ongoing evaluation of the cooperation programme interreg v ... · ongoing evaluation of the...

Ongoingevaluationofthe

CooperationProgrammeInterregV-ASlovenia-Croatia

Finalreport,August2017

2

Programme:CooperationProgrammeInterregV-ASlovenia-Croatia

Contractingauthority:GovernmentofficefordevelopmentandEuropeancohesionpolicy

Contractor:Nov’narazvojd.o.o.

Evaluator:JulijaMarošek

Placeanddate:Prevalje,31August2017

3

Tableofcontents

1.Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................5

1.1.Purposeofevaluation......................................................................................................................................5

1.2.Methodologicalsteps......................................................................................................................................5

2.Collectionofdataandanalysis................................................................................................................................6

2.1.Abouttheprogrammeandmainmilestones..................................................................................................6

2.2.ImplementationoftheOpencall....................................................................................................................7

2.2.1.Supporttoapplicantsintheapplicationphase......................................................................................7

2.2.2.Receiptofapplications,assessmentandselectionprocedure.............................................................11

2.2.3.Timelineforprocessingofapplications................................................................................................15

2.3.Overviewofprojectsapprovedinthe1stand2nddeadline..........................................................................15

2.3.1.Listofapprovedprojects.......................................................................................................................16

2.3.2.Geographicaldistributionoftheapprovedprojects............................................................................17

2.4.Selectedfinancialdata...................................................................................................................................18

2.6Communicationactivities...............................................................................................................................19

3.Evaluation..............................................................................................................................................................24

4.Conclusionsandrecommendations......................................................................................................................32

5.Annexes..................................................................................................................................................................35

5.1Listofinterviews.............................................................................................................................................35

ListoftablesTable1:StructureoftheCooperationProgramme....................................................................................................6

Table2:Receivedandapprovedprojectsunder1stand2nddeadlineforsubmissionperPriorityAxes.................11

Table3:Qualityassessmentcriteriaandtheirimportanceinthetotalscore.........................................................13

Table4:Qualityassessmentofapplications............................................................................................................13

Table5:Timelineforprocessingofapplications.....................................................................................................15

Table6:ListofapprovedprojectsperPAsandspecificobjectives..........................................................................16

Table7:LocationofPPsbyNUTS3areas(projectsapprovedunder1stdeadlineanddirectapproval)................17

Table8:CommittedERDFfundsperPriorityAxes....................................................................................................18

Table9:Projectbudgetsoverview(totalcosts)–1stdeadline.................................................................................19

Table10:PA1-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators......................27

Table11:PA2-6c-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.................28

Table12:PA2-6d-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.................29

Table13:PA2-6d-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.................29

Table14:TA–InterimachievementofTAprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators.....................................30

Table15:Achievementofcommunicationstrategytargets....................................................................................31

4

ListofchartsChart1:Usefulnessofthesupportingdocumentsforpreparationofapplications..................................................8Chart2:Usefulnessofworkshopsforapplicants........................................................................................................8Chart3:Assessmentofspecificelementsoftheprojectdevelopment....................................................................9Chart4:UseofeMSinprojectapplicationphase……………………………………………………………………………………………….10Chart5:Partsofapplicationthatweremostdifficulttoprepare............................................................................10Chart6:Assessmentofthesupportprovidedbytheprogrammebodies...............................................................11Chart7:Receiptofapplicationsonthedayof1stdeadline......................................................................................11Chart8:MostcommoncommunicationchannelsusedbyLPs................................................................................22Chart9:Assessmentoftheprogrammewebsite.....................................................................................................22

AbbreviationsCBC Cross-borderCooperation

CP CooperationProgramme

eMS electronicMonitoringSystem

ETC EuropeanTerritorialCooperation

FLC FirstLevelControl

HR Croatia

IP Investmentpriority

JS JointSecretariat

LP LeadPartner

MA ManagingAuthority

MC MonitoringCommittee

NA NationalAuthority

PA PriorityAxis

PP Projectpartner

SI Slovenia

SO Specificobjective

5

1.Introduction

1.1.Purposeofevaluation

ThepurposeofthisevaluationwastoassesstheprogrammemanagementandimplementationwiththemainfocusontheopencallprojectapplicationandselectionprocedureandontheimplementationoftheCommunicationstrategy.Evaluationquestions:

• Howefficientandeffectivearetheprogrammestructures?• Howefficientandeffectivearetheprogrammeprocedures?• Whatistheprogressoftheprogrammetowardsachievingtargetsofspecificobjectives?• Whatistheprogressinimplementationofcommunicationstrategyandachievementoftheset

objectives?

1.2.Methodologicalsteps

Methodologicalsteps:

Step Timeline

1. MeetingswithJStoclarifythetasks April2017

2. DesignofthequestionnaireforLPsincooperationwiththeJS April2017

3. Analysisofsecondarysources April–May2017

4. ProcessingofonlinesurveyforLPs May2017

5. Interviewswithprogrammebodies June2017

6. Observation,judgment,assessment June2017

7. Draftreport July2017

8. FinalReport August2017

TheanalysisisbasedonthemonitoringdataprovidedbytheJointSecretariat(JS),datafromApplicationForms of approved applications in the 1st deadline of the open call, and data available on theprogrammewebsite.Theoverallcut-offdatewas10May2017(i.e.whentheprojectssubmittedtothe2nddeadlinewere selected),whereasdataon theachievementof indicatorsof theCommunicationstrategyreferto31December2016.

LeadPartners (LPs)of all appliedprojects in the1st deadlinewere invited to takepart in anonlinesurvey.Thesurveywasopenedfrom20Aprilto15May2017.91LPs(someLPsappliedwithseveralprojects),wereinvitedtoparticipateinthesurvey.30responses(33%)werereceived,ofwhich8(27%)fromCroatianand22(73%)fromSlovenianLPorganizations.Theinterpretationoffindingsshouldbemadewithsomereservationregardingvalidityfortheentiretargetgroupofapplicantsorbeneficiaries.

QualitativedatawerecollectedfrominterviewswiththeManagingAuthority(MA),JointSecretariat(JS),NationalAuthorities(NAs)inSloveniaandCroatiaandFirstLevelControl(FLC)inbothcountries.

Main secondary sources used: Cooperation Programme Interreg V-A Slovenia – Croatia,Communication strategy, Application Pack published on the programmeWebsite, and ApplicationForms.

The approved projects are still in the early phase of implementation, therefore the assessment ofprogress towards theachievementof theprogrammespecificobjectiveswasmadeon thebasisofexpectedcontributionsofprojectsapprovedtotheprogrammeoutputindicators.

Duetolimitedresourcesforanalysis,theassessmentfocusedonsmallernumberofaspects.

6

2.Collectionofdataandanalysis

2.1.Abouttheprogrammeandmainmilestones

Theprogrammeareacomprises17NUTS3regions:9statisticalregionsinSloveniaand8countiesinCroatia.TheprogrammeontheSloveniansideincludesonenewregion–Zasavska.Theprogrammeareahas31,728km2and3,285millionpeople(2013).TheCooperationProgramme(CP)comprisesfourPriorityAxes(PA)andfiveSpecificObjectives(SO).Theprogrammebudget is55.7millionEurowith46.1millionEuroofERDFcontribution.

Table1:StructureoftheCooperationProgramme

PROGRAMMEVISION

“TheCooperationProgrammeINTERREGV-ASlovenia-Croatiaaimsatpromotingsustainable,safeandvibrantborderareabyfosteringsmartapproachestopreservation,mobilizationandmanagementofnaturalandculturalresourcesforthebenefitofthepeoplelivingandworkinginorvisitingthearea.”

PROGRAMMEOBJECTIVES

Priorityaxis1:Integratedfloodriskmanagementintransboundaryriverbasins

Priorityaxis2:Preservationandsustainableuseofnaturalandculturalresources

Priorityaxis3:Healthy,safeandaccessibleborderareas

Thematicobjective5:

Investmentpriority5b–Promotinginvestmenttoaddressspecificrisks,ensuringdisasterresilienceanddevelopingdisastermanagementsystems Specificobjective1.1:

FloodriskreductioninthetransboundaryDragonja,Kolpa/Kupa,Sotla/Sutla,Drava,MuraandBreganariverbasins.

Thematicobjective6:

Investmentpriority6c-Conserving,protecting,promotinganddevelopingnaturalandculturalheritage

Specificobjective2.1:

Active heritage preservation throughsustainabletourism

Investmentpriority6d-Protectingandrestoringbiodiversityandsoilandpromotingecosystemservices,includingthroughNatura2000,andgreeninfrastructure.

Specificobjective2.2:

Protectingandrestoringbiodiversityandpromotingecosystemservices

Thematicobjective11:

InvestmentPriority11:Enhancinginstitutionalcapacityofpublicauthoritiesandstakeholdersandefficientpublicadministrationbypromotinglegalandadministrativecooperationandcooperationbetweencitizensandinstitutions.

Specificobjective3.1:Buildingpartnershipsamongpublicauthoritiesandstakeholdersforhealthy,safeandaccessibleborderareas

EXPECTEDRESULTS

Result1.1:acommonstrategicandimplementationapproachforbetter-coordinated,coherentandstrategicfloodriskmanagementintheborderarea.

Result2.1:Theborderareawillpreservesomeofitsmostimportantculturalandnaturalheritagesitesbutwillalsoincreasetheirquality,sustainabilityandattractiveness.

Result2.2:Improvedconservationstatus(CS)ofcross-borderNatura2000speciesandhabitatstypeswhichareofcommoninterestforpreservation.

Result3.1:Neworstrengthenedexistingcross-borderstructuresthatwillenablecross-borderdeliveryofservicesinpublicinterestorimproveaccesstosuchservicesinperipheralborderareaswithsignificantgapinservicedelivery.

Priorityaxis4:TECHNICALASSISTANCE

Specificobjective4.1:Providetheefficientandfrictionlessenforcementofthecooperationprogramme.

Source:CPInterregV-ASloveniaCroatia

7

The Cooperation Programme Interreg V-A Slovenia-Croatia (CP) was approved by the EuropeanCommissionon1October2015.

All key programme and project implementation procedures are supported by a new electronicMonitoringSystem(eMS).It isusedbyallprogrammebodies,applicantsandbeneficiaries,howeverwithdifferentlevelsofaccessibility.TheeMSbecameoperationalinSeptember2015.

DescriptionofmanagementandcontrolsystemwasapprovedbytheAuditAuthority.

Thekick-offeventwasorganizedinCelje(SI)on9December2015.

TheMonitoringCommittee(MC)wassetupon its1stmeetingheldon30November–1December2015.Atthesamemeetingthedocumentationfortheopencallforproposals,theprogrammeeligibilityrules,criteriaforapprovalofstrategicprojectsandCommunicationstrategywereapproved.

TheCPforeseesthreetypesofprojectsandtwodifferentselectionprocedures:strategicprojects(PA1)andTechnicalassistanceprojects(PA4)aredirectlyapprovedbytheMC,non-strategicprojectsunderPA2andPA3areselectedonthebasisoftheprocedureforopencallforproposals.

