -
see annex 3).
2. Differentiated assessment of the programme effectiveness: programme
intervention logic versus performance of the operations
In a nutshell, the programme strategy encompasses:
1 As it is the case now with the programme over-performance, this under performance would have been
artificial.
A main goal Means Four objectives (Priority 1 related) Accessing the experience of other partners Expanding the effects of Structural Funds and/or other regional development programmes Improving regional policies and instruments
To improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion.
CO-OPERATION Expressed also under the terms: PARTNERSHIP NETORKING EXCHANGE
Contribution to horizontal EU policies
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 19 January 2010
The first three objectives are interconnected and reflect the programme intervention
logic: exchange (output)-implement (result)-improve(impact).
Annex 3 summarises the programme achievements available in August 2009, and their
progress at the beginning of 2004. For the purpose of this effectiveness analysis, only the
second set of indicators, related to the operations performance, will be taken into account
(see annex 4). 2.1. Accessing into others experience
As presented in Annex 3, public equivalent bodies, old Members States and Objective 1
regions were more involved in the programmes operations. These partners also
exchanged experiences on other policies implemented at local and regional level that
were financed from structural funds or other sources. It seems that the presence of the
public equivalent bodies is even stronger in the RFO’s.
Two-thirds of the partners involved in the programme were regional and local authorities;
a significant proportion of the local and regional partners were authorities involved in the
INTERREG programmes (A en B) and less involved in the Objective 1 and 2 programmes
while the focus of the programme should have been on the latter, in accordance with the
Interregional Cooperation Communication. The same is valid for partners from the
outermost regions1. It seems that all NUTS II regions, except five of them, were involved
in at least one INTERREG C project2.
Assessing the exact “proportion” or “weight” of the 930 partners (out of which: regional -
264 and local - 285 authorities) from the total (Europe 25 and third countries) “target
group” is challenging. Some rough calculations can be made. However, the purpose of
such an exercise would be to only “project” INTERREG III C (West Zone and all four
zones) coverage against a general background. For this purpose one can take the
following data into account:
• During the 2000-6 programming period there were 114 Objective 1 programmes, 96
Objective 2 programmes and 77 INTERREG A and B programmes (287 in total; some
of them, indeed, implemented only for the 2004-2006 period)
1Interregional cooperation was set up to “improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion through networking, particularly for regions whose development is lagging behind and those undergoing conversion” ( see CEC 2004a: point 17). 2 In accordance with the official programme statistics, INTERREG C involved around 194 regions in 50 countries.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 20 January 2010
• At the same time Europe 25 counted approx. 91 NUTS 1 regions, 257 NUTS 2 regions
and 1233 NUTS III regions (a total of 1581, keeping in mind that some NUTS I and
even II regions are set up for statistical purposes only)
• The Dexia study “Sub-national Governments in the European Union” counts in Europe
25 at local and regional level: 104 first level sub-national governments, 1108 second
level sub-national governments (a total of 1212 divers regions) and 87.815 first level
authorities (municipalities).
As a very rough estimation, the INTERREG III C West reached, with its 264 regional
authorities participating, approximately 17% (if we compare the 264 regional authorities
with the NUTS system) to 20% (if we compare the 264 regional authorities with the Dexia
system) of the regions in Europe. INTERREG III C as a whole, with 607 regional
authorities, reached between 40% (in comparison with the NUTS system) and 49% (in
comparison with the Dexia figures) of its regional target group. The percentages for local
authorities are significantly lower.
We underline the fact that this rough estimation just gives an idea of the extent of
cooperation, not on its depth. On the other side, we also need to keep in mind the fact
that the number of regional and/or local authorities is significantly lower from the number
of governmental-administrative layers as labelled above.
Having new Member States involved in the programme proved difficult for a series of
reasons:
1. these countries entered the European Union only in 2004 (although they had been
integrated in the programme one year earlier (2003).
2. they were lacking the experience of being involved in INTERREG C types of operations
3. they focussed on absorbing funds from objective 1 and 2 with significantly higher
budgets
4. in some new Member States the regional governmental layer is less developed, if
existing, and the capacity and skills to develop regional and local development policy
was is weak. In this respect they could have acted as “recipients” of the policy
exchanges as such, but also for effective learning one needs a certain capacity and
openness.
It seems that geographical proximity did play a role as more new Member States were
involved in the Eastern and Northern Zones. There were no lead partners from new
Member States in the West Zone as no new Member State was geographically covered by
the programme. But there are clearly more partners form the new MS’s that take part in
the INTERREG IV operations. This higher participation has been facilitated also by the
clearer requirements of the programme, the non-fragmented geographical coverage of the
programme and their increased experience with interregional cooperation.
The current developments are to a certain extent surprising, as partners from CEEC’s
were coordinating 24% of the ECOS-OUVERTURE third phase projects (approximately 15)
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 21 January 2010
(see Committee of Regions 2001, Trans-national cooperation between Territorial
Authorities, New Challenges and Further Steps necessary to improve cooperation, page
101).
The 75 operations organised a significant number of events in order to exchange and
disseminate experience, also due to the fact that half of the operations (38 out of 75)
were networks and this is their purpose), 2.503 against 1600 initially planned, which is an
average of 33,3 events per operation. The participation in these events is also a lot higher
than initially envisaged: 78.771 against 28.000. Although these expectations have been
exceeded, only approximately 10% of the participants increased their capacity/knowledge
as a result of their participation in these events1.
2.2. Expanding the effects of structural funds and/or other regional development programmes
Although the programme financed operations in a wide range of policy/thematic fields, a
good proportion of the operations carried out activities related to Objective 1 and 2, and
other structural funds types of interventions (see table 3.4). Still, 34 operations (45%)
exchanged good practices related to other types of regional/local/national development
policies (e.g. see, for examples of other topics, the STRATINC, CULTURED and e-BIRD
project case studies).
Table 3.4 INTERREG III C West categorisation of operations per Topic of Co-operation
Topic of co-operation Type of cooperation
Exchange of types of activities supported under Objective 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds
Exchange on Interregional cooperation linking public authorities or equivalent bodies involved in other INTERREG programmes
Exchange on interregional cooperation in the field of urban development
Exchange on interregional cooperation linking regions involved under the three themes of the regional innovative actions for 2000-2006
Exchange on other subjects appropriate to interregional cooperation
RFO 1 2 0 0 3 Individual 6 3 5 1 16 Network 11 5 6 1 15 TOTAL 18 (24 %) 10 (13.3 %) 11 (14.7 %) 2 (2.7 %) 34 (45.3
%) 1653 Structural Funds-related (vs. 1000 targeted) and 3.026 other policiy-related (vs. 2000
targeted) good practices were identified. Differentiating these good practices in the programme
monitoring system, also per topic of cooperation might have proved useful, in order to isolate
the results of the 18 Objective 1 and 2 –related operations. 199 of the 1653 Structural Funds-
1 Firstly, we should underline the fact that the programme did not envisage that all participants in events
increase their capacity and the achievements are considered satisfactory. Further on, if we make a basic calculation of the ration between the actual expenditure, (an average of 67,941,811.47 euros for all operation) and this effect produced, i.e. number of participants with increased capacity, the average price per person is only €8.000. Evidently, this depends on the content (what exactly did the participants learn) and quality of this individual learning. This ratio does not take into account the other outputs, results and impacts of the programme as these calculations are not made to assess accurately the efficiency of the programme (no benchmark exists), just to give a rough idea about the costs involved.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 22 January 2010
related practices were transferred (vs. 100 targeted), while for the other policyrelated good
practices, 369 were transferred. The transfer rationale is, in both cases, around 12%1.
2.3. Improving regional policies and instruments
As this is the core aim of the INTERREG III C programme, the achievements registered for the
result indicator of this third objective can be interpreted actually as the impact of the
programme. Out of the 1362 addressed policies, at regional, local, and national level, 375
were improved or newly developed (27% of the total addressed, an average of 5 per
operation2). A differentiation between local, regional and national policies should have
been made, as well as on policies in old/new/third MemberSstates; this would add more
weight to the programme impact3.
As in regards to the distribution of operations per themes of cooperation, most
operations concentrated on:
• Regional Planning, territorial regeneration and urban development,
• Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources,
• SME development and entrepreneurship and
• Heritage, culture and tourism (in this order) (see table 3.5).
Table 3.5 Distribution of themes of cooperation vis-a-vis operations
RFO Individual Project
Network Total (nr)
Total %
Research, technology and innovations 3 2 2 7 9.3 % Employment, social inclusion, human resources and education
4 2 1 7 9.3 %
Heritage, culture and tourism 2 1 7 10 13.3 % SME development and entrepreneurship 4 8 3 15 20 % Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources
3 8 8 19 25.3 %
Regional Planning, territorial regeneration and urban development
2 9 13 24 32 %
Accessibility, mobility and transport 1 2 3 6 8 % Information society and E-Government 0 1 2 3 4 %
Note: Each of 6 RFOs have identified 3-4 themes of cooperation; and one individual project (ICN) has 2 themes. Therefore, the sum of percentages above make more than 100 %.
With the future interregional cooperation programme under preparation, the Member
States regarded it as essential that running operations in all four INTERREG IIIC zones
capitalised on their results in order to maximise their achievements. In 2007 two
projects received supplementary total ERDF funding of EUR 552.006 (EUR 80,230 for the
CULTURED project on 5 February 2007 and EUR 471,776 for the CLOE project on 1 June
1 While this ration seems relatively low, the basic cost/effect ratio indicates a relative efficiency of these
results: €119.615,86 per best practice transferred. Again, this figure needs to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the best practices transferred and of the transfer results (equivalent with the programme impact; for a closer insight see Chapter 3.3. projects description).
2 €181.178,164 per policy – while, for example, a comprehensive, but small scale (at regional level) policy evaluation, which could lead to a policy improving, might cost between €50.000 and €100,000 (of course, this relevance of this comparison depends on the policy and type/degree of improving we are taking into account). If we calculate all programme results and impact of the programme, i.e. 10966 “units” of results and impacts in accordance with the programmes indicators, without weighting them in any way, the unit cost is very low, i.e. €6195. 3 For some examples of policies newly developed or influenced, see annex 5
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 23 January 2010
2007). The additional funds for capitalisation were meant for activities aiming to bring
similar projects together and for activities which provided a “test bed” for new approaches
aiming to transfer experience into mainstream programmes.
The idea behind capitalisation was to enhance the experiences and learning effects of
those projects which worked in the same field by stimulating them to work together. The
first project CULTURED was a very useful experience with significant added value as it
strengthens the cooperation among a series of already existing projects and enhances the
learning effects of the institutions and individuals involved. The second project, CLOE,
was more of a experiment for INTERREG IV C: a pilot exercise for the fast-track projects
financed by INTERREG IV C. CLOE proved that there are regions that want to and are
committed and capable of cooperating more intensively to set up and implement an action
plan together.
2.4. The impact of the programme
As the horizontal analysis carried out under the INTERREG ex-post evaluation (see
INTERREG ex-post evaluation FIR, page 138) correctly notices, to measure or observe the
impact of INTERREG C on the effectiveness of regional development policies and
instruments may be easier than to measure the impact on socio-economic cohesion or
impact on the cooperation topics/themes as defined in the programme strategy.
There is only one indicator trying to capture the impact of the programme, i.e. number
of new projects/activities/ approaches resulting from the
exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events. Nevertheless, as
the main goal of the programme is to improve the effectiveness of policies and
instruments for regional development and cohesion, the impact of the programme as such
is rather related to the result indicator of the third programme objective, i.e. Improving
regional policies and instruments, respectively by the number of regional/local
policies and instruments improved or developed.
Still an open issue is the “effectiveness” of these policies; although all practices
transferred were allegedly good practices, it is difficult to capture, with the information
currently available, if the policies influenced became more effective or if the newly
developed ones are effective. As in the case of INTERACT I, in order to assess the impact
of the programme the analysis needs to be carried out outside the programme “area”: in
order to measure their effectiveness, a separate evaluation of these policies should be
carried out, as the information available “internally”, in the programme, is not sufficient
for this purpose.
The number of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the
exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events also relates to the
programme impact, but it is rather an unexpected/unintended impact, from a point of
view of the intervention logic. To a certain extent this indicator also gives information
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 24 January 2010
about the programme sustainability: some networks and partnerships, created or
enhanced under INTERREG III C West Zone, continued in other contexts.
The achievements in terms of impact, as defined by the programme, are, again,
significantly higher in comparison with the targets initially envisaged (1330 new
projects/activities/approaches and 375 policies improved or developed).
2.5. Learning and experimentation
INTERREG IIIC, including West Zone, focused on learning and experimentation. Although
inter-regional cooperation had existed before INTERREG III C was launched, INTERREG III
C gave a new impetus to this type of cooperation, as it offered the necessary means, e.g.
financial but also in terms of partnership (through the partner search and project ideas
data base) and specific European project management knowledge and tools, to interested
European actors.
The number of staff members with increased capacity (awareness / knowledge /
skills) based on the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events is a
good indicator for the individual learning triggered by the programme’s activities.
Nevertheless, there are a series of other activities which triggered individual
learning, potentially more intense than the inter-regional events: e.g. studies prepared,
trainings, study visits, project management as such. The taking up of this individual
learning by organisations is qualitatively presented in the projects final reports (see also
chapter 3.3.)
As in regards to experimentation, all INTERREG III C West projects are new and
innovative, in their approach to policy problem-solving. Regarding cooperation, the
INTERREG III C programmes seem to project a two-sided image: on one side there are
clearly a series of regions and local actors ready and capable to cooperate with their
counterparts in other countries; on the other side, other regions still have to take steps in
order to understand the benefits of inter-regional cooperation, at both political and
administrative/technical levels, and/or acquiring the necessary capacity to undergo such
cooperation. Under INTERREG III C operations a learning process is triggered between the
two groups: the regions more experienced in inter-regional cooperation transfer their
knowledge and skills to the less experienced, e.g. new EU Member State, candidates and
accession countries and other third-party countries (more than 200 in the West Zone and
494 partners from New Member States and 154 partners from Third-PartyCountries for
the entire Stand C, in accordance with official statistics).
As mentioned before, especially the project management, implementation and
accountability requirements, in comparison with previous Community-financed initiatives
in the field of interregional cooperation (and other interregional cooperation initiatives) is
experimental.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 25 January 2010
3. Assessment of the intensity of cooperation in INTERREG III C West zone and
its sustainability: cooperation as a means and goal
Cooperation is seen under this programme as a means to achieve the programme goals
and objectives, but also as a purpose in itself, i.e. the point I.8 of the Interregional
Cooperation Communication which stipulates that III C should create a more stable
structure for cooperation, as opposed to one-off projects. The types of operations
financed under the programme supposed to reach a minimum degree of intensity of
cooperation (see table 3.6).
Table 3.6 Intensity of cooperation: levels
Level Intensity Definition Result 1 Exchange and
dissemination of experience
Aims at enhancing the capacities of the partners, but does not lead directly to changes in policies and instruments
New knowledge and skills
2 Transfer of instruments, projects
Aims at transferring a good practice policy concept, instrument, or project to another region
Adjusted instrument, project
3 Development of new approaches
Aims at development of new policies or instruments in at least one of the regions involved
New policy, innovative instrument, project
4 Joint development of new approaches
Aims at joint development of new policies or instruments undertaken by several participating regions
New policy, innovative instrument, project
In practice three types of cooperation were aimed at:
1. networking: meeting and learning from each other; all operations should have
achieved this first level of cooperation (basic intensity of cooperation), corresponding
to the first objective of the programme;
2. experiment through transfer of expertise among partners (the transfer always has
had as subject a good practice, e.g. policy, approach, methodology; CITEAIR seems
to be a good example in this case);
3. setting up of a joint programme (RFOs).
As mentioned before, all operations were required to achieve at least the minimum level
of intensity of cooperation. Further on, the individual projects achieved the second level
of intensity of cooperation, and the few RFO’s financed under the programme, reached the
third level. At the same time, the intensity of cooperation was not necessarily related to
the quality of the projects (e.g. the achievements of networks were sometimes much
straightforward that the results of RFOs)
Between 50% and 80% of programme funds could/should have been spent on Regional
Framework Operations, between 10% and 30% on individual co-operation projects and
between 10% and 20% on networks. The financial allocations and absorption per type of
cooperation in INTERREG III C West are presented in the table below:
Table 3.7 Weight of each type of C instrument
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 26 January 2010
Type of Cooperation
Number Total budget absorbed
% of the total programme
budget (EUR 118,608,940)
% of the programme budget for operations
(EUR 109,288,844)
Total ERDF paid
% of the total ERDF
budget (EUR 79,575,968)
% of the total ERDF budget for operations
(EUR 74,471,568)
RFO 6 34,042,505.96 28.7 31.1 18.896.920,00
23.7 25.3
IPs 30 41,326,854.91 34.8 37.8 23.155.625,00
29.1 31.1
N 39 42,656,919.34 36.0 39.0 25.486.264,00
32 34.2
Total 75 118,026,280.21 99.5 107.9 67.538.809,00
84.9 90.7
Out of the total ERDF funds paid (€ 67,538,809,47) in the West Zone, 28 % was spent on
RFO’s, 34% on Individual Projects and 37% on Networks.
Less RFO’s than originally envisaged1 were implemented in the West Zone, as the JTS
emphasized more on the demand of types of cooperation, on the quality of the
partnerships and of the project as such; this approach was also approved by the MC. Out
of the 14 RFO applications submitted 7 were approved (1 approved RFO withdrawn in
2005). At the same time, the West Zone programme interpreted strictly the notion of the
RFO’s (certainly more strictly than other IIIC zones). This may explain why the demand
for this type of intervention remains limited.
One major aspect which hampered the JTS to approve more RFO’s was the relevance of
their proposed activities. Although mini-programmes allowed projects to be financed, the
objective of the RFO’s and these projects should still be the exchange of and improvement
of the local and regional policies and not the implementing of specific, concrete measures
(e.g. support of SMES’s) which could have been financed under other EU or
national/regional programmes. Two out of three currently (INTERREG IV) approved RFO’s
are being lead by previous lead partners of RFO’s.
Do regions cooperate more as a result of their involvement in IIIC? The answer to
this question is clearly yes. For the first two calls for proposals launched under the
current programming period already 1000 applications were received. 64 % of the funds
were already committed after these first two calls. The regions seem much more
interested in interregional cooperation and mutual learning. However, due to a lack of
relevance of the projects and activities proposed, the percentage of approved project
application is only about 12% (in opposition to early INTERREG III C). It seems very
challenging for the JTS to communicate to the project promoters the philosophy of the
programme. On the other side, it seems that there is a need to implement common,
cross European projects as well, in addition to further exchanging policy-related good
practices. Another gap which was not covered by INTERREG IV C is the exchange and
learning of implementation of good practices among the managing authorities and
intermediate bodies of the Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes. Financing
1 At least in terms of financial weight; in terms of absolute numbers, no indicator&target is set up in this
sense.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 27 January 2010
these gaps could be done under the Objective 1 and 2 programmes themselves, under
INTERACT II (or III) or under an INTERREG V with an adjusted strategy.
3.2.2 Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved
Re-assess quality of initial programming
The INTERREG III C West Zone programme was designed and, consequently, started, at a
later stage that the other INTERREG within the mainstream of Operational Programmes.
The strategy of the programme was based on, to a large extent, the provisions of the
INTERREGIONAL Cooperation Communication of the European Commission; practically the
former implementation of the provisions of the latter. In the initial phase a limited in-
depth analysis was carried out with a view to enhance the programme intervention logic;
no ex-ante evaluation was conducted for this programme, due to time constraints. A
limited number of stakeholders from regional and central administrations were consulted
while developing the programme.
INTERREG III C was innovative, in its programme-like approach. However, limited
continuation with previous Community initiatives financing interregional cooperation, such
as RECITE and ECOS –Ouverture, was ensured1. The major shift between the two
generations of programmes is linked to the eligible activities. Both RECITE and ECOS
financed to a large extent networks and implementation-related projects, while INTERREG
III C focused on policy learning2. INTEREG III C has been inspired by other INTERREG B
programmes: especially the INTERREG III B Baltic Sea and INTERREG III B Northwest
Europe programmes contributed in a first phase to the setting up of the programme
management and implementations system.
In 2003 the INTERREG III C Mid-term evaluation carried out an assessment of the main
needs for interregional co-operation and how the programme responded to these needs.
The MTE concluded that, in general, the objectives of INTERREG III C responded to the
needs for interregional cooperation as identified in the territory and that the programme
appears to have a strong mobilisation potential as evidenced by the high number of
applications and partners.
If the rationale and the main goal of the programme are relatively straightforward, a
more intricate construction starts at the operational level: further than the four
objectives of the programme, refined after the outcomes of the MTE were made
1 The strive to more accountability and effectiveness was initiated already during the last phase of these initiatives, e.g. projects under Recite II had to go through a 8 month “feasibility verification phase”, during which a Goal Oriented Project Planning could have been developed, to help partners reach a consensus, to develop a highly structured work programme and to run the project in accordance with its objectives. (see Committee of Regions 2001, Trans-national cooperation between Territorial Authorities, New Challenges and Further Steps necessary to improve cooperation, page 100). The single element taken over from RECIT was the flexibility issue. 2 This might be one explanation for the less relevant, implementation- focused applications the JTS
receives.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 28 January 2010
available, cooperation needed to take a certain form (RFO/IP/N) aiming at a certain level
of intensity.
The four objectives developed at a later stage reflect the intervention logic “layers”:
output/result/impact. The third new objective, i.e. improving regional policies and
instruments, overlaps with the main goal of the programme. This “flat”-type of strategy
seems to have been set up in order to smooth out the process of identifying the most
appropriate indicators to measure the programme performance.
At a later stage a thematic taxonomy of the operations was introduced (see
Introduction).
Table 3.8 Summarising the findings of the assessment of the initial programming
Criterion/scoring Excellent
Sufficient Poor
Data use and analysis
A top-down approach to programming was adopted (strategy based on the INTERREGIONAL Cooperation Communication). Limited analysis carried out when the programme was designed, nevertheless, the MTE made a more comprehensive analysis of IRC needs/challenges in the covered countries. Strategy was refined by taking into account the MTE recommendations
Focus The programme focus on “policy exchange and learning” is clear, although it seems that it was very difficult to communicate this adequately to the target group. The “position” of cooperation as such within the programme two-folds: means and goal and leads to ambiguous strategy. Several operations are categorised under other “topics” and “themes” of cooperation” (the latter after they were defined). Otherwise all operations are considered innovative actions.
Quality and logic of the SWOT analysis
No fully fledged SWOT analysis is presented in the CIP/PC; a needs assessment was carried out at a later stage (MTE)
Consistency of the programme strategy
The programme strategy is in line with the needs identified from the outset and through the MTE.
Determination of programme measures
Each priority has one measure; less can be said about this aspect.
