update mid-term evaluation of interreg ivc · pdf filencp national contact point ... swot...

Update Mid-term evaluation of INTERREG IVC Programme Final report

Client: GEIE-GECOTTI - INTERREG IVC

Rotterdam, March 2013

Update Mid-term evaluation of INTERREG IVC Programme Final report

Client: GEIE-GECOTTI - INTERREG IVC Rotterdam, March 2013

2

nl0626091

About Ecorys

At Ecorys we aim to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. We offer research, consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development. Focusing on complex market, policy and management issues we provide our clients in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors worldwide with a unique perspective and high-value solutions. Ecorys’ remarkable history spans more than 80 years. Our expertise covers economy and competitiveness; regions, cities and real estate; energy and water; transport and mobility; social policy, education, health and governance. We value our independence, integrity and partnerships. Our staff are dedicated experts from academia and consultancy, who share best practices both within our company and with our partners internationally. Ecorys Netherlands has an active CSR policy and is ISO14001 certified (the international standard for environmental management systems). Our sustainability goals translate into our company policy and practical measures for people, planet and profit, such as using a 100% green electricity tariff, purchasing carbon offsets for all our flights, incentivising staff to use public transport and printing on FSC or PEFC certified paper. Our actions have reduced our carbon footprint by an estimated 80% since 2007. ECORYS Nederland BV Watermanweg 44 3067 GG Rotterdam P.O. Box 4175 3006 AD Rotterdam The Netherlands T +31 (0)10 453 88 00 F +31 (0)10 453 07 68 E [email protected] Registration no. 24316726 W www.ecorys.nl

Table of contents

3

Update Mid-term evaluation of INTERREG IVC Programme

List of abbreviations 5

Summary 7 Objectives of the update of the mid-term evaluation 7 Update coherence check 7 Review of certain aspects of the current programme implementation concerning project implementation and programme management 8 Updating SWOT current programme 12

1 Why this update of the mid-term evaluation? 15 1.1 Objectives of the update of the mid-term evaluation 15 1.2 This draft final report and approach 15

2 Update coherence check 17 2.1 Thematic scope after 4th call 17 2.2 Programme objectives 20 2.3 Performance indicators 23 2.4 Geographical spread 23 2.5 Conclusions and recommendations 25

3 Implementation of the action plans 27 3.1 Action Plans around Europe 27 3.2 The implementation of the Action Plans 28

3.2.1 Action Plans are mostly (being) implemented 29 3.2.2 Actors involved in the implementation of the Action Plans 29 3.2.3 What worked well and what were challenges in implementation 30 3.2.4 Results of the Action Plans 30 3.2.5 Tips and hints for other regions 31

3.3 Case studies 33 3.3.1 Overall results of the case studies 33 3.3.2 Results per case study 33

3.4 Conclusions and recommendations 39

4 Review of the indicator system 41 4.1 Observations 41 4.2 Recommendations for improvement 42

5 Efficiency of the management and implementation structure 53 5.1 Management 53

5.1.1 Working of the Management Authority (MA) 54 5.1.2 Working of the Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) 54 5.1.3 Working of the Information Points (IPs) 55 5.1.4 Working of the National Contact Points (NCPs) 56

5.2 Implementation: Programme-internal decision-making 57 5.2.1 Working of the Monitoring Committee (MC) 57

5.3 Procedures to be continued in the future 58

4


5.4 Recommendations and consequences 59 5.4.1 Recommendations on management issues 59 5.4.2 Improvement of the decision making process: recommendations 60 5.4.3 Costs/resources 63

6 Updating SWOT current programme 65 6.1 SWOT-analysis 65 6.2 Conclusions and recommendations 70

6.2.1 Context 70 6.2.2 Content 70 6.2.3 Management 71

Annex to section 2.3: Performance indicators 73

Annex to chapter 2: Recommendation table updated 77

Annex to chapter 5: People interviewed 81

Annex to chapter 5: Recommendations from the workshop 83 Process 83 Procedures 84 Social elements 84

5


List of abbreviations

AR Annual Report

EU European Union

EU27 27 Member States of EU

JTS Joint Technical Secretariat

IP Information Point

LP Lead Partner

MC Monitoring Committee

MTE Mid-term Evaluation

MS Member States

NCP National Contact Point

OP Operational Programme

PP Project Partner

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises

SWOT Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threats

ToR Terms of Reference

7


Summary

Objectives of the update of the mid-term evaluation

This evaluation of the INTERREG IVC Programme is an update of the mid-term evaluation (of 2010). In 2012 the INTERREG IVC € 302 million funding is committed to 204 projects. Therefore the focus of the programme is now on delivering results and preparing for the future. The update of the mid-term evaluation of the INTERREG IVC programme, therefore focuses on the one hand on an update of the findings of the mid-term evaluation (task 1) and on the other on the results of the programme (task 2) and the preparation for the future (task 3): Task 1. to provide an update of the mid-term evaluation’s overall assessment of the programme implementation in relation to the programme objectives; Task 2. to provide a review of certain aspects of the current programme implementation concerning project implementation and programme management; Task 3: to contribute to the preparation of a future interregional cooperation programme1. Update coherence check

In the first task the mid-term evaluation’s assessment of the programme implementation was updated in relation to the programme objectives and priorities’ through desk research and an interview with JTS. The thematic scope after the 4th call has not changed considerably The mid-term evaluation recommended to “emphasise those sub-themes which are up to now weakly covered by the approved projects”2. However, the division of the projects between the subthemes in priority 1 has not changed substantially after the 4th call. On the contrary, instead of having more projects in the weakly represented sub-themes the 4th call resulted in approving even more projects in the already strongly represented energy and sustainable transport sub-theme. The allocation and the commitment of the budget represent the range of the approved projects All funds are allocated after the fourth call. There is a slight over-commitment of 104%, which is expected to be ‘balanced’ with projects that are not using all funds. When looking at the division of the budget over the sub-themes, the same thematic scope appears. The sub-theme Entrepreneurship and SMEs has drawn the most attention under Priority 1 (34%), the Innovation, research and technology development sub-theme (33%) is the second largest sub-theme under Priority 1. Regarding the number of approved projects, these two sub-themes account for 37%, respective 31%. Under priority 2, the Energy and sustainable transport sub-theme has drawn the most attention with 46% of the priority budget allocated. Only a limited number of projects had a sufficiently good quality in order to be approved About 14,000 applicant partners submitted 1,357 applications. In each call only a limited number of projects was of sufficiently good quality in order to be approved. Having only 15% of the project

1 P1, article 2 of “Contract for the delivery of an update mid-term programme evaluation”, INTERREG IVC Programme 2 MTE, p 90, recommendation X.

8


applications approved (and 85% not approved) is a considerable constraint and burden for the programme. For the next programming period, it is recommended to investigate how this can be avoided (more focused programme, different procedure, approach to ensure higher quality of project proposals, e.g. explore if a 2 step procedure would be useful). Programme objectives are generally met and programme is performing well The programme indicators show that the programme is well on track and is highly successful regarding the indicators, which reflect the main objectives of the programme (improve local and regional policies, exchange experience, share and transfer good practices, contribute to EU policies). The majority of the outputs and results is well on track Next to the indicators linked to the objectives of the programme, a set of performance indicators is included in the Operational Programme. Overall the majority of the outputs and results is well on track, especially for dissemination. The majority of dissemination output targets has already showed a higher rate of achievement than it is expected. The indicators that showed good values in the mid-term evaluation are still performing well. The indicators that did not show good values at the time of the mid-term evaluation are still underperforming. For some of them it is expected that they will catch up, while for others it is expected that they stay behind. Therefore, it is recommended to pay attention to the underperforming of output and results as far as possible. Although the programme is very well performing on most outputs and results, there are some outputs and results, which are not yet achieving their targets. As there are in total 204 projects approved instead of the foreseen 240, this means that several outputs and results are less realistic to be achieved. It is recommended that the targets linked to the number of projects should be revised accordingly (no of applications approved & contracted, no of project visits, no of good practices guides on programmes website). All EU member states are involved in the programme The programme now covers the wide EU area and gives an opportunity for the partners to extend their experience and complement their practices with a variety of cultures and contexts. However, the countries which had the weakest representation, still have the weakest representation. All EU member states are now involved (now also Luxembourg with 1 LP and 2 PP, it used to be 0). This is seen by the MC members as a good practice of the programme. The majority of the partnerships(92%) have a Lead Partner from an old Member State. Old Member State partners often take the initiative for project’s for reasons of experience and history. Review of certain aspects of the current programme implementation concerning project implementation and programme management

1. Implementation of the Action Plans rather successful The six Capitalisation projects (B3 Regions, ERIK ACTION, ICHNOS PLUS, RAPIDE, ESF6 CIA and PIKE) that were approved in the first call delivered a total number of 63 Action Plans. Most of the action plans were developed for the Southern European countries (ES, IT, GR), what is not surprising because there are the three most represented countries in the programme.

9


To explore to what extend the action plans have been implemented a questionnaire was sent out to the contact persons of all 63 Action Plans. Twenty contact persons filled the questionnaire, which gives a response rate of 30 percent. 40% of the respondents indicated that the Action Plans are completely implemented, 35% of the Action Plans were partly implemented and 15% of the Action Plans is still foreseen to be implemented. Only for 10% it was impossible to implement the Action Plan. The main reasons for not or not completely implementing the action plans are financial constraints. This means that the majority of action plans is either implemented, being implemented or planned to be implemented. However, one should also be aware that these results only represent one third of the action plans, as it was possible to obtain information for one third of the Action Plans through the questionnaire. It is therefore recommended to repeat this exercise when more capitalisation projects are completed. On basis of the current information it is recommended to continue with the signed Action Plans as the instrument seems to be successful for the implementation of foreseen actions. However, it is also recommended to investigate if action plans of the other Capitalisation Projects are implemented to get a better funded conclusion and recommendation. Most regions benefitted from the interregional cooperation Most regions benefitted from the interregional cooperation through the useful role models and/or examples from other regions. Most of them also answered that the activities would not have taken place without the interregional cooperation. The actors involved in the implementation of the Action Plans are in general managing authorities, municipalities, research centres and local SME’s. All contact persons were satisfied with the cooperation with the actors involved. Most respondents and interviewees appreciated the engagement of the local network and the partners. However, although the exchange of experiences and the collaboration between different parties worked mostly well, one of the greatest challenges in implementation, next to financial constraints, most of the times, proved to be partnership difficulties. In the case studies one of the interviewees mentioned for example that it was hard to attract entrepreneurs. In response to these difficulties most respondents mentioned that it was important to get commitment and support of the relevant bodies (e.g. MA) and that this has not been easy in most cases. Important for a successful implementation is therefore the frequently mentioned tip to “get commitment and support of relevant bodies and stakeholders (e.g. MA)”. Case studies: availability of funds crucial for implementation With the responsible persons of five Action Plans in-depth interviews were held. To ensure variety the interviews were both with people who implemented the Action Plan, as well as with those who did not, not yet, or partially implement the Action Plan. What worked well for implementing the action plans was the procurement process, one responsible organisation from beginning to end of the project, good organised local network, the promotion of the project and the engagement of the Managing Authority. The main reasons for not (yet) implementing are financial constraints. Furthermore an obstacle has been that priorities for ERDF have already been established and that therefore one could not always receive funding. It is recommended to check before and during the development of the Action Plan if funding would be available for its implementation. Furthermore it is recommended to check if similar initiatives are taking place.

10


2: Review of the indicator system The current indicator system has been reviewed and ideas have been given to improve the whole indicator system of the INTERREG IVC programme. This summary contains an overview of headlines. Chapter 4 contains detailed suggestions for revising the indicators. The INTERREG IVC programme has a clear set of indicators, which is overall rather SMART3. There is a good link between indicators and objectives, and also the system is vertically well-integrated. This actually makes it possible to use the indicators to show to progress of the programme, which the JTS is actively doing. Some project-level indicators and programme-level indicators are currently not in the right section in our view. Furthermore as there are in total 204 projects approved instead of the foreseen 240 some targets will have to be adopted accordingly. It is suggested to specify clearly core indicators that are used externally and are used to monitor the progress of the programme. We suggest to turn around indicator sections 2.4 and 1.2.3 in annex 2 of the Operational Programme. It is recommended that the targets linked to the number of projects should be revised accordingly. In response to the findings of the Mid-term evaluators the INTERREG IVC programme management adopted an explanation in the annex of the OP. We found that the explanations in the annex are overall quite good, but some improvements are still possible, especially for indicators that are frequently mentioned as hard to fill out. To assist projects in filling out the indicators in a correct way it is suggested to create a decision tree for indicators that are frequently mentioned as hard to fill out, or from which the explanation causes difficulties. 3: Efficiency of the management and implementation structure The management and implementation structure has been reviewed to elaborate recommendations of more efficient ways and tools to conduct programmes that cover the whole EU territory plus Norway and Switzerland’. Programme management functions at a very good level given the complexity of the programme The general perception of the interviewed MC members is that the programme management functions at a very good level given the complexity of the programme and the number of MS. They are especially content with the technical and financial management, and they are very pleased that there is no de-commitment yet. The MC members interviewed indicated that they were satisfied with the progress report templates. Most interviewees are happy with JTS, however there is still need for improvement Most interviewed MC members are overall content. However, MC members also mention that the focus of JTS has been too much on the assessment of applications in the past period, which is caused by the fact that there were many more applications than expected. They would have preferred more balanced distribution of the time between project selection and programme content.

3 Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely.

11


IPs have had a learning curve according to JTS, however the MC members are still of the opinion that they are working not efficiently The interviews with the MC members showed that the majority is still (just as in the Mid-term evaluation) of the opinion that Information Points (IPs) perform their tasks not efficiently (not active, no direct contact with the MC members). However, the overall quality of the IP assessments increased significantly in the fourth call in particular thanks to the learning curve and experiences gained with previous calls, according to JTS. Since the MTE, more tasks regarding the monitoring of projects were shifted to the IPs, and a series of accompanying measures were implemented in compliance with this MTE recommendation. However, on the different tasks allocated to the IPs, the coordination efforts have their limits and due to the distance the decentralised IPs are not fully operating in the same way. Thus, the JTS cannot always use their contribution in a most efficient way. Therefore, it is recommended to reconsider the role and the position of the IP’s in the future programme. A quarter of the MC members advocate a stronger role for the NCPs especially in project generation The MTE showed that National Contact Points (NCPs) could, indeed, play a stronger role in the communication and dissemination of the programme toward the respective target groups. One frequently mentioned grief in the interviews was the low quality of the applications and the high number of rejections. Furthermore, around 25% of MC members advocate a stronger role for the NCPs in the project development phase. However, this should also imply that NCP’s should be financed from the TA-budget. Some MC members are, therefore, in favour of closing the IP’s and moving some of its tasks to NCP’s. This, however, requires further discussion. Implementation: Smaller groups are considered to be helpful Almost all of the MC members indicated that the meetings of the MC are still challenging because of the large group. However, the general perception of the MC members on the task force meetings is that they are really helpful. Some of the interviewed MC members had the idea that smaller groups could also be helpful for other particular issues, some others indicated that they would like to have an experienced professional moderator and/or chair to lead in the discussions in the MC meetings. With respect to the smaller working groups there was a clear preference in the workshop held in Brussels to have (preparatory) discussions in smaller groups (like the task forces) on specific, sometimes tricky issues. This also presents a better opportunity to engage everybody in one or other group and increase the ownership. However, the participation of all MC members should be guaranteed to ensure the success of the meetings. Due to the large group, meetings only twice a year and some MC members that have the feeling that they have no influence in directing the programme, most MC members indicate that there is ‘lack of ownership’. It is generally felt that MS should, in some cases, have more time to prepare their opinion and/or to discuss their position with other MS before coming to a decision or a vote. Another solution coming from the workshop is bringing in professional moderators for certain complex and/or sensitive discussions. A further recommendation addresses the role of the chair: specially trying to include all MS in discussions and not, as some MS observed in the interviews, let the meetings be dominated by the same few countries. Other suggestions relate to discussing relevant studies and publications with the MS (not necessarily in a MC meeting) before they are published. This is important as it will increase the awareness of the products of the programme, and thus the feeling of ownership.

12


It is recommended that the JTS facilitates more taskforce meetings and involvement of MC members to ensure a better ownership of the MC members. Having only 15% of the project applications approved is a considerable constraint and burden for the programme. The process of project generation and selection led to most discussion in the workshop, notably on the question ‘how’? There was common agreement on 2 approaches: the necessity for more strategic (from a programme point of view) calls and thus better defined ToR’s, and the merits of a two-stage approach. It is recommended that a task force on the project generation and selection is established to decide how to achieve less but better quality proposals, and how to have a most efficient selection process (more focused programme, different procedure, approach to ensure higher quality of project proposals, e.g. 1-2 step procedure). The topic of introducing (more) social elements in the MC-meetings received most votes in the ranking during the workshop. ‘Getting to know each other better’ is widely felt as a major challenge. The recommendations are mostly about ‘doing other things together’. Updating SWOT current programme

In our approach, we have taken the draft SWOT analysis and structured it into three main categories: context, content, management. As was requested, the analysis focuses on the current programme. New options, such as the 11 themes from Europe 2020, are thus not incorporated as it is not relevant for the current programme. Context The strengths of the current programme are that the programme addresses the most important themes in the EU; also the programme’s objectives are generally in line with the current developments in the EU Member States. The weaknesses are that not all sub-priorities are sufficiently covered (like the water management) by the projects and that the knowledge is unevenly spread in the interregional cooperation programme. For the remaining and coming period, this means that: • the programme should go on with addressing current important themes in the EU; • there is a check on the ‘popularity’ of some topics that are now included, like water

management; • the subject of (co-)financing requires special attention, just as the TA-budget. Content One of the main strengths of the programme is the wide geographical coverage of the programme. All Member States plus Norway and Switzerland are represented in a good mix between less advanced and more advanced regions. Compared with the previous programming period, the programme is well known throughout Europe. However, the programme has also some weaknesses. Due to the programme’s characteristics and in particular its EU wide coverage, parts of the OP remain very broad, and could not be used for drafting targeted calls for proposals and project selection. Also, the programme knows a high number of poor quality applications, what inevitably impact the overall implementation of the programme. Furthermore, no adequate targets for indicators are set, which, as a result, partly contributes to difficulties showing tangible results especially for the capitalisation projects.

13


For the remaining and coming period, this means: • Safeguard the wide geographical coverage of the programme in the future; • Consider more focus in the next OP, to ease the drafting of targeted calls for proposals and

project selection; • Improve the quality of the applications (see also task 2.3); • Properly revise the indicators and set proper targets for results and take also into account the

financial situation of some of the Member States (see also section 1.2.1). It is important (and will become even more important) to be able to show tangible results if you want to get co-financing.

Management The management of the programme is in general indicated to be good by the MC-members. Overall the JTS is good in technical/operational and financial management and the monitoring process is since the adjustments in 2011 good as well. In addition, the task force meetings that are initiated in preparation of the meetings of MC are seen as a success by the participants. Weaknesses occur in the limits of the monitoring system, the external communication, the decision making process and finally the lack of ownership of the programme. See the previous page for recommendations on the management.