TheopencallforproposalsunderPA2andPA3waspublishedon15January2016.By10May2017,applicationsreceivedtotwodeadlineshavebeenprocessed.Underthe1stdeadline,5projectswereapprovedandSubsidycontractssignedinOctober2016,while9projectswerepostponed.Another12projectsfromthe2nddeadlinewereapprovedand17postponedatthe4thMCmeeting.

PA1strategicprojectFRISCO1wasconditionallyapproved inApril2016,whileFRISCO2wasunderpreparation.

2.2.ImplementationoftheOpencallforproposals

TheOpencallsystemenablestheapplicantstosubmitprojectapplicationscontinuouslyafterthecallislauncheduntiltheprogrammefundsareavailable.TheJSpublishesdeadlinesagreedbytheMCtowhichapplicationsneedtobesubmittedinordertobeincludedintheprojectselectionprocedureatthefollowingMCmeeting.

2.2.1.Supporttoapplicantsintheprojectgenerationandapplicationphase

TheMA/JSincooperationwiththeNAsprovidessupporttopotentialapplicantsinprojectdevelopmentandpreparationofapplications.ThemainformsofsupportaretoagreatextentharmonizedbetweentheCBCprogrammesmanagedbySloveniaandcomprise:

• The CP and guidance available at the programme website: open call, application pack,frequentlyaskedquestions,otherrelevantinformation,suchasasummarisedmethodologyforthecalculationofprogrammeindicators;

• InformativeworkshopsforapplicantsareorganisedbytheMA/JSandincooperationwiththeNAs.Usually,oneworkshopisorganisedontheCroatianandoneonSlovenianside.Materialspresentedatworkshopsarepublishedontheprogrammewebsite;

• TheJSofficesoperateinLjubljana(SI),Buzet(HR)andKrapina(HR).Thestaffisaccessiblebye-mailorphoneandfacetofacemeetingscanbescheduled.TheJSprovidestechnicalsupportandadvice;includingITsupportconcerningtechnicalquestionsrelatedtotheeMS.

• Content based support and advice is provided by theNAs in Slovenia and Croatia (e-mail,phone,facetofacemeetings).

Usefulnessofprogrammedocumentsandguidelines

TheLP-surveyrespondentsassessedusefulnessofthekeydocumentsneededforthepreparationofprojectproposals,whichareallavailableattheprogrammewebsiteinCroatian,EnglishandSlovene.

8

IntheviewofLP-surveyrespondentstheoverallusefulnessofthesedocumentswasverygood.FAQswerenotfoundveryusefulby11%ofrespondents,whereasthosesharesweresmallerfortheCP(7%)andmanual(4%).

Chart1:Usefulnessofthesupportingdocumentsforpreparationofapplications

Workshopsforapplicants

Workshops for applicants were organised after deadlines for submission of applications wereannounced.Inthe1stround,oneworkshopwasorganizedoneachside,whereasinthe2ndroundthreeworkshopswereorganized.Therewasgreatinterestforattendingtheworkshopsinparticularduring1stdeadline.Afterallplaceswerebooked,theJSenabledlifestreamingoftheworkshopinOpatijaontheinternet.

TheCPprogramme,contentandrequirementsoftheopencallincludingguidanceregardingeligibilityofcostsandinformationandpublicitywerepresentedatworkshops.Inthe2ndround,mostcommonmistakesmadebyapplicantstothe1stdeadlineandasessiononhowtopreparequalityCBCprojectswere added. TheNAs also organized a thematicworkshop dedicated to potential applicants underInvestmentpriority6dinthe2ndround.

RespondentstoLP-surveywhoattendedtheworkshopsforapplicants,assessedthemveryuseful(21%)anduseful(71%);8%foundtheseworkshopsuseless.

Respondents’ proposals for improvement ofworkshops:

-Presentbestpracticeprojects;-Putmorefocusonconcreteproblems.The JS observed thatmany applicants came to theworkshop unprepared.More questionswere askedduringbreaksthanintheplenary.Theattendanceatthe2ndroundwasnotsobig.Itisassumedthatapplicantsdidnotrecognizeaneedtoattendoncemoreastheyhadalreadyparticipatedinthe1stround.

Chart2:Usefulnessofworkshopsforapplicants

Developmentofprojectproposals

67%ofthesurveyedLPsappliedwith1project,30%with2projectsandonerespondentappliedwith4projects(3%ofallrespondents).

veryuseful,10,33%

useful,18,60%

notuseful,2,7%

Cooperation Programme

veryuseful,7,23%

useful,22,73%

notuseful,1,4%

Implementationmanual

veryuseful,7,26%

useful,17,63%

notuseful,3,11%

FAQs

veryuseful,5,17%

useful,17,56%

notuseful,2,7%

notattended,6,20%

Workshop forpotentialbeneficiaries

9

Respondentsassesseddifferentaspectsoftheprojectdevelopment.Mostchallengingfor84%oftherespondentswastounderstandStateAid,67%founditdifficulttoensureco-financing,whereas60%haddifficultiesinaligningtheprojectwiththeCP.Formingapartnershipwaseasy/veryeasyfor73%ofrespondents.

Chart3:Assessmentofspecificelementsoftheprojectdevelopment

AccordingtotheJS,aboutonethirdofapplicantscameforindividualconsultations.Applicantswererequestedtosendabriefdescriptionoftheprojectideainadvance.

TheJSaddressedtechnicalquestions,manyreferredtounderstandingtheprogrammeindicatorsandmethodologiesbehindthem.ContentrelatedissueswerediscussedwiththeNAs,sometimesmeetingswiththeJSandNAinSloveniawereheldtogether.Queriesreceivedbyphoneore-mailoftenreferredtoinformationthatwasalreadypublishedintheapplicationpack.

TheNACroatiausedtoprovideadviceonlybyphoneore-mail.Individualconsultationswereforthefirsttimeorganized inthisprogrammeandwereassessedverypositive.Queriesofapplicantsoftenrelatedtohowownco-financingcanbeensured.Manyprojectideasaddressedinvestmentpriority6c.Applicantsneeded informationregardingthemonitoringofthenumberofvisitorsorwhichculturalheritagecouldbeaddressedinprojectsasinCroatiathereisnouniformregisterofculturalheritage,whereastheinformationcanbee.g.evidentfromcountyspatialplans.TheNAobservedthattheoverallqualityofprojectideaswasnotverygood.SMEshavesofarnotbeenabletofindthemselvesinprojectsaddressingtheinvestmentpriority6c.AccordingtotheNA,theprojectapplicantsfocusedverymuchon tourism whereas other areas were tackled to a lesser extent. Indicators under the investmentpriority6darequitecomplexandapplicants found itdifficult toalignthemwithownproject ideas.Althoughtherewashighinterestforthispriority,whichwasreflectedalsoinwellattendedadditionalworkshoporganizedbytheNAs,notmanyapplicationswereeventuallysubmitted.Thereareseveralpotential applicants on the Croatian side. However, they seem to have focused capacities tomainstreamnational programmes,whichwere of a bigger size. As deadlines of these programmesoverlapped with the open call, they found it difficult to work simultaneously on both/severalprogrammes. Beside social and health care, the projects under PA3 have not yet addressed othersectors,whatmaynothavebeenstressedenoughatworkshops.

TheNASloveniasupportedapplicantswithregardtoinformationonrelevanceoftheproposedprojectfor theCP,eligibilityof investments,StateAid,…Onaneedsbasis, theNAconsultedwith relevantministries.Mostqueriesconcernedtheinvestmentpriority6candonlyafew6d.SlovenianNAnotedthat applicants were facing challenges in establishing the project intervention logic, e.g. how todistinguishbetweenoutputsanddeliverablesorhowtolinktheprojectwiththeprogrammeresults.Also, the partnerships tended towork on specific local needs of individual partners and put themtogetherwhereasrealcrossborderchallengesandpotentialswerenotconvincing.Thisreflectsalsolackofothernational/regionalprogrammessupportinginvestmentneedsofmunicipalities.

3

3

1

0

1

19

19

11

5

9

8

5

18

20

18

0

3

5

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

partnershipcreation

aligningprojectpartners'interests

aligningproject ideaswithprogrammegoals/content

understandingstateaid

ensuringco-financing

Developmentofprojectproposals

veryeasy easy difficult verydifficult

10

ContentsthataretobeaddressedbytheInvestmentpriority6dareveryspecificandthenumberofcompetentorganizationsontheSloveniansideissmallerthanfortheinvestmentpriorities6cor11.Thepublishedsummaryofthemethodologyforcalculationofindicatorsdoesnotseemtobesufficientfortheapplicantstounderstandthecontext,especiallyfortheinvestmentpriority6d.

It was also noted that the scope of the PA3was not sufficiently examined by applicants and thusopportunities for the development of quality projects have not yet been properly addressed.Cooperationbetween the twoNAs is consideredvery good, communicationwith regard to specificprojectideasisquitecommon.

Byassessmentoftheprogrammebodies,itwasratherchallengingfortheapplicantstofindtherighttimingforconsultations.Intheearlyphasethepartnershipswerenotyetfullyformed,whileinthelatestagesnotmanychangescouldbemade.TheapproachoftheNAinSloveniawasnottomeetwiththeapplicantsinthelast14daysbeforethedeadlineforsubmission.

PreparingapplicationsineMS

20%oftheLP-surveyrespondentsfoundthesystemverydifficultand67%difficult.Thesystemwaseasytouseforonly13%oftherespondents.TheProjectbudgetwasmostdifficulttopreparefor73%andtheWorkplanfor53%oftherespondents.

SeveraldeficienciesoftheeMSwerementioned:

• Thesystemwasnotfounduserfriendly,notclearwhattheapplicationrequiresuntilyougetthere;

• Itwashardtokeepanoverviewoftheentereddata(tickingofboxes,pdfwasdifferentfromdataenteredineMS,difficultieswiththesavingfunction,numbersindifferentpartsdidnotmatch,clickingenterafterinsertingabudgetlinescouldbringyoutoadifferentbudgetline,…);

• Bilingualentryofdatageneratesadditionalmistakes;• ProblemswithloginsorloginsofPPs,systemwasfreezingdown;• ITservicesupportnotsufficient;• Theprojectbudgetistoodetailedandbilingualentriesarenotnecessary;dividingprojectto

implementation period is excessive and very time consuming for the needs of projectassessment

• Overallplatformisok.

Chart4:UseofeMSinprojectapplicationphase Chart5:Partsofapplicationthatweremostdifficulttoprepare

Assessmentofsupporttoprojectdevelopmentprovidedbyprogrammebodies

RespondentstotheLP-surveyassessedthesupportprovidedbytheJSasverygoodorgoodin68%,foraquarterofrespondentsthesupportwassatisfactoryand7%assesseditaspoor.TheNAinSlovenia

veryeasy,0,0%

easy,4,13%

difficult,20,67%

verydifficult,6,20%

PreparingapplicationineMSwas

0 5 10 15 20 25

ProjectOverview

Partner

ProjectDescription

Workplan

ProjectBudget

Projectbudgetoverview

Attachments

Mostdifficultparts

11

wasassessedsimilarastheJS,whereastheNAinCroatiahasgreatersharesofthoserespondentswhofoundtheservicessatisfactoryorpoor.