Quality assessment of the programme system of indicators
Building up a system of indicators for INTERREG III C, including West Zone, encountered
a series of challenges, as identified also by the MTE:
• 2000-2006 was the first programming period for which the European Commission
required that monitoring of the physical performance of the programmes is carried out
through a fully fledged indicator system. Limited guidance for setting up INTERREG-
specific indicators was given from the outset; the MTE’s played an important role in
this respect for the C programme (as for INTERACT I). As in the case of the latter, the
indicators for the C programme were developed at a later stage and needed to be
applied retroactively to the already approved operations.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 29 January 2010
• The strategy of the programme was widely defined; the programme had a main
goal, e.g. to improve effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional
development and cohesion, which achievement reflects the impact of the programme,
and further a series of topics for cooperation, refined at a later stage in programme
objectives, which related to the programme performance achieved through its
operations.
• the C programme in itself had an experimental nature, aimed at achieving results
difficult to capture in quantitative terms. Certain programme objectives and actions
were intangible (e.g. “to promote interregional cooperation”, “disseminating
experience regionally”). Many of the effects (results, impacts) are of indirect nature
and can only be seen in the medium- to long-term (e.g. “to create cooperation
networks”, “changes in political and institutional structures”).
• Heterogeneity of regions and proposed actions (topics of cooperation) and dispersal of
projects made it more difficult to aggregate outputs/results/impacts through the use
of a small number of quantitative indicators.
Besides a limited series of aspects which could use improvements, the system of
indicators in place for INTERREG III C West Zone adequately reflects the programme’s
outputs, results and impacts.1 Setting up an indicator framework helped in clarifying the
programme strategy and the envisaged achievements, respectively the expected outputs,
results and impacts of the programme.2
As indicated by “The New Programming period 2000-2006: methodological working paper:
Indicators for Monitoring and evaluation: an indicative methodology, the indicator system
distinguishes between:
• programme and operation level indicators
• performance and management, coordination and dissemination
• output, result and impact indicators (see Annex 3).
The indicators set up for the management, coordination and dissemination of the
programme and operations accurately reflect the activities of both the programme and the
operations implementation structures carried out in this sense and are also meant to
account for the TA and project management-related costs.
1 As an anecdotal indication, when asked which other methodology/ways it would have used to measure the
programme achievements, the JTS answered: the same, [the system of indicators in place], as we had to set up indicators (as principle), but their selection was the responsibility of the MA/JTS itself (concrete implementation of the principle).
2 After the MTE was carried out and recommendations related to indicator system developed in this frame, the 4 JTSs made a joint effort to develop a common system for the entire Strand C. For one year additional talks with the Southern programme were carried out in order to reach an agreement on this matter. In the final stage of the programme the INTERREG IV JTS attempted to aggregate the achievements of all zones; nevertheless, due to different interpretation and application of the system, this proved to be a challenging exercise: e.g. incomplete data, differences in the interpretation of the indicators.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 30 January 2010
The indicators set up for the intrinsic performance of the operations reflect in a nutshell,
and quantitatively, the outputs and results of the programme.
The aspects which could be improved as in regards to the indicators measuring the
operations’ performance are:
Clear intervention logic: this is the most important pre-condition for a good system of
indicators. Once the global, specific and operational objectives of the intervention are
clear and logically derived from a SWOT analysis, it is more simple to set up a measuring
system of the intervention’s output, results and impacts, e.g. in the case of INTERREG III
C, it is very difficult to assess to which extent effectiveness of the regional/local policies
and instruments improved or developed were in fact improved.
Labelling the indicators: indicator reflecting the impact of the programme labelled as
result. One impact indicator was set up, respectively the number of new
projects/activities/approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at
inter-regional events. As the global aim of the programme was “to improve effectiveness
of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion”, a more appropriate
impact indicator would have been the result indicator, i.e. no of regional/local policies and
instruments improved or developed). The former is also an (indirect, from a strategy
point of view) impact of the programme, related to co-operation as objective (and not
means).
Formulating the indicators: some indicators are insufficiently concretely formulated,
e.g. i.e. no of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed. What can be
considered as “improved” of “influenced” (as the annual implementation reports mention)
policy?
The definition of “best practices” is very wide, and leads to too great of a diversity of
interpretations; the different interpretations lead to uncertainty about the programme
results and impacts. An interesting example of “best practices” you can find in the box
bellow:
Box 1. Best Practices identified in the project E-Bird: 39 best practices “All the projects mentionned exchange of experiences or good practices within their group. For example: 2 integrated courses have been supported 9 working-networks have been created or reinforced 9 data-bases have been created More than 8000 participants in the 115 events of the operation (and other events) 3 portals have been set up with the know how of lots of different partners Many study visits and staff exchanges in the framework of project e-GRADE which led to exchanges of good practices Tens of working meeting where every partners shared their knowledge of their work Generally speaking, at least one exchange of good practice has been identified in every project. Source: E-Bird, final implementation report, page 7 Explaining the indicators: a lot has been done in this sense by the JTS, either during
seminars, bilateral discussions with the project partners and especially during the
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 31 January 2010
reporting process. Nevertheless, neither the latest version of the INTERREG III C
Programme Manual, nor the Implementation Manual (April 2006) contain an explanation
of the monitoring indicators as used by the programme1.
Interpreting the indicators: differences in interpretations exist between the 4 zones and
also at operation level; as we will see also later, in chapter 3.3., despite permanent
consultations between the project lead partners and the JTS on this matter, differences in
interpretation persisted, especially in the case of the “best practice” concept, core to the
programme. This constituted a further obstacle for the JTS to capture the impact/spin off
of the operations2.
Number of indicators: although the system of indicators is comprehensive, only a small
part of it relates to the operations’ performance, as such (22 out of 75)
Applying the indicators system at operations’ level: the projects should be even
more stimulated to report on the performance 3 indicators and to justify the data
reported.
3.2.3 Comparison with horizontal results across INTERREG III C
Financial aspects
As mentioned before, only 6% of the total INTERREG budget was dedicated to
interregional cooperation. As presented in the first interim report of the INTERREG III ex-
post evaluation, page 77, INTERREG III C West Zone had the second highest budget
among the 4 C programmes (after INTERREG III C South and very close to the East
zone), representing almost 25% of both the allocated ERDF funding and total Strand C
Strand.
The ERDF allocated budget for the INTERREG IIIC West Zone was €79,575,968.00; the
certified expenditures reached €71.922.693 (final figure). This means an average
achievement rate (for the ERDF funds only) of 90.38 %. In overall terms, the absorption
rate was 92%. Compared to the other INTERREG IIIC programmes the West Zone ranked
2nd ; only the North Zone was able to achieve a better overall achievement rate (see
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation, First Interim Report, page 79). The difference between
the ERDF and total absorption rates is given by the higher spending of the national public
money, which reflects also the higher capital mobilisation potential of the programme
(together with North Zone).
The dynamics of the West programme’s financial absorption (very low in the first years of
the programme and steep curve beginning with 2004, with a pick in 2006-7) is similar to
1 In accordance with the JTS, a common, clearer definition was difficult since it required the approval of all
four zones. 2 E.g. in some project reports the number of good practices transferred is higher than the number of good
practices identified. Exceptionally, also in the programme AIR, the number of brochures created by the West Zone is higher than the number of brochures created by all zones. The correct interpretation of this might be that the West Zone created 12 brochures, while the other 4 are created by the other 3 zones.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 32 January 2010
the developments registered at Strand level and reflects the late start of all 4
programmes and the efforts made to catch up, especially for the years 2003 and 2004
(the 2000 and 2001 funds were decommited).
Effectiveness
The 4 programmes have similar strategies, stemming from the INTERREGIONAL
Cooperation Communication. The problems faced by West Zone in terms of strategy, e.g.
no ex-ante evaluation and more solid theoretical underpinning of the programme, clear
main goals and means, but intricate construction in terms of
types/topics/themes/intensity of cooperation and wide thematic and geographical scope
are common to all programmes. The later streamlining in terms of strategy, e.g.
objectives and indicators, took place in all 4 programmes, after a common MTE and
Update were carried out.
In the second part of the programming period discussions were carried out in order for
the 4 zones to agree on the common framework of indicators, their interpretation and
monitoring; nevertheless, differences in interpretation and applying this system persisted,
especially in the South Zone (see also FIR INTERREG ex-post evaluation, page 114, e.g.
the South Zone programme did not define targets for the indicators).
The achievement ratio is the highest for the West Programme, among the 3 zones which
defined targets for the indicators (see FIR, page 115).
Generally speaking the South programme seems to have performed the least among the
4, both in financial and physical terms. Some aspects mentioned during the interviews
which could constitute explanatory factors for this lower performance are: a different
approach to indicators (which were made coherent at a later stage), a more top-down
approach (i.e. calls especially for RFO’s were organised) and culture.
3.2.4 Comparison with horizontal results across INTERREG III
The ERDF budget allocated to the West Zone programme (€ 79,575,968) only raised the
INTERREG III ERDF total budget by approximately 1,5%. Nevertheless, in INTERREG
terms, it can be considered a large programme (with a total budget of more than € 100
million).
In terms of financial performance, INTERREG III C West, together with the North and
West zones, are falling into the category of programmes with a 90-100% achievement
rate, where approximately 20% of the A strand, and only one B programme also fall.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 33 January 2010
Although in a better position than other INTERREG programmes1, the INTERREG III C
West Zone encountered the same challenges as other INTERREG programmes regarding
indicators: difficulty to set up the indicators system due to deficient intervention logic;
“distributing” indicators in a different “category”, e.g. result indicators are labelled as
impact indicators or the other way around, targets intentionally pessimistically set up,
reflecting less adequately the programme performance. On the other side, the units of
measurement used for the INTERREG C indicators are rather more specific than abstract
(as defined by FIR, page 106). Nevertheless, if the definition is specific, the interpretation
as such is varied.
The average achievement ration of the West Zone programme/C Strand is lower than
Strands A and B for output and results, and higher for impact. As in regards to the
former, the lower percentage might be due to a better system of indicators, while for the
latter, we need to keep in mind that only one impact indicator was set up by the
programme.
The C programmes seem to not have encountered any problems in reaching the targets
(FIR page 139) when compared with Strand A and, especially, B.
3.2.5 Intermediate conclusions
INTERREG III C West zone had only one Priority/One measure under which operations
were financed. The peace of the physical performance more or less followed the pattern of
the financial spending: abruptly after the programme become operational in 2003, until
2007.
The delays in implementation were caused by external and internal factors. The external
factors are: late approval of the programme legal base, the novelty of the programme
which demanded more time until the necessary system was put in place, while the
operations needed some time to assimilate the procedures. The two most important
internal factors are: partnership changes (which trigger delays) and country-
specific first level control.
In most cases the achievements of the programme (output/results/impacts) go
significantly beyond the initially envisaged targets. Nevertheless, this is an indication of
cautiously set up targets rather than that of significant over-performance. The results
achieved adequately reflect the programme rationale and are generally speaking in line
with the programme objectives.
Some of the indicators are vaguely formulated e.g. policies “influenced”. The same is
valid for the “good practices” concept, which is core to the programme. The
interpretation of the indicators also varies, among projects (and zones), e.g. good
practices related to content/theme of the cooperation identified by the E-Bird project. The
1 see, for example, the programme Austria-Bavaria, excluded from analysis as no information on achieved
values were displayed on the Annual Implementation report, FIR page 101
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 34 January 2010
impact of the programme, as defined by the selected indicator, is rather a positive
unintended effect (still impact, though).
It seems that the major challenge was to communicate the “philosophy” of the
programme to the target group, respectively, policy-related exchange and not
implementation of concrete policy-related measures (the latter are to be financed under
other instruments/programmes)1.
Although the significant over-performance of the programme indicates a less realistic
setting up of the targets, we could still draw the conclusion that the programme was
effective: the projects were in all cases experimental, as the programme was new, the
partnerships were new – at least further than the core partnership/initiators, and complex
in terms of types of cooperation (e.g. RFO’s) or number of partners (e.g. large networks
as GRDP)
1330 new projects/activities/ approaches were developed under INTERREG III C; there is
no data at this point regarding exactly how many partnerships continued after finalising
an INTERREG III C project ; nevertheless, it seems that this is the case to a large extent
(see chapter 3.3.). Cooperation can continue in the form of a common programme (e.g.
E-Bird) or other initiatives, financed under other instruments (e.g. GRDP).
3.3 Evaluation at project level
3.3.1 Selection of the project sample
When selecting the projects to be evaluated, the following criteria, some more specific to
Strand C, were kept in mind:
• Good representation of types of operations and topics of cooperation; for the
latter we focused on topic 1, as this was the core rationale of the programme.
• Goode coverage of achievement rates: further than the good practice example, we
identified projects facing specific challenges (partnership, first level control, low
financial absorption, overlapping or limited relevance of project’s activities) and
representing interesting success stories (spin-off and capitalisation activities)
• Good spread of themes of cooperation
• the financial volume of the project (i.e. small budget – around average budget - large
budget),
• the size of the project partnership (i.e. few partners – around average size of the
partnership – large partnership),
1 In accordance with the JTS the group that is the most aware of INTERREG (i.e. bodies governed by public law such as chambers of commerce, development agencies, universities, research institutes, etc.) is not the target group of INTERREG C which focuses directly on regional and local public authorities.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 35 January 2010
• the approval time of the project (i.e. approval at an early stage of the programme’s
life cycle - approval at the middle of the programme’s life cycle - approval at the end
of the programme’s life cycle);
The best practice project was chosen on the basis of its overall performance (financial,
partnership, relevance and impact of its activities, project management); nevertheless,
we also selected a new INTERREG III C West project, which is not yet well known, e.g.
CLOE network.
Of the final five-project samples, two projects (GRDP & PRAXIS) fall under Topic for
interregional cooperation No 1: Objective 1 & Objective 2 areas (while 24% of all
operations under Interreg IIIC West Zone contributed to Topic 1); the other three
selected projects (STRATINC, CULTURED, e-BIRD) fall under Topic 5: Other appropriate
subjects (while 45 % of all operations under Interreg IIIC West Zone contributed to Topic
5). Please note that the thematic scope of CULTURED overlaps that of Topic 1 & Topic 2.
Themes of cooperation Selected operations Research, technology and innovations e-BIRD Employment, social inclusion, human resources and education
e-BIRD
Heritage, culture and tourism e-BIRD, CULTURED SME development and entrepreneurship PRAXIS, STRATINC Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources
GRDP
Regional Planning, territorial regeneration and urban development
Accessibility, mobility and transport Information society and E-Government
3.3.2 Project study 1: e-BIRD
I. General Project information
e-BIRD is a Regional Framework Operation (RFO), a “mini-programme’’ involving a
number of sub-projects, falling under three fields, i.e. social, spatial and economic
development; culture and knowledge; and teaching, training and research, for the Grand
Region (GR)1.
The global objective of e-BIRD was to increase the visibility of the GR for its inhabitants
and reinforce their skills and training through setting up networks on economic, social and
territorial development, culture, teaching, training and research.
The sub-objective is to strengthen the GR's attractiveness with a view to making it one of
Europe's leading economical regions.
1 The Grand Region is an inter-State (Franco-Germano-Luxembourgish Agreement of 1980) and
interregional co-operation (1995 Mondorf Declaration) area in the centre of Europe. Its boundaries cover 5 regions: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Lorraine Region, Sarre land, the Rhineland-Palatinate land, and the Walloon Region, including Belgium's German-speaking community.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 36 January 2010
The project had four components. The first component covered Management and
Coordination activities.
Under the component (2) "Social, economic and spatial development " 11 sub-projects
were identified. Employment, workforce features, mobility, and spatial development
systems are among the major themes.
"Culture and knowledge" component (3) involved 4 sub-projects, ranging from cultural
portal to portal of museums. This component aimedat strengthening the sense of identity
and belongingness to the GR.
Finally, within the component (4) "education, training and research", 6 sub-projects
aimed at enhancing level of knowledge and sense of belongingness of pupils and
university students via integrated courses throughout the GR. Musical cooperation was an
interesting project, which led to 11 concerts during the operation.
Financially, the project faced the challenge of underspending. This was due to a number
of factors, which could be explained to the JTS in time and resolved. First, some sub-
projects had some delays in their activities mainly due to inefficient time planning such as
delay in submitting the invoices, etc. Later during the second half of the project, one sub-
project regarding the study of multimodal transport in the GR, which was found to not
have started, was cancelled. This led to the allocation of remaining funds to new sub-
projects. At the end of 2006, since there were still available funds, duration of some
projects was extended in order to conduct more activities. These actions allowed the
reallocation of non-used funds and to the development of new parts of the projects, which
was really beneficial for the whole operation. This change involved a modification of the
budget from € 6.145.083 to € 6.360.329. However, at the end of the operation, 97% of
the modified budget was used.
Budget allocation of the components indicated a share of 20% for component 1
(management and coordination). This component included dissemination activities as well.
The other components are practically technical, budgets of which seem to have been
allocated in accordance with the number of sub-projects they involve:
• Component 2, Social, economic and spatial development with 11 sub-projects: 40%
• Component 3, Culture and knowledge, with 4 sub-projects: 20%
• Component 4, education, training and research, with 6 sub-projects : 20%
Overall experience regarding communication with the JTS and Interreg IIIC funding
indicated that the e-BIRD RFO and JTS had a positive cooperation. Due to the early
detection by the JTS of the underspending of ERDF funds and its efficient follow-up of the
issue the e-BIRD consortium resolved the issue in time. As a result, a high rate of budget
absorption was realised. Coaching and information provision of the JTS when needed, was
highly appreciated. Reporting procedures every 6 months was found to be a reasonable
time interval to keep work in track. However, there were strict regulations regarding the
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 37 January 2010
restricted number of characters. Partners underlined administrative tasks as heavy and
writing activity reports in French and German and translating them into English was
useful, yet demanding.
II. Selection process
As in the case of all 76 INTERREG III C West Zone operations, e-Bird was selected after a
call for proposals.
The idea of the e-BIRD project was based on an already existing cooperation between
the political and administrative actors of the GR. During this more than 20 year-long
cooperation, every 18 months a GR’s Summit was organised. Each of them focused on a
specific theme such as: transport and communications, sustainable development, tourism
and culture, entrepreneurial culture and concerted SME policy etc. Finally, in 2003, a
long-term common strategy was drawn up, underpinned by a strong commitment of all
partners towards its implementation. Two conditions triggered the birth of e-BIRD: first, a
strong need for cooperating at the full GR level was identified (different sub-regions of GR
used to cooperate with each other previously in Interreg IIIA programme). Second, there
was also a need for an operational and budgetary framework that could be used to
implement projects covering all GR’s territory. INTERREG IIIC, and, more specifically, the
RFO type of operation, offered the opportunity to prepare a mini-programme with 21 sub-
projects for the whole territory of the GR and its 5 sub-regions.
The strength of e-BIRD project comes from its long cooperation history in the GR, its solid
institutional structure, and the relevance of selected themes for the geo-political and
socio-economic structure of the region. The selected themes were implemented through
21 sub-projects. These sub-projects were selected based on calls for proposals; whereas
two new sub-projects which joined the RFO at a later stage, were initiated by a rolling
application procedure.
III. Partnership and sustainability
Given the long history of the institutionalised partnership in the Region, from the idea to
its implementation, the project appears to be a common action of all the partners.
Common needs were assessed by means of a survey. Expectations and interests of all
partners were oriented towards cooperation; however these varied in terms of the themes
of priority. Since the consortium was not a large one (with seven partners), it was not
difficult to reconcile all the interests throughout 21 sub-projects in the fields of "Social,
economical and spatial development", "Culture and knowledge" and "Education, training
and research" (corresponding to components 2, 3 and 4).
A partnership approach was ensured from the project idea to the daily administration. The
project lead partner was responsible for all administrative and financial tasks related to
the project. At sub-project level, the partnership approach was translated into a sub-
project coordination team and a working group. It was ensured that at least one partner
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 38 January 2010
from each area of the GR was represented1 in the sub-project specific coordination team,
out of which a lead partner was chosen to facilitate the management of the operation. The
working group on the other hand was composed of the socio-economic actors of the
region, who carried out the work, in practice.
Due to the limited number of participants, project management and coordination could be
conducted smoothly and effectively.
Regarding the sustainability of the project’s achievements, it is intended to keep all the
electronic tools set up during the operation up to date by the participants. It was
expected that the sub-project internet sites would remain active even after the closure of
the project since most of the websites were hosted by one of the participants of the
project. In that sense, portals are considered crucial in remaining accessible.
The planned outputs such as a) new communication tools (internet portals, GIS, media
and plain libraries, computer networks, etc.), b) trainings (universities, training institutes,
etc.) c) exchange of experience conferences and seminars, studies (common statistics on
the Great Region, indicators of public transport schedules, etc.), d) resource centres
(statistical offices, network of rural development actors, etc.), e) books or literature
paper (common newspaper on geography, history and economy of the Great Region) were
achieved.
These outputs induced results such as ‘improved integration of the people of the region,
knowledge sharing, awareness regarding common problems of the region as well as the
willingness to deal with these problems together’. These results were at the strategic
level. Sub-projects, on the other hand, which were based on concrete topics, created
results such as ‘increased knowledge (content) and insights about the issues they dealt
with’.
In the e-BIRD RFO, the “good practices” notion was understood very widely. Of those, the
outputs which fit best with the best practices criteria (with an explicit added value), were:
1) 5 good practice guides which were produced as a result of 5 projects: a) Borderless
technology transfer, b) Networking of local development actors in the Great Region - e-
GRADE, c) Cross-national network – Craftswork in the Great Region, d) Interregional
programme for developing cross-border educational material in the Great Region, e)
Obstacle-free studying: integration and uniformity in university courses in the Greater
Region, such as the highly integrated physics curriculum in the Great Region.
2) Methodologies developed by 3 sub-projects: a) Inno-net: Promoting innovation in
the Great Region, b) Comparison of the spatial development's systems in the Great
Region, c) Knowledge of the economical flows in the Great Region.
1 Coordination of the sub-projects was included in component 1 “ Management and coordination although
the fulfilment of the project activities fell under Component 2, 3 or 4 depending on the field they were based
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 39 January 2010
Results and impacts were briefly stated per partner in the final implementation report.
Qualitative themes such as enhanced cooperation, networking, knowledge sharing,
reinforcement of good relations, good reputation, etc. were commonly referred to by
partners as some of the results and impacts they achieved.
Most of the partners expected to further cooperate in their activities at the European
level. More specifically, many partners got involved in the new programme INTERREG
IVA.
Concerning the Interreg IIIC funding, it was found sufficient for conducting the activities
of e-BIRD. However, without it, it would not be possible –financially- to organise such a
large range operation.
IV. Learning and indirect effects
Twenty-one sub-projects of e-BIRD RFO indicated a learning process for the partners
about the common aspects and differences in each others’ cultures.
Study projects created the most concrete learning effect, if not at organisational level, for
sure at individual level. 2 integrated courses, which were suggested as best practice cases
were: 1) Science meets the school 2) The integrated physics course. What made them
unique was their strong content as well as multi-cultural feature.
With respect to creating an overall impact, sub-projects like plurio.net (culture portal of
GR) and the statistic portal of the GR were mentioned as the ones which could create a
sustainable impact. Wider population effects are difficult to assess but sub-project
communities worked enthusiastically, which have likely created some internal assessment
at the institutional level.
Structural information about the external dissemination was not available. However,
progress report 7 indicates that until the last 6-month period of the operation, 46 press
releases were issued and newspaper articles about the Science Meets School sub-project
were published in the French, German and Luxembourg media.