15


1 Why this update of the mid-term evaluation?

1.1 Objectives of the update of the mid-term evaluation

The Monitoring Committee of the INTERREG IVC programme decided to launch an update of the mid-term evaluation for 2012-2013. Currently, the programme is in an alluring phase: the budget is committed to 204 projects and the focus is now on delivering results and preparing for the future. The objective of this study is to provide an update of the mid-term evaluation of the INTERREG IVC programme, with the following aims: 1. “to provide an update of the mid-term evaluation’s overall assessment of the programme

implementation in relation to the programme objectives; 2. to provide a review of certain aspects of the current programme implementation concerning

project implementation and programme management; 3. to contribute to the preparation of a future interregional cooperation programme”4. These aims will be realised through the following tasks, as indicated in the Terms of Reference: • Task 1: Update of the mid-term evaluation’s assessment of the programme implementation in

relation to the programme objectives and priorities; • Task 2: Review of certain aspects of the current programme implementation concerning project

implementation and programme management; • Task 2.1.Review the implementation of the action plans developed by the six first call

Capitalisation Projects (now closed); • Task 2.2: Review the current indicator system in the perspective of its improvement for a future

programme; • Task 2.3: Elaborate recommendations of more efficient way and tools to conduct programmes

that cover the whole EU territory plus Norway and Switzerland; • Task 3: Contribution to the preparation of a future interregional cooperation programme.

1.2 This draft final report and approach

This draft final report contains the results for all tasks: • Task 1: Update Coherence Check (chapter 2) • Task 2.1: Review the implementation of the action plans developed (chapter 3); • Task 2.2: Review the current indicator system (chapter 4) • Task 2.3: Efficiency of management and implementation structure (chapter 5) • Task 3: Updated SWOT (chapter 6) The approach used for these tasks are: • Task 1: Desk research and interview with JTS • Task 2.1: Desk research, questionnaire and interviews with the 6 closed capitalisation projects; • Task 2.2: Desk research and interview with JTS • Task 2.3: Desk research and interviews with MC members & JTS and a workshop. • Task 3: Desk research and interview with JTS For further description on the tasks mentioned above, please refer to the particular chapter.

4 P1, article 2 of “Contract for the delivery of an update mid-term programme evaluation”, INTERREG IVC Programme

17


2 Update coherence check

The objective of this chapter is to ‘update the mid-term evaluation’s assessment of the programme implementation in relation to the programme objectives and priorities’5. In order to achieve this objective we used the following approach: • Desk research: The annual report 2010 and 2011, the mid-term evaluation, the Operational

Programme and other documents from INTERREG IVC were studied to investigate the progress made since the mid-term evaluation.

• Interview with JTS: The interview with the JTS enabled a better understanding of the progress made in the portfolio.

2.1 Thematic scope after 4th call

Division of projects over sub-themes The INTERREG IVC programme focuses on two thematic priorities: • Priority 1 is related to innovation and the knowledge economy, covering the sub-themes

innovation, research and technology development; entrepreneurship and SMEs; the information society; employment, human capital and education.

• Priority 2 is related to environment and risk prevention, which covers the sub-themes natural and technological risks; water management; waste prevention and management; biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage; energy and sustainable transport; cultural heritage and landscape.

At the time of the mid-term evaluation no all sub-themes were equally covered. Therefore, the mid-term evaluation recommended to “emphasise those sub-themes which are up to now weakly covered by the approved projects (priority 2) or show a medium level of coverage (priority 1 & 2)”6 For the 4th call in the end the MC decided not to have a restriction of themes. The figures and explanation below show that the 4th call did not result in a stronger representation of the sub-themes which had a medium or low level of coverage. The division stayed more or less the same. Most approved projects were under: • Entrepreneurship and SMEs • Innovation, research and technology development • Energy and sustainable development A close link with the topics of Europe 2020 can be seen. During the programme implementation the Europe 2020 was approved with its objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth7. As indicated by Figure 2.1 below, the division of the projects between the subthemes in priority 1 has not changed substantially after the 4th call. Under Priority 1, the majority of approved projects from all calls still fall under the Entrepreneurship and SMEs sub-theme (37%). Furthermore, a significant number of projects (from all calls) were approved in the Innovation, research and technological development sub-theme accounting to 31%. The mid-term evaluation mentioned that 5 ToR, p2. 6 MTE, p 90, recommendation X. 7 Europe 2020 puts forward three mutually reinforcing priorities: • Smart growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation. • Sustainable growth: promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy. • Inclusive growth: fostering a high-employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion.

18


the ‘access to finance’ topic was not tackled. After the 4th call 2 projects actually focused on this topic. Figure 2.1 Projects approved under Priority 1

Source: INTERREG IVC Joint Technical Secretariat

Figure 2.2 gives an overview of the approved projects from all calls under Priority 2. As it can be clearly seen the majority of approved projects from all calls remain in the energy and sustainable transport sub-theme accounting to 45%. Instead of having more projects in the weakly represented sub-themes the 4th call resulted in approving even more projects in the already strongly represented Energy and sustainable transport sub-theme. Only very few projects were approved in the water and waste management sub-themes and the biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage sub-theme. Figure 2.2 Overview of the approved projects under Priority 2

Source: INTERREG IVC Joint Technical Secretariat

19


Financial allocation over sub-themes When looking at the division of the budget over the sub-themes a similar picture appears. The same three sub-themes cover the majority of the budget: • Entrepreneurship and SMEs • Innovation, research and technology development • Energy and sustainable development Table 2.1 below shows the eligible and committed budget from ERDF for the INTERREG IVC programme. The allocation and the commitment of the funding represent the range of the approved projects. Most ERDF funding under Priority 1 goes to the sub-theme Entrepreneurship and SMEs (34%). The Innovation, research and technology development sub-theme (33%) receives the second largest budget under Priority 1. When comparing the budget division with the number of approved projects, these two sub-themes account for 37%, respective 31% (see Figure 2.1). This means that the Entrepreneurship and SME projects are a bit smaller in funding (€ ERDF) but larger in number of approved projects. The division over the number of projects and the division over the budget is the same for the other sub-themes. As can be noted, the committed ERDF funds for projects are in line with the initial budget allocation. All funds are allocated, and there is a slight over-commitment of 104%, which will be ‘balanced’ with projects that are not using all funds. Table 2.1 INTERREG IVC budget eligible and committed ERDF October 2012

Priorities Total budget eligible ERDF

Committed ERDF Funding

Overcommitted

Priority 1 – Innovation & knowledge economy 176.726.969

(58.5%) 182.451.983 (57.8%) 103.2%

Entrepreneurship and SMEs 62.862.700 (34%)

Innovation, research and technology development 60.291.511 (33%)

the Information Society 30.212.484 (17%)

Employment, human capital and education 29.085.288 (16%)

Priority 2 – Environment & risk prevention 125.315.487

(41.5%) 133.308.597 (42.2%) 106.4%

Energy and sustainable transport 61.343.882 (46%)

Natural and technological risks (including climate

change) 23.538.036 (18%)

Cultural heritage and landscape 15.097.409 (11%)

Water management 14.905.825 (11%)

Biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage

(including air quality) 10.598.999 (8%)

Waste management 7.824.446 (6%)

Total priority 1 and 2 302.042.456

(100%) 315.760.580 (100%) 104.5%

Source: calculated from the INTERREG IVC database ‘Project Partners.xls’, downloaded 20 October 2012

Application process About 14,000 applicant partners submitted 1,357 applications. They applied jointly for 2,203 mln Euro ERDF funding, which is 7 times more than the 302 mln Euro ERDF available. Figure 2.2 below shows that in each call only a limited number of projects was of sufficiently good quality in order to be approved. In the first call, only 8% of the applications were approved, while in the second call this was only 15% and in 3rd and 4th call this improved towards respectively 23/24%.

20


The third call was only for capitalisation projects while the 4th call was only for Regional Initiative Projects. Figure 2.2 Overview of the submitted projects

Source: Ecorys on basis of information from INTERREG IVC

2.2 Programme objectives

In order to monitor and assess the progress of INTERREG IVC, five specific objectives were developed in the Operational Programme with a set of output and result indicators. The INTERREG IVC programme is one of the few programmes where the objectives are having a clear and direct link with the objectives of the programme and where it is actually possible to actively use the indicators to present the progress of the programme. Taking into consideration that the programme is just half implemented, a rather positive picture of the programme performance is seen. The table below shows the specific objectives of the programme and the progress of the indicators until June 2011. Different colours in the table indicate if the implementation is on track. Since the programme is halfway through its implementation, it is expected that, about 50% of the targets should be achieved in 2011. For some indicators, different expectations should be applied as some activities will increase over the years as the number of results will increase (such as no. of good practices transferred) whereas others already finalised since no more projects will be approved anymore (% projects with positive effects on environment or, for example, the % approved applications). The targets that are used are the targets from the in September 2011 revised Operational Programme. This revision included, among others, an adaption of some of the targets in the OP. Hence, we used the revised targets (in the Annual Report 2011 the old targets are mentioned). The table below shows that the programme is well on track and is highly successful regarding outputs and results of indicators, which reflect the main objectives of the programme (improve local and regional policies, exchange experience, share and transfer good practices, contribute to EU policies). A good number of the indicators (54% of the indicators) are already over the foreseen target for 2007-2013. A further 20% of the outputs and results of the indicators are well on track (achieved between 50-99% of the target for 2007-2013). This indicates that the programme is very successful

1st call 492 submitted 8% approved (41 projects)

2nd call 481 submitted 15% approved (74 projects)

3rd call 29 submitted 24% approved

(7 projects)

4th call 355 submitted 23% approved (82 projects)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1st call 2nd call 3rd call 4th call

Not approved Approved

21


in terms of the achieved targets, especially when one considers that not yet 50% of the budget has been spent. Only 20% and 16% for respectively priority 1 and 2 have been spent by 2011. As the absorption of the funds for priority 1 and 2 in 2011 was only around 20% and 16% respectively, this also implies that some targets are set too low for what is actually feasible to achieve. This is especially valid for the following indicators: • Number of regional/local policies and instruments addressed • Number of regional/local policies and instruments improved • Number of participants at interregional regional events • Number of partners involved • Number of staff members with increased capacity (awareness/knowledge/skills) resulting from

the exchange of experience at interregional events • % of partners by legal status (bodies governed by public law) • % of projects where both the ‘Convergence’ regions and ‘Competitiveness’ regions are

involved in the partnership Indicators that are currently behind the foreseen target: • Number of action plans developed by convergence regions further to the lessons learnt from

Objective ‘Competitiveness’ regions (which contributes to the objective of matching less experienced regions with regions with more experience).

• Number of new projects/activities resulting from exchange at interregional events • Number of action plans developed under fast track projects • Euro mainstream funds implementing good practices from Capitalisation & Fast Track There have been less capitalisation projects and more regional initiative projects than foreseen, which explains why the last two indicators are behind schedule. However, the objectives of the programme, which were foreseen with these projects (transfer of good practices), are still being met. As for the first two indicators it can be expected that these indicators will be catching up since the programme is still in full swing. Table 2.2 Assessment of the progress of achieving the targets of the programme Indicator Target

07-13 Actual (June’11)

% realised

Remarks

1.1. Contribution of projects to programme objectives (Priority 1 and 2) 1.1.1 Improvement of regional and local policies : Linked to objectives 1 & 2 of OP: Objectives: To improve regional and local policies in the field of innovation and the knowledge economy, more specifically focusing on regional capacities for research and technology development, support to entrepreneurship and SMEs, support to business development and innovation initiatives, promotion of the use of ICTs and support to employment, human capital and education. To improve regional and local policies in the field of environment and risk prevention, more specifically focusing on prevention and management of natural and technological risks, water and coastal management, waste prevention and management, biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage, energy efficiency and renewable energies, clean and sustainable public transport, cultural heritage.

Output: No. of regional/local policies and instruments addressed in the sub-themes

750 2,024 270% ++

Result: No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed in the sub-themes

150 102 68% +

1.1.2 Exchange of experience and improvement of capacities and knowledge of regional and local stakeholders in particular by matching less experienced regions with regions with more experience. Linked to objectives 3 and 4 of OP:

Objectives: To enable actors at regional & local level from different countries across the EU to exchange their experiences & knowledge. To match regions less experienced in a specific policy field with regions with more experience in that field, with the aim of jointly improving the capacities and knowledge of regional and local stakeholders.

Output: No. of participants in these interregional events 14,000 29,979 214%++

22


Indicator Target 07-13

Actual (June’11)

% realised

Remarks

Output: No. partners involved - public authorities - bodies governed by public law

1,400 2,274 162% ++

Output: % of approved projects where both ‘Objective Convergence’ regions and ‘Objective Competitiveness’ regions are involved in the partnership

80% 99% 124%++

Output: No. of interregional events organised by projects to exchange experience

1,400 1,210 86% +

Result: No. of staff members with increased capacity (awareness/knowledge/skills) resulting from the exchange of experience at interregional events

2,800 3,596 128%++

Result: % of partners by legal status (bodies governed by public law)

30% 49% 163%++

Result % of partners by legal status (public authorities) 70% 51% 73% +

Result: No. of action plans developed by Objective ‘Convergence’ regions further to the lessons learnt from Objective ‘Competitiveness’ regions

150 32 21% -

Result: No. of new projects/ activities/ approaches resulting from the exchange/ dissemination of experience at interregional events

480 88 18% - Foreseen to increase

1.1.3 Identification, sharing and transfer of good practices into regional policies in particular EU Structural Funds Mainstream programmes. Linked to objective 5 of OP:

Objective: To ensure that the good practices identified within interregional cooperation projects are made available to other regional and local actors and are transferred into regional policies in particular into EU Structural Funds mainstream programmes.

Output: No. of good practices already identified and made available to regional and local actors involved in Capitalisation, including Fast Track Projects (Type 2)

250 254 101% ++

Result: Amount of mainstream funds (Cohesion/ ERDF/ESF) dedicated to the implementation of good practices coming from Fast Track Projects

625 EUR million

572 EUR million

92% +

Result: No. of good practices successfully transferred within Regional Initiative Projects (Type 1)

200 110 55% +

Result: No. of action plans developed under Fast Track Projects

50 57 114%++

Result: Amount of mainstream funds (Cohesion/ ERDF/ESF) dedicated to the implementation of good practices coming from Capitalisation, including Fast Track Projects (Type 2)

1,500 EUR million

573 EUR million

38%-

Result: No. of action plans developed under Capitalisation, including Fast Track Projects (Type 2)

150 63 42%+/-

1.1.4 Contribution to horizontal EU policies

Result:% of projects with positive effects on equal opportunities

10% 64% 640% ++

Result: % of projects with positive effects on the environment

60% 84% 140% ++

Source: AR’11. * As the programme is on-going a partial rate it is estimated that about 50% of the targets should have been

achieved in 2011. Therefore the following ‘scoring’ is used:

>100% ++ the achievement is well above the foreseen target; 50-99% + the achievement is above the partial rate of 50%;

30-49%+/- the foreseen achievements is a bit behind target; <30% -/-- the foreseen achievement is largely behind target

23


2.3 Performance indicators

Next to the indicators linked to the objectives of the programme, a set of performance indicators is included in the Operational Programme. In the annex the achievements of the ‘Performance Indicators’ are included. Overall the majority of the outputs and results is well on track, especially for dissemination. The majority of dissemination output targets has already shown a higher rate of achievement than expected (see annex). The indicators that showed good values in the mid-term evaluation are still performing well: • Dissemination (newsletters, brochures, press releases, articles, other events, participants at

events). • Support to project generation (many consultations, and applications submitted). • Ensure assessment & approval of projects (projects are in general larger: 1.8 mln instead of

1.58 mln Euro, all funding is committed). • Decommitment (no decommitment so far). There are in total 204 projects approved instead of the foreseen 240. This means that several indicators are less realistic to be achieved (nr of projects approved, nr of projects visited, no of project reports checked). The indicators that showed less than expected values at the time of the mid-term evaluation are still underperforming. The first four are all on programme level and only the last one is on project -level. The first three are expected to catch up; the latter two are expected to stay behind: • Number project visits. This indicator will catch up as all final conferences are being visited by

the JTS. • Total ERDF paid out. This indicator is expected to catch up as still a lot of ERDF has to be paid

out and additional activities will be paid of the under spending. • Number of participants in capitalisation events organised. Since the annual report this indicator

has caught up considerably, so this indicator is expected to achieve its target. • Number of newsletters (no of issues created, not no of copies printed or disseminated). In the

Annual Report 2011 is indicated that 5 of expected 34 newsletters have been developed by June 2011 so this is behind schedule.

• % progress reports approved without additional requests. It was foreseen that 10% of the progress reports would be approved without additional requests. Instead of 10% it is 0% since all progress reports are sent back with additional requests.

2.4 Geographical spread

The mid-term evaluation indicated that not all countries are equally represented. They recommended to “make an attempt to indirectly achieve a better geographical balance as regards the involvement of partners in the approved operations (i.e. specific mobilisation effort to be made by IPs and NCPs which cover countries showing a still weak representation)”8. The trends,which were described in the mid-term evaluation, are still valid (see figure below). The countries which had the weakest representation, they are still having the weakest representation. However, all EU member states are now involved (now also Luxembourg with 1 LP and 2 PP, it used to be 0).