Chart6:Assessmentofthesupportprovidedbytheprogrammebodies

2.2.2.Receiptofapplications,assessmentandselectionprocedure

Submissionofapplicationstothe1stdeadline

Thepurposeof theopencall is toallowapplicantscontinuoussubmissionofapplications. In the1stround,82%ofallapplicationsweresubmittedonthefinalday,16%adaybeforethedeadlineandonly2%ofapplicationswerereadyandsubmitted2daysbeforethedeadline.

Chart6,whichwaspreparedbytheJS,shows that applicants practicallyworked until the lastminute. Half ofapplications were submitted on thedayofthedeadlineafter4p.m.andaquarterbetween8p.m.andthefinalhourofreceipt.

Chart7:Receiptofapplicationsonthedayof1stdeadline

Overviewofreceivedandapprovedprojects

High interest for theprogramme recognisedatworkshopswasalso confirmed inahighnumberofreceived applications, 203 in total, ofwhich 91 in the1st (includingoneempty) and112 in the2nddeadline.ThehighestinterestwasforthePA2–IP6cwith68%ofallreceivedapplications,followedbyPA3with22%,whilePA2-IP6dwasaddressedby8%ofapplicants.ThetotalnumberofprojectstobeimplementedunderPA2-6cincreasedsignificantly,whiletheprojectsapprovedunderPA2arestillverylowcomparedtoreceivedapplications.

Table2:Receivedandapprovedprojectsunder1stand2nddeadlineforsubmissionperPriorityAxes

Applications1stdeadline PA2-IP6c

PA2-IP6d

PA3-IP11 Total

Submittedapplications,%ofreceivedtobothPAsunder1stdeadline 63(69%) 7(8%) 21(23%) 91(100%)

Administrativelycompliant&eligibleapplications,%ofreceivedunderIP

16(25%) 1(14%) 9(42%) 26(29%)

verygood,8,29%

good,11,39%

satisfactory,7,25%

poor,2,7%

JS

verygood,1,6%

good,7,44%satisfactory,6,37%

poor,2,13%

NA-HR

verygood,6,30%

good,7,35%

satisfactory,5,25%

poor,2,10%

NA-SI

12

ApprovedprojectscomparedtosubmittedunderPA-IP 3(4.7%) 0(0%) 2(9.5%) 5(5.5%)

Applications2nddeadline PA2-IP6c

PA2-IP6d

PA3-IP11 Total

Submittedapplications,%ofreceivedtobothPAsunder2nddeadline 76(68%) 10(8%) 25(22%) 112(100%)

Administrativelycompliant&eligibleapplications,%ofreceivedunderIP

45(59%) 7(70%) 15(60%) 67(60%)

ApprovedprojectscomparedtosubmittedunderPA-IP 9(12%) 2(20%) 1(4%) 12(11%)

Source:JS/MA,programmewebsite

Administrativeandeligibilitycheck(ABcheck)

TheintentionoftheMAinallcooperationprogrammesmanagedbySlovenia(SI-AT,SI-HR,SI-HU)wastoincreasetheefficiencyoftheassessmentandselectionprocedureandtokeepupwiththeplanneddynamicstoannouncetwodeadlinesforreceiptofapplicationsperyear.

Experiencefromthepreviousprogrammeperiodshowsthatsignificantshareofapplicantshadtobeasked for clarificationsormissingdocumentsunderABcheck.Now,more responsibilitywasput toprojectpartnersalsowithregardtosecuringsufficientfinancialandoperationalcapacityandpropermanagement of investments. Investment documentation is not examined anymore within the ABcheck.PPsdeclareandconfirmcomplianceoftheprojectwiththeprogrammerulesandrequirementsbysigningoftheProjectPartnerstatement.Incasethestatementisatlaterstagesfoundfalse,PPscanfaceprosecutionbythepenalcode.

TheABcheckinthe1stroundresultedin71%ofrejectedapplications.TheJSanalysedthatmainreasonsfor rejection were formal mistakes (data not completely filled in or not compiled in the requiredlanguage,inconsistenciesbetweendifferentpartsoftheapplicationwerefound,datainannexesnotcompletedorattached,etc.).18projectssubmittedtothe1stdeadlinemade1formalmistake.Therewerealsoeligibility issues:notallPPswereeligible toparticipate in theprogramme,min.andmax.budgetrequirementswerenotrespected,preparationcostswereabove2%ofthetotalbudgetoftheLP,etc.

Applicants inthe2ndroundweremoresuccessfulandtherateofapplicationsthatpassedABcheckincreasedto60%,howevertheshareofadministrativelyincompliantapplicationswasstillquitehigh.

TheMCdecidedonits4thmeetinginMay2017thatfrom3rdroundon,theapplicantswith1formalmistakeincriterionA.4referringtocheckoflanguagerequirementswillbeaskedbymeansoftheeMSe-mailtoprovidesupplementswithinfivedays.

FortheJS, theABcheckwasperceivedchallengingespeciallywithregardtocheckingof theformalcompliance.Sometimesthedifferencesbetweenthelanguagesweredifficulttospotatfirstsightandadditionalattentionwasneededasspaceintheapplicationformismadefor3languagesduetothelayoutwhichispreparedalsoforstrategicprojects,whicharepreparedinEnglish.

Qualityassessment

TheassessmentproceduresandcriteriaarepublishedinthePart3oftheImplementationmanualforbeneficiaries.ThesurveyedLPsself-assessedtowhatextenttheywerefamiliarwiththose:

• 57%oftherespondentswerefullyand30%partlyacquaintedwiththeassessmentandselectionprocedure,13%werenot

• 60%checkedqualitycriteriawhenpreparingtheapplication,33%gotfamiliarwiththecriteriaand7%not.

13

Thecriteria forqualityassessmentweredesignedon thebasisofHIT tools. Theprogrammehas inaccordancewithincreasedresultorientationattributedthehighestimportancetostrategicaspectsoftheprojectassessment.

Table3:Qualityassessmentcriteriaandtheirimportanceinthetotalscore

Setofcriteria Sub-criteriaandmax.points Max.points

%oftotalscore

Strategicassessment

Relevanceandstrategy(C1-C2),max.9points

Project’s contributions to theprogramme’sobjectives,expected results andoutputs(C3-C8),max.27points

Horizontalprinciples(C9),max.3points(1foreachprinciple)

39PA2:44%

PA3:41%

SpecificleadingprinciplesforPA

6c:4guidingprinciples,(C10-C13),max.12points

6d:3guidingprinciples,(C14–C16),max.12points

11b:6guidingprinciples,(C17-C22),max.18points

PA2:12

PA3:18

PA2:13%

PA3:19%

Cooperation Cooperationcharacterandcooperationapproach(C23-C26),max.17points17

PA2:19%

PA3:18%

Operationalassessment

Management(C27),max.3points

Workplan(C28-C30),max.12points

Budget(C31),max.6points

21PA2:24%

PA3:22%

TotalPA2 89 100%

TotalPA3 95 100%

Source:Implementationmanualforbeneficiaries,ownanalysis

Qualityassessmentofapplicationsisperformedby4assessorsoftheJS(2fromSloveniaand2fromCroatia)whoarenotinvolvedintheprojectdevelopmentsupport.Theassessorshavebeenrecentlyengagedandhadlittleexperiencewiththepreviousprogramme.IntheviewoftheMA/JS,theuseofinternalassessorsprovedmuchbettercomparedtoengagementofexternalassessorsinthepreviousprogrammeperiod.TheJSobservedthatinternalassessorshavebetterknowledgeoftheprogramme,areimpartialandmorecommitted,justificationsofgivenscoresarewellarguedandconcrete.

Thetimeframeforassessmentwasachallengeastheassessorscannotdevotetheirtimeexclusivelytoassessmentastheyneedtoworkonothertasksatthesametime.

Eachapplicationisassessedindependentlybytwoassessors.Thefinalscoreiscalculatedasaverageofthetwoassessments.Assessors’commentsaresummarizedinagrid,whichispresentedtotheMC.AsobservedbytheJS,differencesbetweenindividualscoresofassessorswerenotbigandwereinmostcasesupto5points.

Table4:Qualityassessmentofapplications

Applications1stdeadline PA26c PA26d PA3 Total,%ofallassessments

Numberofapplicationsscored70%andmore(73+pointsPA2) 3 0 2 5(19%)

Numberofapplicationsscoredbetween63-72points(PA2) 7 0 2 9(35%)

Number of applications scored less than 70% (less than 63points)

6 1 5 12(46%)

14

Applications2nddeadline PA26c PA26d PA3 Total,%ofallassessments

Numberofapplicationsscored70%andmore(73+pointsPA2) 9 2 1 12(19%)

Numberofapplicationsscoredbetween63-72points(PA2) 12 1 4 17(26%)

Number of applications scored less than 70% (less than 63points)

22 4 10 36(55%)

Source:JS,ownanalysis

Assessorsattendeda trainingorganisedby theMAfor threeprogrammes (SI-AT,SI-HR,SI-HU).Theteamwasadditionallyharmonizedinternally.MostchallengesinassessmentwererelatedtotheIP6d.TheassessorhasapossibilitytoconsultwithexpertsinaccordancewithprovisionoftheMC.

In terms of quality, both deadlines show that close to one fifth of the assessed projects could berecommendedforapproval.Theshareofprojectsrecommendedunderconditionshasdecreasedinthe2ndround,whiletheshareofthosenotreachingthethresholdincreased.

The JS observed that applications which were prepared with the support of external consultantsseemedtobeofhigherquality.Overall,thepartnershipsaresimilartothoseinthepreviousperiod,somecontinuedcooperationbyupgradingtheprojectsimplementedinthe2007-2013period.

MCdecisiononprojectsproposals

TheMCdiscussesprojectsassessedbytheJS.Projectsareclustered in3groups(recommendedforapproval,recommendedforpostponementandrecommendedforrejection).

TheMCprocedureonselectionofprojectshasanewstepcomparedtothepreviousperiod–thereisapossibility topostponeaproject thathasprospects tobeapproved if certainconditionsaremet.SupportoftheJSandNAsregardingimprovementsisavailable.Intechnicalaspects,theapplicantscanworkonthesameapplicationintheeMSwhatisconsidereduserfriendlycomparedtotheprojectsthatfailABcheckandhavetoentertheentireprojectonceagain.

6outof9postponedprojectsinthe1stroundwereassessedinthe2ndone,ofwhichfourwereapprovedandtwofurtherpostponed.Thenumberofpostponedprojectsincreasedto17inthe2ndround.