3.3.3 Project study 2: PRAXIS
I. General Project information
Praxis is an Individual Project under Interreg III C, aiming to make rural entrepreneurship
work. The topics of cooperation under PRAXIS cover Objective 1 and Objective 2 areas
whereas the themes of cooperation entail SME development and entrepreneurship.
The overall objective of Praxis was to expose all partners in rural areas to new ideas and
approaches to entrepreneurship. It intended to identify good practices, facilitate future
development of regional rural entrepreneurship partnerships and strategies, support
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 40 January 2010
business innovation and foster an entrepreneurial culture in rural areas. The project,
implemented from October 2004 to December 2007, was led by Essex City Council (UK)
with the participation of 13 other partners from 8 countries (UK, Belgium, France, Spain,
Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Romania). The approved budget for the operation was €
1,522,221.96 whereas € 872,110.98 of this budget was provided by the ERDF (with an
overall co-financing rate of 56 %).
II. Selection process
The project proposal was firstly rejected; however, after following the suggestions for
improvement of the JTS, it was re-written and approved. The strengths of the project are
three-fold: first there was a committed network of partners across the area and focused
on a common theme. Second, as underlined by the project manager, pilot projects
attempted to provide a balance between broader objectives of the programme and
implementing innovative ideas. However, JTS’ view in this respect was slightly different,
i.e. the Praxis project neglected the overall objectives of the programme; and the focus
was rather placed on the practical, implementation-oriented, projects. At this
point, the idea of the project manager deviated from that of the JTS. The former
considered that even the INTERREG III C broad objectives can benefit a lot from
implementation-oriented projects; and learning from such projects should be encouraged
more. Obviously, this indicates a gap between the perception of the objectives and the
how to realise them. This eventually requires a better communication of the INTERREG
IIIC objectives.
III. Partnership and sustainability
The PRAXIS project partners come from the PRAXIS network, established in 2001 by a
group of regions in Northern Europe and local and regional authorities from Central and
Eastern Europe. Its declared intention was to exchange experiences and knowledge across
a range of practical regional development issues. While the Northern European regions
already had mutual cooperation through INTERREG IIC regarding coastal regeneration
issues, they also had bi-lateral regional partnerships in the Accession countries of Central
and Eastern Europe. With the PRAXIS project, the partners focused on best practices in
creating effective partnerships to promote entrepreneurship in rural areas. 4 pilot projects
that would bring an innovative approach to practical support for the competitiveness of
existing and potential businesses were implemented:
• Pilot project 1, Innovation Development Amongst Rural Entrepreneurs (I DARE)
implemented a model of innovation support for rural SME’s through mentoring and
innovation support to 25 cross-sectoral businesses (led by the Essex Rural
Partnership).
• Pilot project 2 (MESURA) encouraged the start-up of micro-enterprises in rural areas
(led by the Heraklion Development Agency).
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 41 January 2010
• Pilot project 3, Virtual Community of Entrepreneurs in the Rural World (VICOR)
developed an online forum and database for rural entrepreneurs across the Praxis
Network of regions (led by the Technological Institute of Aragon).
• Pilot project 4 developed a package of support to help farm businesses to diversify
(led by the Province of West Flanders). It focused on farmers wanting to diversify and
10 farmers have been working to better integrate their farms into the landscape.
The partnership was highly relevant since issues dealt with within this project reflected
high policy concerns of some of the partners, i.e. on one hand, Poland and Romania
suffering from high unemployment rates and poverty driven by large-scale agricultural
restructuring, on the other hand EU Member States where the Common Agricultural Policy
reform towards rural development was expected to impose a dramatic impact on
agricultural businesses. Therefore, the project was a result of a genuine common action of
all the partners who agreed on the common theme of promoting an enhanced
understanding of rural entrepreneurship. During the meetings from November 2003 to
March 2004, the needs of the partners were assessed. These were similar and their
expectations homogenous. Quality of partnership was high, due to these common issues
and the exchange of learning experiences through meetings and visits proved effective.
For the first two years of the project the Lead Partner (LP) (Essex County Council)
outsourced the running of daily management and coordination tasks to ExDRA, a company
owned by the Essex County Council; and took it back over during the last year of the
project since their contract ended. The project secretariat belonged to ExDRA, which
appointed the Project Coordinator as well. Implementation of the pilot projects also
involved a partnership approach. The leading role for each of the 4 pilot projects were
undertaken by different partners while the project was managed and coordinated by the
LP
Technical implementation was well-structured. Within Component 2 (identification of the
institutional setting) rural partnerships and strategy questionnaires were filled in and the
results provided an input for the 4 pilot projects (component 3).
In the reporting on the project there was no structural assessment as to whether the
overall objective or sub-objectives of the project and the expected results and impacts
were achieved. Only the outputs per pilot project were explained:
• Pilot Project 1, I DARE: A model of innovation support; a workshop on rural
innovation; innovation support and mentoring to 25 rural businesses; an information
brochure; and visits to the businesses to evaluate the mentoring support;
• Pilot project 2, MESURA: development of local partnerships; a questionnaire as a
base evaluation; a training programme; 8 business seminars; support to the new
entrepreneurs to develop and implement 6 business plans.
• Pilot project 3, VICOR: creation of a technical team to design and build the
entrepreneurs forum and database; involvement in a mass publicity campaign for the
forum; support to the communication between rural entrepreneurs across Europe.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 42 January 2010
• Pilot Project 4: Focus on farmers who wished to diversify and 10 farmers have been
working to better integrate their farms into the landscape.
A major output, as a result of all pilot projects was the Praxis Rural Entrepreneurship
Toolkit, which offered concrete results as a result of the strongly practical case studies
involved in the pilot projects.
Due to the innovative nature of some pilot projects (1 & 4), PRAXIS could be considered
partly experimental.
With respect to administrative and financial implementation of the project, some
challenges were faced:
First, the fact that two partners needed to leave the project due to reorganization and
political issues caused an extra administrative and tasks & budget reallocation. Content-
wise, the leaving of one of the Polish partners (Pomerania) did not create a major issue
because another Polish partner, Opolskie area – was involved. Financially, there was no
extra budget required although the content of component 3 was changed. The other party
which left was French but the existence of 2 Belgian partners preserved the uniformity of
the project to a large extent. Leaving the partnership raised question marks on the
political support of the partners.
Second, communication between the LP and JT’s was sometimes delayed – as also pointed
out by the JTS. This was due to the internal delays created by the reluctance of some
partners in notifying the LP in time regarding two issues: a) their progress in delivering
the outputs, and b) underspending of the budget.
In the end, underspending remained as a major issue since the budget absorption rate
remained at 66.6%. Official budget allocation for the 3 components and the actual
expenditures (based on 66.6% absorption rate) was as follows:
Component 1: Management and coordination: original: 29%, actual: 43%
Component 2: Identification of institutional setting: original: 5%, actual: 6%
Component 3: Supporting entrepreneurs in rural areas: original: 66%, actual: 51%
These figures indicate a significant underspending at Component 3. It should be noted
that Component 1 covers also the costs of communication and dissemination.
Sustainability of the project could be ensured by disseminating the project results on the
PRAXIS website. The Romanian translation of the Toolkit was expected to be a useful
document for agricultural consultants in Arad.
Partners tried to cooperate further. For instance, around the project closure time, both
Aragon (Spain) and Opolskie (Poland) attempted to work on a new interregional project
building on the experiences gained through PRAXIS. The new project would continue
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 43 January 2010
disseminating the results of Praxis. West Flanders (Belgium) was looking for new
innovative projects within the field of support to rural entrepreneurs. The Aragon
Research Institute (Spain) intended to participate in the RURALAND project proposal
(INTERREG IVC) after the contacts it had made through PRAXIS and the experiences it
had gained through project. As a potential future partner, Croatia could become a part of
the future activities since the Croatian Ambassador in London showed an interest in all
pilot projects and presented the LP with a list of potential Croatian partners involved in
rural development issues.
For some other partners, further cooperation in INTERREG funded projects seemed
uneasy. For instance, the LP (Essex County Council) had few plans to lead other future
projects due to the lack of capacity cased by internal, structural and organisational
changes. Other partners were too small to lead such European-wide projects.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 44 January 2010
IV. Learning and indirect effects
Partners referred to ’learning’ as a major benefit they gained as a result of their
participation in PRAXIS. An ongoing learning process indeed took place by means of pilot
projects, impacts of which were most evident in the project areas. For example, pilot
projects triggered some business activities in the project areas.
The most important aspect related to learning was the fact that partners were eager to
sustain the effects of their learning in their region and translate it into policy change. An
example is Heraklion Development Agency (Greece), who expressed its keen interest in
integrating PRAXIS results in their regional policy for sustainable rural development; and
distributing the PRAXIS materials in all the relevant conferences, meetings, seminars and
transnational cooperation events that it would be participating in. Likewise, West Flanders
integrated the network of farm products in The Westhoek in the provincial network and
would continue further on with that through provincial support. On a more strategic level,
the Essex Rural Strategy, under-drafted at the moment of this evaluation, has an
important section about rural business support, based on the results of Praxis.
The way Opolskie (Poland) learnd from Heraklion (Greece) was a clearly successful
example of knowledge transfer and learning. While the two cities had similar problems,
they had different objectives. In Opolski, where employment prospects for the highly
educated were limited, the aim was to motivate those people to establish their own
businesses in the region; innovation was an important element of investment in this
region. On the other hand, in Heraklion, located on an island (Crete, Greece), whose
economy was based on traditional industries (wine and olive oil production), some
innovative techniques of production were needed in order for these businesses to survive.
Innovation was not only about process of production but also about marketing.
With respect to the management and financial implementation of the project, it was
stated that the finance regulations could be less complicated, for example the rules
around eligible expenditures could be written in plain English to aid comprehension.
There was great satisfaction amongst the partners about the project achievements; but
sometimes administrative procedures were overwhelming. Interreg financial contribution
was found sufficient while acknowledging that there was underspending and in fact, some
pilot projects could have spent more of the budget by extending their activities. Despite
underspending, it was clear that financing such a large range transnational and
interregional project would not be possible without INTERREG funding. Overall, contact
with the JTS was based on good and fruitful cooperation.
Regarding external dissemination, available information was limited to ‘60 articles which
were published in the press/media’.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 45 January 2010
3.3.4 Project study 3: CULTURED
I. General Project information
CULTURED is a ‘network’ type of operation, established in the fields of cultural heritage
and regional development. The chosen topic of cooperation covers ‘other appropriate
subjects’ while it cross-cuts two other topics, i.e. Objective 1 and Objective 2 areas and
INTERREG programmes. Its theme of cooperation entails ‘heritage, culture and tourism’.
The overall objectives of CULTURED are two-fold: providing best practice guidelines for
the revalorization of elements of built up cultural heritage by sharing experiences; and
stimulating further discussion and networking of cultural heritage and regional
development. The project which was implemented along 36 months (January 2005-
December 2007) was led by the University of Gent (Belgium) with the participation of 13
other partners from 9 countries (Belgium, the UK, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain). The final approved budget for the operation was €
1.301.877,80, of which ERDF funding was € 796.801,31.
II. Selection process
The first application of the CULTURED consortium in April, 2004 for the call for proposals
was rejected due to the extensive size of the consortium and limited coherence of the
project concept. After revision, the project was approved in October 2004 and started in
January 2005. The project was selected due to the following strengths: seeking methods
and mechanisms of revalorization of built up heritage and using a market led approach;
stimulation of socio-economic development; renewed interest in the heritage issue; and
involvement of local community. In addition to these, a reduced size of the consortium
with diverse partners (due to) a) their geographical origins, i.e. 9 countries from east,
west and south regions; b) spatial levels they represent, i.e. regional and local level; and
c) their expertise regarding regional policy issues; local policy issues and academic
knowledge) also contributed to the selection of the project.
III. Partnership & Sustainability
The history of CULTURED partnership dates back to the GRIDS project (INTERREG IIIC) in
which the University of Gent, Iris Consultancy (which undertook project management and
coordination for a while), Cardiff University (which had to leave soon after the project
started) and the Flemish Ministry of Regional Administration1 worked together. With their
project idea on cultural heritage and regional development, this core team launched a call
for new partners via the INTERREG III C website. As a result, the CULTURED consortium
was formed. Before the project application a kick-off meeting between the interested
1 However, different specialist sections of the latter two partners took part in the GRIDS and CULTURE
projects
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 46 January 2010
partners was organized in Brussels and the draft application was completed through e-
mail communication between the lead partner University of Gent and the partners.
The project was in varying degrees a common action of all partners. The core team
initiated the project idea while the new members contributed to its final shape. The
interests of the partners were divided in two main parts: cultural heritage and regional
economic development. Academic institutions in the consortium played a pivotal role in
bringing these policy concerns together in a common conceptual and methodological
framework. However, there were also a few partners who were less active.
In an earlier phase of the project, some changes occurred in the consortium: for instance,
due to the cut-off of national subsidy a Slovakian partner was replaced by a Dutch partner
(Alterra); due to the expected retirement of Professor Jeremy Alden - in charge of the
project, Cardiff University was replaced by Torfaen County Council (the UK).
The tasks were allocated between the partners as follows:
• Lead partner (LP) would conduct overall management and coordination of the project
(this task was carried out for a short while by a consultancy firm, hired by the LP)
• Steering Group, composed of one member per partner would make the strategic
decisions while officially all three components were under the responsibility of LP.
However, there was flexibility for the partners to take initiatives in fulfilling the sub-
tasks of these components. For instance, Bunal Local Development Agency and Ubeda
City Council supported the LP in communication activities while Alterra Research was
more involved in developing the methodology.
• Project secretariat would carry out the daily management activities.
The project was experimental as it stimulated discussions and networking between
partners with a cultural heritage background on the one hand and partners with an
economic development background on the other. In addition, what made CULTURED
experimental were two specific outputs: the policy role-play by which the participants
exchanged knowledge in terms of ‘how to develop an integrated City Plan for the virtual
city ‘Manora’. This plan would incorporate the best practice lessons of five of its key
INTERREG III operations: CULTURED, INHERIT, QUALICITIES, REVIT and ASCEND. The
second output was the methodology (the so-called “wheel of CULTURED”) which made an
abstraction of the underlying relations between heritage, regional development and
regional identity.
The intended outputs, results and impacts were largely achieved (90% of the intended
outputs were realised). Five thematic workshops on heritage policy, legislation,
restoration, added value, and guidelines provided the backbone of content related
activities. These workshops led to examination of best practice cases and production of
the methodology. Besides this, partners presented 10 innovative demonstration projects,
analysing regional identity, project content and the expected added value. Finally, 3
regional seminars in East, West and South were organised in order to disseminate the
project outcomes. All these outputs contributed to the fulfilment of the overall aims of
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 47 January 2010
‘increased knowledge exchange and networking’ regarding heritage and regional
development’.
Throughout the course of the project, its sustainability was ensured first by the project
activities. Cooperation involved a diversified range of partners, which gave the
opportunity to include multi-dimensional and multi-spatial levels of policy issues and
experience. While regional and local authorities had relevant policy experience and the
authority to make decisions, research organisations facilitated in the incorporation of
academic knowledge.
Sustainability of the project was further strengthened by capitalisation activities, by
means of which CULTURED got the opportunity to share knowledge and achievements
further with the other heritage driven projects such as REVIT (III), QUALICITIES,
INHERIT, ASCEND in a Joint meeting; meet INHERIT and QUALICITIES structurally once a
year; and present CULTURED in meetings of CULTMARK, ASCEND and HERMES (INTERREG
CADSES).
A remarkable aspect of this project is related to Ubeda County Council’s involvement in 2
other INTERREG III C West projects (QUALICITIES and INHERIT) dealing with heritage. It
seems that while in CULTURED Ubeda provided its experience and best practices and
demonstration cases regarding ‘rural’ heritage, their focus on INHERIT was on ‘urban’
cultural heritage. Finally, QUALICITIES supported the first two projects since it aimed at
creating a quality label for all heritage actions (embedded in the broader perspective of
developing quality label for urban sustainable development).
Regarding further networking, the post-project era remained rather inactive although a)
ambitions of the partners were high regarding further cooperation; b) some bilateral talks
already took place; and c) some topics within INTERREG IVB and C Strands were already
mentioned especially in regards to combining environmental management and sustainable
development issues with cultural heritage. Neither the concrete intention of the project to
look for funding actively for 5 of the 10 demonstration projects of CULTURED nor the idea
of an eventual "CULTURED +" (with more focus on new ways of ensuring successful
exploitation on heritage in time and the value for the local community) was realised. The
main reason for this is stated as the lack of staff capacity of the partners.
Nevertheless, one concrete action was taken after the completion of CULTURED: The
proposal for COLLABOR (INTERREG IVB) was developed by 3 CULTURED partners
(University of Gent, Torfaen County Council and Alterra Research).
In terms of administrative and financial implementation, project management was
assessed as quite demanding. This was due to the large size of the consortium and delays
by some of the partners caused by possible late delivery of administrative and financial
inputs (submission of individual progress reports of the partners went on time). Here the
administrative cultures of countries like Spain and Italy played a role. It was definitely a
challenge but not a major issue.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 48 January 2010
Learning and Indirect effects
The achievements of the project definitely created a learning spin-off, and this is most
visible in the project areas where partners come from.
Learning and policy impacts are interrelated. Ideally, a learning process culminates with a
concomitant policy impact in the project area and goes even further. And this happens
best and most easily in the areas where the partner is a local or regional authority.
CULTURED experiences showed that the best practice and demonstration cases of the
partners fit well with the existing policy principles. However, an impact on the future
policy of the project area was evident only in a few cases: for instance, the Flemish
Ministry of Regional Administration’s involvement in CULTURED not only created an
expected medium-term impact on the ‘Flanders Heritage Plan’ but also led to
organisational learning. Namely, the Ministry which represents the top policy level
learned about a policy context in which partners from different policy levels and expertise
areas were involved. Cork County Council’s involvement in CULTURED, on the other hand,
created an impact at national level, causing the Irish "National Heritage Plan" and thus
drawing attention to the promotion of best practices and increased awareness of the built
up heritage.
Another learning impact came from the programme level; in the form of the
communication and financial management related seminars organised by the JTS and
attended by relevant partners of the project.
When it comes to the Impacts of CULTURED on other stakeholders and in the larger
region, evidence remains rather limited when compared with the impacts on the partners.
Likewise, dissemination of impacts on external stakeholders and broader regions is not
known.
During the 6th Steering Group meeting, partners expressed their satisfaction with the
various aspects of CULTURED, such as insight gained regarding international differences,
site visits, critical remarks of experts, coordination of the LP, method of the template as a
way of preparing the workshops, and common activities, etc.
Partners were also satisfied with the INTERREG III C Programme. The application
procedures were clear and the JTS staff was very open, helpful, constructive and eager to
listen and respond. INTERREG funding was sufficient to cover the activities planned.
However, the impact could have been more extensive if there was more budget
available by means of for instance ‘implementation’ projects regarding restoration.
Overall, the project could not be realised without INTERREG funding. There were also
some issues: For instance, working with indicators was found useful although it
was not always clear what sort of answers were expected.
While internal and INTERREG -wide dissemination was intensively carried out, structural
information regarding mass media coverage of the project was not available. However, a
few sporadic examples have been traced back as such to th LP being interviewed on
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 49 January 2010
Ubeda and Kurzeme radio/TV channels, and a radio programme set up in Bunol where
citizens could participate in local policy issues including heritage.
3.3.5 Project study 4: STRATINC
I. General Project information
STRATINC is an ‘Individual Project’ type of operation, focused on Strategic Intelligence
and Innovative Clusters. It falls under priority topic ‘Research, technological development
and SMEs’ while its topic of cooperation refers to ‘other appropriate subjects’ and its
theme of cooperation entails to ‘SME development and entrepreneurship’.
The overall objective of STRATINC as stated in the application form is to improve the
competitiveness of territories, local businesses and industrial clusters through
strengthening capacities of strategic intelligence and foresight which will allow territories
and companies to manage innovation and to address the challenges of globalisation, in
particular with a European-wide vision.
Although the project was initially scheduled to run from July 2003 to 31 October 2005,
due to the long contract negotiation process, it officially started in December 2003,with a
number of extensions and alasted until 30th June 2007.
The project was led by Regional Council of Lorraine (RCL) (France) with the participation
of 5 other partners from Germany, Greece, Spain and Norway. Initially, the overall budget
was € 1,621,225 and ERDF share was € 767,167.75. However, the budget was later
reduced to € 1.445,660.10, out of which € 665,927.55 was ERDF funding.
II. Selection process
The STRATINC proposal was submitted in response to a call for proposals and was
approved in the first round. According to the Lead Partner (LP), the proposal was
selected due to the following strengths: it addresses the overall objective of INTERREG
IIIC and falls under priority topic ‘research technology and SME’s’. The project itself not
only has a clear policy focus, i.e. policy driven innovation actions, especially cluster
development, but it is also based on specific sectors of applications that each region
selected a local industrial cluster to participate in the project, namely: wood (Lorraine),
ICT (Central Macedonia), biotechnology for health (Oslo), agro-food (Murcia/Tenerife)
and new materials (Nordrhein-Westfalen). In addition, experience of the LP, in particular
in the field of developing strategic intelligence actions and with implementation of an
economic intelligence platform for five industrial sectors during the period 2002-2005
(www.decilor.org) provided an added value.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 50 January 2010
III. Partnership & Sustainability
STRATINC consortium partners were already cooperating bilaterally or trilaterally in
different INTERREG funded projects such as NETWIN or RECITE II projects. However, the
consortium was initiated by the Director of Innovation of RCL, an expert on strategic
intelligence and innovation.
Partnership approach involved the presence of an active LP and yet, tasks were allocated
to various operational groups which brought a decentralised approach to the project.
These operational groups were:
• Coordination Committee (COCOM), composed of the Coordinators of each partner and
led by the Coordinator of LP, is the decision-making body (with the support of external
consultancy company hired by the LP). LP is at the same time responsible for some
tasks either under COCOM or validated by Scientific Board.
• Scientific Board (SB), dealing with methodological and content related issues at
critical steps
• Local Steering Committees and Local Working groups, per partner, representing the 5
sectors of identified local industrial clusters (wood, ICT, bio-technology for health
agro-food and new materials)
Other than the routine procedures, the project was externally evaluated by a consultancy
company, and an evaluation report was produced in September 2006.
STRATINC conducted a largely shared diagnosis and needs assessment. The strategic
information needs of 190 local SME’s were identified through a survey; their sectoral and
regional differences in terms of technological development, position in the value chain or
socio-cultural practices were taken into account. Expectations of the partners were to a
large extent homogenous. A majority of them expected to expand their networks and
extend strategic intelligence tools to support innovating cluster creation.