8 MTE, p90, recommendation X

24


All countries with a weak representation have increased their participation in the programme, especially Latvia, which went from 12 Partners to 40 partners (of which 3 LP). Malta tripled its participation (was 8 PP, now 23 PP). Norway (was 11, now 22 partners) and Cyprus (was 10, now 22 partners) doubled its participation. The participation of Switzerland and Luxembourg remains very low with only 3 partners each. However, Luxembourg has the smallest population of EU so this also explains why they have limited number of projects. As for Switzerland, it has proven difficult to get Swiss partners interested. In addition, INTERREG IVC also managed to incorporate additional 15 NUTS2 regions. Now 90% of the NUTS2 regions are covered by the 204 approved projects. The programme thus covers the wide EU area and gives an opportunity for the partners to extend their experience and complement their practices with a variety of cultures and contexts. Whereas 40% of the applications came from Spain, Italy and Greece, the majority of the approved Lead Partners are from Italy (33 LP), France (25 LP), the Netherlands (23 LP), Spain & Germany (each 21 LP) and the United Kingdom (15 LP). In terms of project partners, the ‘top 4’ does consist ofthree southern countries Italy (229 PP), Spain (197 PP), Greece (121 PP) and United Kingdom (145 PP). One of the reasons for this strong representation of, for example, Italy is that the co-financing is covered by the State which means that regions do not have to arrange their own co-financing. The majority of the partnerships have a Lead Partner from an old member state as 92% of the Lead Partners are from the old member states. Old Member State partners take often the initiative for a projectfor reasons of experience and history. Figure 2.3 Lead Partners and project partners per country

Source: Ecorys, on basis of INTERREG IVC database ‘project partners.xls’ from October 2012

Figure 2.4 below shows the number of project partners per priority in each country. In most countries, the majority of projects – and partners is focused on Priority 1 ‘Innovation and Knowledge Economy’. Partners in Austria, Slovakia, Greece, and Portugal are relatively more involved in projects under Priority 2 ‘Environment and risk prevention’. One of the possible reasons why the Priority 1 projects (and therefore also the partners) dominates in most Member States could be that

25


European decision makers are committed to pursuing the goal of establishing a knowledge economy. In addition, as Europe is lagging behind Asia and America regarding research and development, innovation is considered to be one of the vitally important activities for economic growth: new ideas generate productivity increases, which is not possible without an innovation-friendly environment. Hence, INTERREG IVC partners take the opportunity to create the EU wide innovation-friendly environment and the Member states as well foresee high potentials in this field by being actively involved in cooperation and exchange of experience. Figure 2.4 Number of project partners per Priority

Source: Ecorys, on basis of INTERREG IVC database ‘project partners.xls’ from October 2012

2.5 Conclusions and recommendations

The implementation of the programme is overall progressing well. Most targets have already been achieved. The programme is actively focussed on achieving its objectives of improving the effectiveness of regional/local policies, exchanging knowledge, and identifying and transferring good practices. Projects are larger in size, both in finance and participating partners, which also explains why fewer projects than the foreseen 240 have been approved. It is recommended that the targets linked to the number of projects should be revised accordingly (no of applications approved & contracted, no of project visits, no of good practices guides on programmes website). Furthermore, it is recommended to pay attention to the underperforming indicators, as far as possible. Although the programme is very well performing in most indicators, there are some indicators, which are not yet achieving their targets. For most of these indicators, it is foreseen that they will catch up towards the end of the programme as more results will then be available: • Output: No. of newsletters (no. of issues created, not no. of copies printed or disseminated),

both the newsletters by the programme and the newsletters from the projects • Output: No. of brochures (no. of issues created, not no. of copies printed or disseminated)

26


• Output: Average time span between the submission of a progress report and the first response by the JTS in number of days

• Output: Number of projects’ good practice guides available on the programme’s web site • Output: No of project reports checked • Output: No of project visits, participation to project events by MA/JTS • Output: Total ERDF paid out to projects • Output: % of total ERDF budget of approved projects paid out to projects • Result: No. of action plans developed by Objective ‘Convergence’ regions further to the lessons

learnt from Objective ‘Competitiveness’ regions • Result: No. of new projects/ activities/ approaches resulting from the exchange/ dissemination

of experience at interregional events • Result: % of deviation between planned and actual ERDF payment requests by LP (“-“ under/

“+” overspending) Having only 15% of the project applications approved is a considerable constraint and burden for the programme. For the next programming period, it is recommended to investigate how this can be avoided (more focused programme, different procedure, approach to ensure higher quality of project proposals, e.g. 2 step procedure). The mid-term evaluation indicated that not all countries were involved and were equally represented. Currently all the countries of the EU are involved. However, the spread has not changed considerably after the MTE. Whereas 40% of the applications came from Spain, Italy and Greece, the old Member State partners often take the initiative of for a project for reasons of experience and history.

27


3 Implementation of the action plans

The objective of this chapter is ‘to review the implementation of the action plans developed by the 6 first call Capitalisation projects’. The following approach has been used: • Desk research: The 6 projects with the 63 action plans, the last progress reports and the final

reports are analysed. • Questionnaire: The contact persons for all 63 action plans have been contacted and received

a questionnaire to investigate what has been done with the action plans. The online questionnaire operational in the period December 2012 – January 2013.

• Case studies: 6 case studies have been selected out of the answers above. In principle one action plan per project which is explored further. There is looked at a combination of examples which were implemented and examples which were partially or not implemented with the purpose to learn from their experience.

• Interviews: For the case studies interviews are held with the contact person. Furthermore a number of people who did not fill out the questionnaire were contacted to increase the reliability of the outcomes.

3.1 Action Plans around Europe

Six Capitalisation projects were finalised in December 2010 (B3 Regions, ERIK ACTION, ICHNOS PLUS, RAPIDE, ESF6 CIA and PIKE). These 6 Capitalisation Projects developed a total number of 63 action plans. Most action plans developed in South Europe The figure below shows where these action plans have been developed. Countries for which most Action Plans were developed were the Southern European countries, Spain (7), Italy (10) and Greece (8), which are also the countries with most partners in the INTERREG IVC programme. Figure 3.1 Number of Action Plans per country

Source: Ecorys on basis of the action plans

28


On average 11 action plans were developed per project When looking at the projects, basically for each region an Action Plan has been developed. In the 6 capitalisation projects 68 partners are involved and 63 action plans were developed. Most Action Plans were created for the RAPIDE (17), followed by B3 Regions (12), ERIK ACTION (11) and PIKE (9). In the ESF6 CIA project 8 Action Plans were created and another 6 during ICHNOS PLUS (see also table below). Table 3.1 No. Of action plans by project and country

Project No. of partners

No. of action plans

Number of action plans per country

B3 Regions 16 12 BG (1), CY(1), EL (2), ES (2), , IT (2), PL (3), UK (1)

RAPIDE 13 17 CZ (1), DE (1), EE (1), EL (2), ES (1), FI (2), HU (1), PL (2),

SE (2), SK (1), UK (3),

ERIK ACTION 11 11 AT (1), BE (1), EL (1), ES (1), FR (1), IT (2), PT (1), RO (1)

SE (1), SK (1)

ESF6 CIA 11 8 BE (1), BG (1), DE (1), EL (1), ES (1), HU (1), IT (1), UK (1)

PIKE 11 9 BG (1), CZ (1), EL (1), ES (1), IE (1), IT (1), SE (1), UK, (1)

ICHNOS PLUS 6 6 CZ (1), EE (1), EL (1), ES (1), IT (1), PL (1)

Source: Ecorys on basis of the final reports and project website’s

3.2 The implementation of the Action Plans

To explore to what extend the action plans have been implemented a questionnaire was sent out to the contact persons of all 63 Action Plans in December 2012. In case the email address was not valid anymore, another partner has been approached to obtain the correct email address. Twenty contact persons filled the questionnaire, which gave a response rate of 30 percent. Eleven respondents filled out the complete questionnaire, the remaining filled the questionnaire partly, mostly because of lack of information by the contact person. All the capitalisation projects were covered by the respondents (see figure below). The majority of the contact persons (70%) had already experience in a previous interregional cooperation project prior to their involvement in this Capitalisation Project and the drafting of the Action Plan. Figure 3.2 Respondents by Capitalisation Project

Source: Ecorys based on the questionnaire

29


3.2.1 Action Plans are mostly (being) implemented From the Action Plans of the twenty respondents, eight Action Plans are completely implemented (40%), while seven Action Plans were partly implemented (35%). From the remaining quarter the implementation of most Action Plans is still foreseen (15%), while for two Action Plans (10%) it was impossible to implement the Action Plan (for several reasons). This means that the majority of the action plans have been, are being or are still foreseen to be implemented.

3.2.2 Actors involved in the implementation of the Action Plans About half of the respondents indicated that they benefitted from assistance of the ‘source region’ (the region from which the good practice has been imported/adopted). The other half did not use assistance from the source region as for example the assistance was not necessary for the implementation of the Action Plan in the region. For the implementation of most Action Plans, municipalities, research centres and local SME’s are involved from the region itself. Only one project (B3 Regions) had also several DGs from the European Commission involved. In the table below all the involved actors are displayed. All the contact persons were satisfied with the involvement of the actors in the implementation of the Action Plan. Only one made the remark that the involvement of the politicians could be better. Table 3.2 Actors involved in the implementation of the Action Plans

Topic of action plan

(name of IVC Project)

Country (Region) for which the Action Plan is and actors involved in the action

plan

One Stop Shop (ICHNOS

PLUS)

ES (Galicia): IGAPE (Galician Institute for Economic Promotion), Dirección Xeral de

Planificación e Fondos (Directorate General for Planning and Funds), of Consellería de

Facenda (Treasury Ministry of the Regional Government), CESGA (Supercomputing

Centre of Galicia)

Territorial marketing

(ICHNOS PLUS)

IT (Sardinia): The actions will involve municipalities and business associations.

eLocal (Pike) CZ (Olomouc): Main centres (towns) in Olomouc region, scientific library,

Next generation

Broadband (B3 Regions)

UK (North Yorkshire): NYnet, DG Comp, DG Regio, DG Connect, UK Government,

North Yorkshire County Council

Innovation Cheque

(Rapide)

PL (Kujawsko-Pomorskie Region): Regional Authority - Marshal's Office, Business

Supporting Institution

Galician Innovative

Network (Rapide)

ES (Galicia): Regional Technological Centres Network Galician Super computation

Centre Galician Technological Park Galician Institute for Economical Promotion

Network of Innovation Agents - Xiga- Technological Centres SMEs

Innovation Development

and Enterprise (Rapide)

GR (Western Greece): SMEs located in Region of Western Greece and Innovation

providers (Universities, Research centres, Innovation public bodies etc)

BLUES Software (Rapide) CZ (South Bohemia): South Bohemian Regional Government, Czech-Moravian

Guarantee and Development Bank - the South Bohemian regional office, South

Bohemian Agency for Support to Innovative Enterprising

South East Development

(Erik Action)

RO (South East): The Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Agriculture in Constanta. The

county councils of Braila, Constanta and Vrancea The Ministry of Regional

Development and Tourism/Managing Authority - Bucharest

Demographic rule change

in Bulgaria (ESF6 CIA)

BG: The Ministry of Labour and social policy, National employment agency, employers

(municipalities, companies), training organisations.

Managing Demographic

Change (ESF6 CIA)

IT (Abruzzi): Universities in the Region, SME, Unions, Workers associations,

employers’ associations also from Lazio Source: Ecorys on basis of the webbased questionnaire

30


3.2.3 What worked well and what were challenges in implementation The exchange of experiences worked well in implementation according to the contact persons of the Action Plans. Also the collaboration with SMEs and Academia and having workshops, discussion groups, meetings and discussion is mentioned frequently. The figure below shows the aggregated answers on the question: “what worked well in implementation?” Figure 3.3 Aggregated answers on the question: “what worked well in implementation?”


Although the exchange of experiences and the collaboration between different parties mostly worked frequently well, one of the greatest challenges mentioned was difficulties with partners. Also the rules of implementation is mentioned frequently (e.g. national bureaucracy, construction of structures), as are financial constraints (mainly due to the financial crisis). Figure 3.4 Aggregated answers on the question: “What were challenges encountered in the

implementation?”


3.2.4 Results of the Action Plans When asking how the region benefitted from the interregional cooperation, having useful examples/role models was most indicated. Secondly it was indicated that the activities would not have taken place without the support of interregional cooperation. Three contact persons indicated that the region benefitted otherwise from the interregional cooperation. By increased competences in (some of the) staff (1), by increasing local credibility for their subsequent work (2) and by

31


ensuring an increased allocation of financial funds (3). None of the questioned contact persons was of the opinion that the INTERREG IVC project has not made any difference (see the figure below). Figure 3.5 How did your region benefit from the interregional cooperation? (several answers possible)


Two out of the eleven contact persons indicated that they could show results that go beyond the Action Plan: • They “created a new action line of the ERDF ROP 2007-2013 for an improvement of the

coordination centre for Single Contact Points and achievement of the specific ex ante conditionality for the programming period 2014-2020”.

• “The action plan developed into the Superfast North Yorkshire Project which has wider social and economic impact over that originally foreseen”.

Another three persons answered that there are possibly results that go beyond the Action Plan. It was for example suggested that the methodology used in the Action Plan implementation would also be useful for the preparation of the OP of all the Structural funds.

3.2.5 Tips and hints for other regions For regions which are going to implement an action plan in the future the contact persons have some advice. Most of them mentioned that commitment and support of the relevant bodies and stakeholders is one of the important things to keep in mind by the implementation of an action plan. Other tips and hints are ensuring political support, communicate with all relevant stakeholders, investigate the funding and prepare a feasibility study.

32


Figure 3.6 What would you advise other regions in developing their action plan?


Next to the advice to the other regions the following tips and hints were given for the EC: • All Capitalisation projects need the support of the EC for the preparation of the Action Plan, not

only those which were selected as Fast Track. • As the support of Managing Authorities as well as other regional authorities is essential to really

go mainstream, perhaps you could do as in the case of this survey: send to them an official communication, on approval of the project, introducing it and saying the local partner is going to contact them, letting them be aware of the project, asking for their cooperation and providing legitimation for the regional partners to be heard and their proposals considered. This, or other similar action, would be mainly addressed to ensure the support of the MA’s and other regional authorities to the project of the organisations involved in each region. Besides that, the successful execution of a Capitalisation project should be, in my opinion, acknowledged as a qualification, so that any further developments in the Action Plan or any related or wider programmes should be given, to some extent, priority and support from the regional authorities. In our view, at a regional government level, programmes such as INTERREG IVC Capitalisation could strongly help to improve regional policies by reinforcing cooperation between different administration levels (within the region, as well as between regions), therefore encouraging and giving instruments as well as support to improve coordination of policies and capitalisation of fruitful tools. The participation of a region in a INTERREG IVC capitalization project can enhance the awareness of the relevant institutions of their mutual interactions. And the participation of the region, as well as INTERREG assistance can make a difference to get the political approval and backing needed to overcome some of the barriers, of course, provided the project is aligned with regional strategies and it has a minimal regional funding guarantee. In regions like ours an innovative project or new programme or policy is more likely to get institutional help if it is previously supported by higher level institutions, namely national or European ones.

• Enter the criteria more flexible, which matched to all countries which would take part in the programme INTERREG. In Poland, it was difficult to get the support of the authorities responsible for European funds. European Union funds were earmarked for specific purposes and during INTERREG project it was not possible to dedicate them to the specific project, produced under the programme INTERREG IV C.

• Extend Paper Reports for Digital Story version too (containing answers on the structured questions). Visual information is more comprehend, more effective in controlling of project progress, mainly at the Assessment of hundreds of Reports. Final Reports of the Projects as a Digital Story could be promoted and disseminated more easily than in textual form. INTERREG

33


Programme could open 'Public voting' for the most interesting, the most effective (powerful) project. Btw. JAIP is a Lead partner of Innofun project (INTERREG IVC), where Digital Storytelling, Digital Pitching and Public voting will be used as communication tools for bringing Innovation to the market.

• Facilitation of projects implementation (eligibility rules, overheads), level of reimbursement - 85% for the new Member States.

• Good communications between partners makes a huge difference. • The financial processes were a nightmare. We spent a lot of time at the start ensuring that you

understand what you are getting into, and put the systems in place before you agree to sign anything.

• My idea is, after many years of participation on INTERREG programmes, not only INTERREG IVC, that the real actors, that is those who should apply the good practices, are not directly interested. The result is that those who prepare the projects and implement the approved actions have as almost unique interlocutor the MA that, whatever it is, focuses its attention only on the financial aspects of the project implementation. What should be done is the continuous monitoring of the 'quality' of the actions, of the outcome/outputs and of the persons involved, not only of the appropriateness of the reporting 'papers'. Thus what should be done is the introduction of a quality assessment at project and programme level.

• Very good networking and matching the most advanced with the less advanced regions

3.3 Case studies

From all six first call projects a case study has been selected. Both action plans that have been fully implemented, and action plans that have partially or not (yet) been implemented have been selected to get a variety of answers. Looking at case studies not only enables to go deeper and be more detailed in its evaluation, but also it offers the possibility in collecting a set of case studies that can be used as examples for future projects and as examples for different programmes. In-depth interviews with the responsible persons of five of the six projects are held. Only for the ESF6 CIA project no interview has been possible after several attempts.

3.3.1 Overall results of the case studies From the five case studies presented below, only two had the implementation of the action plan completed. One is partly implemented and two are not implemented at all. The main reasons for not implementing are financial constraints, mostly because of the economic crisis. Other challenges encountered in implementation of the action plans were ERDF bureaucracy within the country and difficulties to attract entrepreneurs. What worked well for implementing the action plans were the procurement process, one responsible organisation from beginning to end of the project, good organised local network, the promotion of the project and the engagement of the Managing Authority.

3.3.2 Results per case study The results of the case studies per case study are presented in the formats below. The projects are presented in alphabetical order.

34


Table 3.3 Case study within the B3 Regions project

Project B3 REGIONS

Name of Action Plan North Yorkshire Next Generation Broadband (UK)

Was the action plan

implemented?

Almost completely; but due to delays but there is still the commitment to implement

them soon.

Involved partners NYnet is the organisation responsible for developing the concept, securing the

funding and regulatory approval (e.g.| state aid). Also, they were ultimately involved

in procurement and actually the delivery of the AP. In a way, NYnet actually owns

the project from start to the end. NYnet is totally owned by North Yorkshire County

Council. In terms of funding, DCLG (The Department for Communities and Local

Government) is responsible for handling the ERDF. In terms of central

governments funds invested in this project, the Department for Communities,

Media and Supports is responsible. In addition, they also had their contractor,

which is British Telecom.

Actions foreseen 1. Provide Broadband to 140,000 premises out of which approximately 1400 are

businesses.

2. Increase GDP by 1.5%

Budget foreseen They estimated that the full amount that was foreseen for this project was £20m of

public funding.

Actions implemented The project itself will deliver, in the intervention areas, 6 fast broadband to 77% of

premises, which comes to nearly 140,000 premises. In addition, all remaining

premises will receive a minimum of 2mbs. It should be noted, that when they

started implementing this project, nearly 20% of premises did not even get the min

2mbs. Looking at the entire North Yorkshire, around 90% of premises will get

super-fast broadband and 10% will get a minimum universal service of 2mbs. The

way that they have addressed the project is that they looked at the entire N.

Yorkshire. It should be understood that already a half was done by market forces

itself, and the funding addressed the other half. In reality, they had gone beyond

what was actually foreseen in the action plan. The premises it does not matter if it

is for residential or for businesses. Approximately 10% of premises are businesses.

The obligations for the Gross Value Added (GVA) in their funding agreement is that

they have to demonstrate a real increase in GVA by June 2015 of £26m. This

amount (£26m) is measured; it is not derived from any kind of economic model that

measures the increase in profits of businesses that are eligible and to achieve that

GVA target. So they basically need to prove that the next generation broadband

improves the GVA.

1. Contract secured to provide Next Generation Access (NGA) to over 147,000

premises (250,00 citizens) (Rollout commenced, complete in Summer 2014)

2. Contract to provide NGA to over 10,000 SMES (Rollout commenced,

complete in Summer 2014)

3. Measurement underway and will be complete by Dec 2015

Budget used/committed In the end, they had £26.5m of capital and additional £3.5m ERDF funding to

engage in business support activities.

£3.5m is interlay for securing business environment. There are 3 business support

objectives, which are not related to infrastructure: growth of GVA by £26m; create

126 new jobs; provide 550 eligible SMEs with today's business support

intervention.

What worked well for

implementing the action

plan?