Facetofacemeetingswithapplicants

FacetofacemeetingsbetweentheLPsofapprovedprojectsandprojectmanagers(assessors)oftheJS are organised to clarify any open issues, e.g. methodologies for the monitoring ofproject/programmeoutputindicators,targetgroups,adjustmentofthetimelineforimplementation.TheJSnoticedatthosemeetingsthatsomepartnershipsneededmoretimetogetorganisedandkick-offwhatcausedminordelayscomparedtotheinitialplans.Oneofthereasonsisthatsomeprojectpartnershaveinthemeantimealsoappliedforandbecomeengagedinprojectssupportedbyotherfunds.Theyhadtoorganisesufficientresourcestoworkeffectivelyonallprojectstheycomittedto.

Applicants whose projects were rejected or postponed, have the possibility to clarify the projectweaknesses.ReasonsfortheprojectpostponementorrejectioncanbeclarifiedwiththeheadoftheJS,whereastheNAscansupporttheapplicantsinfurthercontentrelatedquestions.

Respondents’commentabouttheassessmentandselectionprocess

• Assessmentsshouldbecompletedin3-4monthsfromthesubmissionofapplications;• Administrativechecksaretoodetailedandtaketoomuchtime;procedureshouldbechanged

tofocusmoreonqualityaspects(expressionofinterestshouldbeused);• Projectsshouldnotberejectedforadministrativemistakes;thisleadstodifficultiesinfinding

projectpartnersasnowmanyprefertocooperateintransnationalprojectsinstead;

15

• Transparency of decisions should be improved – decision letters should include qualitativeinformationabouttheassessment.

2.2.3.Timelineforprocessingofapplications

14outof30LP-surveyrespondents(47%)foundthedurationofassessmentprocedureasexpectedand43%longerthanexpected,andfor10%theprocedurewasshorterthanexpected.

Thetimefromthereceiptofapplicationtosignatureofthesubsidycontractwas7monthsinthe1stand7,5monthsinthe2nddeadline.Betweenthetworoundsthereisasubstantialdifferenceinthenumberofapplicationsassessedforqualityandthetimeusedfortheassessment.Inthe2ndroundthequalityassessmentprocedurewasmoreefficient.Theprocedurefromthesubmissionofapplicationsto theMCdecisionwasdone in20weeks in the1st round.The2nd round, inwhich2,6 timesmorequality assessmentsweremade, took25weeks. Considering that the JS staff couldnot allocate allworkinghours for theassessmentonly, theeffective timeneeded for theassessmentwasactualllyshorter.

ThetimefromtheMCdecisiontothesignitureofsubisdycontractsvariesbetweenprojects.Itdependson the conditions to be fulfilled by applicants, the readiness of project partners to start with theimplementation,andsimilar.

Table5:Timelineforprocessingofapplications

Steps 1stdeadline

Startdate-enddate

2nddeadline

Startdate-enddate

0.PublicationoftheOpencall/announcementofthedeadline

15/01/2016- 24/05/2016(website)

1.Informativeworkshopsforapplicants 17/02/2016(RogaškaSlatina,SI) 11/10/2016(Črnomelj,SI)

22/02/2016(Opatija,HR) 10/10/2016(Tuhelj,HR)

17/10/2016(Samobor,HR)

2.ReceiptofapplicationsineMS 11/03/2016at23:59:59 14/11/2016at12:00

3.Administrative&eligibilitycheck(ABCheck) 14/03/2016–15/04/2016

(91applications,24workdays)

14/11/2016–05/01/2017

(112applications,37workdays)

4.Qualitycheckofapplications 16/04/2016–01/07/2016

(26applicationsx2assessments,54days)

06/01/2017–07/04/2017

(67applicationsx2assessments,65workdays)

5.Stateaidcheck/opinionforprojects 06/07/2016–01/08/2016 10/04/2017–24/04/2017

6.MCmeeting–decisiononprojects 30/08/2016–31/082016

(20weeksfromsubmissiontoMCdecision)

09/05/2016–10/05/2017

(app. 25 weeks from submissiontoMCdecision)

7.Preparationandsendingoutdecisionletters 01/09/2016–09/09/2016 11/05/2017–26/05/2017

8.Face-to-facemeetingswithbeneficiaries/PreparationofERDFcontracts

19/09/2016–07/10/2016 29/05/2017–23/06/2017

9.SigningofERDFcontracts 14/10/2016 4/07/2017

10. Duration from submission of application tosigningoftheSubsidycontracts

app.7months app.7,5months

Source:JS/MA,programmewebsite

16

2.3.Overviewofapprovedprojects

2.3.1.Listofapprovedprojects

OnestrategicprojectwasapprovedinPA1(directapproval).

5projectswereapproved in the1stdeadlineof theopencall,ofwhich3address thePA2-6cand2projectsthePA3.Inthe2nddeadline,9projectswereapprovedunderthePA2-6c,2underthePA2-6dand1projectunderthePA3.

Table6:ListofapprovedprojectsperPAsandspecificobjectives

Projectacronym PPs/associatedpartners

Maintopicsaddressed&keyoutputs

FRISCO1 8 Coordinatedfloodriskmanagement(jointmodels,mapsandtoolsforeachofthesixtargettransboundaryriverbasins(Kupa/Kolpa,Sutla/Sotla,Drava,Mura,DragonjaandBregana)withtheassociateddesigndocumentationforoptimalstructuralmeasures,improvedphysicalalertsystems,andtheoutputsofawarenessrising/capacitybuildingactivities)

Malabarka2 8 Protection, promotion, valorisation of maritime cultural heritage throughsustainabletourism(interpretationcentres,centresofexcellence(platformofexperts),newjointdestinationMalabarka,jointtourismitineraries,networkofpromotioncentres,promotioncampaign)

DETOX 9* Sustainabletourismproductsofruralareas(6revitalisedculturalmonuments,2jointCB-touristproduct,workshopsandevents,portal,mobileapplications)

ENJOYHERITAGE 9* Interpretation of natural and cultural heritage for the young and families(interpretation products, visitor centre, small scale investments, trainingactivities)

DEMENCA 7* Optimizationofsocialcareservicesforpeoplewithdementia(CBinstitutionalcooperation structures, capacity building for service providers,recommendationsandguidelines,pilotedoptimisationofservices).

STAR 7* Ageingofthepopulationandsettingupofdifferentformsofdeinstitutionalizedlong-termcare services for theelderly (CBprogrammeofdeinstitutionalisedlong-termcare,capacitybuilding for socialworkers, settingupof2day-carecentres)

Riviera4Seasons2 6 Activepreservationofculturalandnaturalheritagebypromotingsustainablegreen tourism. The project builds on the result of the ‘365 Days of Riviera’supportedin2007-2013.Developingpotentialsforgreensustainabletourisminthecountryside,capacitybuilding,destinationmarketing.

CLAUSTRA+ 9 Development of a tourism product CLAUSTRA on the remains of theClaustraAlpiumIuliarum,alateRomandefencesystemspanningfromRijekatothe Posočje area. Key activities included concept development, promotion,management and active conservation and presentation of archaeologicalremains.

KRASn'KRŠ 7 Preservationofthenaturalandculturalheritageofthekarstlandscapeintoasustainable tourist destination including typical landscapes: lowland contact,Alpineandmaritimekarst.Adjustmentofofferstotheneedsofmodernvisitorsand integration of small fragmented offers and promotion of less knowhotspots.Developmentoffourinterpretationcentres.

ECooL-Tour 16* Enhancement of sustainable tourism, entrepreneurship and economiccooperationbyimprovingthecapacitiesoflocalstakeholdersanddevelopmentofanewjointtransboundarytouristoffer,whichwillcomprise17newservicesrelatedtothepreservationofheritage.

17

Projectacronym PPs/associatedpartners

Maintopicsaddressed&keyoutputs

Uživamtradicijo 14* Establishmentofaculinarytrail fromPannoniatoAdriatic,offeringvisitorsauniqueexperienceoflocaltraditions,customs,cuisinebyorganisingattractiveprogrammes based on sustainable co-operation of local providers in severaluniqueareas.

Prebujanje/Buđenje 6* Diversification, improvement and strengthening of the competitiveness ofexistingcultural tourismcontent in the region.DevelopmentofCBC tourismproductbasedonthevalorisationofarchaeologicalsitesinGoričanandŠentiljandestablishmentofregionaltouristcentres.

ZELENOŽELIMO 11* Development of new touristic offers based on inclusion of heritage inconnection with rural products into new touristic experience. Fourmicroproductswillbedeveloped,supportedbyinvestmentsintoinfrastructure.

ŽIVACOPRNIJA 16* TheprojectaddressesthepotentialofthehinterlandoftheMaribor-PohorjeandoftheIstriaasrecognisedtouristdestinations.Developmentofaintegratedcross-border culture and tourism product called Living Magic–the Tales ofPohorje and Istria and a supportive environment for the development andcreationofnewjobs.

MISTERION 8* The project connects the unique natural and geological and archaeologicalfeaturesoftheareaofBelaKrajinaandKamenje,whichhavesofarnotbeenpresented to wider audience, such as Kuščerjeva Kongeria, the only livingundergroundmusselintheworld.

LIKE 12* The project addresses challenges of the the karst edge area,whose naturalresources are under increasing pressure of visitors including sports andrecreation. It aims at establishing an effectivemanagement andmonitoringmechanismoftheNatura2000areastoreducepressuresonbiodiversityandensuringprerequisitesforformalprotection.

ČIGRA 6 TheprojectintendstomaintainastablepopulationofternsongravelhabitatsalongtheSavaandDravariversandtoimproveitsconservationstatusinNatura2000sites.Byapplyingappropriatehabitatmanagementgravelislandswhichhost tern colonies will be preserved and thus its long-term suitability fornestingofternswillbeensured.

+Health 12* TheprojectaddressesthequalityandaccessibilityofhealthcareservicesinCBareabystrengtheningpartnershipsofpublicbodiesandstakeholdersthroughcommondevelopmentofCBproceduresandcertificationof institutionsandoperationofaCB-centreofexcellenceandhealthdestination.

Source:website,projectapplications/*includesassociatedpartnerswhodonotgetreimbursedfromERDFfunds

2.3.2.Geographicaldistributionoftheapprovedprojects

Sixapprovedprojectsareimplementedby41PPsand7AssociatedPartners.WhileCroatianPPsarerelativelywelldispersedacrosscooperatingregion,theSlovenianPPsaresofarconcentratedinonly3of9programmeregions.