The project was composed of 5 components, which were: 1) Management and
coordination of activities. 2) Knowledge of clusters and sectors needs for strategic
intelligence 3) Technical study: available software tools, conception and design of a model
of Strategic Intelligence platform, 4) Exchange of experience between the partners:
sharing information, knowledge and practices, 5) Dissemination activities: setting up and
testing pilot Strategic Intelligence Platforms
The project’s intended outputs, results and impacts were largely achieved. The most
relevant output of the project, which triggered also policy impacts was the Blueprint, a
methodological guidebook, providing a step-by-step approach to building a cluster by
using four tools: benchmarking, foresight, knowledge management and economic
intelligence. Further, it involved best practices and key lessons to be learned. The
Blueprint was disseminated during the Final Conference in Brussels in September 2006
where 100 people participated. In addition, this very blueprint created already a transfer
of knowledge into NANO4M, another project funded by IV C where RCL was invited to join.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 51 January 2010
Related to the Pilot Strategic Intelligence Platforms, partner regions experimented with e-
platforms following the results of the initial surveys; these platforms function as a section
of an institutional website as in Murcia, or as part of a professional website as in RCL.
Partners were well aware that strategic intelligence plays a key role in creating,
European-wide and globally "competitive advantages" for the regions. Various instruments
were tested within different European regions - partners of the project are still available
on the Internet and can be used by enterprises and clusters.
The project was especially experimental because it tested a new methodology as
presented in the Blueprint, which involved four strategic intelligence tools and aimed at
exploring to what extent they were able to support the creation of innovative clusters.
STRATINC also stimulated sustainable regional partnership since local clusters in selected
sectors were actively involved in the process.
However, implementation in financial and administrative terms was not free from some
difficulties. Underspending mainly caused by the Community of North Tenerife eventually
led to a budget reduction. The Community became inactive in the final year of the project
due to the organisational changes it underwent.
Another problematic issue proved to be public procurement; irregularities in applying the
public procurement rules were identified through the 2nd level control. Finally, €
12.606,63 was deducted from the final budget following the rule that the ‘LP has to
deduct 25% of contract’s share if the payment could not be demonstrated’.
STRATINC has a strategic potential to be sustainable due to the keen interest of partners
in pursuing inter-regional projects aimed at mutual learning and experience exchange in
the area of regional cluster policy. In terms of project ideas in the further programme
period, RCL is at the moment, a partner of a new selected INTERREG IV C project called
“NANO4M”. Due to their STRATINC based experience, RCL was contacted by the NANO4M
project who was interested in using the STRATINC Blueprint to improve its Intelligence
Strategy.
Learning and Indirect effects
Most evident learning effect of the project was content-related, at partner level and within
the project areas. This was because at least half of the partners had already had some
knowledge regarding strategic intelligence and/or cluster actions. This accelerated the
pace of learning. Partners indicated a strong interest in themes of project and expectation
of results. There was a good potential for exchange of experience and transfer of know-
how from ‘leading’ to ‘lagging’ regions. And more specifically, Pilot Strategic Intelligence
Platforms (PSIP) were used pro-actively to develop/define clusters (such as in Murcia and
Central Macedonia).
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 52 January 2010
Moreover, some clusters, e.g. Oslo Teknopol (OT), gained also organisational skills by
taking part in the project. OT and is now leading a network of 5 sectoral clusters; Murcia
region was able to create a "clustering process" among the business community, and
improve its internal human resources. Another concrete example of learning occurred at
RM, which used its knowledge of cluster development policies (based on STRATINC) to
create TECHNOPOLIS - Technology Park for the Information Technology. Regarding
strategic level learning and broader policy impact, another example comes from the LP,
who was able to use STRATINC findings (such as the importance of the "economic
intelligence toolkit" and raised awareness regarding the necessity of clusters) in
developing an innovation strategy for the Lorraine region. However, because the
experience was limited to a small number of regions, there is definitely a need for support
for further policy learning and regional cooperation in this field. Regarding broader policy
impacts, clear evidence was not observed.
Regarding bureaucratic procedures, it was sometimes experienced that compliance with financial
reporting requirements (e.g. reviewing administration costs to be in line with INTERREG
procedures when other EU funds accept flat rate) was uneasy and that the need for support on
financial management was underestimated.
Partners were generally satisfied with the project; however, they experienced difficulties, too.
For instance, sometimes it was an issue to integrate STRATINC work into a diversity of tools and
institutions already in place in order to strengthen the cluster and provide better coordination,
increase coherence etc. The partners considered that the funding was sufficient to cover the
planned activities; without it, the project would not have been implemented. While the JTS was
found to be helpful in overall terms, provision of sufficient data was limited regarding the formal
management of an overview of other INTERREG IIIC projects, so that contacts could be
established. The INTERREG III C Newsletter was not sufficient for establishing such contacts.
While dissemination of internal activities (conferences, newsletters, website) was commonly
practiced, it is uneasy to assess the level of mass media coverage because relevant information
was not available at the project level.
3.3.6. Project Study 5: GRDP (Good Practice Project Study)
A. General Information
GRDP (Greening Regional Development Programmes) is a “network” type of operation. It
covered the topic of cooperation: Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions and the theme:
Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources.
The overall objective of the GRDP is to harness experience from Structural Funds
implementation and to work towards developing a common European methodology for
integrating environmental sustainability as a horizontal theme within current regional
development programmes. The project had an initial duration of 3 years (July 2004- June
2007) and was extended with 4 months (dedicated to project closure). The project led by
the Environment Agency for England and Wales – South West England Region (UK),
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 53 January 2010
involved a wide network: 17 legal partners from 8 EU Member States (UK, Austria, Spain,
Italy, Malta, Poland, Hungary and Greece) and 17 associate partners.
Approved budget for the operation was € 1.581.906.,9 whereas € 973.410,12 of this
budget was provided by ERDF (with a rate of 62%).
B. Project aim: The story of an idea and turning it into reality (concept, partners,
expectations, application procedure)
The project idea of GRDP was born in March 2003, when the Environmental Agency of
England and Wales attended a Conference in Cantabria on Environment and Structural
Funds. There, the core project idea of ‘promoting the integration of environment in the
current and future Structural Funds programmes through the exchange of good practices’
was proposed by the Environmental Agency and two other conference participants,
namely, Spanish and Italian Environmental Authorities.
In 2004, as a result of the discussions carried out between a core group of partners
(Ministries of Environment of Italy, Austria and Spain, Malta Environment and Planning
Authority (MEPA) and the Exeter Environment Agency) joined by further institutions
identified via INTERREG IIIC Partner Search Forum, the GRDP was officially established.
The project development phase involved full participation of all partners in 4 meetings
throughout 2003-2004 in Brussels, Lille, Madrid and London. What brought them together
was their common interest in regional policy development, and more specifically, in
developing best practice guidance for the mainstreaming of the environmental horizontal
theme in the Objective 1 and 2 programmes. However, their specific areas of interests
varied. During these meetings which took place prior to the call for applications,
diversified interests were put on the table and refined into specific topics which would
later form the basis of technical seminars of the project. The process of reconciling this
diversity in a single project was not free from its challenges; however, it was also the
very same challenge of the GRDP partnership which featured as a strength.
Just like any project in INTERREG IIIC, the GRDP submitted its application in response to
a call for proposals. The JTS was supportive in the development phase of the project and
the application was approved in the first round.
C. Political and Strategic context (the strengths of the project concept and the
expectations from the policy level)
Environmental and sustainable development issues had already been on the rise during
1990’s on the global political and policy agenda’s. These issues were taken on board by
international organisations and national, regional and local governments, and by the
European Union. On the other hand, the EU set one of its major goals as to support social
and economic restructuring throughout its Member States. Structural Funds have been in
the last decades the instruments to reach this goal. In this context, the EU expected that
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 54 January 2010
all programmes supported by Structural Funds throughout 2000-2006 would pursue these
two key priorities, i.e. environmentaL and sustainable development.
As GRDP partners expressed in their “Lessons Learnt” report, ‘the environment is both an
opportunity and an asset, which needs careful management if long-term economic benefit
and prosperity are to be secured’. Therefore, the project consortium had the ambition ‘to
demonstrate to organisations involved in regional development that there are clear
benefits in integrating the environment in their development policies, strategies,
programmes and activities’.
The overall goal of the project was to raise and share knowledge regarding an integrated
policy approach in which the environment would be incorporated in regional development
policies, strategies, programmes and activities’. This approach would require involvement
of organisations in a network like the GRDP, representing not only regional but also local
and national authorities as well as environmental organisations, development agencies
and research institutions.
The strength of the GRDP stems from its insights into this integrated policy approach
supported by its diversified range of partners representing policy makers at various
governance levels and other partners with various expertise areas.
D. Implementation: The story of activities and cooperation among partners and
with external stakeholders
The background of cooperation and activities during the project development phase were
elaborated in section B. The project kicked-off in December 2004 in Bath, UK. The
following meetings and further deliverables were interlinked and adjoined by adequate
dissemination activities.
After the kick-off meeting, partners prepared their regional “audit” reports, i.e. assessing
the practice in the region regarding “greening regional development policies”, which
provided an input for an overall report: ‘Green Growth’. This overall report helped refining
the focus of the project and let the partners better grasp the extent of each others
experiences in this field. It would be fair to say that ‘Green Growth’ formed the backbone
of further work to be conducted throughout the project.
A meeting in Vienna in May 2005 gave an opportunity to present ‘Green Growth’ to all
partners and discuss it. This led to the development of the GRDP Declaration, called
‘Learning from our experience in integrating the environment into regional development
programmes and looking ahead’. During the first two years of the project, 3 other
technical seminars were organised in the UK, Hungary and Greece and 7 technical reports
were produced. The most prominent reports were:
1) ‘Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Cohesion Policy 2007 –
2013’: This handbook got a good reputation in the European policy environment and was
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 55 January 2010
highly appreciated by DG Environment and DG Regio. It was endorsed by the two and
promoted among the MA’s for the 2007-2013 programming period. It was translated in
Hungarian and Polish.
2) “Greening Projects for growth and jobs”: In order to put this guiding tool into practice,
a special work group of partners and experts met in May 2006 in Malta with national
Managing Authorities and the Environment and Planning Authority. External dissemination
of this document took place during the Open Days in October 2006.
With the last seminar "Integrating the environment into future regional development
programme in November 2006 in Patras (Greece), the founding stones of the GRDP toolkit
and the Charter were established.
The final GRDP conference in April 2007 in Logroño, Spain gave the opportunity to launch
the two final reports of the project:
1) The GRDP Charter “Regions for Sustainable change”: This charter was open to be
signed up by all organisations which would like to commit for sustainable regions.
2) The final GRDP toolkit "Beyond compliance: how regions can help build a sustainable
Europe”: This toolkit aimed to help public sector bodies throughout Europe incorporate
environmental issues in their development programmes.
After the final conference, dissemination activities intensified, i.e. a smaller dissemination
event targeting new Member States in May 2007 in Budapest; partners and the project
team participated in 12 events in the UK, Spain, Greece, France, Belgium, Poland, Italy in
order to promote the GRDP results.
All in all, throughout the project dissemination activities were carried out, e.g.
presentations at meetings and events, articles, creating local GRDP web pages,
newsletters, targeting key people in their region / country, organizing local seminars and
using their networks. Additionally, 2 newspaper articles in the Marche region and 2 in
Malta were published; GRDP related news appeared in the INTERREG IIIC newsletter
(nr.4, December 2004).
The positive cooperation spirit established in the project development phase was
preserved during the implementation of the project. Partners were aware of the multi-
cultural aspects of their cooperation and they were eager to learn lessons from each
others’ practices.
The activity was most effective when small and specific working groups of a few partners
met informally to work on reports and to organise the technical seminars. In these
groups, communication and meetings proved to be more efficient, and partners felt a
stronger ownership of the task / product/ outputs. However, in the overall sense, not all
partners were equally proactive in taking initiatives. Therefore, a sub-group of the
partners appeared to be more active and more influential in the directions that the project
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 56 January 2010
would take. Although not to a significant extent, the partners who were relatively less
active in making technical contributions were driven with one or more of the following
reasons:
• Lack of capacity (time): partners are full-time occupied with other duties
• GRDP was low on the partners priority list, they could dedicate little time to it.
• Lack of interest in some of the topics.
Additionally, language could have also been a barrier since competence in English was
considered essential for all participants in order to express themselves well within the
partnership.
During the course of the project, the composition of the partnership changed when the
South Aegean Regional Development Fund (Greece) left the partnership. In the same year
(2006) the Italian Marche and Sicily Regions joined the network. This situation did not
create much complexities regarding the content-wise implementation of the project;
however, due to the complex bureaucratic, auditing and financial procedures of Greece
and Italy, the project management faced some delays. With the partnership change, the
management of Common Costs (i.e. the common costs of the project were managed at
central, LP, level), which was discussed with and approved by the INTERREG IIIC West
Secretariat, and yet proved to be complicated in implementation, got even more
complicated.
The most significant management challenge was linked to the cash contributions to the
common pot and the difficulty in some countries (Poland, Greece, Italy) to have the
claims audited and certified in time. Delays caused by highly demanding audit procedures
of especially Greece and Italy (5 months are needed for their national auditors to audit
each claim) and the need for more time for final project dissemination activities and
closure led to a non-budgetary project extension of 4 months.
The project budget was fully absorbed. Allocation of the budget into components indicated
a high share of Component 1: (common) management and coordination costs (about
70%) while Component 2: Joint Working on Interregional Topics and development of the
Final Product consumed 20% and Component 3: Communication and Dissemination, 8 %
of the total budget. Not unexpectedly running smoothly such a large network proved to
require significant management and coordination. Nevertheless, this investment is
justified in the light of the projects results and impact.
E. Effectiveness: What could the project achieve?
The GRDP activities involved a number of sequential and interlinked meetings. These
activities and outputs of the project generated a cumulative effect; and these effects were
reflected in the achieved results and impacts.
It could clearly be observed in the below table that all planned outputs were delivered.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 57 January 2010
Table 3.9 Planned Outputs vs. Delivered Outputs, GRDP Project PLANNED OUTPUTS PLANNED OUPUTS WHICH WERE DELIVERED
AND MORE A-Audit for baseline information on status & operation of environmental theme in partner region. Good practices identified; B- 4 Inter-regional topic seminars organised to share knowledge between and within regions. C-Reports on the seminars published. The results of the seminar will help develop the common methodology. D-Development of a project web-site E-Production of a best practice guide. A common European methodology for mainstreaming the environmental horizontal theme into regional development programmes. F-Production of communication material (other than the common methodology). G-Organisation of a project launch and a final conference
A – One Audit “ green growth” report produced, gathering good practice and tips from across the partnership. B – 4 seminars organised. C - 7 technical reports published. D – One project website developed: www.grdp.org E – Production of the GRDP toolkit “Beyond Compliance: How regions can help develop a sustainable Europe” and production of a GRDP Charter: “Regions for sustainable change”. F – 2 brochures were created, as well as posters for each events, etc. G – The project launch took place in December 2004 and the final conference in April 2007.
Source: Project Closure Report, Environment Agency of England and Wales, 2007, p.2 The keyword for linking these outputs with the achieved results and impacts appears to
be ‘learning’. The whole course of the project was a reciprocal learning process for all
partners. The aim of the GRDP ‘to develop a dynamic and lasting platform and to establish
learning mechanisms for sharing of experience, results and lessons’ was achieved to a
large extent.
This learning process was also about the functioning of EU projects and how organisations
in Europe deal with a similar issue elsewhere and benefit from the technical expertise
across Europe.
Expected results of the project were enlisted in the application form as follows:
• An improved understanding between partner regions on environmental integration and
sustainable development in the context of Structural Fund programmes.
• Delivery of environmental horizontal theme in Structural Funds post 2006 influenced.
• Presentation of economic case for environmental mainstreaming.
• Dissemination of best practice guidance and principles for environmental
mainstreaming in regional development programmes.
• Partners sign up to a GRDP Regional Charter at the completion of the project.
• Transfer and exchange of ideas and experience at 4 Inter-regional topic seminars
held.
• Regions outside the project are able to access best practice guidance & principles.
The following expected long-term impacts were described in the application form:
• Consistency and best practice in implementing the environmental horizontal theme
under existing and future Objective 1 and 2 programmes
• Experience gained through Objective 1& 2 informs other regional funding plans and
programmes, contributing to the sustainable development of participating regions.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 58 January 2010
• Joint progression towards extending the methodology, best practice & principles to
regional funding instruments in partner regions and beyond.
• Development of better co-operation between environmental authorities at regional,
national and European level beyond project.
Based on the analysis carried out we can draw the conclusion that these results were
largely achieved. As in regards to the impacts, there are clear indications regarding policy
impacts of the project in the countries where partners come from. The GRDP in this
sense, provided practical means to achieve a “greener”, integrated approach to regional
development policy. Anecdotal cases, e.g. the SEA Handbook was the main
methodological instrument used in carrying out the Strategic Environmental Assessment
for 4 out of 7 2007-2013 Operational Programmes in Romania, indicate that the impact of
the project goes beyond what is already known, at this point.
The GRDP has influenced a series of national and regional programmes (Lessons Learnt
Report, 2007, p.9-11):
Hungary:
• The development of the Hungarian Operational Programmes as well as the new Rural
Development Strategy.
• Debrecen University (GRDP partner) was entrusted with the development of the SEA
of the National Action Plans (2007-2009) and used GRDP results.
Italy:
• Marche region developed a SEA methodology for regional programmes 2007-2013.
• The drafting and assessment of the programme documents related to the 2007-13
period in Sicily Region.
Malta:
• The application in practice of the SEA handbook meant a change in approach to ex-
ante evaluation of programmes.
• They also saw the emergence of specific horizontal environmental evaluation criteria
used in project appraisal.
Poland:
• In Wroclaw (Poland), they will use the results of GRDP in the development of the
Environment Protection Programme for Wroclaw Administrative District and Commune
for the years 2004-2015.
• The Polish Region of Dolny Slask (Lower Silesia, capital: Wroclaw) is going to recruit a
"ESTM" (Environmental Sustainability Theme Manager) within the management team
of their OP, thus, they follow the good practice identified in England.
Additionally, the GRDP induced organisational learning and change in England related to
financial management of EU funded projects. It contributed to the establishment of a
National External Funding Governance Team within the Environment Agency for England
and Wales – South West England, serving not only for this agency but also –potentially-
offering delivery of an expert financial bid, claim and audit preparation service for the
other Government departments in the future.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 59 January 2010
Some structures have changed in various countries but it is hard to assess the role that
GRDP played in this process:
Malta:
• Institutional change on the basis of lessons learned regarding programming and
implementation structures (especially related to the environmental institutions
providing support for environmental integrated approach)
• GRDP helped to enhance the collaboration between Malta Environment and Planning
Authority and the Structural Funds managing authorities, effectively broadening local
understanding of the many aspects of environmental integrated approach.
Hungary:
• The institutional restructuring of the Ministry of the Interior into Ministry of Local
Government and Regional Development.
England:
• A serried of English Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), involved in the managing
the use of ERDF in England took on bord the GRDP SEA methodology.
• The same was the case in Wales, where the Assembly Government is also involved in
SFs implementation.
Italy:
• Sicily Region: Higher awareness of the need of working in an integrated manner, by
taking environmental aspects into account.
Greece:
• Western Greece Region: the collaboration between the regional managing and
environmental authorities improved during the planning phase of regional
development programmes. A representative of the regional environmental authority
participated in the committees managed by managing authorities.
The GRDP Toolkit was used by the Regional Environmental Centre in Slovenia to organise
a training session on it. However, the Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment
for Cohesion Policy 2007 -2013 had a much larger impact.
The SEA Handbook as described in the “Lesson Learnt Book” of the project (p. 12) ‘has
been the most successful practical document of the project and stepped in at the right
time by providing a product that many asked for. Partners have used it extensively:
• MEPA developed national guidance on Strategic Environmental Assessment on the
basis of the Handbook. SEAs conducted on SF/CF and EAFRD programmes are
following this guidance, resulting in a change in approach to ex-ante evaluation of
programmes.
• In Austria, the SEA Handbook influenced the SEA of the NSFR, the Austrian
programmes and was common methodology in the planning process of the cross
border programmes.
• In Marche region, it was used to carry out SEA for some regional programming
documents 2007-2013. They developed a methodology based on the Handbook, which
was presented at consultation meetings with relevant environmental authorities.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 60 January 2010
• The Sicilian region used it in part in carrying out the SEA of the 2007-13 programming
documents
• In Greece, it has been used successful to carry out 3 SEA in different Greek regions
for the new Structural Funds programme, 2007 -2013: A) SEA for Competitiveness, B)
SEA for Crete and Aegean Islands, C) SEA for increasing accessibility.
• In England, it was also used in Wales, UK for the new Structural Funds programmes’.
F. Sustainability: How are the partners cooperating currently?
Following the completion of the project, the GRDP network aimed to ensure that the
project website continue and integrate the achievements of the project. Sharing
experiences and information was considered of strategic nature. While the link to the
project website is at the moment connected to the official website of the Environment
Agency (Lead Partner), there are many examples that project achievements were
integrated into policy practice. These examples were to a large extent provided in section
E. Most partners are expected to continue working on these topics in any case, as most of
them are members of the European Network of Environmental Authorities.
Regarding concrete projects being developed or conducted, two could be named: REC
(Hungary) initiated a follow-up project, funded by Interreg IVC, in which Cornwall County
Council, MEPA and Wroclaw City Council also take part. This project aims to promote an
EU-wide shift to carbon neutral economies by developing the potential of regional
development programmes to stimulate mitigation and adaptation to climate change whilst
delivering sustainable socio-economic growth. In addition, the Austrian Ministry of
Environment and of Navarra (Spain) cooperated further on rural development topics.
G. Conclusions
The GRDP, as an EU-wide network, brought together partners representing local, regional,
national authorities and environmental organisations, development agencies and research
institutions from 8 EU Member States, with experience in Objective 1 and Objective 2
programmes. This variety brought a wide range of expertise and experience in the
network, and enriched the learning process of the partners in their aim of harnessing
experience from Structural Funds in developing a common European methodology to
integrate environmental sustainability as a horizontal theme in their regional development
programmes.
The partnership had a solid structure and the implementation of the project followed a
strong content-wise structure. This led to production of a series of reports, guidebooks,
with practical relevance for the policy makers. The impacts of these publications is
widespread in the partner countries and beyond. As suggested in the Lessons Learnt
Report, ‘the GRDP work and brand are now recognised by experts in the field, in particular
at DG Regio, DG Environment but also amongst key NGO’s promoting environmental
integration in EU policies’. Furthermore, one of the project partners argue that the GRDP
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 61 January 2010
even contributed to the dialogue that DG Regio and DG Environment got engaged in about
how to make more sustainable use of the Structural Funds.
As a result of the project, the GRDP partners not only strengthened their international
project experience, but their political messages in their own regions were easily spread
because their involvement in the EC funded projects gave them an ‘added weight’. As
stated in the Lessons Learnt report (p.9), ‘the involvement of EU representatives in the
GRDP activities has been considered a key element for its success. It helped get wider
recognition and acceptance from involved people and a better chance to influence policies
and strategies by partners through the GRDP products’.
The GRDP was courageous enough to have a self-critical look in assessing its project
management and implementation. They reproduced a large set of improvement ideas
regarding all aspects of project management, coordination, implementation, contacts with
external parties etc.
The GRDP evaluated its cooperation with the INTERREG IIIC Joint Technical Secretariat
(JTS) as positive. The JTS had always been helpful and open with their professional,
committed, flexible and very friendly staff members, which is very important to the lead
partners.
Strong points of INTERREG according to the GRDP partners were as follows (Lessons
Learnt report, p.13):
• Clear rules and forms help to be precise in the financial aspects.