Procurement process went well, they managed to undertake the competitive

dialogue process, and they also got good competitive attention in the procurement

process. They managed to achieve the ERDF funding. Rewarding contract and the

relationship with the contractor went also well. The important thing in the

35


Project B3 REGIONS

implementation of this Action Plan is the existence of the NYnet from the beginning

till the end of the project. One organisation that is dedicated to this project, which is

separate from the massive political administration. This organisation is separate but

having the governance process. The same people that did the procurement were

involved in the contract management.

What were challenges

encountered in the

implementation?

ERDF bureaucracy within UK and getting the ERDF funding. Proving the eligibility

for the competitiveness area in order to use EU funds for broadband. Technically,

EU funds are used for broadband infrastructure for the cohesion area while N.

Yorkshire is not a cohesion area, it is competitiveness area.

Lessons learnt and tips

and hints for other

projects

It was identified that it is hard to get state aid for the broadband infrastructure, so

you need to get along it and work hard. If the project had not been involved in the

B3 and the connections that they have created with the DG REGIO and DG

CONNECT through B3 partners, they would not have gotten the funding. There

were also times when the national ERDF team were against of what they were

doing. It took nearly a year to get the ERDF money, which caused a lot of

difficulties. They even thought about redrawing from the project at some point. The

level of bureaucracy was a big struggle.


and hints for the IVC

Programme

The financial processes were a nightmare. They spent a lot of time at the start

ensuring that one understands what one is getting into, and put the systems in

place before agreeing to sign anything.

Table 3.4 Case study within ERIK ACTION project

Project ERIK ACTION

Nameof Action Plan Regional Action Plan for South East Development Region Romania (SE RDA)

Was AP implemented? Partially

Involved partners - The Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Agriculture in Constanta

- The county councils of Braila, Constanta and Vrancea

- Managing Authority in Bucharest (The Ministry of Regional Development and

Tourism)

- The National council of SMEs ( their branch in the region)

Actions foreseen South East Regional Development Agent imported two good practices:

1. Technology Events Good Practice transfer from Andalusia Region/Spain to

SE RDA/Romania;

2. SIDEUM Good Practice transfer from Smaland/Sweden to SE RDA/Romania.

Budget foreseen 1. 5,400 Euro

2. 500,000 Euro

Action Plan

implemented

The Action Plan was partly implemented due to financial reasons. The South East

Regional Development Agency is an intermediate body for the interregional

cooperation programme. The regional cooperation budget for 2007-2013 did not

foresee any priority referring to innovation while the other partners in this project

had. At the moment we only have the human resources, but not the infrastructure

that was foreseen in the Action Plan.

Actions implemented 1. Technology Events GP transfer was fully implemented by the Chambers of

Commerce, Industry, Agriculture in Constanta. They created the Technology

Event Centre in Constanta and it is functioning since 2011. This action was

also implemented on their own expenses.

2. SIDEUM methodology was partly transferred within the existing clusters. The

aim of implementing this practice in the region was to explore the tool of triple

axes on the regional lever by making the local authorities, businesses and

36


Project ERIK ACTION

academia work together in order to improve region’s economy. The link

between these bodies was established, but the platform (the building) to

facilitate this cluster is still missing.

Budget used/committed 1. Approximately 5,400 Euros

2. Only the expenses for the staff that is working on the implementation, but still

the staff is financed from the other programmes budget at the moment.



plan?

Local network worked very well, people are motivated and open to innovations.

Especially, people that work at the Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Agriculture in

Constanta. They were interested to participate in a larger EU network as they were

committed to the participation in the study visits, the transfer workshops and

bilateral meeting with partners from the regions that the good practice was coming

(Andalusia Region (Spain) and Smaland (Sweden)).

The promotion of the project was very well managed by their stakeholders at

regional and local level. This is why it was very easy for them to get into other

INTERREG IVC projects that are related to innovation. They even managed to

become the lead partner in another project.


encountered in the

implementation?

The main challenge that was encountered in the implementation of the Action Plan

were financial issues as the budget is limited and it is was not possible to cover all

the required costs for infrastructure.

Furthermore the public research base is not oriented to the demands of the

economy, and in many fields is poorly developed.

Also enterprises hesitate to increase their competitiveness based on research and

innovation activities because of high market risks, and technological uncertainties.

Lastly the financial markets are not supportive.


and hints for other

projects

Management of the project was very well organised. There were no conflicts

encountered between the project partners. The responsibility of the transnational

activities and documents were smoothly operated. Regularity of seminars were

very well organised. Advise for other regions in developing and implementing their

Action Plan:

- Get the commitment and support of the managing authority of the Regional

Operational Programme

- Take care when selecting the most suitable good practices

- Organise more bilateral meetings and study visits



Programme

The INTERREG IVC created very good networking opportunities, which managed

to create a large partnership cooperation between advanced regions and regions

that are lagging behind. The cooperation between partners were sometimes even

extended into long-term cooperation in other projects. The good practices that were

identified were either transferred or improved. Also new ideas for cooperation were

identified. Exchange of good practices managed to create a good territorial impact.

This exchange enhanced better management of the resources, because only the

best practices where implemented and transferred.

Table 3.5 Case study Ichnos Plus

Project ICHNOS PLUS

Name of Action Plan Regional Action Plan for Silesia Region (PL)

Was the action plan No. Main reasons why the action plan was not implemented:

37


Project ICHNOS PLUS

implemented? - Not able to receive funding of operational programme human capital priority V.

- During the same time the Ministry of Economy implemented central registration

and information on business which now is partly doing tasks that is described for

one-stop-shop in the Action Plan9

Involved partners Managing Authority, responsible for the Regional Operational Programme of Silesia

2007-2013.

Marshal Office of Silesia representatives responsible for the regional development.

Municipality of Ruda Slaska.

External experts providing education-consulting services.

Ministry of Economy employees responsible for the implementation of the Act of the

Business Activity Freedom, implementation of the Services Directive and the

implementation of IT solutions in the public administration.

The Action Plan supposed to have been implementing by the Ruda Slaska Business

Incubator.

Actions foreseen 1. The Regional Centre of Competence (RCC) for One-Stop Shops (OSSes)

Budget foreseen 175 000 Eur

Actions implemented Ruda Slaska Business Incubator was founded by the city of Ruda Slaska, in order to

promote entrepreneurship. In the context of the impossibility of receiving funding,

the Business Incubator decided to take over part of the duties from the regional

centre of competence and serving trainings addressed directly to potential

entrepreneurs. The training area is the same as the original idea which was

dedicated to employees of one stop shops from towns and communities in the

Silesian region. In total, they trained about 81 people.

Budget used/committed They used their own budget, not from European funds (about 10%).



plan?

They managed to carry on a fruitful dialogue with offices representatives, who

potentially would be involved in the implementation of the Regional Centre of

Competence (RCC). They have expressed a lot of interest and willingness to

cooperate. Therefore, they hope to obtain funding for the RCC in future.


encountered in the

implementation?

The main obstacle for the implementation of this Action Plan was not being able to

obtain funding.


and hints for other

projects

The main lesson was how to cooperate with representatives of other partners from

different countries: a lot of patience, understanding for cultural differences.



Programme

They consider capitalisation projects being a good idea, but not all countries/regions

are able to deploy them. In Poland, it was difficult to get the support of the

authorities responsible for European funds. European Union funds were earmarked

for specific purposes and during the INTERREG project was not possible to

dedicate them to implement the capitalization idea, produced under the programme

INTERREG IV C.

Website http://www.inkubatorrudzki.pl/en/

http://www.inkubatorrudzki.pl/pl/artykul/tematy_szkolen/1310463636

Table 3.6 Case study of PIKE Project

Project PIKE

Topic of Action Plan Sustainable Strategies Model (IE)

AP Implemented? No

Involved partners The Action Plan was conducted by Information Systems & Central Planning Unit

9 https://prod.ceidg.gov.pl/CEIDG.CMS.ENGINE/?D;f124ce8a-3e72-4588-8380-63e8ad33621f

http://www.inkubatorrudzki.pl/en/

http://www.inkubatorrudzki.pl/pl/artykul/tematy_szkolen/1310463636

38


Project PIKE

Donegal County Council.

Implementation: Central Planning Units.

Actions foreseen 1. eLocal from EMCANTA and the Regional Government of Cantabria;

2. Donegal Online Planning System (DOPS) from Donegal County Council.

Budget foreseen Total budget: €194,470.00 :

BMW Assembly (Regional Operational Programme) €97,235 min

Donegal County Council (own resources) €97,235 max Actions implemented Due to financial constraints none on the actions were implemented. The

implementation of the action plan is still foreseen.

Budget used/committed none



plan?

There was great exchange with the partners and good cooperation. They managed

to develop a good action plan template and the action plan itself.


encountered in the

implementation?

The biggest challenge that was encountered was to secure the funding.

There was another project that was running in parallel with PIKE, where they have

developed an e-services platform. This is similar in nature to the one that was initially

planned to be developed in PIKE. So what they expect is to add and implement

some of the ideas and concepts that were developed in PIKEs Action plan into the

technologies that they have already developed.


and hints for other

projects

Investigate the funding possibilities at interim points within the development lifecycle

of the plan. Consider, if necessary, doing things on a modular basis so that partial

implementation may be possible. When there is a possibility of co-funding then it

makes the project more attractive locally to do more innovative things. Now they tend

to apply the action plan template for other projects.



Programme

Good communications between partners makes a huge difference.

Table 3.7 Case study within the RAPIDE project

Project RAPIDE

Name of Action Plan Innovation research cheques for entrepreneurs in Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship (PL)

Was AT implemented? Completely

Involved partners The Action Plan was made by the Marshal’s Office of Kujawsko-Pomorskie

Voivodship, the Regional Authority. The Business Support Institution was chosen for

the implementation of the Action Plan. The Business Support Institution was under

control by the Marshal’s Office in terms of financial matters, monitoring, evaluation

and etc.

Actions foreseen To issue innovation research cheques for entrepreneurs (SME) in Kujawsko-

Pomorskie Voivodship

Budget foreseen 2 mln euro

Actions implemented 158 vouchers were developed in all the 3 calls. This is the exact number of vouchers

that were already granted to the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship region’s

entrepreneurs. At the moment, they are evaluating the 4th call and they expect that

even more vouchers will be evaluated and granted. Research topics for these

vouchers took a broad range (mechanical, biotechnology, chemistry), for example,

prototypes for toys and furniture. Covering a wide range of topics was a value added

for the entrepreneurs in the region. Mostly the regional universities were engaged in

conducting research. Two types of vouchers were applied: first vouchers were

39


Project RAPIDE

dedicated for the first contacts towards science institutions; the second voucher type

was oriented towards the continuation of the research.

Budget used/committed 2 mln euro



plan?

The most important thing was the engagement of the Managing Authority as well as

politicians and decision makers from the beginning of the project. Hence, it was very

helpful for the development of the Action Plan and also the funding. Furthermore,

the financial issues were smoothly coordinated and they did not encounter any big

problems during the project. It was quite a simple action plan, and there were not

that many bureaucracy obstacles faced during the implementation phase. Relatively

simple application forms were applied.


encountered in the

implementation?

It was quite difficult to change the thinking of the local entrepreneurs and try to

attract them to participate and engage in this project.


and hints for other

projects

The most important lesson is that the implementation of the Action Plan should have

started from the beginning of the project and that the engagement in the project

should be proactive. Furthermore, it is also important to gather an appropriate

working group from the beginning of the project and attract as many stakeholders as

possible. Also launch the promotion activities as early as possible, in order, to

increase the awareness of the projects between the region’s entrepreneurs.



Programme

It is very important to observe Good Practices and solutions and to use them in the

implementation of a particular Action Plan. Other tips is to have good facilitation of

project implementation (eligibility rules, overheads), and keep level of

reimbursement - 85% for the new Member States. There are some obstacles in this

programme such as bureaucracy, financial control.

Website www.vb.kpzpip.pl


Implementation of the Action Plans rather successful The six Capitalisation projects (B3 Regions, ERIK ACTION, ICHNOS PLUS, RAPIDE, ESF6 CIA and PIKE) that were approved in the first call delivered a total number of 63 action plans. 40% of the respondents indicated that the Action Plans are completely implemented, 35% of the Action Plans were partly implemented and 15% of the Action Plans is still foreseen to be implemented. Only for 10% it was impossible to implement the Action Plan. The main reasons for not or not completely implementing the action plans are financial constraints. This means that the majority of action plans is either implemented, being implemented or planned to be implemented. However, one should also be aware that these results only represent one third of the action plans, as it was possible to obtain information for 20 of the 63 implemented Action Plans through the questionnaire and interviews. It is therefore recommended to repeat this exercise when more capitalisation projects are completed. On basis of the current information it is recommended to continue with the signed Action Plans as the instrument seems to be successful for the implementation of foreseen actions. However, it is also recommended to investigate if action plans of the other Capitalisation projects are implemented to get a better funded conclusion and recommendation. Most regions benefitted from the interregional cooperation Most regions benefitted from the interregional cooperation through the useful role models and/or examples from other regions. Most of them answered also that the activities would not have taken place without the interregional cooperation. The actors involved in the implementation of the Action

http://www.vb.kpzpip.pl/

40


Plans are in general managing authorities, municipalities, research centres and local SME’s. All contact persons were satisfied with the cooperation with the actors involved. Most respondents and interviewees appreciated the engagement of the local network and the partners. However, although the exchange of experiences and the collaboration between different parties worked mostly well, one of the greatest challenges in implementation mentioned, next to financial constraints, was partnership difficulties. In the case studies one of the interviewees mentioned for example that it was hard to attract entrepreneurs. In response to these difficulties most respondents mentioned that it was important to get commitment and support of the relevant bodies (e.g. MA) and that this has not been easy in most cases. Important for a successful implementation is therefore the frequently mentioned tip to “get commitment and support of relevant bodies and stakeholders (e.g. MA)”. Case studies: availability of funds crucial for implementation With the responsible persons of five Action Plans in-depth interviews were held. To ensure a variety the interviews were held both with people who implemented the Action Plan, as well as with those who did not, not yet, or partially implement the Action Plan. What worked well for implementing the action plans was the procurement process, one responsible organisation from beginning to end of the project, good organised local network, the promotion of the project and the engagement of the Managing Authority. The main reasons for not (yet) implementing are financial constraints. Furthermore an obstacle has been that priorities for ERDF have already been established and that therefore not always funding was possible and available. It is recommended to check before and during the development of the Action Plan if funding would be available for its implementation. Furthermore it is recommended to check if similar initiatives are taking place.

41


4 Review of the indicator system

In this chapter the current indicator system is reviewed and ideas are given to improve the whole indicator system of the INTERREG IVC programme. The INTERREG IVC programme is quite active with monitoring the indicators and has clearly indicated what is needed in the Terms of Reference: improve the different interpretations and propose improvements and simplifications in the perspective of the future programme. Therefore we did not only look at the current set of indicators but also take into account the current changes (more towards outcome indicators) that are under discussion for the new programming period. To give relevant feedback to the INTERREG IVC programme on the monitoring system the following activities were undertaken by the evaluators: • Desk research: All the indicators were reviewed: Are the programme and priority level indicators

SMART: are they specific enough, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely? • Interview with JTS: In an interview with the JTS indicators were discussed which are not clear,

which need corrections, and what has already been undertaken by JTS to improve the indicator set.

• Suggestions for improvement and simplification: Suggestions are explored how the programme and priority level indicators can be improved, either in content, number, quantification, or measurement.

4.1 Observations

The following observations have been made by the evaluators: • The INTERREG IVC programme has a clear set of indicators, which is overall rather SMART

(i.e. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely); • There is a good link between indicators and objectives, and also the system is vertically well-

integrated. However, some project-level indicators and programme-level indicators are currently not in the right section in our view.

• Having a good set of indicators which are clearly linked to the objectives allows the programme-management to actively use the indicators. As one of the very few programmes the INTERREG IVC programme is able to use indicators to show the progress of the programme externally (e.g. how many policies improved, good practices transferred).

• The mid-term evaluation showed that ‘at programme level, the initial target values were not realistically estimated for the large majority of output/result indicators’. In this update we found that several targets would have to be adjusted. For example several targets are based on the number of 240 projects estimated in advance, instead of the current number of 204 committed projects. The higher number of estimated projects leads to higher targets, which in turn leads to under-achievement at the end of the 2007-2013 period. We have therefore not only suggested to revise the target but also presented the calculation to use for the future programme.

• In response to the findings of the Mid-term evaluators the INTERREG IVC programme management adopted an explanation in the annex of the OP. We found that the explanations in the annex are overall quite good, but some improvements are still possible, especially by indicators that are frequently mentioned as difficult to fill out. We have therefore presented suggestions for improvement.

42


4.2 Recommendations for improvement

Based on the desk research and the interview we have the following overall suggestions for the indicator system: 1. To assist projects in filling out the indicators in a correct way it is suggested to create a

decision tree for indicators that are frequently mentioned as hard to fill out, or from which the explanation causes difficulties. Decision trees (see figure 4.1) have several advantages: 1) they are simple to understand and to interpret; 2) people are able to understand a decision tree with only minor explanation. Hence, the risk for misinterpreting is smaller and the data quality in the monitoring system becomes better.

Figure 4.1 Example of a decision tree

2. Indicate to the projects which indicators are used to monitor the progress of the

programme. This makes the projects aware that these are the ‘backbone’ of the programme. 3. Revise the targets linked with the number of projects accordingly. As there are in total

204 projects approved instead of the foreseen 240, this means that several indicators are less realistic to be achieved (nr. of projects approved, nr. of projects visited, nr. of project reports checked).

4. As in advance the number of projects is not yet known, use in the future programme for the indicators that relate to number of projects the calculation instead of a fixed number. This avoids having to revise the targets linked with the number of projects halfway through the implementation of the programme.

5. Integrate sections 2.4 and 1.2.3 of annex 2 of the Operational Programme into 2.4. Section 1.2.3 is about monitoring the programme and should therefore be placed under section 2. Furthermore it is confusing to have both 1.2.3 since they seem to deal with the same elements. If this is not the case, this should be clarified.

6. Add an explanation in the programme manual for the indicators under section 1.2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of annex 2 of the Operational Programme. Having an explanation to the indicators is very useful as it avoids wrong interpretations of indicators. Furthermore it is recommended to have the explanation of the indicators directly with the indicators, to avoid that applicants have to use several documents, for example by adding the explanation to the progress reports as footnotes.

7. Check which of the performance indicators are actively used for monitoring the implementation of the programme. It is our impression that several indicators can be deleted as they are more or less the same.

How to read the table on the next page The table below shows suggestions for the improvement of the monitoring system. Suggestions are presented per indicator of the monitoring system in the four grey columns on the right side. The first grey column ‘revised target’ suggests the quantitative revision of the target. Ecorys explains the reasoning behind the calculation in the second grey column ‘calculation’. This calculation could also

43


be useful for the next programming period. Suggestions for adjustment of the formulation of the indicators are presented in the third grey column ‘remark formulation’. Other suggestions, which are not target or formulation related, can be found in the last grey column ‘remark overall’.