Table7:LocationofPPsbyNUTS3areas(projectsapprovedunder1stdeadlineanddirectapproval)

Slovenia Croatia

NUTS3region No. of projectpartners(LP/PP)

Nuts3regions No. of projectpartners(LP/PP)

Pomurskaregija Primorsko-goranskažupanija 5

Podravskaregija 6 Istarskažupanija 4

18

Savinjskaregija GradZagreb 4

Zasavskaregija Zagrebčkažupanija 1

Posavskaregija Krapinsko-zagorskažupanija 1

RegijaJugovzhodnaSlovenija Varaždinskažupanija 3

Osrednjeslovenskaregija 8 Međimurskažupanija

Primorsko-notranjskaregija Karlovačkažupanija 1

Obalno-kraškaregija 8

Totalpartners 22 19

Source:applicationforms

2.4.Selectedfinancialdata

CommitmentofERDFFunds

18.7%oftotalERDFfundsavailablefortheimplementationunderPA1,PA2andPA3werecommittedby theprogrammeunderdirectapprovaland1stdeadlineof theopencall. Funds for theTechnicalAssistance were committed in full at the start of the programme implementation. Under the 2nddeadlinefurther26.6%offundswerecommittedwithinthePA2andPA3.By10May2017,48.9%ofallprogrammefundswerecommittedandnopaymentsmadeoutoftheprogrammeyet.

Table8:CommittedERDFfundsperPriorityAxes

1stdeadline 2nddeadline Programme funds(CP)

ShareofERDFfundscommittedin%

ERDF ERDF 1stdeadline 2nddeadline 1st+2ndd.

PA1(5b) 3,460,307.50* - 10,026,557 34.5% 34.5%

PA2(6c) 3,650,280.35 8,975,295.1128,074,358 13.0% 38.3% 51.3%

PA2(6d) 0.00 1,778,102.66

PA3(11) 955,949.40 731,629.42 5,013,278 19.1% 14.6% 33.7%

Subtotal 8,066,537.25 11,485,027.19 43,114,193 18.7% 26.6% 45.3%

TA 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 100%

Total 46,114,193 48.9%

*projectapprovedunderdirectapprovalprocedure/Source:CPSI-HR2014-2020,MA/JSdata.

Averagesizeofprojectbudgets

TheopencalldefinedminimumandmaximumrequestedERDFfunds(max.85%oftotalprojectcost)foreachPA:

• PA2:min.100,000Euroandmax.2,500,000Euroand• PA3:min.100,000Euroandmax.1,000,000Euro.

Average project budgets show that requested ERDF funds were bellow the max. possible value,reachingintotal41%underPA2and56%underPA3.

19

Table9:OverviewofaverageprojectsizeinEuro

PriorityAxis No.ofprojects

No.ofPPs AveragetotalprojectcostsinEuro

AverageERDFbudgetperprojectinEuro

AverageERDFbudgetperPPinEuro

PA1–5b 1 8 4,070,949.98 3,460,307.50 432,538.44

PA2–6c 12 78 1,237,801.53 1,052,131.29 161,866.35

PA2–6d 2 14 1,053,777.35 889,051.33 127,007.33

PA3–11 3 19 661,795.62 562,526.27 88,819.94

Total 18 119 1,278,750.55 1,086,198.02 164,298.86

Source:JS,owncalculations

Theprogrammeintroducedsimplifiedcostoptionstoreduceadministrativeburdenforbeneficiaries:

- Flatrateof20%ofdirectcostsotherthanstaffcosts/10%forprojectsincludinginfrastructureandworks

- Officeandadministrativeexpenditureshallbereimbursedbytheprogrammeaccordingtoaflatrateof15%ofeligibledirectstaffcosts(budgetlinestaffcosts),nodocumentingrequired.

Useofsimplifiedcostoptionsinprojectsapprovedinthe1stdeadline:

• 30outof41PPs(73%)plannedofficeandadministrativecosts,whicharecalculatedona15%flat ratebasis,8PPs in1projectsdidnotplananycosts in thiscategory,3PPs instrategicprojectdonotuseflatrateforcalculationofthesecosts;

• 20%flatrate/10%forstaffcostsoptionwasusedby9PPs(22%)in3differentprojects.

2.5.Implementationandfinancialcontrols

10LP-surveyrespondentsself-assessedtheprogressinimplementationofprojects:

• 2(20%)implementaccordingtoplan• 2(20%)facedminordelays• 1(10%)facedmajordelays• 5(50%)areintheinitialphaseofimplementation.

TheJSreceivedmanyquestionsfromPPsatthestartofimplementation;requestsforprojectchangeshavealreadybeenreceivedinthefirst6monthsofimplementation.

FeedbackonFLCchecks

FLCinCroatia isorganisedwithintheAgencyforregionaldevelopmentforallprogrammes.TheFLCdepartmentisorganisedwithintheDirectorateforFLC,ServiceforCBCprogrammes.Atpresentthereare2FTEassignedtotheSI-HRprogramme,withtheobjectiveofincreasingthestaffto4FTEwhenthenumberofprojects increases.ThecontrollersarepaidfromtheTechnicalAssistancefunds.Thereisalsoapossibilitytoassigncontrollersfromotherprogrammestosupportcontrolsincaseofincreasedwork.

Nationaleligibilityguidelineswereissuedalongwiththeprogrammeguidelinesandarepublishedontheprogrammewebsite.FLCcontrollersparticipateintheworkshopsforbeneficiaries,whichwerewellattended. FLC staff is also available tobeneficiariesoverphoneore-mail to informandadviceongeneralquestionsregardingtheeligibilityofexpenditure.ThistypeofsupporthasbeentoalargeextentusedbythebeneficiariesespeciallywhenthePPsstartwiththeimplementation.

AccordingtotheFLC,atpresentthecontrolsarebeingimplementedwithoutsignificantproblemsandwithindeadlines.Asof8 June2017,allpartnerprogressreports forthesixapprovedprojectsweresubmitted;thereportsforthestrategicprojecthavealreadybeencheckedandcertified,whiletherest

20

ofthepartnerprogressreportswerebeingchecked,forthe3projectscontrolswereinthefinalstage,and2inprogress.

FirstresultsoftheFLCchecksshowthattheshareofineligiblecostsisnotsignificant;mainlyerrorsincalculationofcostshavebeen identified (e.g.useofdifferentexchangerate).Fewprogressreportswererevertedsothatbeneficiarieswereabletocorrectmistakes(e.g.incaseswherethebeneficiaryhasfailedincalculatingstaffcosts).Inonecaseaconflictofinteresthasbeenidentified.FLChasaccessto court registers where e.g. the ownerships and potential conflicts of interests in procurementprocedurescanbechecked.

Byobservationofthecontrollers,projectpartnerswhocooperatedforthe1sttimeinaCBCprogramme,usually facemorechallenges inpreparationof reportsand itsqualitywas lowercomparedtomoreexperiencedprojectpartners.

Firstprogressreportshavesofarincludedmainlystaffexpenditure,whiletheexpenditureforexternalservices,suppliesandworkswereclaimedinminorshares.Projectpartnersusevarietyofmethodsforcalculationofthestaffcosts.

FLCinSloveniaisorganisedcentrallyforallCross-border,transnational,andinternationalprogrammes.

Onecommonnationalmanualoneligibleexpenditurewasprepared.Ithighlightsnationalrequirementsandrelatestospecificprogrammelevelmanuals.

AccordingtotheHeadofFLC,thereisahighlevelofharmonisationofthecontrollers’workbetweentheCBCprogrammesmanagedbySlovenia(withAustria,Croatia,Hungary).Checklistsweredesignedon the basis of HIT tools, minor differences exist between the CBC programmes, however notsignificant,theymainlyrelatetospecificprogrammecontents.

TheworkflowsandproceduresoftheFLCchangedinordertoavoidkeyproblems,whichoccurredintheperiod2007-2013bothundertheCBCandtransnationalprogrammes.Allfinancialcontrollersnowworkonallprogrammes.Fireachprogramme,aprogrammemanagerandasubstituteisassigned.TwomeasureswereundertakentospeeduptheFLCchecks:

• Projectpartner reportswithexpenditurebellow10,000Euroarenotchecked. Expenditureincurredinthereportingperiodhastobeclaimedinoneofthefollowingreports.However,ifsuch reports have been submitted, they have been briefly pre-checked and basic findingscommunicatedtothePPviaeMSinordertotakethemintoconsiderationwhenpreparingthefollowingreport.

• TheFLCissuesthecertificateforexpenditurefoundeligibleinacurrentcheckwithouttheneedforadditionalclarificationsorsupplements.Fortheexpenditurethatcannotbecertifieddueto missing evidence/documentation, the PP receives a list of requests for supplements orcorrections,whiletheexpenditurecanbeclaimedinoneofthefollowingreports.

ApositiveaspectisthattheLPcanreceivecertificatesfromSlovenianPPsquicker.Theweaknessisthatashareofcertifiedexpenditureislowerwhenthesubmitteddocumentationisincomplete.FLCseesaroomforimprovementofthequalityofreports,whatwouldleadtohigher%ofexpenditurecertifiedduringtheinitialcheck.

FirstPPprogressreportshavesofarbeencheckedandcertificatesissuedwithnodelays.Onaveragetheprocedurewascompletedin1-2weeksfromthereceiptofthereport.Asof2June2017,65%ofthepresentedexpenditurecouldbecertified(alargeportionofuncertifiedexpendituregoestooneprojectonly).

OnlyafewSlovenianPPsdecidedtoclaimstaffcostsonthebasisofflatrate.

OverallobservationoftheHeadofFLCisthatagreatshareofPPsalreadycooperatedinCBCprojectsin the previous period. Although there is a certain level of experience and knowledge, the level ofrepeatedmistakesisstillhigh.

21

Itwasalsomentionedthatprogrammesadopteda6-monthreportingandthatreportingperiodsarebeingmostlyalignedwiththecalendaryear.ThismeansthatmostPPreportsunderETCprogrammesaresubmittedtotheFLCinalmostidenticalperiodsoftime.Wherepossible,theMA/JSoftheCPSI-HRhasalreadytriedtomakeadjustmentsofthereportingperiods.

2.6.Useofe-MS

JointSecretariat

TheJShassofarbeenmainlyinvolvedinsolvingdeficienciesinoperationoftheeMSforapplicants.ThecapacitiesoftheITmanagerassignedtotheprogramme(1/6ofFTE)werenotsufficient.SomecorrectionshadtobedonebyInteractprogramme,whatwastakingapp.3-4months.SofartheJShasnotyetusedthesystemforanalyticalpurposes.

NationalAuthorities

AccesstoapplicationformsduringtheassessmentphasewastoolimitedintheviewoftheSlovenianNA.ApplicationsareaccessibleineMSfortheStateAidcheckandthenopenedagainwhenmaterialsforMCbecomeavailable.IftherearemanyprojectstobediscussedattheMCmeeting,thetimeforpreparation is not sufficient. Pdf formats of the application forms are not useable (poor layout,sometimesdatainthesystemdoesnotappearonpdf).

Using the eMS is not perceived difficult. However, its advantages have not yet been exploredsufficiently.Thereisroomforoptimization.

FLCunits

ByexperienceoftheCroatianFLC,theeMShasbeenoperatingwell,minor issuesweredetected inrelationtoimportofexchangeratesandweresolved.ThecommunicationwiththeJSinaddressingoftheissueswasverygoodandeffective.

The controllers observed one deficiency of the eMS. A project partner has by mistake submittedunfinishedprogressreport,whichwasrevertedbytheFLCforthebeneficiarytofinaliseit.However,theeMSregistereddateofthesubmissionofthereportonthedayofthefirstunwantedsubmission,whichwasalsothestartingdateforthe90-daydeadlineforfinalizationoftheFLCwork.