• INTERREG helps promoting wide networks all around Europe and supports the
exchange of information and experience.
• Openness to innovative project ideas.
• INTERREG is a relatively small amount of money which can catalyse public sector
institutions toward self-improvement.
• INTERREG helps European regions to deal with their problems and reduces barriers
among EU different countries.
The key issues for the lead partner on GRDP were:
• the compliance with EU and INTERREG rules required strong time commitment from
the GRDP project team.
• Lack of clarity on the issues with the Italian Authorities, regarding the great delays in
auditing.
• Different rules between INTERREG programmes (i.e. INTERREG IIIB and IIIC).
• INTERREG offices in partner countries sometimes take a different stand on legal and
financial issues.
The following weak points were enlisted (Lessons Learnt report, p.14):
• Insufficient co-ordination between projects possibly resulting in overlap.
• Interreg should help disseminate project results.
• Weak possibility of influencing the Community and National legislation on environment
and development integration.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 62 January 2010
• Heavy bureaucracy and reporting mechanisms, resulting into high cost (staff time).
• Inconsistency in national / regional / interregional Interreg authorities procedures.
• There is no external assessment of the technical results of the project.
• Lack of flexibility within INTERREG for subcontract
Last, but not the least, a project like the GRDP with an extensive international network
would not be able to be realised without Interreg IIIC funding.
3.3.7 Conclusions
All aspects of the synthetic indicator have been explored across the project sample. It can
be concluded that all reviewed projects have been common actions, although with a
different emphasis on developing ideas, planning and implementation. Ownership was
fully assured in most cases as the partnership approach (lead partner principle). The
level of complexity and experimental nature among the projects is mixed. All
projects are partially or largely experimental by nature to the extent that they introduce
new project ideas and concepts (I DARE, Innovation Development Amongst Rural
Entrepreneurs, PRAXIS; Blueprint for local sectoral cluster development, STRATINC;
Toolkit, GRDP; the Wheel of CULTURED, CULTURED) The geographical impact of the
projects is limited to a large extent to the project areas. In all cases there had been a
shared diagnosis and need assessment among the partners of the project. Although in
some projects expectations and need assessments differ in the beginning of the co-
operation, consensus was reached and the success of the co-operation assured.
Sustain long-term co-operation is in the nature of the projects. This is notably the
case for e-BIRD (plurio.net, the culture portal of the Grande Region and the statistical
portal). Demonstration projects of CULTURED (reuse of heritage sites) are not meant to
continue, however, the co-operation will be taken further as long as there is a joint need
(e.g. use of the Wheel of CULTURED, the methodology of revalorization of rural heritage).
Sustainability of cross-border ‘Science Meets School’ sub-project (e-BIRD) is not ensured;
however, co-operation between the partners can be durable despite that. By and large the
likelihood of durable co-operation and the respective sound justification of funding have
been major selection criteria which seem to materialise in the project reality. INTERREG
funds were necessary in all cases. Financial viability of the projects have been affected to
some extent by the exit of some partners from the project, due to lack of political support
(STRATINC), compliance with the public procurement rule (STRATINC) and the related
risks of financial losses.
The programme structure and the choice of priority fields and measures have been
adequate from the viewpoint of the project partners. A major issue for some project
partners has been the apparently complicated formal and administrative provisions of
INTERREG itself.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 63 January 2010
Individual and organisational learning can be confirmed to a large extent in virtually all
projects. Learning and indirect effects are of even more importance than the direct effects
from the projects.
3.4 The character of the programme, its constituting features and factors of barrier and cooperation
All C programmes/zones belong to one “cluster” developed under the overall INTERREG
typology. The criteria used in order to assess the characteristics of the four programmes
are inserted in annex 6.
The values for each of these criteria for all programmes are displayed in the table 3.10
below:
Table 3.10 Values for the INTERREG III C programmes/typology
Programme C1.1 C1.2 C2.1 C3.1. C3.2. C3.3 C3.4
South Zone 0,68 0,81 69,22 0,67 2,00 35,00
West Zone 0,54 0,82 76,33 0,91 2,00 1,39 5,00
North Zone 0,23 0,96 75,47 0,98 1,00 1,28 25,00
East Zone 0,57 0,80 77,97 0,79 3,00 1,03 40,00
As also presented in table 3.4, indeed, 54% of the INTERREG III C West operations were
financed under the first 4 topics of cooperation and 45,3% under other subjects; the
latter is, still, a relatively large percentage. It seems that in the North Zone it was even
more difficult to concentrate funds on the first 4, specific, topics of cooperation and a
very large proportion of the funds were spent on exchanges on other subjects appropriate
to interregional cooperation. The situation is opposite in the South Zone, were almost
70% of the operations were financed under the 4 specific topics of cooperation1.
As presented in annex 3, 16% of the participants in INTERREG III C West operation came
from new Members States, 0,7% from outermost regions and 5,7% from third-party
countries (22,4 % in total). Therefore, the score for criterion 1.2 should be lower
for C West; it is not possible to asses the scores of the other programmes without the
necessary data. In accordance with some statistics from May 2007, more than 2650
partners participated in INTERREG III C as a whole, out of which 494 partners from New
Member States and 154 partners from Third Countries, respectively 25% of the total; 25
would be a realistic, average score for the strand as such for this criterion.
Criterion C2.1. (The depth / intensity of programme- and project-level inter-regional co-
operation) is discussed in detail in sub-chapter 3.4.2. The value for the criterion C 3.3
(The overall “degree of achievement for all quantifiable outputs & results at programme
1 It would be interesting to validate this figure, explore the factors of this success and apply eventual
lessons learnt in this respect in the current programming period. Nevertheless, these actions are not possible in the framework of the current ex-post evaluation.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 64 January 2010
level”) is relative, in the light of the discussion about the realism of the targets initially
set.
The criterion 3.4. (The overall “degree of robustness / durability of projects) might have
been interpreted differently by the 4 MAs/JTSs. Strictly speaking, when the problem
meant to be tackled by an operation is solved, there is no reason for the project to be
continued (i.e. the sustainability of the project); another issue is the sustainability of the
partnership among the participants to the respective operations. As it is to be seen also in
chapter 3.3., most partnerships, once created/enhanced under INTERREG III (West) tends
to perpetuate, in other forms/projects, on the same or other topics. If this criterion is
strictly interpreted, the score for West Zone adequately reflects the reality of the
programme; one good example in this sense is the ECRIF-AV, which became self-
sustainable and currently employs two full-time workers. Nevertheless, the higher
scores for the other three programmes should be validated, for the case when
their interpretation of this criterion was not the strict, but the wide one.
3.4.1 Historic factors determining the character of the programme
There is a 27 year-long previous tradition in interregional cooperation in Europe;
INTERREG III C West built, in terms of programme rationale, on this previous
experience. Nevertheless, the “programme approach”, i.e. financing interregional
cooperation under the umbrella of a programme, whose management is entrusted to the
Member States through a MA/JTS/MSC, is new.
As INTERREG C covers the entire European Union and some third-party countries, no
specific inter-state agreement was necessary in order to create the institutional structure
for the programme implementation. The use of domestic law-based / Community law-
based instruments, not specifically designed for territorial co-operation, was possible. The
relationships between the programme and the participant Member States is regulated by
bilateral agreements, as in the case of INTERACT I. Both the JTS and the MA see this
solution as being perfectly feasible; in their view the lack of a tailored legislative base is
in no way an obstacle to cooperation, as solutions can be found.
The Managing Authority of the programme was hosted by the regional government; the
JTS was created as an European Economic Interest Grouping, i.e. semi-public association
of two governmental regions, both interested in territorial cooperation. This solution was
adopted for the JTS because the French public law does not accommodate the needs of
such a specific structure: due to the profile of the staff (not categorised as French civil
servant), and their workload, they need to have more competitive salaries, flexible
procedures should be set up regarding their travelling requirements and irregular working
time.
As observed also during the evaluation of INTERACT I, the challenge is to convince the
hosting organisation of the needs of the specific staff and to create understanding and
acceptance in this respect.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 65 January 2010
The structure in place for INTERREG III C West Zone is a public law-based permanent
structure achieving/promoting co-operation on a multi-thematic basis & project-level ad-
hoc co-operation on specific topics. However, for the previous, 2000-2006, and current
programming period, this structure can be considered permanent but changes might be
operated in the future programming period.
As in regards to the relationship and influence of historic variables on the ‘real rate’ of the
West zone programme, as in the case of all C zones, the actual depth and intensity of
cooperation achieved is close to what would have been expected if historical variables had
been taken into account.
Effects (*) Determining
Factor at programme level at project level Historic factors determining interregional co-operation
Previous co-operation tradition
The high/very high age of the cooperation does not seem to have had a major impact on the depth and intensity of cooperation under INTERREG III C West. 2 possible explanations exist for this: either the synthetic indicator, the way it is constructed, needs more adjustment to the specificity of the INTERREG C strand; Or the lack on continuity between previous programming periods and the 2000-6 programme approach affected this depth and intensity of cooperation. Both seem to be pertinent.
At project level it seems that previous cooperation between project partners is a positive factor in triggering INTERREG III C operations.
Prior existence of specific legal instruments
Specific legal instruments not necessary; other solutions for setting up the programme management and implementation were found in the domestic law; this was not seen as an obstacle to cooperation.
The different systems of the partners are challenging; nevertheless, solutions are found in order to make IRC happen.
Prior existence of permanent co-operation structures
For the previous, 2000-6, and current programming period, this structure can be considered permanent. Nevertheless, changes might be operated in the future programming period.
At project level it seems that previous cooperation between project partners is a positive factor in triggering INTERREG III C operations.
other factors - -
(*) A distinction between effects at programme and at project level is necessary because in many cases projects do not intervene across the entire programme area. Hence, effects can be rather different.
3.4.2 Re-considering the “depth & intensity of territorial co-operation”: the synthetic indicator
The synthetic indicator aims to measure the depth and intensity of co-operation and
consists of 6 Main “Criteria” or “Components”: 1 historical criterion (see also 3.4.1.)
and 5 “INTERREG III related Criteria”, respectively:
• intensity of shared diagnosis
• partnership and decision making power
• management structures
• nature and location of joint projects and
• impact of projects
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 66 January 2010
The detailed definition of those indicators is given in the Inception Report1 and annex 72.
The arithmetic mean of all scores for the INTERREG C West Zone programme is 76.33
(see table 3.11); therefore, the INTERREG III C West, as the other zones, achieved a
medium depth and intensity level of territorial cooperation.
Table 3.11 The “depth and intensity of cooperation” under the INTERREG C West
programme measured by the synthetic indicator
COMPONENT SUB-INDICATOR VALUE
1. Historical criteria (not included in the ‚real rate’
si013 54
si02 30
si03 70
Σ 154
2. Criterion si04 30
Joint identification of needs si05 90
Σ 120
3.Criterion si06 30
Governance and partnership si07 30
si08 70
Σ 130
4. Criterion si09 78
Nature and location of joint projects
si10 97
si11 20
Σ 225
5. Criterion si12 100
Density of common actions si13 100
si14 100
si15 100
si16 100
si17 100
Σ 600
6. Criterion si18 70
Impact of projects Σ 70
Gross Score SI 4-S I18 1145
Real Rate (RR) 76,33
The synthetic indicator (real rate) mean value for Strand C is 74,74. INTERREG III C West
zone is slightly above stand average. All other zones are very close to this average,
except the South Zone, which, with a synthetic indicator value of 65,25 falls behind.
1 Panteia (and partner institutes) 2009, Ex-post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006 – Inception report to
the European Commission DG Regio, pp.62 f. 2 The aggregation of the sub-variables of the 5 “INTERREG-related criteria” has been defined as the so-called ‘real rate’, a normative synthetic indicator (arithmetic mean) measuring the performance of an INTERREG programme in terms of “depth and intensity of cooperation”. Furthermore, the separated historical criterion is added to estimate by regression analysis how historical ties have had an impact on the programme depth and intensity of cooperation, i.e. the so called “expected rate”. 3 Labels of the sub-indicators are listed in the annex 4.1.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 67 January 2010
Table 3.12 The synthetic indicator of INTERREG C West Zone compared to the strand C Zone The depth / intensity of co-
operation (=real rate) %-deviation from the mean
West 76.33 102,123
North 75.47 100,97
East 78 104,36
South 69.25 92,65
Mean strand C 74,74
In comparison with INTERREG as a whole, INTERREG West Zone scored above the
INTERREG average for components 1, 4, 5, 6 and under average for components 2 and 3
(intensity of shared diagnosis/partnership and decision making power). As we will explain
later, for Component 3 the total score should be higher.
INTERREG 3 C West scored significantly higher (in comparison with North and East zones)
at sub-indicator 4 and 5, respectively the nature and quality of the information sources
used to identify shared needs/problems and the extent to which the explicit programme
objectives did address the needs identified and the financial allocation adequately reflect
their respective performance.
As both the initial programming and the later adjustments of the strategy (carried out
after the MTE) were done more or less along the same lines for all 4 zones, the higher
scores for these two sub-indicators reflect the subjective perception of the JTS. The high
value of SI 5 is explained also by the rather simple/linear strategy of the programme: one
main goal/one priority/one measure/one budget (please see also the assessment of the
strategy quality).
Regarding SI 6, in accordance with the JTS, the MC and SC functioned very well;
decisions could be taken efficiently, as only 7 MS’s were represented in the S/CM. The
score here should be higher than 30(=poor), as due to the nature of the programme it is
not as relevant, as for a Strand A programme, to have NGO’s and socio-economic
partners, in the S/CM.
Regarding SI 7, the programme management structure is, indeed, truly joint; as in
regards to decentralisation, the zone-division as such can be seen as a way to bring the
programme implementation closer to the target group. At the same time, the JTS as such
does the bulk of the work. Due to the nature of the programme, further decentralisation
was not needed. In the current programming period the 4 Information Points do
complement, at a lower level, the JTS/MA work.
INTERREG III C West financed 76 operations in total, therefore, there are only 76 Lead
Partners. Most lead partners are either national or NUTS II authorities. Therefore, the
value of the SI10 is incorrect; using the NUTS 3 area as measurement unit is not the
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 68 January 2010
most appropriate for Strand C; these were eligible under Strand A, indeed, but the
whole Community, no matter the level, was eligible for Strand C.
SI 11 is very relevant for Strand C as it reflects its very spirit. As different levels of the
intensity of cooperation were expected from the three different types of operations, 50
reflects adequately the programme achievements in this respect. The nature of the
programme, i.e. joint nature of its operations, determined maximum values for SI12-17,
which pushed the programme above average for this Component 5, as mentioned before.
As in regards to the initial SI 18, a very rough estimation of the weight of the authorities
participating in INTERREG III C West operation, and C programmes in general is done in
chapter 3.2. The value attributed to the impact of the programme (SI 18c new), might be
slightly overestimated, in the light of the indicators analysis presented above.
No other topics have been identified which should have been taken into consideration
when constructing the synthetic indicator.
3.4.3 Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting obstacles
INTERREG C is a specific programme, both in thematic and geographical scope; it does
contribute to the “integration” of the European Union and between the European Union
and previous and current accession countries and other third-party countries.
Nevertheless, the manner in which INTERREG C contributed to this “integration” is
difficult to depict; this contribution is, obviously, connected with the programme intended
and also the unintended effects and impacts.
Pushing the discussion even further, let’s consider “territorial cohesion” (instead of
“territorial integration”), as having the following elements (as circulated in the literature
and summarised by INTERREG ex-post evaluation First Interim Report, Task1):
• territorial quality (the quality of the living and working environment; comparable
living standards across territories; similar access to services of general interest and to
knowledge);
• territorial efficiency (resource-efficiency with respect to energy, land and natural
resources; competitiveness of the economic fabric and attractiveness of the territory;
internal and external accessibility; capacity for resistance against de-structuring
forces related to the globalisation process; territorial integration and cooperation
between regions); and
• territorial identity (presence of ‘social capital’ and a sense of belonging that
translate into a competitive advantage of each place and territory) (Battis and Kersten
2008)
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 69 January 2010
• the governance dimension of territorial cohesion, as the need for coordination across
a wide range of legal competences, namely the integration of the spatial impacts of
sector policies (horizontally), across different levels of government (vertically), and
across territories (geographically) is widely recognised.
INTERREG III C contributed to territorial cohesion in the EU and other participant
countries, especially as regards the last two elements, i.e. territorial identity and
governance. The INTERREG III C West did contribute to the quality and efficiency of the
territory covered, to the extent to which the policies addressed under the 76
operations genuinely improved their effectiveness.
Two factors hampered the convergence of the area covered by the INTERREG III:
cultural differences on one side, and one, apparently significant, administrative factor,
respectively the different audit rules in the MS’s; the latter seems to have been of even
more importance as the former.
Differences in institutional/administrative/regulatory frameworks can be overcome if
cooperation is genuinely wanted. The associated asymmetries between the actors involved
(in terms of their status and competencies) did not constitute obstacles in INTERREG III C
West, as the cooperation was built up in most cases bottom-up, based on the genuine
interest of the partners.
Assuring coherence with other financing instruments, e.g. Phare, Meda, Cards, proved,
indeed, challenging.
3.5 Extrapolating results of effectiveness and impacts to INTERREG
The results of the in-depth analyses confirm, to a large extent, the outcomes of task 1, 2
and 4, regarding the programme, Strand and INTERREG as a whole.
The main “deviations” are connected to the achievement rates; these are relative if we
take into account the less realistic targets initially set for the programme’s physical
performance. Unlike other INTERREG programmes, the system of indicators for C
programmes is well developed and to a large extent it captures the results, effects and
impacts of the programme. There are still matters which can be improved regarding the
labelling of the indicators, i.e. results or impacts, clear formulation and definition, and
especially, coherent interpretation of these indicators across the programme.
Results of the in-depth analysis
Already suggested by the results of tasks 1 and 2
(Yes - to some extent –
no)
Strength of evidence for INTERREG (clear - with uncertainty - no evidence)
TASK 1 Fuzziness of objectives Yes Clear Insufficient monitoring systems
Yes with uncertainty
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 70 January 2010
Lack of reference data Yes Clear: baseline 0, differences in interpreting the indicators, especially results and impact ones
Emphasis on financial control (n+2)
Yes Clear: significant decommitement took place at the beginning of the programme
Accountable and additional tranfers
Yes Clear
Evaluation, failure of Yes Clear: evaluative thinking should be enforced at all levels: European, programme, projects
Poor integration with the mainstream programmes
Yes CLEAR, significant further efforts should be made in this sense, at all levels
Difficulty in translating individual learning to organisational learning and change
Yes Uncertain: mixed picture is presented, partial evidence is available (e.g. GDRP)
Ambitious expectations Yes clear Existence of Institutional and mental barriers
Yes Clear: but they can be overcome
TASK 2 1.High performance of financial implementation
Yes Clear from financial analysis and typology analysis
2. There were only minor shifts of programming
Yes Clear
3. High achievement rate at programme level
Yes Clear; but relative
4. Projects are robust and sustainable
Yes/no Projects are robust; sustainable to the extent you take the project as such into consideration, or the partnership (the latter more sustainable than the former)
5. The contribution from the non-member countries has been sufficient and proportional.
No Limited contribution, across strand and in West zone
6. Measures show a more or less curved trend in financial implementation.
Yes Clear evidence
7. Indicators are useful for estimating the achieved results; some issues remain open as regards the indicators labeling, formulation/definition and coherent interpretation/ targets
To a certain extent
Clear evidence from the effectiveness anslysis
8. Communication remains a significant bottleneck: explaining the programme philosophy and reaching the targets, especially the authorities involved in Objective 1 and 2 programmes.
No Clear evidence from analysis
9. Projects funded are by their nature experimental and complex. A more bottom-up approach was applied by the West programme, i.e. answering to the needs of the target group
no Clear evidence from analysis
10. great impact of the programme, nevertheless, regarding the programme goal, i.e. improving the effectiveness of policies, rather than on socio-economic development
Yes Partially confirmed by the analysis
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 71 January 2010
4 In-depth analysis of results and impacts in terms of utility and efficiency
4.1 Evaluation of the policy coherence of the programme
Policy coherence is defined by the level of interaction and co-ordination with other
spatially relevant Community- / national- / regional-level policies and the systematic
embedding of a programme into the overall regulatory framework. A high level of policy
coherence can contribute to enhanced policy synergy and contributes, thus, to the
programme’s efficiency and effectiveness. The coherency of the programme with national
and regional policy objectives and their instruments could also guarantee the availability
of sufficient co-funding from national resources.
As in regards to the analysis of the coherence of INTERREG III C West Zone other
Community policies and EU funds, the CIP just made reference to its general community
value added and left to the evaluators to analyze the value-added in terms of EU-policies,
including horizontal policies like environment, sustainability and equal opportunities.
For this task we try to find evidence in the West programme and their underlying
documents (annual reports and the mid-term evaluations) regarding the extent to which
this coherence was taken into account during the programme implementation. The
following aspects will be considered:
1. Interreg IIIC guidelines;
2. Documents (CIP and PC) and annual reports and MTEs;
3. Relevant indicators and selection criteria;
4. Approved and executed projects;
5. Coordination with other structural funds.
4.1.1 The INTERREG guidelines
The five topics chosen for interregional co-operation in the 2000-2006 period were the
following:
- Exchange of experience on activities supported under Objectives 1 and 2;
- Exchange of experience on cross border and transnational activities;
- Urban development;
- Topics covered by new innovative actions;
- Other subjects appropriate for interregional co-operation.
Operations under INTERREG IIIC should be conducted by applying a more strategic
approach to interregional cooperation, so that synergy among the mainstream structural
funds/INTERREG/ programmes could be created through exchange of experience and best
practices. This approach would guarantee a greater degree of coherence, not only within
interregional cooperation but also within INTERREG III and Cohesion Policy, as a whole.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 72 January 2010
Urban development is currently one of the key regional policy issues in Europe. In
addition to the targeted actions supported under the URBAN Community initiative and the
mainstream objective programmes, the Commission considers that wider cooperation
actions related to urban development issues should be enhanced. As a result, this topic
will encourage the dissemination of urban development practices through concrete
exchanges of experience among local and regional authorities.
Further on, the article 25 of the INTERREG III C guidelines say that supported activities
should be consistent with the other Community policies such as research, the information
society, enterprise, transport, energy, the environment, rural development (common
agricultural policy), equal opportunities and competition. Most of these issues were taken
into account in the CIP as well as in the project applications approved.
4.1.2 The programme documents, including annual reports and MTEs
Chapter 4 of the CIP had been devoted to its Coherence with other EU policies. The
activities of INTERREG IIIC should focus in the first place on policy-related issues being
part of other structural fund programmes. This was a core element of this programme and
guarantees therefore, that its activities are in line with EU-policies content-wise (as given
in article 25 of the IIIC-communication).
The Programme Complement referred to the compatibility with Community policies by
including for instance its effect on the environment, equal opportunities and sustainable
development in the list of output indicators for the programme. These indicators will be
the basis for the monitoring of projects and provide basic data for the evaluations.
Furthermore, clear reference to the need for compatibility with other community policies
was also made in the Programme Manual as part of the application pack. This manual
stresses in particular the need to obey competition rules, along with the public
procurement directives and requirements on state aid. Last but not least, each applying
Lead Partner signed a statement in the application form confirming the compliance of
their application with the relevant EU and national legislation and policies.