44


Table 4.1 Indicators to monitor the achievement of the programme objectives Indicator Target


% realised

Revised target

Calculation Remark formulation

1.1. Contribution of projects to programme objectives (Priority 1 and 2) Improvement of regional and local policies : Linked to objectives 1 & 2 of OP: O1. To improve regional and local policies in the field of innovation and the knowledge economy, more specifically focusing on regional capacities for research and technology development, support to entrepreneurship and SMEs, support to business development and innovation initiatives, promotion of the use of ICTs and support to employment, human capital and education. O2. To improve regional and local policies in the field of environment and risk prevention, more specifically focusing on prevention and management of natural and technological risks, water and coastal management, waste prevention and management, biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage, energy efficiency and renewable energies, clean and sustainable public transport, cultural heritage.

Output: No. of regional/local policies and instruments addressed in the sub-themes

750 2,024 270% ++

2,244 Average No. of project partners x No. of projects

Result: No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed in the sub-themes

150 102 68% + 204 (or 408)

1 or 2 x no. of projects

Exchange of experience and improvement of capacities and knowledge of regional and local stakeholders in particular by matching less experienced regions with regions with more experience. Linked to objectives 3 and 4 of OP:

O3. To enable actors at regional & local level from different countries across the EU to exchange their experiences & knowledge. O4. To match regions less experienced in a specific policy field with regions with more experience in that field, with the aim of jointly improving the capacities and knowledge of regional and local stakeholders.

Output: No. of participants in these interregional events 14,000 29,979 214%++ 22,440 Average no. of project partners x No. of projects x 10 participants

It is recommended to either revise the indicator to ‘ No. of people that were in workshops, etc. ‘ or to add in explanation that this does not concern the participants in the dissemination activities but the participants from the partners (and maybe others from the region)

Output: No. partners involved - public authorities - bodies governed by public law

1,400 2,274 162% ++

2,244 Average no. of project partners x no. of projects

Output: % of approved projects where both ‘Objective Convergence’ regions and ‘Objective Competitiveness’ regions are involved in the partnership

80% 99% 124%++ 100% When it is a pre-condition for approval, this should not be an indicator

45



Actual (June’11)

% realised

Revised target


Output: No. of interregional events organised by projects to exchange experience

1,400 1,210 86% + 1,224 6x no. of projects as a minimum

Result: No. of staff members with increased capacity (awareness/knowledge/skills) resulting from the exchange of experience at interregional events

2,800 3,596 128%++ 2,244

Average no. of project partners x no. of projects

It is unclear when staff has increased capacity.

Result: % of partners by legal status (bodies governed by public law)

30% 49% 163%++ As it varies throughout Europe what are bodies governed by public law and as there is already the public authority indicator, this indicator can be deleted

Result % of partners by legal status (public authorities) 70% 51% 73% +

Result: No. of action plans developed by Objective ‘Convergence’ regions further to the lessons learnt from Objective ‘Competitiveness’ regions

150 32 21% - 220 No. of capitalisation projects x average no. of project partners

• From the indicator it is not clear that it is only for the capitalisation projects: include this in the indicator.

• Furthermore, consider using in future this indicator not only for the capitalisation projects but also for the regional initiative projects.

• Produced and signed Action Plans is a better formulation.

Result: No. of new projects/ activities/ approaches resulting from the exchange/ dissemination of experience at interregional events

480 88 18% - 240 No. of projects Rather vague; specify more to give more guidance.

Identification, sharing and transfer of good practices into regional policies in particular EU Structural Funds Mainstream programmes. Linked to objective 5 of OP:

O5. To ensure that the good practices identified within interregional cooperation projects are made available to other regional and local actors and are transferred into regional policies

in particular into EU Structural Funds mainstream programmes.

Output: No. of good practices already identified and made available to regional and local actors involved in Capitalisation, including Fast Track Projects (Type 2)

250 254 101% ++

Better: ‘ no of GP selected for exchange’ (as projects identify in general more GP than they exchange info on). Also in RIPs partners are selecting good practices for exchange, therefore it is recommended that this is not limited to only capitalisation projects.

Result: Amount of mainstream funds (Cohesion/ ERDF/ESF) dedicated to the implementation of good practices coming from Fast Track Projects

€ 625 million

€ 572 million

92% + It is recommended not to limit this to the fast track projects only. It is about the result of the programme, not only of fast track projects.

46



Actual (June’11)

% realised

Revised target


Result: No. of good practices successfully transferred within Regional Initiative Projects (Type 1)

200 110 55% + 204 No of projects Explain better in manual what transfer means.

Result: No. of action plans developed under Fast Track Projects

50 57 114%++ No. of projects x average no. of project partners (when not limited to fast track projects)

It is recommended not to limit this to the fast track projects only. It is about the result of the programme, not only of fast track projects.

Result: Amount of mainstream funds (Cohesion/ ERDF/ESF) dedicated to the implementation of good practices coming from Capitalisation, including Fast Track Projects (Type 2)

€ 1,500 million

€ 573 million

38%- No of action plans x 0.5 mln Euro

Why have 2 indicators for mainstream funds? Better: 1 indicator and not limit it to specific type of projects.

Result: No. of action plans developed under Capitalisation, including Fast Track Projects (Type 2)

150 63 42%+/- No. of projects x average no. of project partners

It is recommended not to limit this to the capitalisation projects only. It is about the result of the programme, not only of capitalisation projects. Have 1 indicator and do not limit it to specific type of projects.

1.1.4 Contribution to horizontal EU policies

Result:% of projects with positive effects on equal opportunities

10% 64% 640% ++

60%

Result: % of projects with positive effects on the environment

60% 84% 140% ++

80%

Table 4.2 Indicators to monitor the implementation of the programme Indicator Target


% realised

Revised target

Calculation Remark / recommendation

1.2. General performance of projects 1.2.1 Management and coordination

Output: Average number of steering committee meetings organised by operations per year

2 2 100% ++

Could be deleted

Result: % of progress reports approved without additional information requested from the JTS

10% 0% 0% -- Always comments are given by JTS. Better delete this indicator

Result: % of deviation between planned and actual ERDF payment requests by LP (“-“ under/ “+” overspending)

-5% -33.4% 668% -- -10% Give an explanation if this is at the end or also during projects. Furthermore theoretically it is strange to already expect an under spending whereas reality shows e.g. 90 % spending for

47



Actual (June’11)

% realised

Revised target


closed projects.

1.2.2 Dissemination

Output: No. of copies of newsletters disseminated 120,000 532,185 443% ++

568500 no of partners x 5 newsletters x disseminated to 50 people per partner

Is a result indicator for communication 50 people is an estimation

Output: No. of copies of brochures disseminated 120,000 306,944 256% ++

341100 No of partners x 2 brochures x disseminated to 75 people per partner

Is a result indicator for communication 75 people is estimation

Output: No. of press releases disseminated 960 2,201 229% ++

Clarify in manual what is considered ‘disseminated’? to give an example: should it be e.g. 1 written, translated in e.g. 5 languages or disseminated to e.g. 20 local and regional newspapers/media

Output: No. of other events participated in (with presentations/stands etc. about the project activities)

1,500 2,034 136% ++

2040 10 x no of projects

Output: No. of dissemination events organised 960 1,086 113% ++

1020 5 x no of projects

Output: No. of brochures (no. of issues created, not no. of copies printed or disseminated)

960 340 35%+/- 408 2 x no of projects

Output: No. of newsletters (no. of issues created, not no. of copies printed or disseminated)

1,920 520 27%- 918 5 (approximately each half year excluding first half year) x no of projects x % of projects having a newsletter

Result: No. of articles/appearances published in the press and in other media

2,400 4,039 168% ++

4548-9096

No of partners x 2-4 articles From the current explanation it is not clear that ‘ own articles’ cannot be counted. It is only indicated that only appearances in external press and media shall be counted (which can still be the result of own articles and not so much press releases.

Result: Estimated no. of participants in events (organised and participated in)

160,000 149,000 93% + 153000 No of other events + no of organised events x 50

This is rather an output indicator

48



Actual (June’11)

% realised

Revised target


Result: Average no. of visits per month on project’s website

500 340 68%+ 612-1020 3-5 visits per month x no of projects The expected and realised target seems rather low.

1.2.3 Thematic programme capitalisation [This section has been added in revised OP Sept2011] Move to 2.4 as it concerns programme level, not project level

Output: No of topic workshops 24 n/a Years x lots

Output: No of annual topic reports 24 n/a Years x lots

Output: No of annual topic publications 24 n/a Years x lots

Output: No of presentations made at other conferences (programme events, EU events)

24 n/a Years x lots

Result: No of thematic policy recommendations resulting from programme capitalisation

24 n/a Explain as this is not clear. It now seems that you expect 1 policy recommendation per capitalisation exercise which is probably not the case.

Result: No of thematic publications downloaded from the programme website

200 n/a

2. Programme management performance (Priority 3) 2.1 Support project generation and provide advice to project applicants

Output: No. of "Individual Consultations" (IC) with applicants

900 1,559 173% ++

Nr of applications x 1 consultation As this concerns the consultations with JTS and not those with NCPs, it is recommended to specify this.

Output: No. of participants in "Individual Consultations" (IC)

1,800 2,661 148% ++

Delete. Not relevant

Result: No. of applications submitted 800 1,357 170% ++

2.2. Ensure the evaluation of applications, prepare the approval decisions and contract approved projects

Output: Average IVC budget of approved projects € 1.58 million

€ 1.8 million

114% ++

It is suggested to use ERDF instead of IVC

Output: % of total ERDF budget committed to projects

94% 103.2% 110% ++

100-105% Projects are in general under spending, so target should be 100% or even a bit higher (As is reality)

Output: Total IVC budget of the approved projects € 380 million

€ 402.3 million

106% ++

Could be deleted as is almost same as previous indicator

Output: Total ERDF budget of approved projects € 302 million

€ 311.6 million

103% ++

Could be deleted as is same as previous indicator

49



Actual (June’11)

% realised

Revised target


Output: No. of applications approved and contracted

240 204 85% + ERDF budget / average budget

Result:% of approved applications compared with submitted applications (success rate)

40% 15% 37% +/- No of proposals approved / no of applications submitted

The original target of 40% has a mistake: this target does not match the target of the indicators 800 applications submitted and 240 proposals approved (240/800=30% and not 40%).

2.3 Ensure monitoring/advice to running projects

Output: Average time span between the submission of a progress report and the first response by the JTS in number of days

30 37 123% +/-

Output: No of project reports checked 1,200 331 28% - 1,224 No. of projects x 3 x 2

Output: No of project visits, participation to project events by MA/JTS

240 46 19% - 204 No. of projects JTS visits final conferences so this will increase.

Output: Total ERDF paid out to projects € 286 million

€ 53.3 million

19% - Delete this indicator as it is almost the same as the next indicator.

Output: % of total ERDF budget of approved projects paid out to projects

95% 17.1% 18% -

Result: % of successful implemented projects (achievement of indicated output/result indicators and budget spending) compared with approved projects

90% 78.6% 87% + This indicator covers several indicators. As budget is already covered by other indicators it is suggested to revise the indicator towards: % of projects successfully implemented (at least 90% of output and result indicators achieved) As reality is that not all indicators are in general fully achieved, nor all budget is spent, maybe best to use 90% of indicators/budget.

Result: Amount of ERDF decommitted € 16 million

€ 0 million

++ € 0 million Theoretically the target should be 0. This indicator can be deleted as next indicator already covers this.

Result: % of total ERDF decommitted (rate of decommitment)

5% 0% ++

2.4 Ensure capitalisation of projects’ results for both types of intervention; Add explanation to indicators in the manual. At this moment it is not clear what these indicators are covering if these indicators cover the capitalisation mentioned under

50



Actual (June’11)

% realised

Revised target


1.2.3 it should be integrated. If it concerns activities by projects it should be under 1.2.3

Output: Number of approved projects working on similar themes identified and capitalisation activities requested

10 39 390% ++

Not clear and contains basically 2 indicators

Output: Number of capitalisation events organised 10 5 50% + Which events are this?

Output: Number of projects’ good practice guides available on the programme’s web site

240 1 0.42% -- 204 No. of projects Is it expected that each project has a good practice guide? Otherwise adapt the calculation.

Result: Average number of downloads of each good practice guide available on the programme’s web site

40 228 570% ++

Does this mean that this 1 good practice guide has been downloaded 228 times?

Result: Number of participants in capitalisation events organised

1000 350 35% +/-

2.5 Organise meetings and events for applicants, partners, auditors, experts, Member States and other bodies to inform them about the programme, to discuss specific aspects of its implementation, disseminate and capitalise on projects’ Results

Output: Estimated no. of participants in events participated in

5,000 15,981 320% ++

Indicator is deleted in revised OP’11. Which events are these? Add explanation

Output: No. of other events participated in (with presentations/ stands etc. about the programme activities)

50 148 296% ++

Add explanation. Events participated by the JTS or by the projects (in which case there is overlap with another indicator)?

Output: No. of brochures (no of issues created, not no of copies printed or disseminated)

4 10 250% ++

Output: No. of events organised 80 56 70% +

Output: No. of newsletters (no. of issues created, not no. of copies printed or disseminated)

34 5 15% - 14-28 Years x 2-4 newsletters

Result: No. of copies of brochures disseminated 10,000 44,520 445% ++

Result: Average no. of visits per month on the programme website

10,000 35,632 356% ++

Result: No. of copies of newsletters disseminated 10,000 12,935 129% ++

Result: Estimated no. of participants in events organised

5,500 6,785 123% ++

This is same indicator as first indicator under 2.5 but there are different numbers. What is the difference?

Result: No. of press releases on programme 20 15 75% +

51



Actual (June’11)

% realised

Revised target


activities disseminated

Result: No. of articles/appearances published in the press and in other media

20 Was added in revised OP’11

2.6 Ensure the reporting to the Member States and the European Commission.

Output: No of Monitoring Committee meetings 15 10 67% + 18

Result: Average no. of visits per month on the programme intranet site

50 188 376% ++

Why use this as indicator? Can be deleted

* As the programme is on-going a partial rate it is estimated that about 50% of the targets should have been achieved in 2011. Therefore the following ‘scoring’ is used: >100% ++ the achievement is well above the foreseen target 50-99% + the achievement is above the partial rate of 50%; 30-49%+/- the foreseen achievements is a bit behind target; <30% -/-- the foreseen achievement is largely behind target

52


53


5 Efficiency of the management and implementation structure

The objective of this task is ‘to elaborate recommendations of more efficient ways and tools to conduct programmes that cover the whole EU-territory plus Norway and Switzerland’. To this extent we have used the following approach: • Desk research: The efficiency of the programme management was also subject of the MTE.

We will therefore start with the analysis of the findings and recommendations of the MTE, and analyse the effects of the implementation of the recommendations (mainly the task force meetings prior to important MC decisions and group discussion formats).

• Interviews with JTS and MC members: Analysis of the present situation, changes after the MTE, satisfaction rate, problems and solutions. What do monitoring committee members see themselves as solutions?

• Discussion with small group on potential solutions: what would be possible based on the interviews? This was organised around the MC meeting in February 2013.

The interviews have been conducted with MC members from almost all MS and Norway and Switzerland. JTS has provided the names and coordinates. One MS could not be consulted in time due to unavailability in the timeframe of the interviews. The information that comes out of interviews is always a combination of feelings and facts. This has been taken into account as much as possible. It should be acknowledged that the phrasing can never cover all the nuances that are made in the interviews. As the evaluation question covers both the management and the implementation structure of the programme, this is also the structure of reporting (paragraphs 1 and 2). Paragraph 3 deals with ‘procedures to be continued’, whereas paragraph 4 contains the recommendations and consequences. The general structure of each sub-paragraph is ‘description of the state of the art’ and findings from the desk research and interviews’ in Italic.

5.1 Management

The management structure of INTERREG IVC was set up in compliance with the EU Regulations governing Cohesion Policy, which was also confirmed by the programme’s ex-ante, and mid-term evaluations. A single JTS and 4 IPs, as well as various NCPs, were established, while the latter two were meant to ensure the proximity to project promoters and beneficiaries both in geographical and also cultural terms. The NCPs, however, are not paid from the TA-budget. The general perception of the interviewed MC members is that the programme management functions at a very good level given the complexity of the programme and the number of MS. Two-thirds of the interviewees asses the management as good, less than 20% are critical (see figure 3.1) They are especially content with the technical and financial management, and they are very pleased that there is no de-commitment yet. Although most interviewed MC members are content at a general level, there is still some need for improvement. When reading the chapter about the difficulties, possible solutions and consequences, it should be kept in mind that almost everyone spoken in the interviews is generally satisfied.

54


Figure 3.1: Assessment of programme management

Source: Ecorys on basis of the interviews

5.1.1 Working of the Management Authority (MA) The Managing Authority, assisted by the Joint Technical Secretariat, is responsible for managing and implementing the Operational Programme. The Managing Authority, assisted by the Joint Technical Secretariat and in close cooperation with the Monitoring Committee, has also to undertake all necessary actions to avoid automatic de-commitment as far as possible. These include in particular making the necessary arrangements in the subsidy contracts with the Lead Partners. The Managing Authority is the one signing the contract with the Lead Partner on behalf of the programme. During the interviews, the MA was hardly mentioned. The MA is not very visible, but this is not considered being a problem.

5.1.2 Working of the Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) The JTS is responsible for the overall programme implementation, in all its steps: preparing and organising the Monitoring Committee meetings, launching calls for projects, guiding the potential project applicants though communication events and individual consultations, appraising, selecting, monitoring and controlling projects, disseminating programme results and ensuring programme evaluation. The mid-term evaluation pointed out that the JTS-staff is overloaded and could not carry out some project monitoring tasks. Also, the MTE showed that sufficient JTS-staffing is crucial for the on-going implementation of the programme10. In general, the interviewees are happy with the operational management by JTS. However, most of the MC-members also mention that the focus of JTS has been too much on the assessment of applications in the past period. They would have preferred more balanced distribution of the time between project selection and programme content. JTS acknowledges the fact that a lot of its capacity was taken up by project assessment and that the large number of applications was problematic in this sense. But: the general opinion of the MC-members is that JTS is doing a great job given the character of the programme. They are satisfied with the communication and intensive support provided by them. Only a few interviewees are more critical. They are, inter alia, of the opinion that JTS is very bureaucratic, and that their focus is hardly on strategic issues. Also they

10 MTE, 2010, p.45.

55


mentioned that JTS leaves them (= MC members) no room for interpretations other than their own and thus seems to rule the programme, whereas this is the task of the MC.