AccordingtoFLCSlovenia, theeMShasnotbeenfoundveryuser-friendly;dailycontactwiththe ITsupport was taking place. Main weakness is its slow operation, which is linked to the technicalcharacteristicsoftheITsystemsusedbythegovernmentandnottoeMSassuch.Therewereissuesrelatedtosavingoftheperformedchecksthatresultedinrepeatingoftheworkingsteps.Itisthusnotuncommonthatcontrollersstilluseprintoutsanddochecksonpaper,takenotes,…Workingwithlongfilesofdatarequiresalotofscrollingupanddown,manyclicksarenecessarytogetintothesystem.

2.7.Communicationactivities

TheMCadoptedtheCommunicationstrategyoftheprogrammeonitsfirstmeetingon30/11-01/122015.TheStrategydefinescommunicationobjectives,keymessagesandtargetgroups,communicationtoolsandactivities.

22

Chart8:MostcommoncommunicationchannelsusedbyLPs

Inlinewiththecommunicationstrategy,theprogrammewebsiteisthemaincommunicationtoolforcommunicatingwiththe (potential)beneficiaries,generalpublic,programmepartners/expertpublicandthemedia.Itoperatesin3languages(English,Croatian,andSlovenian).

53%oftheLP-surveyrespondentsusedthewebsitetofindoutaboutfundingopportunities;whereasothercommunicationchannelssuchaskick-offevent,partners,mediawereusedtoafarlesserextent(app.20%-23%).

Thefocusoftherecentcommunicationactivitieswasonpromotionofthefundingopportunitiesandinformationforpotentialapplicantstoprepareprojectproposals.

Thewebsite provides information about theprogramme structures and their contacts, programmedocuments and open call documentation necessary for the applicants, decisions taken by theMonitoringCommittee,guidelinesandinformationfortheprojectbeneficiaries.Newsrelatedtotheprogrammeimplementation,events,workshopsandprojectnewsarealsopublishedonthewebsite.Aninteractivemapwasdeveloped,whichshowsthelocationofprojectsandPPs.

In2016,around229,000visitstothewebsiteweremade,ofwhich24,434uniqueones.

AllLPswhotookpartinthesurvey,followtheprogrammewebsiteandmostfounditappropriateinalllistedaspects.Thehighestratesweregiventoaccessibilityofthe information,whilemostroomforimprovementrelatestotheusefulnessofinformation.

59%oftherespondentsaresubscribedtoane-newsletter;ofthose59%readeachissueand41%mostofissues.In2016,26e-newsweresentto386subscribers.

Chart9:Assessmentoftheprogrammewebsite

16

6

6

7

8

7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Programmewebsite

Kick-offevent

Programmebodies

E-news

contactedbyapotentialpartner

massmedia

Finding outaboutthecallforproposals

11

10

7

18

17

17

1

3

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Informationaccessibility

Informationaccuracy

Informationusefulness

Programmewebsite

verygood good satisfactory

23

800copiesoftheprogrammebrochureand100copiesoftheCooperationProgrammedocumentwerepublishedin2016.

Besides 5 workshops for applicants and beneficiaries attended by around 550 participants, 3promotional events were organized: a kick – off event, onemajor event which promoted fundingopportunities and presented the achievements of the CP was organised together with the finalconferenceoftheOPSlovenia-Croatia2007-2013on29November2016andaceremonialopeningoftheJSbranchofficeinBuzetwasorganisedon2December2016.These3eventsattracted350visitors.

24

3.Evaluation

• Evaluationquestion:Howeffectiveandefficientaretheprogrammestructures?

Theassessmentfocusedprimarilyontheprogrammebodiesinvolvedintheprocessingoftheopencall.

Thefollowingjudgementcriteriawereusedforassessment:

• Humanresourcesaresufficienttoimplementtheprogramme;• Proceduresandworkprocessesareestablishedandfollowed;• Programmebodiescooperateineffectiveway.

The programme bodies operate effectively within the framework established for the programmeimplementation.

PersonneloftheMA,JS,NAsandFLCisappointed.Intermsofthecurrentneeds,thepersonnelseemsufficient apart from IT manager whose resources allocated to the programme could have beenincreased.NeedsforsupportwithregardtoperformanceofeMSweresubstantialinparticularatthebeginningoftheapplicationprocesses.

MostoftheJSpersonnelisnew,howeverabletotakeonthejobeffectivelywiththesupportoftheHeadofJSwhohasexperiencefromthepreviousprogramme.SeparationoffunctionsbetweentheprojectsupportandprojectassessmentwithinthestaffoftheJSissecuredandrespected.TheMAandNationalAuthoritiesarewellexperiencedandcanprovidesoundsupporttoapplicants.

Thework of theMonitoring Committeewas not analysed.However, theMCmeetings seem to beeffective.Bothcountriesorganisepreparatorymeetingsatnationallevel,whichisagoodpractice.

Programme procedures related to the application, assessment and selection of projects andproceduresregardingreportingandfinancialcontrolsaresetandrespected.Theoverallcooperationbetweentheprogrammebodiesseemseffective.Intermsofsupporttoapplicants,thecommunicationbetweenNAsandJSwaswellestablished.

Theefficiencyofthesestructuresiscloselylinkedwithestablishedproceduresandprocesses,whichareassessedinthefollowingevaluationquestion.

• Evaluationquestion:Howefficientandeffectivearetheprogrammeproceduresandprocesses?

Judgmentcriteriausedintheassessment:

• The programme bodies (MA/JS, NAs) provide relevant support to project applicants in theapplicationphase;

• The programme procedures regarding the application, assessment and selection are userfriendlytoapplicants;

• Thequalitycriteriaallowforselectionofprogrammerelevantandfeasibletoimplementcross-borderprojects;

• Theprogrammeproceduresrelatedtoprogrammeassessmentandselectionareimplementedefficiently;

• TheFLCcontrolchecksareefficientandeffective;• TheeMSallowsforefficientandeffectiveworkfortheusers.

Application,assessmentandselectionprocess

Thesupportinprojectdevelopmentwaswellaccessibletoapplicants.Thebeneficiariesassessedthequalityofreceivedservicesrelativelygood.Basedontherangeandqualityofreceivedapplications,furtherneedsforsupportexist.

25

TheuserfriendlinessoftheapplicationformandoftheassessmentandselectionprocedureismuchreducedcomparedtothepreviousprogrammeinparticularduetoaverystrictABcheckandrathercomplex financialpartof theapplication form.Ontheotherhand, thepostponementofprojects isconsideredmoreuserfriendlyasitgivestheprojectpartnershipsasecondchance.

Qualitycriteriaobserverelevantelementsinassessmentofprojects,whereasintheoverallstructuretheweightgiventooperationalaspectsisrathersuppressedcomparedtostrategicrelatedones.

Theproceduresinplacewereimplementedfairlyeffectively.Attheoverallprogrammelevel,itisearlytoassesstheefficiencyoftheassessmentandselectionproceduresasoutcomesofonedeadlineaffectthefollowingoneintermsoftheworkloadandtimefortheapplicants,theJSandNAs.

Projectdevelopmenttoolsandsupport

Theoverallsupportprovidedtoapplicantswasappropriate.TheMA/JSandNAsfollowedupidentifiedweaknessesandwithinpossibilitiesofferedadditionalsupport(e.g.additionalworkshopforapplicantsunder6-d,improvementsofeMS).

The project application pack published on the programmewebsite comprises relevant informationneeded to develop a project proposal and submit an application. The Implementationmanual forbeneficiariesiswellstructuredintokeycontents/phasesandofferssoundguidancetoapplicantsandbeneficiaries,whichwasalsoreflectedintheLP-surveyfeedbacks.TheApplicationFormisbasedonHITtools.Harmonisationhasbroughtmorecomplexityintoplanningwithintroductionof‘deliverables’andrequirementsforaverydetailedpresentationoftheprojectcosts,whatwasalsotimeconsuming.

The LP-survey and the feedback of the JS/NAs revealed further needs of support to applicants:improving the competence for establishing a proper intervention logic alignedwith the one of theprogramme,understandingmethodologiesformorecomplexindicators,especiallyunder6cand6d,understandingtheStateAid.

Projectassessmentprocedure

TheABcheckprocedurewassimplifiedcomparedtothe2007-2013periodandagreaterresponsibilityformanagementofinvestmentsandprovisionoffinancialandorganisationalcapacitieswasgiventoapplicants.Difficulties inworkingwiththeeMSandexclusionofthepossibilitiestodealwithformalmistakeswasastepawayfromuserfriendlyproceduresforapplicants.MChasslightlyalleviatedtheprocedureforapplicantsfrom3rddeadlineonwards.

Rejections for formal reasons however increased the workload at the overall programme level.ApplicantswhoreapplywiththesameprojecttotheoneofthefollowingdeadlineshavetoinserttheprojectoncemoreintheeMSandtheJShastoperformthechecksonceagaininfull.Thisgivesspacefor generation of further formal mistakes and failing the AB check can further demotivate theapplicants.

Thus,onlyahighlevelofadministrativequalityofsubmittedapplicationscanpositivelyaffectoverallefficiencyatprogrammelevel.

Qualityassessmentshowedthatassessorsharmonisedtheapproachtoassessmentverywell,whatwasreflectedinrelativelysmalldifferencesinmajorityofassessmentsasestimatedbytheJS.Resultsoftheassessment indicate that the quality of projects in general is quite low; approximately half of theassessedprojectsdidnotreachthethreshold.

The criteria for quality assessment in general cover relevant aspects that are usually considered inassessmentofapplications.Someofthespecificguidanceforinvestmentprioritiesarerathercomplextounderstand,howeverwelldesigned to steer theapplicants towardsdevelopingprojects thataremostappreciatedbytheprogramme.Comparedtootherprogrammes,theassessmentofcontributiontowiderstrategiesisnotdirectlyincludedinthechosencriteria,althoughtheinputsarerequestedintheapplicationform.

26

57%(PA2)and60%(PA3)ofmax.scoreisgiventothestrategicandIPspecificcriteriawhatreflectstheorientationof theprogramme towards the importanceof selecting theprojectswhich address theplanned objectives and results of the cooperation programme. Although the assessment looks atrelevant operational aspects, these seem rather supressed in the overall weighting. Especially thecriterionC31 (financialplan),which includes several important judgmentcriteria inone, represents6.7%(PA2)and6.3%(PA3)intheoverallscore.

MCdecisionsonprojects

TheprocedureoftheMChasbeeneffectivelyfollowed.Thepostponementofprojectsisconsideredagoodapproachforapplicants,althoughtheyaresubjecttorepetitionoftheentireprocedureinthenextround.Thenumberofpostponedprojectshasincreasedfrom1stto2ndround,whichontheotherhandalsoincreasestheworkallocatedtothesameproject.Theeffectivenessofthisstepintermsofapostponedprojectbeingfinallyapproved,istoearlytoassess.