In the 2006 and 2007 annual reports references were only made with regards to more
operational aspects, such as the auditing rules, the operations relevance and possible
double-financing.
During the mid-term evaluation – as proposed in the CIP - the coherency with the EU
horizontal policy objectives regarding environment and equal opportunities were
assessed, as well as the community value added related to employment, enterprise
development, R & D and urban and rural development. This assessment that had been
carried out at a strategic level and especially the programme bottom-up character and its
potential to expand the individual SF interventions throughout Europe were highly
appreciated. It proved – according to the MTE - its value added of working at
transnational and interregional level.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 73 January 2010
4.1.3 Used indicators and selection criteria
Just a small number of output and result indicators were proposed in the Programme
Complement to measure the effects of policy coherence of the project proposed:
Coherency related output indicators
- No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies
- No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred
- No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred
- No of regional/local policies and instruments addressed
- No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed Coherency related result indicators
- % of operations with equal opportunities as main focus/positive/neutral
- % of operations with sustainable development main focus/positive/neutral
- % of operations with environment as main focus/positive/neutral With regards to the outputs we can conclude that an over-performance of the coherency
related indicators between 1.5 and 6 times their target values was registered. The
coherency related results (operations that contributed to three EU horizontal objectives)
scored in most cases according to their target values. Only the equal opportunity
objective scored rather below its target value.
With regards to the eligibility and selection criteria one can identify a number of criteria
which can be considered as relevant for assessing Community Value Added or/and the EU
policy coherence:
- Proposed operation is in line with relevant national and EU legislation and policies
- Proposed operation provides added value and excludes double financing from other
EU and / or national sources
- link to other regional development related activities1
- Expected influence on other structural fund programmes co-financed by the ERDF;
- Degree of innovation to be achieved (new methods, new goals for regional policies,
development of political structures and systems).
- Provisions to ensure the durability of the project effects (e.g. strategy to ensure
financing, strategy for further co-operation;
- Expected results should promote sustainable development of the participating
regions, in the meaning of combining economic growth, social cohesion and
protecting the environment
- 1 (e.g. maritime and coastal co-operation, spatial planning issues, co-operation on insular and ultra-peripheral issues, on solutions to natural or man-made catastrophes, on alleviating the economic effects of handicaps such as very low population density or mountainous conditions, cooperation in the areas of research, technological development and SMEs, the information society, tourism, culture and employment, entrepreneurship, environment)
-
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 74 January 2010
4.1.4 Approved and executed projects
With regards to the themes of cooperation covered by INTERREG IIIC projects the
following remarks can be made:
The concept of sustainable development refers to a form of development that meets
present-day needs without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their
own requirements. It aims to improve individuals’ living conditions in the short, medium
and – above all – long term. In practical terms, it means creating the conditions for long-
term economic development with due respect for the environment. The Copenhagen world
summit for sustainable development (March 1995) stressed the need to combat social
exclusion and protect public health. The Treaty of Amsterdam wrote an explicit reference
to sustainable development into the recitals of the EU Treaty.
At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, European Union leaders set out a new strategy,
based on a consensus among Member States, to modernize Europe. This became known
as the “Lisbon Strategy. After initially moderate results, the Lisbon Strategy was
simplified and re-launched in 2005.
Improving regional policies and instruments is the core aim of the INTERREG IIIC West
Zone. All projects addressed local or regional policies in their partner regions in different
fields e.g. air quality, sustainable transport, business succession, water management etc.
There are indications that some projects will have a wider policy impact (still mostly at
local/regional level). In fact, it is not possible to measure the true effect of projects on
regional policy and the real number of policies improved is probably much higher (than
illustrated by the indicators system). Although the projects have now been closed, many
of the partners are still working on implementing the best practices, which were
exchanged in their local area. The momentum created by the projects means that the full
impact on policymaking will mainly become evident beyond the end of the projects’
lifetime.
4.1.5 Coordination with other structural fund programmes
One of the side-effects of the Interreg IIIC West Zone was the transfer of experiences and
knowledge on developing and implementing projects that could be supported by the EU
structural funds to the new Member States. Based on a sample of good practice examples
organized by all JTS’s1 it was among others concluded that the analysed projects did
provide ample evidence that INTERREG IIIC contributed to improved regional
development by sharing experiences, transferring know-how and enabling innovative
solutions. Many of these practices are transferable to other projects and regions.
1 INTERREG IIIC – A Good practice survey
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 75 January 2010
During the interview with the JTS it was confirmed that the cooperation with INTERACT
was two fold:
1. The INTERREG III C west zone benefited from trainings organized by INTERACT points. At
the same time it was considered as very useful to work within INTERACT together with
other INTERREG programmes to exchange ideas and learn from each other;
2. Interaction with INTERACT is more concrete through the coordination measures taken
through the INTERACT Point IIIC Coordination. These coordination measures were essential
in order to achieve coherence between all zones.
Cooperation with ESPON in the 2000-2006 programming period hardly existed. Just one
tool developed in ESPON – a map to make the geographical coverage of the projects
visible - had been very useful and this type of cooperation should be continued in
INTERREG IVC. Because of the overlapping of funding activities, cooperation with URBACT
had been more problematic. The JTS’s of the mentioned programmes further cooperated
in matters of financial control, when the system was set up and exchange of experiences
in this respect took place.
4.1.6 Intermediate conclusions
From a strategic point of view, the programme implements faithfully the INTERREGIONAL
Cooperation Communication.
All INTERREG IIIC zones worked on the basis of similar programmes and their
complements. A great number of coordinated activities with regards to the mid term
evaluations, common supportive publications and information seminars were organised,
also through the INTERACT Point III C COORD. Cooperation with ESPON was mainly based
on practical issues and kept to a lower level. The coherence (of strategy and action)
should have been better assured with the URBACT programme.
INTERREG IIIC indented to contribute to a better exchange of knowledge and experiences
between regions in working with the mainstream programmes and other Community
Initiatives. As was proved by the indicators, this had certainly been the case.
In the case of INTERREG IIIC West Zone there is hardly talk about inter-institutional
coordination, other than in their own management and administrative organisation
(including MS and MC) and with the other zones. Nevertheless, the programme has
offered plenty opportunities for working together within a multi-governance atmosphere,
in which NGO’s and private parties (with a particular sectoral interest) were also present.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 76 January 2010
4.2 Analysis of the intrinsic performances of the programme
4.2.1 Evaluation of the programme management system
Application procedures, publicity and reputation of the programme
The application procedure for IIIC West Zone was based on periodical calls for proposals,
which had to be submitted to the JTS by the lead partners. Upon request the JTS
delivered the documents needed for the development and submission of an application.
The Application Pack comprised all relevant programme documents; an application form, a
manual and forms for co-financing statements. After the project appraisal the definitive
selected projects were sent for approval to the Steering Committee (SC). In total four
calls for project proposals had been launched; the last one almost 2 years before the end
of the programme period on the 8th of October, 2004.
The overall aim of the publicity plan was to constantly provide different types of target
groups with adequate and high-quality information about the INTERREG IIIC West Zone.
An efficient communication of information should both increase the public awareness
about the programme as well as provide the stakeholders with accurate and reliable
information and data. Due to the specific nature of INTERREG III C with an
administrational structure divided into four zones it was especially important to ensure
consistent information on the programme throughout the eligible area.
Therefore, all information and publicity activities were closely coordinated between the
four zones. The common website (www.internet3c.net) constituted a major information
and communication tool. On the web page one could find, among others, information for
potential applicants, overviews of operations, publication of newsletters and a rubric on
news and events.
Considering the programme area, the evaluator needed to take a different approach (in
comparison with the A or even B Strand programmes) in order to asses the “reputation”
of the programme. This assessment is conducted mainly on:
1. programme achievements in terms of communication and dissemination
2. assessment of press materials made available by the JTS and projects evaluated in-
depth
3. interviews with the JTS, Managing Authority and the 5 projects.
Communicating and disseminating the programme was carried out in two steps: from
the JTS to the (potential) applicants and institutions involved in the programme’s
operations and from the operational level to the partners involved in the project and
further, to the project network and wider public.
As the annex 3 also displays, (category of indicators 1.3.) the focus of the programme
communication and dissemination policy was directly on the potential beneficiaries of the
programme and not the wide public (only 5 press releases were disseminated in
comparison with the brochures, newsletters published and events organised). The press
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 77 January 2010
releases appeared 155 times in mass media (1,25 per country and year, if we take into
account the programme 5 years duration and 25 countries-target group).
Dissemination to the wider public was done mostly at operation level (see annex 3,
category of indicators 2.2.2); these dissemination activities were extensive, going
significantly further than the targets proposed: 1699 of press releases were disseminated
(target 300), and 3605 of articles/appearances published in the press and other mass-
media (28/year/country).
In some cases, different “terminology” than INTERREG, or even more specific, INTERREG
III C West Zone, was used in order to present the origin of a project funding: e.g.
“European funds”.
It is difficult to assess the public reputation of INTERREG III C, given its wide
geographical scope; nevertheless, the focus of the programme communication strategy is
on its target group/directly interested parties and less the wider audience. For the
latter the 75 projects organised more dissemination activities (mainly press releases and
brochures - instruments such as events on a specific topic and newsletters/web-page are
more adequate for the programme target group and potential applicants).
Selection criteria and quality of the cooperation at project level
The Program Complement comprised information on the eligibility and selection
criteria for the selection of operations (Annex 1 presents an overview of minimum
application criteria per INTERREG III C type of operation). The eligibility criteria were
distinguished in core (applying for all operations) and specific criteria (applying for
specific topics). Eligible applications were subject to a ranking in accordance with the
selection criteria; an external pool of experts assisted the secretariat. The appraisal and
selection procedure was managed by the JTS, which prepared the necessary
documentation on the basis of which the Steering Committee took its decisions. All
rejected projects received a complete assessment of their appraisal, which was
considered very useful by the applicants.
The MTE evaluator assessed the project selection procedures and criteria and
recommended to the JTS to inform weighting of project selection criteria; provide full
feedback on the quality assessments; include detailed reasons for decisions in the MC/SC
minutes, carry out quality assessments by external independent experts and to organise
SC preparatory meetings in which relevant regional / local level representatives could
be involved. Most of these recommendations were taken on board in the second phase of
the programme implementation.
The involvement of external experts, however, in project appraisal proved – according
to the JTS’ opinion - less efficient. The quality of their assessment was considered as
limited, which needed to invest further resources in improving the assessment reports
retroactively.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 78 January 2010
Governance and management modes: Formalisation of Co-operation
The Management Authority (MA) of the programme is part of the regional government,
while the JTS was created as an European Economic Interest Group (EEIG), i.e. semi-
public association of two governmental regions, both interested in cooperation. The JTS
did not form part of the French administration as its staff members had a specific
profile and workload; they needed to have competitive salaries. Besides this, flexible
procedures had to be set up regarding their travel requirements and irregular working
times, etc. The challenge is to convince the mother organisation of the needs of the
specific staff and to create understanding and acceptance in this respect.
According to the interviewees, the major concern in this context is the MA position.
The programme-approach to interregional cooperation was beneficial for all main
stakeholders (MS, MC, EC, MA itself, beneficiary countries). However, in contrast with the
Objective 1 and 2 and INTERREG A programmes, where the MA itself is a direct
beneficiary of funds, in INTERREG B and, especially C , the MA’s are in a confict of
interest: they cannot apply for funds they manage. This was one of the reasons for which
the JTS was entrusted with all tasks. However, this measure was not enough to avoid
conflicts of interest.
Further on, regarding the task delegation from the MA to the JTS, this was, however, not
done on a certain legal basis or a via “contract”-like type of agreement. A system audit
recommended that this relationship be formalised and that clear control mechanisms
needed to be set up.
The Monitoring Committee (MC) and the Steering Committee (SC)
The MC was made up by representatives of the national and/or regional authorities
of the participating Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxemburg, The
Netherlands and the U.K.). A representative of the European Commission, the Paying
Authority, the European Investment Bank participated in an advisory capacity. The MC
supervised the programme and monitor the effectiveness and quality of the programme
implementation. The SC had the same composition (in terms of countries
represented) as the MC. It draws up its own rules of procedure in agreement with the
MC. The SC had the following main tasks: decision on selection of projects; following of
implementation.
Because only 7 Member States were involved in the Monitoring and Steering Committes
during the 2000-2006 programming period, consensus could easily be reached.
Measures were taken in the MC and SC in order to facilitate the decision making process;
in this context only expressed votes were taken into account. Changes in the operations
were discussed at the meetings of the SC and the JTS was delegated to implement them.
In the MTE was stated that participation of partners from new Member States (NMS’s)
was weak and urged for actions to improve this situation. The participation level of NMS’s
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 79 January 2010
in the West Zone can be considered as satisfactory (taking into account the geographical
area covered), participation rates going in line with targets set and assuring
administrative compliance.
From the evaluators point of view a stronger involvement of social and economic
partners and representatives from operation related NGO’s could strengthen the
effectiveness of its operations and also contribute to intended integration effects of
interregional cooperation.
Also in accordance with the previous programme evaluations, we can conclude that the
joint implementation structures generally functioned well and also good working
relationships were established between the various actors involved, i.e. MA, JTS and
MC/SC. MC/SC members worked in strong cooperation with the JTS in particular during
the selection of operations. Although it took time to establish and make the programme
management operational, the implementation structures were functional in the shortest
time possible and no major weaknesses in this respect were reported (except the position
of the MA, as explained above). The various programme-level institutions (JTS, MA,
MC/SC, PA) worked efficiently, regular contacts and communications were established and
capacity, knowledge and expertise commonly developed.
On the other hand Member States, as some project promoters and beneficiaries, did
consider as a weakness the lack of timely information about operations and applications
in other zones. Also representatives of Member States in the MC’s argued that they often
didn’t have knowledge about national – non lead - partners that have applied with
projects in other zones. Communication between management and operations was mostly
focused on the Lead Partner organization. Lack of detailed information about applications
in other zones could also result in the duplication of certain project activities (parallel
approval of applications submitted for activities in similar fields).
The MTE stated that only a minority of project applicants were facing difficulties with
applying for topics and the types of cooperation. Nevertheless, a majority of Lead
Partners (LP) encountered some difficulties during the project implementation. Very
often solutions could not be provided because they were outside their control (e.g.
national auditing rules). In these situations they tried to facilitate lead partners by
providing tools and guidance (e.g. audit guidelines). With surveys and interviews among
lead partners the JTS could identify common problems and provide support were possible
(e.g. how to cope with some indicators).
So, according to the evaluators the joint implementation structures were generally
functioning well. A limited number of recommendations made by the mid-term
evaluation were not taken over during the 2000-2006 implementation period (e.g.
merging MC and SC meetings).
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 80 January 2010
4.2.2 Added value and sustainability
Programme added value
The programme in its entirety has an absolute added-value: all financed operations are
European-wide and without INTERREG III C West Zone (and the other three) no or
significantly limited inter-regional cooperation would have taken place in the previous
programming period. All 5 operations evaluated in-depth in the framework of this
evaluation wouldn’t have been carried out without INTERREG C funds.
The programme added-value could be further assessed on the basis of its contribution to
good governance, development of partnership and the better exchange of good practices.
Contribution to “good governance”
It is generally confirmed that the INTERREG IIIC West Zone concerned cooperation among
a great number of local and regional (and sometimes national) government partners with
often a great variety of administrative structures, procedures and traditions. Besides,
these partners/authorities dispose of rather divergent competences. This forms, of
course, not an ideal basis to promote common strategies and implementation
mechanisms.
As it was stated also in the study on “Effectiveness and Impact Assessment of INTERREG
IIIC operations” it is too early yet for any conclusions with regards to
improvements in policy-making, policy coordination or adaptation of strategy
development capacities as a consequence of the implemented operations.
It is also stated that the situation is such that the policy-makers are not giving the
attention to the results of the INTERREG IIIC operations that these deserve. Most
beneficiaries of the operations think there’s a need to strengthen the dissemination effort,
in order to achieve a bigger impact.
Contribution to development of “partnership”
The main goal of the INTERREG IIIC programmes is to improve the effectiveness of
policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion. This should be
materialized by enhancing developments through access to the experiences of others
and by disseminating experience interregionally.
The realization of synergy effects is an important component to determine the impact of
interventions. Therefore, the opening-up of new regional or international cooperation
opportunities is perceived as a value in itself. Therefore, interregional partnerships can
be considered as a key asset in shaping the development trends of territories and
constitute therefore a crucial factor of regional competitiveness. Positive partnership
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 81 January 2010
relations were strengthened and could be interesting as to form a basis for building up
further common experiences in other programmes.
There is a strong will and interest of stakeholders to participate in further discussions and
meetings amongst each other, to share ideas about the links and interrelations between
regional strategic development, structural funding and the IIIC Operations.
Contribution to a “better exchange of good practice”
In a joint initiative the INTERREG IIIC Joint Technical Secretariats, in cooperation with
Lead Partners of a sample of 30 INTERREG IIIC projects1, have engaged in an exercise to
identify good practice approaches and related examples. This exercise was based on a
common methodology2 that was developed in 2004. The main conclusions and
recommendations resulting from this exercise were:
• The report includes a wealth of good practice examples, thus providing ample
evidence that INTERREG IIIC contributes to improved regional development by
sharing experiences, transferring know-how and enabling innovative solutions. Many
of these practices are transferable to other projects and regions.
• Desk research findings do not indicate that good practice approaches depend on
a specific type of operation. Instead it appears that these approaches work for all
types of Operation—Regional Framework Operation, Individual Project and Network;
• A main weakness identified in the course of this study is that sample operations
showed limited understanding of the concept of indicators. Nevertheless project
promoters consider as an important aspect of the overall implementation process.
During the first mid-term evaluation the value added of INTERREG IIIC was assessed. At
strategic level INTERREG IIIC can contribute to sustainable inter-regional co-operation
in a number of ways (see the BOX below).
BOX: Expected contribution to sustainable inter-regional co-operation • In the field of employment, INTERREG IIIC can contribute to the delivery of policies and to
strengthen the institutional capacity through operations that address social inclusion issues, adaptability, entrepreneurship, life-long learning and equal opportunities. SF Guidelines call for effective implementation including the regional/local level, stressing efficient and effective operational services;
• In the field of sustainable development and the environment, inter-regional co-operation can contribute to better integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable regional development. Many regions have already moved towards a more sustainable path in their SF ming. Inter-regional co-operation will help spread this experience and promote best practices;
• In the field of Research and Development (R&D), SF s have already adopted a more strategic approach to the promotion of innovation and R&D at the regional level. Inter-regional co-operation can take the experience gained via existing innovative actions programmes and expand it to other regions. More specifically, the type of co-operation set up to provide systematic exchange of experience between regions is exactly what INTERREG IIIC can build on and expand;
• In the field of enterprise development, the EC identifies innovation and entrepreneurship as key drivers of European competitiveness. INTERREG IIIC can contribute to sustainable inter-regional co-operation in this field, focusing on operations that address common weaknesses;
• In the field of urban and rural development, INTERREG IIIC can contribute to sustainable inter-regional co-operation through its inclusive and bottom-up approach, addressing common issues facing rural and urban areas in Europe.
1 INTERREG IIIC – A Good practice survey 2 Roland Blomeyer, independent consultant and expert presented a methodology to undertake research on “good practices” among a sample of 30 INTERREG IIIC operations.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 82 January 2010
It was further concluded that at the level of operations there was evidence of high
potential for inter-regional co-operation, because:
• Compatibility between SF priorities and INTERREG IIIC co-operation topics enable
regions to learn from each other new ways of using SF;
• Partnerships developed for the exchange of know-how and experience links for the
future as experiences are not static, but could lead to sustainability of partnerships;
• Dissemination is a component in practically all approved operations. It is a proof of
the value assigned to sustainability of the proposed co-operation;
• Generally, approved operations assign responsibilities to all partners, either for a
specific component or for leading a working group, etc. This helps to build strong and
sustainable partnerships;
• Some operations included “sustainability” as one of their main objectives.
It is further widely recognised that the “EU label” increases commitment of partners and
creates the conditions for attracting more partners. It is often stated that the amount of
funding available would not have raised much interest if it was not offered under the “EU
label”. Therefore, at a strategic level the programme demonstrates value added and
offers strong potential for sustained inter-regional co-operation.
Moreover, while there have been many notable efforts to ensure sustainability
beyond the end of INTERREG IIIC funding, sustainability in the sense of durability of
results is thus far neither addressed systematically nor early enough. Indeed, there are
still a relatively high number of operations that consider continued EU funding as the
basis for sustainability. Other operations only seem to discuss this issue towards the end
of their activities, when it is usually too late to develop a sound basis and strategy to
continue their work beyond the lifetime of the project.
4.2.3 Intermediate conclusions
For the IIIC programmes there was no need for a specific legal instrument to set up
implementation structures/formal cooperation. Practical solutions were found in this
respect. INTERREG IIIC West Zone had established formal programme structures of co-
operation (MC, SC and the JTS as an supportive entity for these committees and the MA.
National and/or regional authorities from all 7 MSs were represented in above mentioned
bodies (MC/SC).
The MA’s and JTS’s set-up indicators that are the most suited to their programme as long
as its achievement is measured. Policy recommendations from MTE’s were partly taken
over in the same programme period; some others were taken on board in the new
INTERREG IVC programme.
The financial management of the programme was to a large extent effective. For RFO’s
the risk of underspending was higher, and this made their implementation particularly
difficult in the light of the N+2 rule.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 83 January 2010
The selection of the projects had been based on clear criteria. The JTS supported the
applicants in developing their project ideas, nevertheless, conflicts of interest between
project development and appraisal was avoided. As a best practice we identified the
approach to non-approved projects: their Lead Partners received the full assessment of
the applications, which helped them in either bringing further improvements, or
renouncing the idea of applying for INTERREG III C funds.
The community added value was assessed on the basis of the contribution of the
programme to respectively: good governance, development of partnership and the better
exchange to good practices. INTERREG IIIC West Zone contributed greatly to improving
the climate for working at interregional level.
In terms of continuity, the West Zone programme published its last call already in the
autumn of 2004; this was followed by some calls for additional funding. For the future a
more balanced out spread of calls would be advisable.
Networks seem to be the most successful types of sustainable co-operation that are
likely to be durable even without Structural Fund support.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 84 January 2010
5 Conclusions and recommendations
Programme strategy
1. A clear intervention logic, supported by adequate (i.e. relevant and accurate)
analysis, is the first precondition for the success of a programme. The strategy of
INTERREG III C West was upgraded by taking into account the outcomes of its mid-term
evaluation. While the programme objectives were refined into a more straightforward
logic of action, the types/topics/themes of cooperation approach blurs the image of the
real rationale of the programme.
Regarding “co-operation” as such, it is not clear if this could be considered also a
programme goal in itself (further than a means to achieve the programme objectives).
The Interregional Cooperation Communication stresses several times that under
INTERREG III C the cooperation at operational level should be strategic and depart from
one-off types of projects (the RFO was the type of operation embodying this more
strategic cooperation). However, during the programme implementation better quality
projects achieving best results in terms of policy exchange and improvement were
favoured. If strategic cooperation is also a goal of the programme, this should be
properly reflected in the programme strategy, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation.