5.1.3 Working of the Information Points (IPs) The main tasks envisaged for the four IPs at the beginning of the programming period allocated them a role in acting as the first point of contact for potential project partners and in carrying out mainly communication and dissemination and project generation activities under the overall co-ordination of the JTS. In the following years, the IPs also became more involved in project assessment and, later on in monitoring and finally in capitalisation tasks. This “moving IP-mandate” might, therefore, also explain why a few NCPs do not yet have a clear view on what the role of the IPs should be/is11 even though this has been communicated. The midterm evaluation reported that the IPs had been very active and also contributed significantly to the programme’s overall outcome achieved in 2009. This resulted in a clearly positive judgement on the efficient delivery of those activities by the large majority of the responding Lead Partners. The MTE showed also that this sharply contrasted with the clearly less positive perception of the overall IP-performance that became evident from the surveys among MC members and the NCPs: only a little more than one third of the responding MC-members thought that the individual IPs perform their tasks efficiently in the respective geographical area12. The perception of the MC-members did not really change in the two years after the appearance of the MTE. The interviews with the MC members showed that the majority is still of the opinion that IPs perform their tasks not efficiently. They still have the idea that an IP is not active, or at least no direct contact was made with the MC members. They also mention that the IP should be working closer with the beneficiaries while considering the particular needs of the region. This is in line with the conclusions of the MTE. The evaluators from the MTE also concluded the IP has limited knowledge on country- and policy-specific issues and/ or on national languages13. A few MC members mentioned that the role of the IPs should be better described All in all it is obvious that the tasks (and the shift in tasks) of the IP’s are not clear to all MC members and that MC members have different feelings on the functioning of the IP’s. In the MTE, the JTS-staff members interviewed have expressed also a more positive view on the IP-performance. They considered the IPs’ performance as being fully adequate in relation to communication activities, but less convincing in the field of project development and project appraisal. Many of IP-assessments had to be re-assessed at the JTS level due to a lack of coherence or quality. One of the main reasons was that JTS-staff at the time was overloaded and not providing sufficient support and training to the IP-staff14. Since the MTE, improvements have to be noticed in this regard. The overall quality of the IP assessments increased significantly in the fourth call in particular thanks to the learning curve and experiences gained with previous calls. One of the recommendations of the MTE was that the INTERREG IVC programme should further improve the performance of the individual IPs in delivering tasks related to project development, project assessment appraisal and project monitoring15. Since the MTE, more tasks regarding the monitoring of projects were shifted to the IPs, and a series of accompanying measures were implemented in compliance with this MTE recommendation. According to JTS the following activities have been implemented:

11 MTE, 2010, pp.46-47. 12 MTE, 2010, pp.46-47. 13 MTE, 2010, p. 47. 14 MTE, 2010, p.47-48. 15 MTE, 2010, p. 56.

56


• Systematic involvement of the decentralised IPs in JTS meetings through telephone conferences,

• Coaching of the IPs in their new tasks by two JTS officers, • Allowing access of the decentralised IPs to part of the JTS internal network, • Adaptation of the monitoring checklist to the particular situation of the decentralised IPs. The current assessment is that in the current structure it takes significant coordination efforts to ensure that the four information points use unified methods and interpretations as far as possible. Within their possibilities, the JTS regards the individual performance and contribution of the IP staff members to the programme objective as good to excellent. Still, on the different tasks allocated to the IPs, the coordination efforts have their limits and due to the distance the decentralised IPs are not fully operating in the same way. Thus, the JTS cannot always use their contribution in a most efficient way. Therefore, the evaluators recommend that the role and the position of the IP’s should be reconsidered in the future programme.

5.1.4 Working of the National Contact Points (NCPs) Most countries participating in the programme did nominate an NCP (with the exception of Germany and the UK) and a majority of them are involved in activities mostly related to communication, dissemination and, to a more limited extent, in project generation and appraisal. The MTE pointed out that the volume of their tasks varies greatly from country to country, also the motivation and involvement of the NCPs varies, probably due to the fact that their activity is not financially supported by the programme as such16. According to the MTE the overall performance of the NCPs is largely positive. This is confirmed in the interviews with MC members. Most of the MC members advocate a stronger role for the NCPs. The MTE showed that NCPs could, indeed, play a stronger role in the communication and dissemination of the programme toward the respective target groups. Some of the interviewees mentioned that after the MTE there was some improvement in relation to more regional communication coming from the NCP. However, most MC members said not to notice a difference in communication after the appearance of the MTE in 2010. In the MTE was indicated that according to the JTS and the IPs, the NCPs could also play an important role in the project development phase and enhance, in this way, the quality of the applications17. The applications in the previous calls were on average of low quality. NCP’s can assist in improving the quality of applications to an acceptable level. A higher quality of applications is needed because of the low quality of a majority of applications. One frequently mentioned grief in the interviews was the low quality of the applications and the high number of rejections. Furthermore, around 25% of members of the MC spoken to in the interviews, advocate a stronger role for the NCPs in the project development phase. However, this should also imply that NCP’s be financed from the TA-budget. Some MC-members are, therefore, in favour of closing the IP’s and moving some of its tasks to NCP’s. This, however, requires further discussion.

16 MTE, 2010, p.50. 17 MTE, 2010, p. 51.

57


5.2 Implementation: Programme-internal decision-making

The present section evaluates the strategic decision-making process within the programme Monitoring Committee (MC).

5.2.1 Working of the Monitoring Committee (MC) The mission of the Monitoring Committee is to ensure the effectiveness and quality of the programme implementation and to make the necessary decisions in relation to the eligibility and selection criteria, the approval of operations and to aspects concerning monitoring and evaluation. The Monitoring Committee is led by a Chair (representative of the country holding the EU presidency), supported by a Vice-chair (representative of the country which will hold the EU presidency in the future 6-month cycle). The programme Troika is formed by the Chair and the Vice-chair together with the previous Chair. In order to include also the interests of the regions, the Monitoring Committee is composed of up to three representatives per country (EU 27, Norway, Switzerland) although each country has only one vote. Further on, the representatives of the European Commission, Committee of the Regions (CoR), Managing Authority, Joint Technical Secretariat and, where necessary, the Certifying Authority and the Audit Authority are also taking part in MC meetings, in an advisory capacity. The JTS more specifically assists and supports the MA, MC and troika in carrying out tasks mainly through making proposals on issues related to programme implementation. Preparation of the MC The meetings of the MC are prepared by JTS in consultation with the Chair. They are responsible for sending out all documents and agenda-setting. Some of the members interviewed for the update of the MTE (2012) mentioned that they did not receive the documents on time to consult the regions or the relevant stakeholders, even though JTS claims to have sent them in time. Furthermore, a considerable number of MC members mentioned that the agenda is too tight. Their perception is that there is too little time for discussion. Size of the MC and taskforce meetings When fully present, the MC can gather up to 100 persons. This considerable number of participants creates challenges. The MTE mentioned already that due to the large size, not everyone can be given sufficient time for extensively presenting his/her views on the topic discussed18. Because of these constraints in time, and to give follow up to the MTE recommendation, task force meetings were initiated in preparation of the MC/PC meetings. In the period after the MTE these task force meetings were initiated in preparation of the MC meetings. Almost all of the MC members indicated that the meetings of the MC are still challenging because of the large group. However, the MC members consider in general the task force meetings really helpful. These small groups are efficient in a way that they get a more thorough overview of the situation. Consensus can more easily be reached by interaction and discussion with other countries and the management structures. Although the task force meetings are a success according to most MC members, some of the MC members are not participating, either on a principal basis or due to financial constraints. This causes frustration with the participating MC members, because of the discussions that still occur in the MC meetings while they already had a consensus in the task force meeting. There is a clear

18 MTE, 2010, p. 71.

58


tension between the efficiency in the task forces and the commitment by the MC as a whole on the results of the task forces. Some of the interviewed MC members had the idea that smaller groups could also be helpful for other particular issues, some others indicated that they would like to have an experienced professional moderator and/or chair to lead in the discussions in the MC meetings. Decision making According to the MC members interviewed, the idea beyond the programme is that the Member States should be ‘making the programme’. However, a considerably large number of MC members mentioned that they have the feeling that they have no real voice in decision making. This feeling is reinforced by the presentations given by the JTS during the meetings that, according to the interviewees, take too long and leave no room for discussion afterwards. Due to the large group, meetings only twice a year and frustrations about the feeling that they have no influence in directing the programme, most MC members agree that there is ‘lack of ownership’ (see figure 3.2). They advocate that in the next programme every Member States’ opinion should count (as it is in principle the case). Some of the interviewees, however, are of the opinion that the ‘lack of ownership’ could also be a fault of the Member States themselves. They mentioned that some of the Member States have a rather reactive role, instead of being more pro-active in the process. A condition is, however, that the role of the JTS should be a more facilitating one, instead of the leading and directing one as it currently is. Several interviewees point out that a few MC members are often very dominant in discussions, and not always in a constructive way. This influences the atmosphere in a negative way. Figure 3.2: Lack of ownership

Source: Ecorys on basis of the interviews

Last but not least quite a few MC members raise the issue of ‘getting to know each other’. Cultural differences exist, but can be overcome by introducing some more informal moments during MC meetings. Better understanding will lead to easier decision making.

5.3 Procedures to be continued in the future

Some of the practices of the programme are frequently mentioned as successful, helpful or/and useful. The three most mentioned themes by the MC members in interviews that should be continued in the future are:

59


(1) EU-wide coverage The coverage of the programme, EU-wide and Norway and Switzerland is according to the interviewees a practice that should be continued. (2) Good reporting templates The MC members interviewed indicated that they were really satisfied with the progress report templates. They praised the fact that INTERREG IVC have managed to produce templates clear enough and easy to follow and fill in for the applicants. They mentioned the good reporting templates as a real practice that should be continued in the future as well. (3) Task force meetings A large number of interviewees mentioned the task force meetings in preparation of the MC/PC meetings as an improvement during the programme, especially for the interaction between Member Countries and the management structures. A critical remark was made that some of the countries cannot participate at the meetings at this moment because of financial or other constraints. The Troika-meetings are very useful as well.

5.4 Recommendations and consequences

The present section attempts to give some directions for improvement of the current programme, but certainly also for the coming programming period.

5.4.1 Recommendations on management issues As the MTE pointed out, the entire system is currently operating at its upper capacity limits, but only limited potentials do exist for substantially improving this situation during the period 2007-201319. However, for the coming programme some decisions should be made about the management structure. In this section, some of the key issues are discussed mainly for the period 2014-onwards. (1) Consider the outsourcing of tasks from JTS to NCPs The general opinion of the interviewed MC members about the overall performance of the JTS is positive: it is efficient. However, during the assessment of the applications the JTS was understaffed. They had no time to properly instruct the IPs on their tasks or to properly answer the questions from the Member States20. To prevent this problem of understaffing of JTS and frustration in other bodies in the coming period some more tasks could be outsourced to other bodies, for example, to the NCPs. Most interviewed MC members see a ground for a shift in responsibilities to the already existing bodies. In the MTE, it was already researched which tasks could preferably be done by others. The NCPs could help for instance with the first level control and the partner eligibility check, if they have the capacity to do so21. We (as evaluators) are of the opinion that this shift of responsibilities could be an improvement for at least two reasons. The first is that JTS has more time to deal with the programme content or to properly answer the questions from the Member States. The second is that a considerable number of Member States is of the opinion that there should be more responsibilities on a more regional level in order to recognize regional differences. By shifting the responsibilities, both issues can be tackled.

19 MTE, 2010, p. 54. 20 MTE, 2010, p. 51. 21 MTE, 2010, p. 51.

60


The MTE showed that the NCP could play an important role as well in project generation, as in the communication. We support this finding. With project generation and a first feedback on ideas at the ‘front door’ of the programme, could prevent low quality applications find their way to Lille. The MTE suggested that the Member States and the JTS should therefore explore on which issues a more intensive and also complementary role could be allocated to existing NCPs in communication and dissemination activities22. We agree with the suggestion of the MTE as well for the remaining period, as well for the coming programme period. (2) Consider to remove the Information points (IPs) from the structure or change tasks of IP’s The MTE showed that at the beginning the staff for the IPs was inexperienced and needed coordination and guidance from the already understaffed JTS23. The MTE recommended that: “further improvements should be made [...] during the remaining time of the programming period in order to improve the overall performance of the IPs”24. The recent interviews showed however, that the tasks of the IPs are still rather vague for the Member States. Furthermore, JTS mentioned that despite the coordination efforts there are limits to fully use of the high potential of the qualified and committed staff members in the IPs. In our view tasks of the IPs could be taken up by either JTS (monitoring and project selection) or MS/NCP’s (information, communication, dissemination, and first round project generation feedback), the latter being also closer to the applicants. The NCPs could thus provide the information to the applicants and with good guidance and budget the NCPs could have a stronger role in the application process, also in combination with the above-mentioned shift in responsibilities. For the Member States this means that they got more responsibilities on the national level, which could also partly tackle the issue ‘lack of ownership’. However, most important is that all tasks are done in the most effective and the most efficient way. In principle, therefore, it is also an option to reconsider the division of tasks over the respective bodies, other than just to remove one of the bodies. This is an item for further discussion in the MC. Consequences of the shift in tasks to the national level The decision to shift more tasks to the national level has consequences for both the TA budget and the structure of the management of the programme. The NCPs are currently not included in the budget of the programme as such. A shift of financial resources of the TA-budget should take place from the JTS to the NCPs in order to support them financially in their new responsibilities and to ensure that NCPs will have sufficient time and quality knowledge to perform their task. However, we agree that this would be a real challenge, because the TA-budget for JTS is already under pressure. By removing the IPs from the structure there should also be a shift in TA budget from the centralised to the more decentralised level. Another point to keep in mind is, when the management structure changes in this way the programme becomes more decentralised than the current more centralised structure. The desirability of this shift is a discussion that should be conducted before the Operational Programme (OP) of the next programme is finalised.

5.4.2 Improvement of the decision making process: recommendations In order to generate ideas and suggestions for the improvement of the decision making process, a task force meeting/workshop was organised 26 February 2013in Brussels. The workshop was attended by participants from 14 MS, Norway and Switzerland. The MA, JTS and Interact were

22 MTE, 2010, p.55. 23 MTE, 2010, p. 46. 24 MTE, 2010, p. 55.

61


observers. The workshop was a combination of brainstorming/creative thinking, ranking of ideas and discussion. Three topics were selected to discuss: • Improvement of the process of decision making (roles, tasks, timing etc.) • Improvement of the procedures of decision making (‘rules and rituals’) • Introducing social elements. During the workshop some 65 ideas and suggestions for all topics together were generated. The long-list with all ideas can be found in Annex D These ideas were ranked by the participants, including ranking of the topics themselves. The participants gave the following ranking for the topics: 1. Social elements 2. Process 3. Procedures The differences were, however, small. The ideas were ranked per topic. In the section below we will focus on the ideas with the highest scores per topic. Suggestions on improvement of the process of decision making Figure 5.1 Improvement of the process of decision making

Source: Ecorys on basis of workshop (pink are the most important suggestions, blue are further suggestions)

With respect to the smaller working groups there is a clear preference to have (preparatory) discussions in smaller groups (like the task forces) on specific, sometimes tricky issues. This also presents a better opportunity to engage everybody in one or other group. The issues can be decided in MC meetings, and those interested can put their name forward. For efficiency sake the working groups should meet directly before or after MC meetings. But of course each group can decide on its working methods individually, for instance using video-conferencing or such. The process of project generation and selection led to most discussion, notably on the question ‘how’? There was common agreement on 2 approaches: the necessity for more strategic (from a programme point of view) calls and thus better defined ToR’s, and the merits of a two-stage approach.

62


An example: the South East Europe Programme

In the South East Europe, which is also receiving similar amounts of applications (eg 822 Expressions of

interest in 1st call for proposals) has used several approaches. They have had both the 1-step and the 2-

step approach. In the 2-step approach applicants submitted a 5p expression of interest (EoI). On basis of

this proposal a limited number of applicants are invited to submit a full proposal. Advantage is that the less

applicants have to prepare a full proposal and only the best EoI are invited to prepare a full proposal.

Disadvantage has been that some full proposals were in the end disappointing and not of good quality. As

for the duration of the selection process (about 1 year) this seems not to be shorter. As for resources

needed from the JTS for the assessment, it seems that this does not make a huge difference but this will be

investigated by the evaluators of the South East Europe programme.

Furthermore the South East Europe programme has also applied thematic tenders in which there was a

combination of both bottom-up and top-down approach. Key actors were involved in drafting the Terms of

References of the call. This ensured that key actors are really involved and that there is an enhanced

coherence in the definition of the projects and the coverage of the needs and expectations of the

programme. However, disadvantage was the possible exclusion of other projects with a strategic potential

and a possible bias in the project definition due to the pre-establishment of the needs of the territory.

However, overall the experience has been positive and a combination of ‘open’ and more strategic calls

seems to work well.

The other high-scoring recommendations focus more on the process during the MC meetings: bringing in professional moderators for certain complex and/or sensitive discussions. This has already been introduced in the MC meeting in Larnaca, with Interact moderating one of the sessions. A further recommendation addresses the discussions: it is recommended that discussion forms are used which will enable all/more MS to be involved in discussions and not, as some MS observed in the interviews, let the meetings be dominated by the same few countries and sometimes in a rather negative way. Splitting in smaller groups during the MC to discuss issues, and ensuring that the chair is able to steer the discussion enabling more MS to participate. Adjusting the decision making threshold (different thresholds for different topics) can also improve the efficiency. If for some topics a 2/3-majority instead of 3/4 or unanimity can be applied, it can speed up the process. Suggestions on improvement of the procedures of decision making Figure 5.2 Improvement of the procedures of decision making


It is generally felt that MS should, in some cases, have more time to prepare their opinion and/or to discuss their position with other MS before coming to a decision or a vote. Therefore it is recommended to provide more time and instruments in the decision making process. This can be through allowing for time-outs during MC meetings, in which MS can prepare their stand and/or discuss with other MS. Another option is to organise an online platform for discussion between MS (especially in between MC meetings or just before MC meetings). A related recommendation is to allow for MS to communicate their opinion on complex matters beforehand or that MS can influence

63


the agenda beforehand. This means that the preparation of MC meetings will have start earlier than now by around two weeks. Other suggestions relate to discussing relevant studies and publications with the MS (not necessarily in a MC meeting) before they are published. This is important as it will increase the awareness of the products of the programme, and thus the feeling of ownership. Also with respect to the procedure the involvement of the MS in the project-development and project-selection is raised as an issue. For this we refer to the recommendation under ‘process’. Lastly an important issue to raise ownership is to give MC members ownership of topics. Suggestions on social elements to improve decision making and ownership Figure 5.3 Introducing social elements


The topic of introducing (more) social elements in the MC meetings received most votes in the ranking. ‘Getting to know each other better’ is widely felt as a major challenge. Or, as it was stated, it is about building trust, create ownership as a group, integration of new-comers, and all this against low costs. The recommendations are mostly about ‘doing other things together’: cultural pre-diner visits e.g. local walks, visiting museums, site visits (learning about the region or city, possibly to be combined with an INTERREG VC project), cooking a diner together instead of only consuming it, add activities to the diner like dancing etc. Another suggestion is to hold the meetings in public venues instead of in hotels, and have more rotation of the venues, to allow for site – or project visits, small presentations of the countries themselves, etc. Enabling more ‘content’ elements on how countries are operating or dealing with projects will most probably also increase the ownership as the MC meetings will not only be technical meetings to take the needed decisions but also increase the knowledge of effectiveness and efficiency of regional policy throughout Europe. For example the MC meetings could be combined with visiting actual projects. This will be more lively than having another presentation (even if the JTS is having nice interactive formats to present the projects). It is suggested that the implementation of the social program should be with the troika rather than JTS.