Timeneededforassessmentandselectionprocedure

Within theexisting framework,where the resourcesof the JS toperform theABcheckandqualityassessmentarefixedandlimitedandtheapplicationformsandassessmentgridsbeingrathercomplex,theprocedurewasimplementedefficientlyespeciallyinthe2ndround.Thereseemtoverylittleroomforshorteningtheassessmentstepsandmaintainingthequalityoftheprocedureatthesametime.

FLCchecks

TheFLCcheckshavesofarbeenperformedefficientlywithnodelays.

ApproachestotheimplementationofFLCchecksdifferbetweenthetwocountries.SlovenianPPsarein less favourable position compared to the Croatian counterparts as regards the requests forsupplementandcheckingofthereportswithexpendituresbellow10,000Euro.

Possibleeffectsofthecreated‘sittingducks’bytheSlovenianFLContheachievementofperformanceindicatorsaretooearlytoassess.FLCcheckprocedurecanbeconsideredmoreefficientwithregardtotimeusedforcompletionofacheck(whatwasalsothemainintensionoftheFLC),howeverintermsofeffectivenessattheoverallprogrammelevelthiswillverymuchdependonthequalityofreceivedPPprogressreports.

FortheLPsthesituationwillstilldependontheefficiencyofboth,theCroatianandSlovenianFLCunits.

eMS

TheeMShassofarnotyetperformedoptimally,especiallywithregardtotheneedsofapplicantsandpartlyoftheFLC.

Itisexpectedthattheincreaseduseofthesystemwilleventuallycontributetorecognisingitsbenefits.At present there is much room for improvement of the eMS. An overall weakness is that manycorrectionsorimprovementsstillhavetobemadebytheInteractserviceswhosecapacitiesalsoprovedinsufficient.

• Evaluationquestion:Inhowfarwassimplificationandharmonisationachieved?

Judgementcriteriausedinassessment:

• TheuseofHITtoolscontributestoharmonisationandsimplification• Simplifiedcostoptionscontributetosimplificationoftheimplementation

The programme uses HIT tools, which are incorporated in the eMS. In this respect it is likely thatharmonisationwithotherprogrammeswillbeachieved.Harmonisation is toagreatextentalreadyachieved between the CBC programmes managed by the Slovenian MA. On the other hand, theharmonisedapplicationformshavebecomemorecomplexforapplicantstoprepare.

27

Theextentof actual simplificationon thepart of the simplified cost options is early to assess. Thehighestcontributionisexpectedontheaccountofofficeandadministrativecosts,whereastheuseofflat rate for staff costswillbemore limitedandwithmorepotentialunderPA1andPA2-6c,wheresubstantialinvestmentcomponentsareexpected.

Evaluation question:What is the progress of the programme towards achieving targets ofspecificobjectives?

Theprogrammeisduetoarelativelylongprogrammingperiodinaveryearlyphaseofimplementation.Theactualprogresstowardstheachievementoftargetsofspecificobjectivescannotbeassessedyet.Theassessmentwasmadeonthebasisofexpectedcontributionsoftheapprovedprojectstotargetsoftheprogrammeoutputindicators,whatshouldbetakenwithsomereserve.

Basedontheexpectedprojectoutcomes,theprogrammeislikelytoprogressverywellinallPAsexceptforsomespecificareasortypesofcooperationthathavesofarnotbeenaddressedyetoraddressedto a lesser extent. Most challenging to achieve seem targets related to the improvement of theconservationstatusofhabitatsinPA2-6d.ProjectsaddressingthesafetyandconnectivityinPA3werenot yet approved,while theprogress in engaging SMEs in sustainable tourismdevelopment is alsomoderate.

GeographicaldistributionofthePPsisrelativelybalancedontheCroatiansideandquiteconcentratedontheSlovenesidewithmostPPslocatedinOsrednjeslovenskaregion(after2nddeadline).

PA1:Integratedfloodriskmanagementintransboundaryriverbasins

PA1-Specificobjective1.1:FloodriskreductioninthetransboundaryDragonja,Kolpa/Kupa,Sotla/Sutla,Drava,MuraandBreganariverbasins

34.5%ofERDFallocatedtothePA1werecommittedtothefirststrategicproject,whichdealswithfloodrisk management in the areas designated by the CP. The project contribution to the programmeindicators5b-1and5b-3isexpectedtofulfilthesettargets.Thesecondproject,whichisexpectedtocontributetotheachievementsmeasuredbyindicatorsCO20and5b-2,isstillinpreparation.ProjectdevelopmentismonitoredbytheMC.

Table10:PA1-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators

ID PA1-OutputIndicatorMeasurement

unitTargetvalue

(2023)

Expectedcontributionfromapprovedprojects

value %oftarget

CO20 Populationbenefitingfromfloodprotectionmeasures Persons 1.500 0 0%

5b-1Transboundaryriverbasinswithjointtools,modelsandmapsforfloodriskmanagementdeveloped

Number 6 6 100%

5b-2 Transboundaryriverbasinswithpilotstructuralfloodriskreductionmeasuresimplemented Number 4 0 0%

5b-3

Peoplewithincreasedprofessionalcapacityduetotheirparticipationincross-borderactivitiesintransboundaryfloodriskandriverbasinmanagement

Number 20 20 100%

Source:JSandowncalculation

PA2:Preservationandsustainableuseofnaturalandculturalresources

51.3%ofERDFallocationtoPA2iscommittedto14projects.

PA2-Specificobjective2.1:Activeheritagepreservationthroughsustainabletourism

28

TheprojectsaddressingSO2.1aremost represented in theprogramme.Alreadythe first3projectsapprovedunderthe1stdeadlineareexpectedtocontributesubstantiallyorevenleadtoexceedingthetargetsof theprogrammeoutput indicators.Another9projects from the2nd roundwill contributefurther. The partnerships have so far to a large extent included small investments. It seems thatprospectsforthedevelopmentofneworimprovedCB-touristproductsarealsogood.ComparedtotheprogrammesSI-ATandSI-HU,thedefinitionofaCBproductismorepreciseinthisprogramme.

Althoughitisnotpossibletopredicttheactualoutcomesoftheimplementation,theindicatortargetsseem to have been underestimated with the exception of the CO01 and CO02. Considering theexperiencesofar,theinvolvementofSMEsinprojectpartnershipsislikelytoprogressataslowerpace.

Table11:PA2-6c-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators


unit

Targetvalue(2023)


1st %oftarget 2nd %of

target1st+2nd

%oftarget

CO09

Increaseinexpectednumberofvisitstosupportedsitesofculturalornaturalheritageandattractions

visits/year 50.000 62.800 126% 156000 312% 218.800 438%

6c-1Smallscaleinvestmentsinvisitorinfrastructureandpreservationofculturalandnaturalheritage

Number 15 17 113% 40 267% 57 380%

6c-2

Neworimprovedcross-bordersustainabletourismproductsanddestinationsintegratingnaturalorculturalheritage

Number 20 13 65% 47 235% 60 300%

6c-3 Personsparticipatingincapacitybuildingactivities Number 500 600 120% 2939 588% 3.539 708%

CO01 Numberofenterprisesreceivingsupport Enterprises 7 0 0% 3 43% 3 43%

CO02 Numberofenterprisesreceivinggrants Enterprises 7 0 0% 3 43% 3 43%

Source:JSandowncalculation

Specificobjective2.2:Protectingandrestoringbiodiversityandpromotingecosystemservices

Compared to the SO 2.1, the pool of potential applicants with capacities to engage in projectsaddressingbiodiversityandecosystemservicesissmallerandtheexpectedprogrammeresultsontheotherhandquitespecificandtargeted.

Theprogressinachievementofmosttargetslookspromisingdespitethatnoprojectwasapprovedinthe1standthatonlytwowereapprovedinthe2ndround.

ConsideringtheshareoffundsalreadycommittedinthePA2,thetargetsoftheCO23seemdifficulttoachieve.Questionableisalsotheachievementoftherelatedkeyimplementationstep6dKIsetfor2018:10,000hasurfaceareaofhabitatsplannedtobesupportedwithapprovedprojects.

29

Table12:PA2-6d-Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators


unit

Targetvalue(2023)



target1st+2nd

%oftarget

CO23Surfaceareaofhabitatssupportedtoattainabetterconservationstatus

Hectares(ha) 31.000 0 0% 220,82 1% 220,82 1%

6d-1Implementedpracticaldemonstrationsofmeasuresinnatureinsupportofbiodiversity

Number 10 0 0% 6 60% 6 60%

6d-2Jointstudiesandtoolsforassessingandpromotingecosystemservicesdeveloped

Number 3 0 0% 12 400% 12 400%

6d-3

Personswithimprovedpracticalskillsandcompetencesforimplementationofbiodiversityprotectionmeasuresandvalorisationofecosystemservices

number 250 0 0% 290 116% 290 116%

Source:JS,owncalculation

PA3:Healthy,safeandaccessibleborderareas

Specific objective 3.1: Building partnerships among public authorities and stakeholders for healthy, safe andaccessibleborderareas

33.7%oftheERDFallocationtoPA3iscommittedto3approvedprojects,whicharelikelytoexceedbothoutputtargets.Thisalsoindicatesthattargetsweresetinamodestmanner.

In terms of sectors targeted, so far only cooperation initiatives in social and health areas weresuccessful,whereassafetyandconnectivity/accessibilitychallengesremainunaddressedevenafterthe2ndroundofprojectselection.Whatisnotableisratherpoorqualityofapplications(e.g.inthe2ndroundtwothirdsofassessedprojectsdidnotreachthethreshold).

TheprogrammeoutputindicatorsareselectedwellintermsofthePAobjectives.Basedonthecontentsofapprovedprojectstheoutcomesarelikelytogobeyondwhatisbeingmonitoredwithindicators.E.g.accesstonewproductsandservicesorimprovedqualityofservicesforspecifictargetgroupsisexpectedtobeachieved,howevernotyetobservedbytheprogrammelevelmonitoring.

Table13:PA3-11Expectedcontributionofapprovedprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators


unit

Targetvalue(2023)



target1st+2nd

%oftarget

11-1 Institutionsparticipatingincross-borderstructures Number 45 20 44% 33 73% 53 118%

11-2

PersonsrepresentinginstitutionsandstakeholdersfromtheprogrammeareawithimprovedskillsandcompetencesinCBservicedelivery

Number 300 536 179% 290 97% 826 275%

Source:JS,owncalculation/note:datafrom2ndcalltakenfromapplicationforms–stillsubjecttoclarificationswiththeJS

30

PA4:TechnicalAssistance

Specificobjective4.1:Providetheefficientandfrictionlessenforcementofthecooperationprogramme

Achievement of the output indicators show that the programme was effectively set up for theimplementation and that services regarding support activities and programme promotion are alsoprogressingwell.