2. A balance should be stroke between the top-down and bottom-up approach to the
programme: while the European relevant legal provisions are to be respected when
setting up the programme strategy and approach, these should also be corroborated with
the interregional cooperation needs of the target group. The tension between the two
approaches, is reflected at operational level by the differences in demand for (by the
target group) and request of Regional Framework Operations (by the Interregional
Cooperation Communication). The RFO’s implemented under INTERREG III C West prove
that there are 25 regions in Europe prepared to carry out this type of more intense,
strategic and programmatic cooperation. Nevertheless, this capacity seems to be limited
to some regions only. While, in accordance with the Interregional Cooperation
Communication, the RFO’s seem to best correspond to the “philosophy” of INTERREG IIIC
in terms of cooperation, networks were often the best at demonstrating a high impact on
the policies addressed. As Regional Framework Operations are partly preserved during the
current period as Miniprogrammes, a more in-depth assessment of this type of
interventions (i.e. INTERREG III RFO’s and IV C Miniprogrammes), as opposed to
networks, should be carried out, in order to possibly identify ways to optimise this
instrument and enhance its capacity to stimulate strategic cooperation in Europe.
3. Especially the RFO’s signalled that there is a need for interregional cooperation at
implementation level. At the same time, identifying, exchanging and learning from
good practices related to the management and implementation of Objective 1 and
2 programmes are also of interest for interregional cooperation in Europe. The
possibility of extending the scope of interregional cooperation, either under INTERREG V
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 85 January 2010
or other European programmes, to cover also these two aspects, as well as the financial
implications of such a scope expansion need to be investigated. In this respect, it is of
major importance that genuine coherence with Objective 1 and 2 programmes should be
ensured, from the European, strategic level, to the regional/local, implementation level.
4. In terms of strategy and approach little continuity exists between INTERREG III C and
previous interregional instruments financed by the European Commission, e.g. Recite and
ECOS-OEVERTURE. The debate on the future of interregional cooperation should take all
three programming periods into account: 1994-1999, 2000-2006 and 2007-2013.
Measuring the achievements of the programme
A clear intervention logic is the pre-requisite for setting up an adequate system for
measuring a programmes’ achievement (through indicators or in other, more qualitative,
ways).
5. To a large extent the system of indicators in place for INTERREG III C West adequately
grasp the programme’s achievements. Nevertheless, a series of issues need to be further
improved, i.e. labelling the indicators as reflecting the programme’s impacts, results or
outputs1, formulating the indicators in a clear way, explaining the indicators to the
partners involved in the operations, ensuring a coherent interpretation and use of
indicators, at both programme and operational level, re-asses the number of indicators
needed for measuring the programme’s achievements.
6. Especially the definition of “best practice”, as concept at the core of the programme
rationale, needs to be clearly defined, coherently applied at operational level and its use
monitored by the JTS.
7. A second concept which needs clarification as it is essential in order to depict the
programme’s impact is the following: “policy influenced/improved/developed”, e.g.:
• source developed under an INTERREG C operation quoted in a policy instrument (e.g.
CONCEPT)
• methodology developed under an INTERREG C operation used in the
planning/programming phase of a policy (a. carrying out the analysis related to the
programme, b. SWOT Analysis, c. setting up the strategy, d. setting up the monitoring
and evaluation systems) (e.g. GRDP)
• methodology developed under an INTERREG C operation used in implementing a
policy, e.g. GRDP
• analysis carried out under an INTERREG C operation find their way in the strategy as
such of a policy, as a priority/measure, e/g/ COTOUR, EURBEST.
At the same time, a weighting of the policies influenced should be considered:
local/regional/national/European ( for the latter, if any).
1 Nevertheless, this depends in the first place on the clarity of the programme strategy
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 86 January 2010
8. Regarding the mechanisms for overseeing “cooperation”, as mentioned in the first
paragraph of these conclusions, the current system provides comprehensive information
on the legal status and location of authorities involved in INTERREG III C West Zone as
such; nevertheless, more differentiated information on the 1330 new
projects/activities/approaches developed as a result of participation in INTERREG III C
West operation should be provided through indicators, e.g. new INTERREG (A,B,C)-
financed common project, new project financed by other (own, regional, national, other
European programmes) sources, new common programme (as it was the case with Grand
Region and E-Bird) etc. as these differentiated information give a more comprehensive
picture on the impact of the programme in terms of sustainable cooperation.
9. Further than an adequate programme strategy, a more evaluative thinking should be
stimulated, at both programme level (by the European Commission) and at the project
level (by the programme itself).
Effectiveness of the programme
10. The targets for the INTERREG III C West Zone indicators were cautiously set up;
consequently significant over-performance was registered. Despite this context and the
few deficiencies of the indicator system (e.g. especially the definitions of “best practices”
and “policies influenced/improved”), we can conclude that the programme was, to a large
extent, effective.
11. Nevertheless, increased attention needs to be paid to the taken up of the
registered outputs, e.g. the rate of good practices transferred was around 12% of the
practices identified. At the same time, as the programme supposed to focus on Objective
1 and 2 regions and outermost regions (see the Interregional Cooperation
Communication, points 8, 12), a differentiation of these good practices per topic of
cooperation should have been carried out, in order to isolate the results of the 18
Objective 1 and 2 –related operations.
12. Strictly speaking, the impact of the programme depends on its declared main goal, in
our case to “improve the effectiveness of regional development policies”; also “indirect”
effects can be registered. Taking into account the achievements of the programme as
reported by the monitoring system, i.e. the number of regional/local policies and
instruments improved or developed (375), the number of staff with increased capacity
(8693) and the number of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the
operations’ activities (1330), we can conclude that the programme had a significant
intrinsic impact.
13. Nevertheless, it is close to impossible to project this intrinsic impact in a wider
frame (of Europe 25), as the necessary data is not available. Collecting the necessary
data, e.g. asses the effectiveness of the influenced/developed policies, to which extent
this increased and to which extent this increase is due to the participation in an
INTERREG III C West operation would imply, as in the case of INTERACT I, to step
outside the programme “area” and involve significant resources. The impact of the
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 87 January 2010
projects is limited to a large extent to the project areas, and the same is valid for the
impact of the programme.
14. Taking the discourse on territorial cohesion into account, INTERREG III C contributed
especially to increasing the European territorial identity and to European
governance. The INTERREG III C West did contribute to the quality and efficiency of the
territory covered, to the extent to which the policies addressed under operation
genuinely improved their effectiveness.
15. Regarding cultural differences, the cooperation developed or enhanced under
INTERREG III C contributed significantly to an increase of “social capital” among the
partners involved. Knowing each other set aside preconceived ideas/mental barriers
about other cultures and proved that cooperation is possible. As demonstrated in
numerous works on culture as determinant of democracy and on social capital theory, this
is an important independent variable for socio-economic development. This is the added
value of INTERREG III C, as in terms of socio-economic effects, it is again, close to
impossible, to distinguish its effects from effects determined by other programmes (only
6% of the entire INTERREG budget was dedicated to interregional cooperation while the
allocated ERDF budget of the West Zone programme (€ 79,575,968) only raised to
approximately 1,5% of the INTERREG III ERDF total budget).
Partnership
16. In the case of INTERREG III C West, several partners in a project continued to
cooperate, in different forms, after the project was closed. Nevertheless, changes in
partnership is one of the factor affecting negatively the financial performance of the
programme. At the same time, it seems that the degree of “involvement” in an operation
may vary from partner to partner. The approach for INTERREG III C was, indeed,
innovative, and partners needed to adjust to the new procedures. However, the
commitment of project partners should be better assured from the outset, through the
project appraisal and selection criteria applied.
Learning
17. Individual and organisational learning could be confirmed to a large extent in virtually
all projects analysed. Nevertheless, a more nuanced image of what was learned under
INTERREG III C, both at individual and organisational level, needs to be pencilled. For
example, we could distinguish between:
1. content related knowledge (on policies as such); this capital is illustrated to a
certain extent by the number of regional/local policies and instruments improved or
developed
2. social capital/mutual trust: further projects, sustainability of partnership/ set aside
prejudices, cultural obstacles
3. inter-regional cooperation management skills: both at project but also at
programme level. The former might be “measured” by the number of efficient and
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 88 January 2010
effective further common projects developed by partners. An indication of the latter is the
significantly improved quality of the 2007-2013 INTERREG IV C Operational Programme.
Programme management
18. The administrative burden of project management seems to have been relatively
high, despite the availability of and the extensive support the JTS gave to Project Leaders
and partners. A large number of operations needed between 1 and 3 extra months to
close the project. While further simplifying the procedures might go against the
programme-related requirements, this short coming might be addressed by assuring that
the JTS has adequate capacity to deal with their project management tasks.
19. The major concern identified is related to the institution of Managing Authority, more
precisely, the position of the hosting institution in the role of Managing Authority. In the
case of Objective 1 and 2, and even for INTERREG A programmes the position of the MA is
very different; the MA is a direct beneficiary of funds. In the case of B and especially C
programmes, the MA’s benefit to a very limited extent, or not at all, of the funds
implemented; in some case it prefers to preserve a neutral position toward the other
programme beneficiaries. In this context, the MA structure in C Strand is perceived as
artificial and fragile; as the regional governments receive very little back for their
involvement as MA, there is a risk that they will renounce, at a certain point, to this
function. Corroborating this perspective with a real situation in the case of INTERACT I,
the risk is not to be underestimated. The synthesis report should take a look at the
ESPON evaluations, too, in order to see if a “trend” in this respect is registering.
Communication
20. It seems that a major challenge for the JTS was to communicate the “philosophy” of
the programme to the target group, respectively, policy-related exchange and not
implementation of concrete policy-related measures. Several factors might have
contributed to this situation, i.e. history of the scope of interregional cooperation as
financed by the European Union, need for implementation-related interregional
cooperation, communications instruments chosen by the JTS (e.g. Objective 1 and 2
Managing Authorities were not contacted directly by the JTS), the INTERREG brand of the
programme which triggered larger participation from authorities familiar with INTERREG
as such.
Adequate communication and dissemination measures should be taken at JTS/MA level
should be intensified, both towards the programme target groups and wider audience.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 89 January 2010
Annex 1 Criteria per INTERREG III C types of operation
OPERATIONS-Type of Application Regional Framework
Operations Individual Projects Networking
Minimum number of partners from member states
Regions from a minimum of three countries, of which at least 2 should be member states. For RFO internal projects: participants from different countries
Partners from a minimum of three countries, of which at least two should be member states
Partners from at least five countries, of which at least 3 should be member states
Types of partners/participants
Regional authorities or equivalent regional bodies, on project level: public authorities or public equivalent participants, private participants
Public authorities or equivalent bodies
Public authorities or equivalent bodies
Minimum of intensity of cooperation
Transfer Transfer Dissemination, exchange
ERDF contribution From EUR 500.000 to EUR 5 mln.
From EUR 200.000 to EUR 1.000.000
From EUR 200.000 to EUR 1.000.000
Source: INTERREG III C West CIP, page 18
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 90 January 2010
Annex 2 Indicative Financial Allocations – West INTERREG IIIC
Table 1 The priorities and measures of the INTERREG IIIC-West Zone programme and the
distribution of intervention codes
Source: Programme Complement, page 30)
Table 2 Final financial allocations in accordance with the last version of the Programme
Complement (2007)
Third
Countries Public Expenditure Total Costs Total Public ERDF National Private1 Operations 109,228,844 107,574,264 74,471,568 33,102,696 1,714,580 - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
10,478,637 9,827,584 21,667,922 21,947,263 22,134,389 23,233,049
10,269,064 9,631,033 21,017,884 21,288,845 22,123,389 23,233,049
6,287,182 5,896,551 15,167,545 15,363,084 15,494,072 16,263,134
3,981,882 3,734,482 5,850,339 5,925,761 6,640,317 6,969,915
209,573 196,551 650,038 658,148 0 0
- - - - - -
Strand C Coordination
1,110,880 1,110,880 999,792 111,088 0 -
2001 2002
277,778 833,102
277,778 833,102
250,000 749,792
27,778 83,310
0 0
- -
Technical Assistance
8,209,216 8,209,216 4,104,608 4,104,608 0 -
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1,380,790 1,500,736 1,556,300 1,559,552 1,551,530 660,308
1,380,790 1,500,736 1,556,300 1,559,552 1,551,530 660,308
690,395 750,368 778,150 779,776 775,765 330,154
690,395 750,368 778,150 779,776 775,765 330,154
0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - -
Total 118,608,940 116,894,360 79,575,968 37,318,392 1,714,580 - 2001 2002
12,137,205 12,161,422
11,927,632 11,964,871
7,227,577 7,396,711
4,700,055 4,568,160
209,573 196,551
- -
1 Although the participant of private actors under this programme is warmly welcome, their indicative
financial contribution is hard to estimate in advance. If the indicative private contribution within the national contribution (public and private) of 5 % for the years 2001 and 2002 and 10 % for the years 2003 and 2004 is not realized, the Member States will guarantee the total national co-financing from public resources.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST
ZONE
R20090290.doc 91 January 2010
2003 2004 2005 2006
23,224,222 23,506,815 23,685,919 23,893,357
22,574,184 22,848,397 23,685,919 23,893,357
15,945,695 16,142,860 16,269,837 16,593,288
6,628,489 6,705,537 7,416,082 7,300,069
650,038 658,418 0 0
- - - -
Source: Source: INTERREG III C West CIP, page 43 Table 3 Allocated and spent budget on codes of intervention November 2009
Priority/Measure Total
Total Eligible Actually Paid Expenditure
% of Eligible
Cost Field of intervention
1 2 3=2/1 Budgeted
Actual (as share of
(2))
Priority 1
Measure 1.1: Operations 109.288.844 116.761.928,36 106,84% 414
(100%) 414 (100%)
Total ERDF related 74.471.568 67.628.809,00 90,81%
Priority 2
Measure 2.1: Strand C Coordination 1.110.880 1.106.581,86 99,61% 415 (100%)
Total ERDF related 999.792 995.923,69 99,61%
411, 412, 413, 415
(25% each)
Priority 3
Measure 3.1: Technical assistance 8.209.216 6.595.920,86 80,35% 411
(94.44%)
Total ERDF related 4.104.608 3.297.960,54 80,35% 415
(2.71%)
411, 412, 413, 415
(25% each)
412 (1.22%)
Total 118.608.940 124.464.431 104,94%
Total ERDF related 79.575.968 71.922.693 90,38% Source: Source: INTERREG III C West JTS
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 93 January 2010
Annex 3 Programme indicators and the achievements per 31.12.2008
Purpose/ 0bjective to be measured Indicators
Actual as per 31 dec 2004
Actual as per 31 dec 2005
Actual as per 31 dec 2006
Actual as per 31 dec 2007
Actual as per 31 dec
2008 Target as per 31
dec 2008 1. Programme management performance
Output Indicators Total INTERREG IIIC budget of the approved operations ? ? 125.517.519 127.693.201
128.185.246 106.931.406
Overall ERDF co-financing rate for approved operations ? ? 58,45% 58,49% 58,26%
68,13%
Amount of ERDF committed 2.223.470 11.232.163 73.361.265 74,683,334[1] 74.680.892
74.471.568
% of total ERDF budget committed 3,0% 15,2% 99,0% 100,0% 100% 95,0%
Amount of ERDF paid by PA (main budget line operations/TA) 13.629.080 24.232.839 31.646.824 56.625.386 70.669.050 79.575.968
% of total ERDF budget paid out 17,1% 30,5% 40,0% 71,0% 88,8% 95,0%
No of seminars for financial managers /auditors 1 2 2 3 0
3
No of participants in seminars for financial managers / auditors 64 111 111 191 0
190
No of partners checked by the second level controls 0 0 12 27 29
50
Result Indicators Amount of ERDF decommitted 16.577.402 16.577.402 16.577.402 16.577.402
16.577.402 16.577.402
% of ERDF decommitted (rate of decommitment) 17,24% 17,24% 17,24% 17,24% 17,24% 17,24%
1.1. Financial Management
% of irregularity reported in total INTERREG IIIC budget 0% 0% 0% 3,81% 6,94%
0%
Output Indicators No of "Individual Consultations" (IC) with applicants 245 260 260 260 260 275
No of participants in "Individual Consultations" (IC) 500 530 530 530 530 550
No of "Lead Applicants Seminars" (LAS) organized (total/NMS) 3 3 3 3 3 3
No of participants in "Lead Applicants Seminars" (LAS) 188 188 188 188 188 188
1.2. Operations related activities
No of calls for proposals 4 4 4 4 4 4
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 94 January 2010
No of applications submitted per call:
· 1 call (RFO/IP/NET) 18 (3/9/6) 18 (3/9/6)
18 (3/9/6) 18 (3/9/6) 18 (3/9/6) 18
· 2 call (RFO/IP/NET) 40 (4/21/15) 40 (4/21/15)
40 (4/21/15) 40 (4/21/15) 40 (4/21/15) 40
· 3 call (RFO/IP/NET) 40 (3/22/15) 40 (3/22/15)
40 (3/22/15) 40 (3/22/15) 40 (3/22/15) 40
· 4 call (RFO/IP/NET) 58 (4/30/24) 58 (4/30/24)
58 (4/30/24) 58 (4/30/24) 58 (4/30/24) 58
· 4+ call (RFO/IP/NET)
19 (0/10/9) 19 (0/10/9) 19 (0/10/9) 19
No of applications assessed (=eligible operations)
· 1 call 17 17 17 17 17 17
· 2 call 35 35 35 35 35 35
· 3 call 38 38 38 38 38 38
· 4 call 54 54 54 54 54 54
· 4+ call
18 18 18 18 18
% of eligible applications per call
· 1 call 94,4% 94,4% 94,4% 94,4% 94,4% 94,4%
· 2 call 87,5% 87,5% 87,5% 87,5% 87,5% 87,5%
· 3 call 95,0% 95,0% 95,0% 95,0% 95,0% 95,0%
· 4 call 93,1% 93,1% 93,1% 93,1% 93,1% 93,1%
· 4+ call
94,7% 94,7% 94,7% 94,7% 94,7%
No of applications approved (RFO/IP/NET)
· 1 call 8 (1/4/3)
8 (1/4/3) 8 (1/4/3) 8 (1/4/3) 8 (1/4/3) 8
· 2 call 18 (3/7/8)
18 (3/7/8) 18 (3/7/8) 18 (3/7/8) 18 (3/7/8) 18
· 3 call 18 (1/7/10)
17 (0/7/10) 18 (1/7/10) 17 (0/7/10) 17 (0/7/10) 18
· 4 call
22 (3/9/10) 22 (3/9/10) 22 (3/9/10) 22 (3/9/10) 22
· 4+ call
11 (0/4/7) 11 (0/4/7) 11 (0/4/7) 11 (0/4/7) 11
No of reports received total (start up/preparation cost/progress/final)-
96 (26/25/45/0) 215
(26/54/135/0)
212 (26/54/135/2)
344
509
450
No of "Lead Partner Seminars"(LPS) organized 3
5 5 5
5
No. of participants in "Lead Partner Seminars" (LPS) 111 172 172 172 172 180
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 95 January 2010
No of RFO Steering Group meetings with MA/PA/JTS participation 9 27 39 46 46 50
% of RFO Steering Group meetings attended by MA/PA/JTS 90,0% 96,4% 78,0% 70,0% 70,0%
90,0%
Result Indicators
% of increase/decrease of operations submitted per call
· 1 call
- -
-
· 2 call 122,0% 122,0% 122,0% 122,0% 122,0% 122,0%
· 3 call 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%
· 4 call 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0%
· 4+ call
% of approved applications compared with submitted applications (success rate) (RFO/IP/NET)
· 1 call 44.4% (33.3/44.4/50)
44,4% 44,4% 44,4% 44,4% 44,4%
· 2 call 45.0% (75/33.3/53.3)
45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0%
· 3 call 45.0% (33.3/31.8/66.7)
45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,7%
· 4 call
38,0% 38,0% 38,0% 38,0% 67,0%
· 4+ call
57,9% 57,9% 57,9% 57,9% 60,0%
Output Indicators
No of pages of the programme’s website 75 75
75
No of brochures (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated) (All zones/West zone)
03 / 02 4 / 12 4 / 13 04 / 13
No of newsletters (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated)
09 / 00 15 / 01
12 16 16 16
No of dissemination events organized (All zones/West zone)
- / 05 - / 07 12 / 07 13 / 10 13 / 10 13 / 10
No of other events participated in (with presentations/stands etc. about the operation activities)
25 25 41 80 80 26
No of press releases disseminated (All zones/West zone)
06 / 03 09 / 03 12 / 05 13 / 05 13 / 05 10 / 05
1.3. Communication / Information & Publicity measures
Result Indicators
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 96 January 2010
No of articles/appearances published in the press and in other media (All zones/West zone)
20 / 02 All zones 40 42 / 152 42 / 152 43 / 155 30 / 190
Average no of hits per month on the operation’s website
- - 11,000 8,700
5,000
No of copies of newsletters disseminated 5,350 7,350 7,350 5,000
No of copies of brochures disseminated (All zones/West zone)
432,000 / 0 598,000 / 0 80,000/140 80,500/9,945 80,650 / 10,295
80,000/8,400
Estimated no of participants in events (organized and participated in)
2.500,00 4.000,00 8,000 17,635 17,636 5,500
2. Operation’s performance
2.1. Contribution of operations to programme objectives
2.1.1 Accessing into others experience
Output Indicators
No of partners involved – Total:
584 930
930 930 930 900
by legal status
· Local public authority: 166
285 285
285 285 280
· Regional public authority: 180
264 264
264 264 260
· National public authority: 25
41 41
41 41 30
· Public equivalent body: 213
340 340
340 340 330
by location
· old EU MS 442
724 724 724 724 700
· new EU MS 101
153 153 153 153 140
· objective 1 regions 219
335 335 335 335 350
· outermost regions 5
7 7 7 7 5
· third countries 41
53 53 53 53 65
For RFO:
No of participants involved – Total: 215
517 517 517 517 400
by legal status
· Local public authority: 23
101 101
101 101 -
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 97 January 2010
· Regional public authority: 40
144 144
144 144 -
· National public authority: 4
13 13
13 13 -
· Public equivalent body: 145
253 253
253 253 -
· Private bodies: 3
6 6
6 6 -
No of partners involved – Total: 930
930 930 900
by location
· old EU MS 174 385 724
724 724 -
· new EU MS 40 75 153
153 153 -
· objective 1 regions 47 100 335
335 335 -
· outermost regions 0 0 7
7 7 -
· third countries 1 7 53
53 53 -
No of interregional events organised by the operation to exchange and disseminate experience
369 2.010 1.789 2.345 2.503 1.600
No of participants in these interregional events 5.778 18.094
52.850 73.300 78.771 28.000
Average No of countries represented in these interregional events
8 7 8 8 8 8
Result Indicators
% of partners involved by legal status
· Local public authority: 28,4%
30,6% 30,6% 30,6% 30,6% 31,1%
· Regional public authority: 30,8%
28,4% 28,4% 28,4% 28,4% 28,9%
· National public authority: 4,3%
4,4% 4,4% 4,4% 4,4% 3,3%
· Public equivalent body: 36,5%
36,5% 36,5% 36,5% 36,5% 36,7%
% of partners involved by location
· old EU MS 75,7%
77,8% 77,8% 77,8% 77,8% 77,8%
· new EU MS 17,3%
16,5% 16,5% 16,5% 16,5% 15,6%
· objective 1 regions 37,5%
36,0% 36,0% 36,0% 36,0% 38,9%
· outermost regions 0,9%
0,7% 0,7% 0,7% 0,7% 0,6%
· third countries 7,0%
5,7% 5,7% 5,7% 5,7% 7,2%
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 98 January 2010
For RFO:
% of participants involved by legal status
· Local public authority: 10,7%
10,7% 10,7% 10,7% 10,7% -
· Regional public authority: 18,6%
18,6% 18,6% 18,6% 18,6% -
· National public authority: 1,9%
1,9% 1,9% 1,9% 1,9% -
· Public equivalent body: 67,4%
67,4% 67,4% 67,4% 67,4% -
· Private bodies: 1,4%
1,4% 1,4% 1,4% 1,4% -
For RFO:
% of participants involved:
by location
· old EU MS 80,9%
80,9% 80,9% 80,9% 80,9% -
· new EU MS 18,6%
18,6% 18,6% 18,6% 18,6% -
· objective 1 regions 21,9%
21,9% 21,9% 21,9% 21,9% -
· outermost regions 0,0%
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% -
· third countries 0,5%
0,5% 0,5% 0,5% 0,5% -
No of staff members with increased capacity (awareness / knowledge / skills) based on the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events
1.472 5.787 7.292 8.193 8.693 3.000
Impact Indicator
No of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events
160 525 792 1.213 1.330 500
Output Indicators
No of good practices identified related to Structural Funds
398 2047* 1.459 1.623 1.653 1.000
No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies
- - 2.386 2.814 3.026 2.000
Result Indicators
2.1.2 Expanding the effects of Structural Funds
No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred
108 380* 138 187 199 100
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 99 January 2010
No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred
- - 187 314 369 200
Output Indicator
No of regional/local policies and instruments addressed
117 468 1.084 1.301 1.362 250
Result Indicator
2.1.3 Improving regional policies and instruments *
No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed
21 113 302 360 375 100
Result Indicators
% of operations with equal opportunities as
· main focus 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,0% 5,0%
· positive 58,8% 58,8% 58,8% 58,8% 49,0% 60,0%
· neutral 41,2% 41,2% 41,2% 41,2% 49,0% 40,0%
% of operations with sustainable development (will be available after closing of all operations)
· main focus - - - - 43,0% 20,0%
· positive - - - - 48,0% 30,0%
· neutral - - - - 9,0% 50,0%
% of operations with environment as:
· main focus 29,4% 29,4% 29,4% 29,4% 27,0% 30,0%
· positive 52,9% 52,9% 52,9% 52,9% 49,0% 50,0%
2.1.4 Contribution to horizontal EU policies
· neutral 17,6% 17,6% 17,6% 17,6% 24,0% 20,0%
2.2. General performance of operations
Output Indicators
No of Steering Group meetings 103 266 432 535 579 500
Average % of Steering Group members attendance in Steering Group meeting
84,1% 85,0% 87,0% 88,0% 86,7% 80,0%
2.2.1 Management and coordination
% of deviation between planned and actual ERDF payment requests by LP (under/overspending)
- - -22 -26 -10 -10
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 100 January 2010
For RFOs:
§ No of calls - - 16 16 16 16
§ No of applications received - - 174 174 174 174
§ No of applications approved - - 110 110 110 110
Result Indicator
% of progress reports approved without additional information requested from the JTS
16% 16% 15% 10% 20%
Output Indicators
No of pages of the operation's website - - 11.244 15.666 16.525 2.250
No of brochures (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated)
60 194 416 687 730 200
No of newsletters (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated)
72 232 386 625 667 350
No of dissemination events organised 145 462 1.082 1.437 1.563 700
No of other events participated in (with presentations/stands etc. about the operation activities)
245 1.557 1.440 2.021 2.184 1.000
No of press releases disseminated 1.298 510 1.143 1.600 1.699 300
Result Indicators
No of articles/appearances published in the press and in other media
286 1.063 2.499 3.265 3.605 1.000
2.2.2 Dissemination
Average no of hits per month on the operation’s website
? ? 4.923 6.766 6.889 1.500
No of copies of newsletters disseminated 94.861 231.318 632.667 655.358 150.000
No of copies of brochures disseminated 294.825
83.390 333.275 523.270 576.445 120.000
Estimated no of participants in events (organized and participated in)
3.452 67.046 275.532 333.322 485.656 16.500
* Lower figures in the following year can be explained which the fact that the JTS was more and more demanding in the justification of the indicators (without precise justification, figures are not accepted by the JTS).