5.4.3 Costs/resources The recommendations as presented above, for all three topics, are all relatively low-cost and not very time-consuming. Some recommendations, like the ones on procedures, will require some careful planning, but will not necessarily take extra time from JTS or MS.

64


65

6 Updating SWOT current programme

The objective of this chapter is to deepen the draft SWOT-analysis (as presented in the Proposal for the strategic orientation of the future interregional cooperation programme, 01 June 2012) of the current programme to feed into the discussion of the preparation of a future programme. In our approach, we have taken the draft SWOT analysis and structured it into three main categories: • context • content • management We have also made a clear division between strengths and weaknesses, on the one hand, based on the current situation of the programme and which are considered to be mainly internal issues of the programme. On the other hand, opportunities and threats are more about the future development of the programme and are more related with external forces and developments of the programme. Hence, we have updated the SWOT in terms of content and context by applying the literature review (see footnotes), a clear overview of the INTERREG IVC programme objectives and its performance. In addition, with respect to the management part of the SWOT, we also used the information collected during the interviews with the members of the monitoring committee (task 2.3). As was requested, the analysis focuses on the current programme. New options, such as the 11 themes from Europe 2020, are thus not incorporated as it is not relevant for the current programme. For the future 2014-2020 programme, a new SWOT will have to be developed. The SWOT in this report can be considered as input for the new SWOT, but not as its first draft.

6.1 SWOT-analysis

The SWOT-analysis is presented in the table below. The issues/topics are underlined and are explained in the text below these headings.

Strengths Weaknesses

Context:

- The programme addresses the current situation in the

EU

The programme addresses the current situation in the

EU and focuses on very relevant EU-wide topics, like

SMEs. The INTERREG IVC programme approved a

significant number of projects (38%) under the Priority’s

1 sub-theme entrepreneurship and SMEs. This was also

reflected by a significant commitment of ERDF funding

(40% of all the ERDF funding for Priority 1) directed

towards the development of entrepreneurship and

SMEs. SMEs play an important role in the EU economy

as SMEs represent approximately 99% of all European

businesses.

- Objectives are in line with the current development of

Context:

- Uneven spread of knowledge

The high- tech manufacturing and knowledge –

intensive services are not well scattered around the

EU territory, in particular SMEs involved in these

industries are contained in the better performing

countries, which makes it harder to spread the

knowledge across different regions. For example,

Germany contains the largest number of SMEs in

high-tech manufacturing while Italy, the UK and

France contain to the largest number of knowledge-

intensive services. Thus, it is clear that there is uneven

spread of knowledge between the EU countries, which

creates drawback for two-sided knowledge spread

also in the interregional cooperation programme.

the EU Member States

During current years there has been a clear

convergence of the EU12 (considering the MS that

joined in 2004 and 2007) to the EU15 in terms of SMEs

performance, mainly the number of enterprises,

employment, value added. Given these indicators the

EU12 and the EU15 tend to follow a relatively similar

growth pattern from 2010 onwards25. Hence, it is clear

that programme’s objectives are in line with the current

development of the EU member states.

- Objectives are in line with the EU labour market

In 2011, the gender gap in terms of woman and man

participation in the labour market has narrowed, but

there is still a lot to do, especially in the financial and

economic crisis environment26. It is important to note

that the programmes objectives are in line with the

current situation in the EU’s labour market. The IVC

managed to cover 16% of projects in the Priority 1 sub-

theme employment, human capital and education.

- Horizontal approach towards EU Cohesion Policy

The fact that currently all themes of cohesion policy can

be addressed by the programme seems appropriate to

the main programme objective to foster exchange of

knowledge and good practices for the sake to improve

effectiveness and efficiency of EU-Cohesion Policy and

has proven to respond to a demand (there have been

projects in all fields).

- Focus on sustainable environment

The EU countries made a major improvement in

achieving Kyoto Protocol targets. The EU countries

managed to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses

on average by 2.5 % in a short period following form

2010 to 2011. Furthermore, there is a significant

improvement in air pollutant emission in the EU. The

reduction in greenhouse gases emission mainly

occurred in the northern and western parts of the EU

(e.g. by 8% in Belgium, Finland and Denmark, 6% in the

UK).27 Despite the significant improvement in the EU,

there is still a lot to do as not all the countries managed

to meet the environmental targets. Energy and

sustainability is one of the programmes objectives that

received the highest number of the approved projects.

Content: - Level of results already achieved

- Less focus on water management

In many parts of the EU water resources are under

threat, which is calling the EU to use water more

efficiently. In turn, the inefficient water use across the

EU leads to a higher energy use in order to subtract

water. Given the current situation of the water

management in the EU, the programme should draw

more attention to projects that are involved in

increasing the efficiency of water management. In

INTERREG IVC, only 9% of all approved projects are

targeting water management.

Content:

- Vague character of the programme’s situation

analysis

Due to the programme’s characteristics and in

particular its EU wide coverage, the analysis and the

territorial vision provided in chapter 3 of the

Operational Programme remains very broad. This

analysis could not be really used for drafting the calls

for proposals and for projects selection, which relied

exclusively on the information provided in the

application form.

- Inadequate targets for indicators

A lot of indicators targets evaluated in the section 2 of

this report have been identified as being too low for

what is actually achievable. Hence, the foreseen

targets should be revised.

- Difficulty to show tangible results

Partly because of a lack of adequate indicators and

targets (see above), but also partly because of timing

(results take some time to materialise) the programme

has difficulties to show tangible results, especially for

the capitalization projects.

-Difficulties in establishing appropriate and balanced

partnerships

The high heterogeneity of the programme content and

the resulting high number of potential partners

throughout Europe sometimes hampers project

developers to identify the most appropriate partners

that would suit best into the partnership in terms of

relevant competences and desired cooperation

intensity. The same dilemma occurs in the assessment

and validation of partnerships through the programme

25 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/annual_growth_survey_en.pdf 26 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Labour_market_participation_by_sex_and_age 27 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-2011

67

As reflected in the qualitative analysis of the 2011

Annual Report to the EC (see chapter 3.1.2), the results

achieved by the running projects are more and more

impressive. It is now very likely that, at the end of the

programming period, the programme will achieve most

of its initial objectives (on the technical project part) as

stipulated in the Operational Programme (in particular

with regard to the target value indicated in Annex 2).

- Variety of the IVC ‘content’

The largely bottom-up approach of the programme

allowing different types of actors to be involved has

contributed to the richness of the programme’s content.

- Integrated and harmonised system

INTERREG IVC is one of the rare ETC programmes to

be based on a coherent intervention logic with a fully

integrated monitoring system applying to all projects.

This allows a rather elaborated consolidation of the

project results as demonstrated in the qualitative

analysis of the EC Annual Report.

- Wide geographical coverage

- All Member States plus Norway and Switzerland are

represented in the 204 projects

- 90% of EU NUTS 2 are now covered

- Furthermore, during the 4th call for proposals

INTERREG IVC managed to incorporate an additional

15 NUTS 2 regions.

- Good mix of less advanced and more advanced

regions

-Good participation of the 12 most recent Member

States representing 30.7% of all the partners involved

(considering that these 12 States represent 20.5% of the

EU 27 population)

-All projects (except PADIMA) include both objective

Convergence and objective Competitiveness regions

- Improved popularity and EU visibility

Compared with the previous programming period, the

programme is now well known throughout Europe. It

seems also to be more visible at the EC level thanks in

particular to the Fast Track projects.

- Spill over between two priorities

The INTERREG IVC Priority 1 and Priority 2 are tightly

connected to each other and both deliver positive spill

overs on each other and on the EU market. For

example, projects in Priority 1 sub-theme ‘Innovation,

structures.

- Absence of thematic capitalisation at programme

level in the initial Operational programme

At the start of the programme, no mechanism was

planned to ensure a coherent exploitation and

consolidation of project results by theme (this is now

tackled though the launch of a new capitalisation

exercise in 2012).

- High number of poor quality applications

Out of 1,357 applications submitted (about 14000

applying partners), only 204 (15%) were finally

approved. And out of 1,100 eligible applications, 485

(44%) were scored below an average score of 2.50.

This means that a significant part of the programme’s

resources were dedicated to the assessment of

unsuccessful applications. This has inevitably

impacted the overall implementation of the programme

(e.g. less time dedicated to the monitoring of running

projects) and the analysis of programme results. Moreover, it has led to a high degree of frustration

among project applicants and has also hampered the

strategic decision -making of the Monitoring

Committee.

Management:

- Limits of the monitoring system

Despite the quality of this system, it shares the general

weaknesses of monitoring with most other EU-SF-

programme related Systems: still it does not allow

having an exhaustive picture of the results achieved by

the projects for two main reasons:

-The system can only partly catch the spin-off

activities and ‘social capital’ generated from the

exchange of experience (see also Annual Report to

the EC).

- The evaluation of project results stops at the end of

the programme’s funding although part of the results

often occurs after the exchange of experience has

taken place.

- External communication

With respect to the information and/or communication

with some external, but strategic stakeholder groups

(i.e. EU-institutions EU wide associations representing

local and regional authorities), it was considered to be

weak in the MTE28. After the MTE, some revisions in

the tasks of the IPs were made. The interviewees

mentioned that the communication was improved

herewith. 28 MTE, 2010, p.62

research & technological development’ should lead to a

development of more environment-friendly technologies.

In addition, this sub-theme was clearly emphasised in

the 4th call as the majority of the projects where

approved from this sub-theme.

Management:

- Monitoring procedures are good

Monitoring process is good also taking into account the

adjustment made in 2011. The programme took a major

step by further simplifying and streamlining the reporting

of projects. The previous standard report using an excel

file format was replaced by direct on-line reporting into

the programme database.

- Task force meetings are helpful

The task force meetings in preparation of the MC/PC

meetings are really helpful according to the MC-

members. They are efficient in a way that they get a

more thorough overview of the situation so that

consensus can more easily be reached by interaction

and discussion with other countries and the

management structures.

- JTS is good in technical/operational and financial

management

The general opinion of the MC-members (according to

tasks 2.3) is that they are very happy with the

operational and financial management of JTS.

- ‘Lack of ownership’

When in the MC the perception exists that JTS/EC

rules the programme, whereas this is the task of the

MC, this causes ‘lack of ownership’ of the programme.

- Decision making process

The size of the MC, combined with the attitude of

some of members, and the way on which decisions

are made are causing frustration. Decision-making is,

therefore, a real challenge in the programme.

Opportunities Threats

Context:

- Enlargement of the EU: more partners

After the 2004 EU enlargement to 10 new Member

States (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia), the

2007 EU enlargement to Bulgaria and Romania has

been a chance for INTERREG IVC to enrich and

broaden the exchange of experience. As a result, 174

partners (7.6% of all partners) from both countries are

now involved in the INTERREG IVC projects.

Furthermore, Croatia will join the EU in 2013.

- Information society/Digital Agenda

In the INTERREG IVC programme a reasonable number

approximately 18% of projects were approved in order

to stimulate information society in the EU. The EU is

currently engaged in the Digital Agenda for Europe

strategy, which aims to increase the use of ICTs in the

EU. This strategy focus on addressing future challenges

such as an ageing population, climate change, reducing

energy consumption, improving transportation efficiency

Context:

- Unbalanced demand in geographical terms

38% of the applicants (5,208 out of 13,728) come only

from three countries: IT, ES, EL (considering that

these 3 countries represent 23% of the EU 27

population).

- Lack of financial commitment by some co-financing

authorities

- The financial crisis has a negative impact on the

capacity of regional and local authorities to be involved

in interregional cooperation as some would rather

easily omit participation in IVC projects in case of

budgetary pressure. Drop out of partners, however,

always threatens the success of projects and are

counterproductive to the required necessary effort of

these regions to improve their capacities in the

successful implementation of Cohesion Policies in

their regions.

- Differences in recovering from the financial crisis

between Member States remain significant, with

69

and mobility, improving health services and deliver

better public services, which could be overcome with

getting the most out of digital technologies29.

- The EU’s infrastructure: still a lot to do

The EU committed to investing €50bn in the

infrastructure, in particular €31.7bn to improve its

transport links, €9.1bn in connecting energy grids and

€9.2bn in supporting high-speed digital networks. 30

With this contribution the EU hopes to boost further

public and private services financing to help develop

such projects. There is still a lot to do in relation to the

necessary improvements in the EU and in is important

that the INTERREG IVC programme is in line with other

projects that the European Commission is involved.

- Sustainable transport

Green technology offers European companies a huge

commercial opportunity. Cutting emissions means

investing in technology, but Europe is lagging behind its

competitors. The environmental technologies market is

growing rapidly, for example Japanese manufacturers

are leading the field for hybrid cars. Thus, it is important

to for the future of the programme to have its objectives

link also to the external development.

- Increased internationalisation

The interdependence between Regions and actors in

Europe has further increased in the recent years. This

speaks in favour of pan-European interregional

cooperation.

- Single market act

The EC initiative, which was taken by adopting the

Single Market Act in order to boost the European

economy and create jobs. This initiative is also seen as

a way that would contribute to the Member states

recovery from the financial crisis. In addition, it might

also work as an encouragement to more actively

participate in the interregional cooperation.

Management:

- Article 37.6.b of the general regulation

Even if the use of this article has been very limited, its

introduction in the 2007-2013 regulation was an

opportunity to raise awareness of the ‘mainstream’

Managing Authorities on the opportunities offered by

interregional cooperation.

around half the Member States experiencing some

economic growth and the other half either in

stagnation or seeing a decline in the first quarter of

2012. In addition, countries that experience the

double-dip recession are also weakening the better

performing Member States.

- Uneven development

Even though on average waste generation is reducing

in the EU, there improvement in it is not equally spread

between the EU countries. Some countries have

reduced waste generation, in particularly France,

Sweden, Romania and Poland while still in many MS

waste generation is still increasing. Furthermore, there

are also differences in recycling rates in the EU31.

Management:

- Lack of readiness of some ‘mainstream’ stakeholders

to get involved in interregional cooperation

For several reasons, Managing Authorities and other

actors of objectives Convergence and

Competitiveness programmes are usually often

reluctant to get involved in interregional cooperation

mainly due to a lack of time and awareness of the

possible benefits. This partly explains why only less

than 10% of the approved projects are Capitalisation

Projects.

- Unbalanced partnerships in terms of programme

benefits

There seems to be a notion amongst several regions

that the flow of information of good practices currently

is rather a “one-way-bridge”, especially from more

developed regions towards less developed ones. In

the long term, this would threaten the willingness to

participate in the programme for some regions.

- Administrative restructuring

Administrative restructuring at the national level can

have negative effects on the projects (e.g. closing of

Regional Development Agencies in UK, regional

reform in Greece and Hungary).

- Size of MC

With Croatia joining the EU, the size of the MC will

further increase.

29 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-10-200_en.htm 30 http://ec.europa.eu/news/energy/111019_en.htm 31 http://www.euractiv.com/sustainability/waste-recycling-eu-better-news-501444

- Interest of certain ‘mainstream’ Managing Authorities

for interregional cooperation

The fact that more than 200 regions (i.e. 10

Capitalisation Projects with an average of 10 regions

involved) were involved in a totally new type of project

can be considered as encouraging for the future.

Similarly, a significant number of Regional Initiative

Projects address Structural Funds programmes in their

cooperation (e.g. SURF Nature, CREA.RE, ONE). The

first successes achieved by the Capitalisation Projects

also demonstrate the added-value of interregional

cooperation for ‘mainstream’ Managing Authorities.


The present section gives the conclusions and recommendations following from the SWOT presented in the section before. The structure of this section equals the structure of the SWOT and consists of the following categories: • context • content • management.

6.2.1 Context The strengths of the current programme are that the programme addresses the most important themes in the EU; also the programme’s objectives are generally in line with the current developments in the EU Member States. The weaknesses are that not all sub-priorities are equally covered (like the water management) by the projects and that the knowledge is unevenly spread in the interregional cooperation programme. For the future programme, the enlargement of the EU is an opportunity, in combination with the increased internationalisation. Also, digitalisation in the EU is going further, which also offers opportunities for the programme. However, one should take into account that demands in geographical terms and development is unevenly spread while the economic crisis has also a negative impact on the programme (e.g. some countries may face difficulties in the future with the national contribution, due to their financial situation). For the remaining and coming period, this means that: • the programme should go on with addressing current important themes in the EU; • there is a check on the ‘popularity’ of some topics that are now included, like water

management; • the subject of (co-)financing requires special attention, just as the TA-budget.

6.2.2 Content While the content of the programme is based on the current situation of the programme (internal issues of the programme), only strengths and weakness could be appointed. Hence, opportunities and threats are more about the future development of the programme and are logically not in the content of the current programme.

71

One of the main strengths of the programme is the wide geographical coverage of the programme. All Member States plus Norway and Switzerland are represented in a good mix between less advanced and more advanced regions. Compared with the previous programming period, the programme is well known throughout Europe. The results of the programme are impressive (on the technical part of the programme) according to the 2011 Annual Report to the EC (see chapter 3.1.2) and INTERREG IVC is one of the rare ETC programmes to be based on a coherent intervention logic with a fully integrated monitoring system applying to all projects. However, the programme has also some weaknesses. Due to the programme’s characteristics and in particular its EU wide coverage, parts of the OP remain very broad, and could not be used for drafting targeted calls for proposals and project selection. Also, the programme knows a high number of poor quality applications, what inevitably impacts the overall implementation of the programme. Furthermore, no adequate targets for indicators are set, which, as a result, partly contributes to difficulties showing tangible results especially for the capitalisation projects. For the remaining and coming period, this means: • Safeguard the wide geographical coverage of the programme in the future; • Consider more focus in the next OP, to ease the drafting of targeted calls for proposals and

project selection; • Improve the quality of the applications (see also task 2.3); • Properly revise the indicators and set proper targets for results and take also into account the

financial situation of some of the Member States (see also section 1.2.1). It is important (and will become even more important) to be able to show tangible results if you want to get co-financing.

6.2.3 Management The management of the programme is in general indicated to be good by the MC members (see also task 2.3). Overall the JTS is good in technical/operational and financial management and the monitoring process is since the adjustments in 2011 good as well. In addition, the task force meetings that are initiated in preparation of the meetings of MC are seen as a success by the participants. Weaknesses occur in the limits of the monitoring system, the external communication, the decision making process and finally the lack of ownership of the programme. The recommendations for the management of the programme are already mentioned in task 2.3. In this section, we summarise them, for full text explanation, please refer to task 2.3. Recommendations on management issues: (1) Consider the outsourcing of tasks from JTS to NCPs (2) Consider removing the Information Points (IPs) from the structure (3) Dedicate more tasks to the National Contact Points (NCPs) Recommendations for implementation: decision making process: (1) Change the process of project selection (2) MC meetings: appoint a professional moderator and/or chair (3) Prepare only a small meeting for project selection and a large meeting for strategy (4) Incorporate more social events in MC-meetings

73

Annex to section 2.3: Performance indicators

Table 6.2 Assessment of the progress of achieving the targets of the programme


Actual (June’11)

% realised

Remarks

1.2. General performance of projects

1.2.1 Management and coordination

Output: Average number of steering committee meetings

organised by operations per year

2 2 100% ++ In AR’11 480 is mentioned

as target but actually it is 2.