Table14:TA–InterimachievementofTAprojectstotheprogrammeoutputindicators

ID TA–OutputindicatorMeasurement

unitTargetvalue

(2023)

Achievedby31.12.2016

total %oftarget

TA-1 JointCBprojectsimplementedandconcluded Number 57 0 0%

TA-2 JointCBinformationalandpublicityevents Number 10 7 70%

TA-3Employeeswhosesalariesareco-financedbythetechnicalassistance FTE 12 11,67 97%

TA-4 e-MonitoringSystemestablished Number 1 1 100%

TA-5 Firstlevelcontrollersestablished Number 2 2 100%

TA-6ProgrammeevaluationplanpreparedandapprovedbyMonitoringCommittee(MC) Number 1 1 100%

TA-7ProgrammecommunicationplanpreparedandapprovedbyMC Number 1 1 100%

TA-8Guidingdocumentaddressedtoapplicantsandbeneficiaries Number 1 2 200%

TA-9Information,consultationandtrainingmeasuresforapplicantsandbeneficiaries Number 8 5 63%

Source:JS,owncalculation

• WhatistheprogressinimplementationofCommunicationstrategyandachievementofthesetobjectives?

ThegeneralobjectiveofcommunicationistoenhancethepublicawarenessoftheEUsupportforprojectsintheareaofCBCthroughtheeffectiveuseofcommunicationinstruments,especiallybycommunicatingtheexistenceoftheEuropeanFundsandaddedvaluethatthecohesionpolicyrepresentsfortheCPInterregSI-HRintheperiod2014-2020throughthewidearrayofinstruments.

Programmelevelspecificobjectives: Specific-projectlevelobjectiveisto:

- ensurewell-functioninginternalcommunicationbetweentheprogrammebodiestomaketheprogrammefunctioneffectively,

- provideinformationonallprogrammerelatedissues(programmedocuments,eligiblearea,availablefunds,etc.),

- stronglypromotethefundingopportunitytoactivatethepotentialbeneficiaries,

- supportbeneficiariesinallphasesofprojectimplementationtoguaranteethebestpossibleoutcomeoftheprojects,

- activelycooperatewithotherInterregprogrammestoshareinformationandbestpracticesandlearnfromoneanother,

- informbeneficiariesofthedutiesattachedtothefunding,

- supportandencouragebeneficiariesincommunicationactivities,

- underlinethebenefitsofCBCforthegeneralpublicintheprogrammearea.

31

- generalpublicinformationonco-financedprojects,- promotethebenefitsofCBCintheprogramme

area.

Source:CommunicationstrategyoftheCPInterregV-ASlovenia-Croatia2014-2020,version1,December2015

TheachievementofobjectivesoftheCommunicationstrategyisprogressingwell.Activitieshavebeenimplemented in linewith the envisaged phases of communication. The programme has effectivelycommunicatedtheopportunitiesforparticipationintheprogrammewhathasbeenreflectedbothinthe attendance of the workshops and received applications. The general public so far has beenaddressedtoalesserextent.

The programme website as the main communication tool is structured in a meaningful way andregularlyupdatedwithnewsthatmainlytargetpotentialapplicantsandbeneficiaries.

Visits to the programme website exceeded the targets for 2023 by 244% only in one year, whatindicates that these were set in a very modest manner. Targets for other indicators in thecommunicationstrategyweresetmorerealisticallyandtheirachievementisprogressingwell.

Table15:Achievementofthecommunicationstrategytargets

Indicator Measurementunit

Baselinevalue Targetvalue

2023

Achievedbyendof2016

%achieved

RecognisabilityoftheCPInterregSI-HR percentage 0% 60%

Survey2019,2023 -

Knowledgeofthe

Programmewebsitepercentage 81% 90%

Survey2019,2023 -

Numberofvisitstothe

websitevisits 0 10000 24434 244%

Numberofworkshopsperformed

workshops 0 12 5 42%

Number of participants atworkshops

participants 0 250 550 220%

Numberofmailinglistmembers addressee 0 500 386 77%

Numberofcreated

Informationmaterialsissues 0 1000 900 90%

Numberofevents

performedevents 0 8 3 38%

Numberofparticipants

ateventsparticipants 0 600 350 58%

Source:Communicationstrategy,JS

32

4.Conclusionsandrecommendations

Programmestructuresandprocedures

Theprogrammedeliverymechanismas setup initially is alreadyapproaching the receiptof the3rdroundofapplications.ApartfromminorlooseningoftheABcheckrulesafterthe2ndroundnototherchangesinproceduresweremade.Thereisstillsomeroomforsomefine-tuningoftoolsandsupportprovidedtotheapplicantsorbeneficiaries.

Conclusions Recommendations

Conclusion1:Theprojectdevelopmentsupporttoolsandservicesarealreadywelldeveloped.Needs,whichwereidentifiedwithregardtounderstandingtheprogrammeinterventionlogicandrelatedprojectdesignshouldbefurtheraddressed.

Recommendation1:TheJSshouldcomplementtheImplementationmanualforbeneficiariesinthePart2withsomeconcreteexamplesofprojectinterventionlogicclearlyshowingthelinkageswiththeprogramme,whichhavebeensofarbeenpresentedonlyatconceptuallevel.

Recommendation2:TheJSshouldpublishontheprogrammewebsitealsothecompletedocumentavailableinEnglish,whichexplainsthemethodologiesforthecalculationoftheestablishedsystemofindicators.ThisisofparticularimportancefortheprojectsaddressingPA2.

Recommendation3:TheJSshouldcomplementtheworkshopforapplicantswithlessonslearnedfromqualityassessmentsofapplicationsusingpracticalexamples–goodandnotsogoodpractices.

Conclusion2:TheABcheckproceduresofarhasnotbeenuserfriendly.Italsoincreasestheworkloadfortheapplicantswhoreapplywiththesameprojectandfortheassessors.Minorimprovementsweremadeforthe3rddeadlineonwards.

Recommendation4:TheJSandMCshouldobservetheoutcomesoftheABcheckinthe3rdround.IftheshareofapplicationspassingtheABcheckdoesnotincreasetoaround80%,furtherpossibilitiesforclarifyingtheformalmistakesshouldbegiventotheapplicants.

Conclusion3:TheeMSprovedtobedifficulttouseformanyapplicants.Improvementscouldonlybemadetosomeextent.

Recommendation5:TheMAandJSshouldcontinueworkingonimprovementsofthesystem.Ifnecessary,thecapacitiesoftheITmanagersupportshouldbeincreasedtemporarilytoaddressdeficienciesthatcanbesolvedinternally.

TheMAshouldalsonegotiatewiththeInteractpossibilitiestoimprovetheefficiencyofsupportservices.

Amongothers,thePdflayoutoftheapplicationformshouldbeimprovedanddiscrepanciesbetweentheeMSandpdfversioneliminated.

33

Conclusion4:FLCcheckprocedureforSlovenianPPsarelessuserfriendlythanforCroatianPPsandincreasestheneedforsecuringfinances.Improvementofthequalityofreportingisexpected.

Recommendation6:TheFLCSloveniashouldgivethepossibilitytoSlovenianpartnersreportingforthe1sttimeforaprojecttocomplementthereportduringthesamecheck.ThisshouldhelpbuildcapacitiesofPPsforqualityreportingandcontributetoachievementoftheperformancetargetsin2018.

Recommendation7:FLCSloveniashouldcheckallreportedexpenditureineachperiodregardlessoftheclaimedamount.

Recommendation8:TheFLCshouldmonitortheeffectsoftheintroducedmeasures.Ifappropriate,FLCshouldbemoreflexiblewithregardtocomplementingofthereportswithaviewtoensurethehighestpossiblecertificationofexpenditurewithinthesamecheckprocedure.

Conclusion5:ReportingperiodsunderthisprogrammemainlycoincidewiththereportingperiodofotherETSprogrammes,whatcanleadtobottlenecksintheperformanceofFLCchecksfortheSlovenianPPs.

Recommendation9:Whereappropriate,theMA/JSshouldincooperationwiththeLPsfurtherseekforpossibilitiestoadjustthereportingperiodsinordertoavoidasmuchaspossibletheoverlappingwithmajorityofotherprogrammes.

TheMA/JSandFLCsshouldregularlycoordinatetodetectandmitigatechallengesthatcouldaffectcreationofdelaysincertificationofexpenditure.

Effectivenessoftheprogramme


Conclusion6:ThequalityofprojectsunderthePA3ingeneralislow.Thesafetyandconnectivitytopicshavenotyetbeenaddressed.

Recommendation10:TheJSshouldinformapplicantsonidentifiedgapsandincooperationwiththeNAsandMCmembersengageinproactiveprojectdevelopment.E.g.theprogrammecouldbepresentedtopotentialinstitutionsinthesectorsnotyetaddressed,thematicprojectdevelopmentworkshopsorprojectclinicscouldbeorganised,similartowhathasbeendoneforapplicantstotheinvestmentpriority6d.Theseactivitiesshouldstartearlyenough,beforetheannouncementofthenextdeadlineforsubmissionofapplications.

34


Conclusion7:Theprojectsaddressingtheimprovementofconservationstatusofhabitatsseemdifficulttoprepare.

Recommendation11:Theprogrammebodiesshouldengageproactivelyintheprojectgeneration.Potentialinstitutionsshouldbeencouragedforcooperation.Shouldtheoutcomesofthe3rdroundnotbepromising,theMCshouldconsiderreassessmentoftheprogrammetargets.

Conclusion8:TherangeofoutputandresultindicatorsinthePA3israthersmallandisnotlikelytocaptureallimportantoutcomesoftheimplementedprojects.

Recommendation12:Inthenextevaluation,whenprojectoutcomeswillbecomevisible;theMA/JSandtheevaluatorshouldrevisetheinterventionlogicofthePA3andifappropriate,considerdevelopadditionalindicators.

ImplementationoftheCommunicationStrategy


Conclusion9:Themainfocusofthecommunicationactionssofarwason(potential)beneficiaries,whatwasinlinewiththeCommunicationstrategy.

Recommendation13:Thecommunicationactivitiesaimedatgeneralpublicshouldbeintensifiedwithincreasedimplementationofprojects.Synergieswithprojectbeneficiariesinpromotionoftheprogrammeanditsoutcomesshouldbemade.Interactionswiththegeneralpubliccouldbeintensifiedthroughsocialmediaawarenessraisingcampaigns.

35

5.Annexes

5.1Listofinterviews

Date Name Programmebody

2June2017 ŠpelaDragar FLCSlovenia

6June2017 DimitrijPur ManagingAuthority

6June2017 VesnaResinovič ManagingAuthority

6June2017 TadejBaškovič JointSecretariat

6June2017 TerezaČernigoj JointSecretariat

6June2017 BarbaraKrašovec JointSecretariat

6June2017 UrškaTrojar NationalAuthoritySlovenia

6June2017 VesnaSilič NationalAuthoritySlovenia

12June2017 MislavKovač NationalAuthorityCroatia

14June2017 InesHorvat FLCCroatia

14June2017 AnaStaniša FLCCroatia

ongoing evaluation of the cooperation programme interreg v ... · ongoing evaluation of the...

Documents