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 101 January 2010
Annex 4 Indicators related to operations’ performance
Programme objectives/Indicators Accessing into others
experience Expanding the effects of
Structural Funds Improving regional
policies and instruments
Contribution to horizontal EU
policies Output Indicators Output Indicators Output Indicator
No of partners involved – Total No of good practices identified related to Structural Funds
No of regional/local policies and instruments addressed
by legal status No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies
by location For RFO: No of participants involved – Total: by legal status No of partners involved – Total: by location No of interregional events organised by the operation to exchange and disseminate experience No of participants in these interregional events Average No of countries represented in these interregional events
Result Indicators Result Indicators Result Indicator Result Indicators % of partners involved by legal status
No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred
No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed
% of operations with equal opportunities as
Local public authority: No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred
main focus
Regional public authority positive National public authority neutral Public equivalent body % of operations
with sustainable development
% of partners involved by location main focus · old EU MS positive · new EU MS neutral · objective 1 regions % of operations
with environment as:
· outermost regions main focus · third countries positive
For RFO: neutral % of participants involved by legal status Local public authority: Regional public authority: National public authority: Public equivalent body: Private bodies: For RFO: % of participants involved: by location
· old EU MS · new EU MS · objective 1 regions · outermost regions · third countries
No of staff members with increased capacity (awareness / knowledge / skills) based on the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 102 January 2010
Impact Indicator
No of new projects/activities/ approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 103 January 2010
Annex 5 Examples of policies developed, improved, influenced by INTERREG III C West Operations
• Examples of impacts on policies, including those at national level: GRIDS The preparation of Regional Development Strategies and Spatial Plans for EU regions has attracted increasing interest in recent years. GRIDS aims to produce best practice guidelines for the preparation of such documents, in particular within the context of the recent EU enlargement. Through a series of intensive workshops, the three GRIDS partners with no previous experience of Structural Funds (Lithuanian Mo, Latgale RDA and Stockholm School of Economics) have all benefited from a number of presentations and study visits from stakeholders with Structural Funds experience (e.g. visit to ‘Regionaal Landschap Kempen en Maasland’ where extensive EU funding, in particular Objective 2 funds, were used for nature development projects as an instrument of regional development in Flanders). More importantly, where the policies were in the process of being formulated, GRIDS had a positive impact; in particular on the Latvian National Spatial Plan and National Development Plan, Latgate Regional Spatial Plan, Riga City Development Plan and the revised Flemish Structure Plan. For instance, the GRIDS team was invited in October 2005 to participate in a brainstorming session on national planning documents with Latvian planners. According to the Secretary of State in Latvia, the lessons learnt and good practices from GRIDS were directly integrated into the new spatial planning and regional development strategies of Latvia. • Example of impacts on regional policies and strategies: CITEAIR CITEAIR aims to develop better and more efficient solutions for assessing the impact of traffic in large urban areas and informing professional users and the public of the environmental situation. Several of the participating cities have a solid base of previous and ongoing work in the area of transport and environmental management. These partners – and in particular AIRPARIF (Paris) and STA (Rome) – are currently transferring their know-how in the field of traffic and air quality modelling to the Emilia Romagna Region. Thus, CITEAIR has a strong impact on the environmental policy of Emilia Romagna, who is developing for the first time a Decision Support System. This system will allow the assessment of the environmental impacts of urban traffic at near-real time, at local to regional scales. CITEAIR may even have an influence on policies and strategies at the European level. Indeed, the project has forged close links with the European Environmental Agency (EEA), to mutual benefit. It started with a participation of the EEA at the CITEAIR events. But recently, the European Topic Centre for Air Quality and Climate Change prepared a review of different air quality indicators, including the one from CITEAIR. These noticeable achievements of the CITEAIR initiative may also have a positive impact on the durability of the operation’s results. • Example of impacts on local policies and strategies: AQUA-FIL The overall objective of AQUA-FIL is the improvement of river management through an integrated, sustainable and participative approach. This approach is developed through the creation of ‘Water Resource Centres’ and the implementation of the ‘River Contract’ model. AQUA-FIL had a direct impact on the local strategies of the Portuguese and Hungarian partners. These two partners have directly benefited from the experience and know-how of the other participating local authorities. As a result, the Water Resource Centre model and the environmental education tools (e.g. awareness-raising materials for children on water quality) were transferred to these Portuguese and Hungarian partners. • The main objective of the COTOUR operation is to create a strategy for upgrading tourism as a tool for regional development. Up to now, two local policies have been influenced thanks to this operation. First, the results from COTOUR had an influence on the preparation of the integrated strategies for regional development of the Lithuanian partner (County of Telsiai). This policy document was established on 17 December 2004 and COTOUR contributed to the creation of the priority “Encouragement of entrepreneurship abilities and development of businesses in rural areas” with two specific measures: Measure 1: "Establishment of Rural Crafts Centre"; as well as Measure 2: "Development of small businesses in rural areas". Second, the Polish partner (MARR: Malopolska Agency for Regional Development) participated in the regional strategy preparation process in 2005. MARR succeeded in integrating some of the lessons learnt from COTOUR into the strategy of the Malopolska Region for the period 2007-2013 (priority dedicated to regional development through tourism). • The CoPraNet operation is addressing two major areas of regional policy: sustainable tourism and coastal erosion. Partner 3 (Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, UK) reported that their coastal policies for Regional Spatial Strategy were amended to include reference to the EU ICZM (Integrated Coastal Zone Management). This recommendation was as a direct result of awareness gained from their participation in CoPraNet. The North West Coastal Forum (UK) is currently considering using the EU ICZM Progress Indicators to aid development of a regional ICZM strategy. Partner 6 (Central Region Authorithy in Portugal) is revising its coastal policy instrument (Coastal Zone Master Plan) for Central Portugal and is presently involved with the development of the National Strategy for the implementation of the ICZM Recommendation. Partner 13 (Institute of Marine Sciences, Canary Islands) has improved the management plans of several Marine Natura 2000 sites thanks to the know-how and experience gained within the CoPraNet network. Finally, the same positive influence has been reported by Partner 2 (Storstrom County Council, Denmark) on their Regional Plan 2005 (including principles of ICZM), which was adopted by the County Council in December 2005. • In CONCEPT, whose aim is to improve regional transport strategies, two policy instruments related to Road Safety initiatives were influenced. In particular, the new
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 104 January 2010
2005 Aberdeenshire Road Safety Plan makes specific reference to the experience exchanged within the operation. • In EURBEST, at least 3 polices have been directly influenced thanks to the exchanges of experience within the operation. Further to their participation in the EURBEST Entrepreneurship Study Tour, the Society for the Promotion of Industrial Reconstruction of Bilbao has integrated a proposal called “Entrepreneurial Society” into their new Competitiveness Plan for 2010. This Study Tour also has a direct impact on the individual entrepreneurship support policy of the Regional Council of North Karelia, where EURBEST findings were used to influence the updating of their regional strategic programme. The same positive impacts were reported on the Canaries Regional Innovation System Plan. • The overall objective of RUSE is to improve the use of Structural Funds (and other financial sources) in urban development projects, leading towards a better integration of sustainable energy issues in the supported projects. Several policies or strategies were influenced thanks to the RUSE activities. Partner 2 (Polish Network ‘Energies- Cités’) was involved in the consultation process of the Polish National Development Plan 2007-2013 through a written contribution used by the Ministry's special secretariat. Based in Kaunas (Lithuania), Partner 4 (Lithuanian Energy Institute) had the opportunity to improve the City's strategic development plan with suggestions for the energy sector and use of SF for energy projects. As a governmental organisation, Partner 3 (Slovakian Energy Agency) regularly advises both the local authorities (via their regional branches) and the Ministry of Economy in the legal process through regular and numerous contacts. In particular it has been involved in the preparation of the so-called "Energy conception for municipalities" national regulation. • The main objective of the SusSET operation is to strengthen economic and social cohesion across Europe by creating frameworks to better support small traditional, yet expanding, towns in the context of the emerging EU 'competitiveness agenda'. Experiences under the ‘tourism/identity' theme as well as from its participation in the main conferences (September and November 2005). Further to these activities, this municipality has prepared a town promotion strategy based on SusSET knowledge exchange. Similarly, following thematic discussions in Sweden and Poland, Partner 5 (Municipality of Leba in Poland) has taken the first step towards preparing a specific strategy for its town centre. • The LNet project (entrepreneurship in derelict urban areas) is in line with key national policy and funding developments in the field of enterprise promotion, with a particular focus on deprived urban areas. The main policy documents that LNet has influenced are as follows: for London, the ODPM's Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (which aims to reinforce the role of business in community regeneration) and the DTI Small Business Service (which has a priority remit to encourage enterprise in disadvantaged areas); for Prague, the Strategic Plan for the City of Prague (2000), and the Bohemian Regional Innovation Strategy (BRIS) for Prague (2004); for Hamburg, the Regional Development Concept of the Hamburg Metropolitan Area, and the Hamburg Development Concept “Hamburg - the Growing City”; for Amsterdam, the ‘Sociaal Structuurplan’ (Social Structure Plan) for 2005 and the 2003 Economic Development Programme HERMEZ. • In Portugal, the lessons learnt from the FARLAND operation (land consolidation) were used to draw up a National Strategy for Land Consolidation, with the aim to refute the negative image that land consolidation has in Portugal. • As a result of attending the Theme 5 session on “Planning, Conservation and Heritage” of the SUSSET operation, the Polish City of Puck elaborated on its draft strategy to revitalise the town. Similarly, as a result of attending the Theme 1 session on “Tourism and Town Identity”, the town of Lebork subcontracted a branding package for the town for the first time. While working on the exchange of experience with partners of TOCEMA Europe (town centre management), two Italian Regions (Lombardy and Liguria) that are not part of the consortium showed interest in considering Town Centre Management as a tool for urban revitalisation in their application of the national law on urban revitalisation. This national law (n. 114/98) aimed at assessing the existing situation of commercial activities and to balance competition between shopping centres, hypermarkets and supermarkets versus independent retail in town centres. Within the framework of this national law, all 20 regional governments enacted thereafter their specific laws. Thanks to the exchange with TOCEMA, Lombardy and Liguria now considers including the concept of town centre management as a tool in their programmes: PICS for Lombardy (integrated program for system competitiveness), and CIV for Liguria (integrated street centres). • The AMICA project is focusing on local and regional strategies dedicated to climate change. Within this operation, a Mitigation Tool as well as a method for evaluating climate change policies have been developed. These tools were integrated in the drafting of the ‘Grand Lyon’ Climate Protection Plan. • The following three programmes supported by ERDF in the Region of Thessaly have been influenced by the NBG project, which deals with the theme of business succession: application of the Business Incentives' Law, measures for enhancing entrepreneurship under the Regional Development Programme of Thessaly, Competitiveness Operational Programme, run by the Ministry of Development. These policies had never dealt with the business succession issue in the past. • In Wales, the GATE project has a route into political decision making via the Woodland Strategy Advisory Panel. This acts as an advisory panel to Ministers and Forestry Commissioners on the implementation of the Wales Woodland Strategy. This has been re-written and, under the influence of GATE, the promotion of wood as a sustainable building material has been added and described as making a valuable contribution to the fight against climate change. The ASCEND policy recommendations, as presented at the final conference in June 2006, are being utilised locally, regionally and nationally to influence future work related to the regeneration of military land and heritage. For instance in Venice, ASCEND's findings have contributed to the development of guidelines for the regeneration of the dryland fortifications and have helped determine the location of the future maritime museum within the Arsenale.
Source: INTERREG III C West Zone, AIR 2007
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 105 January 2010
Annex 6 Criteria used for the Strand C Typology
Criteria used for the Strand C Typology C 1.1 - The overall degree to which the programme has contributed to improve and add value to the European Union's regional and cohesion policy as a whole determined by the share of operations approved under the four co-operation topics “Structural Funds Objective 1 & 2 Regions”, “INTERREG programmes”, “URBAN & urban development activities” and “Innovative Action Programmes” in the totality of operations approved C1.2 - The overall degree to which the programme has encouraged co-operation between maritime areas (coastal regions, insular regions and most remote regions) and a participation of actors from the applicant countries determined by the share of participants from these regions/countries in the total number of participants involved in all operations approved. C 2.1 - The depth / intensity of programme- and project-level inter-regional co-operation which is the weighted “expected rate” achieved by a C-Strand programme across the 5 INTERREG III-related Criteria & the Historical Criterion, either in absolute or relative values (quantitative).
C 3.1 - The overall “financial performance of the programme” determined by comparing initial expenditure forecast with actual expenditure realised. C 3.2 - The overall “degree of programme sustainability” determined by the effect that all content-related & financial re-programming activities had on the initial intervention strategy of the INTERREG programme . C 3.3 - The overall “degree of achievement for all quantifiable outputs & results at programme level” determined by comparing the initial target values with the most recent values actually realised under each priority and by calculating an average achievement ratio across all programme priorities C 3.5 - The overall “degree of robustness / durability of projects” determined by the ratio of projects continuing to operate 2 or more years after the end of ERDF-support among all approved projects.
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 106 January 2010
Annex 7 Criteria and sub-criteria of the synthetic indicator
1. Historical Criterion: “Co-operation tradition existing due to previous INTERREG programmes and/or
initiatives outside of INTERREG programmes”
Sub-criterion 1.1: “Duration of already existing cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation”. SI 1: Number of years during which structured and visible cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation has existed within parts or all of the programme area (quantitative). Sub-criterion 1.2: “Existence of directly applicable legal instruments that can be used by territorial authorities in the context of cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation”. SI 2: Nature & quality of the directly applicable legal instrument that can be used for cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation within parts or all of the programme area (qualitative). Sub-criterion 1.3: “Existence of permanent cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation structures that are established between territorial authorities”. SI 3: Nature & quality of existing permanent cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation structures established between territorial authorities that operate in parts or all of the programme area (qualitative).
2. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “The intensity of a shared needs / problem diagnosis and its adequate reflection in the
initial programme strategy”
Sub-criterion 2.1: “How programme needs were identified & to what extent this process was joint”. SI 4: Nature and quality of the information sources used to identify shared needs / problems & the range of key stakeholders (i.e. central/regional/local public administrations; socio-economic organizations; NGOs etc) involved in the needs / problems identification process (qualitative). Sub-criterion 2.2: “Relevance / appropriateness of the initial programme strategy”. SI 5: Extent to which the explicit programme objectives did address the needs / problems prevailing in the co-operation area & the extent to which the initial priority-level financial allocations adequately reflected their respective importance (qualitative).
3. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “The type of governance and nature of the partnership
set up at the level of the programme”
Sub-criterion 3.1: “Scope and depth of the strategic partnership put into place at programme-level”. SI 6: Range of actors represented on the Programme Monitoring Committee and extent of their formal powers in the strategic-level decision making process (qualitative). Sub-criterion 3.2: “Nature and quality of shared management structures at programme-level”. SI 7: Extent to which the overall programme management structure is truly joint (i.e. Managing Authority, Paying Authority & joint bank account, Joint Technical Secretariat, other structures providing support to projects) and is – at the same time – characterised by a decentralised delivery of the related tasks (qualitative). Sub-criterion 3.3: “Quality of the joint day-to-day programme management process”. SI 8: Effects of a non-existence / existence of conventions, protocols or agreements concluded between principal programme partners on the joint day-to-day programme management process (qualitative).
4. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “The location and nature of all projects implemented under the programme”
Sub-criterion 4.1: “The location of projects within the programme”. SI 9: Extent to which the actual “ERDF-demand of approved projects” matched the initial “ERDF-funding supply” at the level of the various programme priorities (quantitative). Sub-criterion 4.2: “The location of projects within the programme area”. SI 10: Share of programme NUTS 3 areas hosting one or more of the Lead Partners / Main Partners involved in all approved projects (quantitative). Sub-criterion 4.3: “Degree of complexity / sophistication of co-operation actions, degree of experimentation, level of ambition”. SI 11: Extent to which the approved projects have performed all of the following project activities (quantitative):
INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC
WEST ZONE
R20090290.doc 107 January 2010
• A mutual exchange of experience on the project's themes. • A joint development of policy strategies, policy instruments and other policy support
tools. • Individual pilot projects (always carried out by one project partner) and /or joint pilot
projects (always carried out by more than one project partner), which tested or applied joint outcomes and generated tangible cross-border, transnational, or interregional results.
5. INTERREG III-related Criterion:
“Significance of joint projects / operations implemented under the programme”
Sub-criterion 5.1: “The relative importance of joint projects / operations in the context of overall project-level co-operation realised under the programme”. SI 12: The number of joint projects / operations approved as compared to the total number of projects approved under the programme (quantitative). SI 13: The number of partners directly involved in joint projects / operations as compared to the total number of partners directly involved in all projects approved under the programme (quantitative). Sub-criterion 5.2: “The relative financial importance of joint projects / operations within the programme”. SI 14: The total cost volume of joint projects / operations as compared to the grand total cost volume of all approved projects (quantitative). SI 15: The volume of ERDF-funding allocated to joint projects / operations as compared to the grand total volume of ERDF-funding allocated to all approved projects (quantitative). Sub-criterion 5.3: “The relative importance of joint projects / operations in addressing major needs /problems prevailing in the programme area”. SI 16: The total cost of joint projects / operations approved under the two financially most important programme priorities as compared to the grand total cost of all projects approved under these two priorities (quantitative). SI 17: The volume of ERDF-funding joint projects / operations approved under the two financially most important programme priorities as compared to the grand total volume of ERDF-funding allocated to all projects approved under these two priorities (quantitative).
6. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “Impact of all projects at the level of the entire programme area”
Sub-criterion 6.1: “Effect of all projects on national / regional / local level political & administrative processes”. SI 18a: Cross-border co-operation: Extent to which public administrative units existing in the programme area (at national level, at NUTS 1-3 levels, at LAU 1 & 2 levels) were directly involved in all approved projects (quantitative). SI 18b: Transnational co-operation: Extent to which public administrative units existing in the programme area (at national level, at NUTS 1-3 levels, at LAU 1 & 2 levels) were directly involved in all approved projects (quantitative). SI 18c: Inter-regional co-operation: Extent to which public administrative units existing in the EU (at national level, at NUTS 1-3 levels, at LAU 1 & 2 levels) – including those in the Third Countries concerned – were directly involved in all approved projects (quantitative). Sub-criterion 6.2: “Effect of all projects on the wider population”. SI 19: Number of persons directly involved in and reached by all approved projects compared to the total population living in the eligible area (quantitative).
top related