Result: % of progress reports approved without additional

information requested from the JTS

10% 0% 0% -- Always comments are given

Result: % of deviation between planned and actual ERDF

payment requests by LP (“-“ under/ “+” overspending)

-5% -33.4% 668% --

1.2.2 Dissemination

Output: No. of copies of newsletters disseminated 120,000 532,185 443% ++

Output: No. of copies of brochures disseminated 120,000 306,944 256% ++

Output: No. of press releases disseminated 960 2,201 229% ++

Output: No. of other events participated in (with

presentations/stands etc. about the project activities)

1,500 2,034 136% ++

Output: No. of dissemination events organised 960 1,086 113% ++

Output: No. of brochures (no. of issues created, not no. of

copies printed or disseminated)

960 340 35%+/- Achieved results shows

increasing pattern.

Output: No. of newsletters (no. of issues created, not no. of


1,920 520 27%-

Result: No. of articles/appearances published in the press

and in other media

2,400 4,039 168% ++

Result: Estimated no. of participants in events (organised

and participated in)

160,000 149,000 93% +

Result: Average no. of visits per month on project’s website 500 340 68%+ Achieved results shows

increasing pattern.

1.2.3 Thematic programme capitalisation [This section has been added in revised OP Sept2011]

Output: No of topic workshops 24 n/a As this section has been

added to revised OP of Sept

2011 there are no results

yet included in the annual

report. However, it is

expected that the output

targets will be achieved as

meanwhile (Jan2013) 12

topic workshops have been

held, and 12 reports and

publications are being

prepared, which is expected

to be repeated in 2013-

2014.

Output: No of annual topic reports 24 n/a

Output: No of annual topic publications 24 n/a

Output: No of presentations made at other conferences

(programme events, EU events)

24 n/a

Result: No of thematic policy recommendations resulting

from programme capitalisation

24 n/a

Result: No of thematic publications downloaded from the

programme website

200 n/a

2. Programme management performance (Priority 3)

2.1 Support project generation and provide advice to project applicants

Output: No. of "Individual Consultations" (IC) with applicants 900 1,559 173% ++


Actual (June’11)

% realised

Remarks

Output: No. of participants in "Individual Consultations" (IC) 1,800 2,661 148% ++

Result: No. of applications submitted 800 1,357 170% ++

2.2. Ensure the evaluation of applications, prepare the approval decisions and contract approved projects

Output: Average IVC budget of approved projects 1.58 EUR

million

1.8 EUR

million

114% ++

Output: % of total ERDF budget committed to projects 94% 103.2% 110% ++

Output: Total IVC budget of the approved projects 380 EUR

million

402.3

EUR

million

106% ++

Output: Total ERDF budget of approved projects 302 EUR

million

311.6

EUR

million

103% ++

Output: No. of applications approved and contracted 240 204 85% +

Result:% of approved applications compared with submitted

applications (success rate)

40% 15% 37% +/- There were many more

applications than foreseen

2.3 Ensure monitoring/advice to running projects

Output: Average time span between the submission of a

progress report and the first response by the JTS in number

of days

30 37 123% +/- More days are needed than

envisaged

Output: No of project reports checked 1,200 331 28% -

Output: No of project visits, participation to project events

by MA/JTS

240 46 19% - JTS visits final conferences

so this will increase

Output: Total ERDF paid out to projects 286 EUR

million

53.3 EUR

million

19% -

Output: % of total ERDF budget of approved projects paid

out to projects

95% 17.1% 18% -

Result: % of successful implemented projects (achievement

of indicated output/result indicators and budget spending)

compared with approved projects

90% 78.6% 87% +

Result: Amount of ERDF decommitted 16 EUR

million

0 EUR

million

++ It is foreseen that there will

be no decommitment

Result: % of total ERDF decommitted (rate of

decommitment)

5% 0% ++

2.4 Ensure capitalisation of projects’ results for both types of intervention;

Output: Number of approved projects working on similar

themes identified and capitalisation activities requested

10 39 390% ++ As of September 2012: 111

projects participate in the

Thematic Programme

Capitalisation initiative

Output: Number of capitalisation events organised 10 5 50% + In 2012, 12 thematic

capitalisation events took

place

Output: Number of projects’ good practice guides available

on the programme’s web site

240 1 0.42% -- Meanwhile this has

increased considerable

since June.

Result: Average number of downloads of each good

practice guide available on the programme’s web site

40 228 570% ++

Result: Number of participants in capitalisation events

organised

1000 350 35% +/- 311 participants in the

Capitalisation Thematic

75


Actual (June’11)

% realised

Remarks

workshops in the

November. 136 in the Open

Days Capitalisation

Workshop. Around 14o

participants in the Open

Days joint workshop on

delivering results. Around

800 participants on the

INTERREG IVC exposition

where the Thematic

Programme Capitalisation

was launched.

2.5 Organise meetings and events for applicants, partners, auditors, experts, Member States and other bodies to inform them

about the programme, to discuss specific aspects of its implementation, disseminate and capitalise on projects’

Results

Output: Estimated no. of participants in events participated

in

5,000 15,981 320% ++ Indicator is deleted in

revised OP’11

Output: No. of other events participated in (with

presentations/ stands etc. about the programme

activities)

50 148 296% ++

Output: No. of brochures (no of issues created, not no of


4 10 250% ++

Output: No. of events organised 80 56 70% +

Output: No. of newsletters (no. of issues created, not no. of


34 5 15% -

Result: No. of copies of brochures disseminated 10,000 44,520 445% ++

Result: Average no. of visits per month on the programme

website

10,000 35,632 356% ++

Result: No. of copies of newsletters disseminated 10,000 12,935 129% ++

Result: Estimated no. of participants in events organised 5,500 6,785 123% ++

Result: No. of press releases on programme activities

disseminated

20 15 75% +

Result: No. of articles/appearances published in the press

and in other media

20 Was added in revised

OP’11

2.6 Ensure the reporting to the Member States and the European Commission.

Output: No of Monitoring Committee meetings 15 10 67% +

Result: Average no. of visits per month on the programme

intranet site

50 188 376% ++

* As the programme is on-going a partial rate it is estimated that about 50% of the targets should have been achieved in

2011. Therefore the following ‘scoring’ is used:

>100% ++ the achievement is well above the foreseen target 50-99% + the achievement is above the partial rate of 50%;

30-49%+/- the foreseen achievements is a bit behind target; <30% -/-- the foreseen achievement is largely behind target

77

Annex to chapter 2: Recommendation table updated

The below recommendations are (indirectly) linked to topic 1 Table 6.3 Recommendations from the mid-term evaluation related to task 1, actions taken by INTERREG IVC and remarks by the evaluator (Ecorys)

Recommendation Actions taken*

(as of February 2011)

Remarks by

evaluator

Recommendation I:

An “accompanying note” should be issued for the 4th call for applications in order to achieve that future projects …

o … address more adequately the observed context

changes (for “innovation, research & technology development”; “entrepreneurship & SMEs”;

“employment, human capital & education”)

o … tackle policy-relevant issues which are better in line with the respective programme objectives (for “cultural

heritage & landscape”)

o … explore more intensively issues in a cross-cutting perspective

Proposal was rejected

during the MC meeting

in Bern.

Useful to be

taken into

account in

programming

committee

Recommendation II:

If a reference to the new Treaty objective on territorial

cohesion is introduced in the INTERREG IVC programme, only the overall objective should be modified as follows: To

improve, by means of interregional cooperation, the

effectiveness of regional development policies in the areas of innovation, the knowledge economy, the environment and

risk prevention as well as to contribute to economic

modernisation, increased competitiveness, sustainable development and the territorial cohesion of Europe

Yes, should be modified

accordingly.

Is confirmed

Recommendation V:

The INTERREG IVC programme should revise the

Communication Strategy (where necessary) in order to include a wider range of new actions which need to be carried

out during the remaining time of programming period. For

delivering more adequately and effectively the current work programme as well as the new activities, also the JTS-staff in

charge of communication & dissemination activities should

be further increased.

Yes, already partly

implemented. A revised

Communication Strategy

should be presented to

the MC alongside the

Annual report 2010.

Is confirmed

Recommendation VI: During the remaining time of the programming period, the

INTERREG IVC programme should …

o … continue to respond to the strong need for further exploring and developing the capitalisation process at

programme level and take the lessons on board from the

experiment o … create an adequate framework in order to secure that

MC agreed in principle

on the need to carry out

a capitalisation process.

However, no agreement

could be reached on the

details, especially on

how to finance the

generalisation of

Meanwhile capitalisation process started in January 2012. The MC in Oslo decided to launch the



Remarks by

evaluator

the knowledge resulting from the projects is most optimally exploited (e.g. by thematically clustering

projects & by creating a pool of thematic experts

assisting the process) o … create a new Priority 4 on programme-level

capitalisation, to which appropriate funding for this

process is allocated

programme

capitalisation.

exercise for 2 years and to consider the prolongation for the continuation up to the end of this programming period. Useful to discuss as well in programming committee how to deal with this in 2014-2020

Recommendation IX:

To ensure an effective management and implementation of the INTERREG IVC programme

should during the remaining time of the period 2007-2013 …

o … more funding should be made available for the JTS (i.e. TA-budget line “staff” for project assessment,

financial management, programme-level capitalisation,

communication & dissemination, co-ordination/guidance of IPs & animation of NCPs) and for a continuation of the

programme-level capitalisation process, through shifting

funds from other TA-budget lines currently registering under spending (“external expertise”, “office costs”;

“Information Points”);

o … use left-over funding under other under-spending TA-headings (esp. “travel costs of JTS staff” & “programme

studies”) for improving the effectiveness of the current

programme monitoring process (e.g. more “on-the-spot visits” to projects) and for preparing a more adequate

future monitoring process (e.g. specific studies &

evaluations)

Yes, MC agreed to the

proposals made with the

exception to employ a

capitalisation officer, as

the MC could not yet

reach an agreement on

how to implement the

proposed programme

capitalisation.

The

capitalisation

officer started

meanwhile

Recommendation X: In view of the future 4th call for applications, the INTERREG

IVC programme should…

o … in principle leave open all of the current sub-themes, but also particularly emphasise those sub-themes which

are up to now weakly covered by the approved projects

(Priority 2) or show a medium level of coverage (Priority 1 & 2);

o … make an attempt to indirectly achieve a better

geographical balance as regards the involvement of partners in the approved operations (i.e. specific

mobilisation effort to be made by IPs & NCPs which cover

countries showing a still weak representation);

o Partly implemented

(all sub-themes are open

but a particular

emphasis on certain sub

themes was rejected

during the MC in Bern).

o Implemented through

the organisation of

communication events in

underrepresented

regions and through the

new geographical

coverage requirements

See chapter 2

79



Remarks by

evaluator

o … apply a number of “soft” direct steering tools (e.g. increased quality requirements & thematic orientations;

mandatory notification of upcoming ideas & pre-

screening, pre-assessment on ground of meta-level criteria) in order to reduce at a certain extent the number

of future applications and the associated assessment

workload at the level of the JTS/the IPs. After the closure of the call and the final approval of projects,

still left-over funding should be dedicated to a limited number

of running and finalised operations for initiating specific activities which are of an added value for them and for the

programme as a whole (e.g. cross-thematic exchange & work

processes; in-depth assessment of effects & impacts).

set for the call.

o Partly implemented

through the new

requirement set for the

call on the elaboration of

‘implementation plans’.

Mandatory notification

was rejected during the

MC in Bern.

o Yes, to take into

consideration in case of

leftover funding.

Source: AR’11 decision M; desk research, Interview conducted by Ecorys

81

Annex to chapter 5: People interviewed

Name Organisation Country

Michel Lamblin and

Erwin Siweris

Joint Technical Secretariat France

Manoelle Wasseige Ministère de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale Belgium

Alina Smarandescu Ministry of Regional Development and Housing (through

the Directorate for European Territorial Cooperation)

Romania

Michael Roth Federal Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt) Austria

Benita Hansen Danish Business Authority Denmark

Marek Hadjuk Ministry of Economy Slovakia

Payá Vizcaino Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones Públicas Spain

Stephen Blair Southern & Eastern Regional Assembly Ireland

Jean-Luc Fres DATAR France

Urska Troja Ministry of Economic Development and Technology -

Regional Development and European Territorial

Cooperation Directorate

Slovenia

Petri Haapaleinen Ministry of Employment and the Economy Finland

Sabine Stölb Ministère du Dévelopement durable et des Infrastructures Luxemburg

Thomas Spriet Managing Authority: Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais France

Edwin Koning Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment Netherlands

John Eide County Municipality of Vest-Agder Norway

Litsa Kastanou Planning Bureau, Directorate of Structural Funds and

Cohesion Fund

Cyprus

Csaba Hende Ministry of National Development Hungary

Teresa Marcinow Ministry of Regional Development Poland

Maria Eriksson Ministry for Enterprise, Energy and Communications Sweden

Daniel lenggenhager Ministry of Economic Affairs Suisse

Celia Mintoff Territorial Cooperation Unit Planning and Priorities

Coordination Division Office of the Prime Minister

Malta

Marius Mladenov Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works Bulgaria

Ilka Meisel Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Energie, Industrie, Mittelstand

und Handwerk Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Mittelstand und

Energie des Landes NRW

Germany

Kudri Jushkin European Territorial Cooperation Bureau, Regional

Development Department, Ministry of the Interior

Estonia

Deimante Jankunaite Ministry of the Interior Lithuania

Rossella Rusca Ministry of Economic development - Dirigente Divisione V Italy

Barbara Curley Department for Communities and Local Government -

European Policy, Strategy and Co-ordination

United Kingdom

Pavel Lukes Ministry for Regional Development Czech Republic

Raquel Rocha Instituto Financeiro para o Desenvolvimento Regional, IP Portugal

Nikos Hadjisavvas Managing Authority CIP INTERREG Unit A Greece

83

Annex to chapter 5: Recommendations from the workshop

The list below shows the long list of ideas coming from the workshop held on 26th of February 2013 in Brussels. All the ideas are listed, including the number of votes from the participants. Process

• Project generation and selection (8): - More strategic call/ToR (5) - Separate Steering Committee; - Technical project selection, pre-meeting (discussion) (2);

• Smaller working groups to discuss detailed/tricky issues (7); • Smaller group format may help to engage everybody (7); • Chair’s role is also steering and making sure all contribute (6); • Maintain written procedure, but evaluate for what issues it is best used (6); • Involving independent moderator may be useful for more complex tasks (6); • Not to become obsessed with rules and rituals. Common sense and team’s wish is important

(5); • 2-stage app: JTS evaluates, but in 2nd stage less projects through -> increased possibility to

discuss (will reduce time) (5); • Decision-making threshold -> diff. for diff. topics, also a 2/3 proportion might be considered for

process decision (5) • Use of video conference for shorter, more frequent meetings when needed (4); • Mechanism to make sure there is good discussion on projects, programme’s scope – currently

“lists” are discussed (maybe trough two-stage project-selection) (3); • Balancing ownership and effectiveness (3); • Some items still for presentation; e.g. capitalisation report this MC (3); • Introduce ways to ensure all get a chance to speak and contribute (overcome shyness) (2); • Twice a year MCs is OK+ Task Force MTGs, if necessary (2). • Some items for information (2):

- Papers sent out in advance; - Opportunity to ask questions; - But update at meeting only by exception;

• Lead partner not made known to ensure project selection focuses on content (not location), but need to combine this with thinking about current viability assessment by MS as this would negate print of above suggestion (2);

• Involvement of MS in chairing (1); • Papers in advance to allow time to be shared with regional/ local partners; • Papers made available online and MS informed when as ready (to avoid all papers coming out

at once/ break up work load; • Indicative MS; preferences for project selection made in advance (perhaps in online forum) • Could these ideas be put up for the meeting tomorrow so that colleagues not present can

contribute/consider too? • Duration of MCs – between 1.5 and 2 days; • Membership – ‘up to 3’, 2 as minimum, possible 2 per MS? • Ensuring MS ownership in the process (will cost more time); • Break-down into “info”, ‘decision” topics helps

Procedures

• Time-out during meetings, platform to allow MS to comment/ discuss/propose online (20); • MS communicate opinions on complex and diff. issues in advance, everybody would get an

overview of opinions and ideas (13); • Products/publications/studies to be present/ discuss with MS before publishing (8); • Earlier involvement of MS (NCPs) in project development/selection (6); • MS given time before meeting and reminded and encourage they can raise (and run) agenda

(6): - Remind this can be at start of meeting; - Reminded when decision notes issued - Or set agenda space for MS issues (e.g. 1 hour at end/start)

• MS could be given ownership for specific issues on the agenda (rapporteur system) (5); • Log-In discussion forum/platform for MS on IVC website (5); • For each agenda item a nominated contact in the JTS (3); • Videoconferencing (2); • Longer chairing periods (1):

- Troika select 1 chair for 18 months; or - Designate 1 per year

• MS nominate or volunteer chair for set period (1/2/3 years) (1); • Disconnect EU presidency with the chair of the MC; • Other actors involved in project choice – contact points; Social elements

• Cultural pre dinner visits -> local walks, museums (12); • Study visits, site visits (learning about the place, region, city) (11); • Diners, cooking, less formal and static (10); • Activities that are not just talking and eating (like dancing) (9); • Greater rotation of meeting location (easier for project/study visits) (6); • Learning basic vocabulary/traditions hosting country (e.g. class to learn greetings, please,

thank you, etc. (5); • Troika should be in charge of “social” ideas from everybody/ Country specific press review/

stand (4); • Watching movies form each country/culture (4); • Aligned with meetings:

- Organize post meeting activities for colleagues staying longer than the meeting (4); - Playing football game, quizzes, fishing, whale watching (2); - Going together to cultural, sports event (1); - Holding meetings in public venues, rather than hotels (6); - Mingling with youth – they are the future (3); - Delivering (1); - University event – e.g. lecture on EU and what IR does for it (4)

• Small mixed groups (objectives trust building, getting to know each other’s culture, ownership as group, integration of newcomers) (3);

• Internal newsletter (3); • Country presentations in meetings (2) • Attractive “weekend:/ extension activities (2); • Wake up sessions (morning sauna, gymnastics) (1); • Introduction of newcomers (official and informal) (1);

85

• 1 MS invited to lead agenda items – e.g. capitalization update – trained before by JTS as needed (1);

• ‘1 pager’ about host nation – e.g. organized regionally, districts, etc. (1); • Do something for presidency hosts (project, charity, event) (1); • Lunch time activities; • With all activities; best low cost/ no cost options for programme; • Social media – including photos form dinners (private page)

Sound analysis, inspiring ideas

BELGIUM – BULGARIA – HUNGARY – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – RUSSIAN FEDERATION – SOUTH AFRICA – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM

P.O. Box 4175

3006 AD Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Watermanweg 44

3067 GG Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68

E [email protected]

W www.ecorys.nl

update mid-term evaluation of interreg ivc · pdf filencp national contact point ... swot...

Documents