wales european funding office final report · territorial co-operation scoping study c255/2007/09...

Territorial Co-operation Scoping Study

C255/2007/09

Wales European Funding Office Final report

Date: April 2013 Contact: Meirion Thomas

Eva Trier

CM International UK Ltd, CBTC, Senghenydd Road, Cardiff, CF24 4AY, United Kingdom Tel: 029 20389 597 ¦ Mobile: 07703022151¦ email: [email protected]

Contents

1. Introduction _____________________________________________________ 1

2. Methodological approach __________________________________________ 4

3. Wider organisational context for European cooperation___________________ 8

4. Nature and extent of engagement with the ETC Programmes_____________ 13

5. Drivers, benefits and barriers to participation in ETC projects _____________ 23

6. Role of capacity and maturity in shaping EU cooperation activity __________ 34

7. Programme and operational factors affecting ETC participation ___________ 41

8. Key findings and conclusions ______________________________________ 52

9. Recommendations ______________________________________________ 56

Annexes

Annex 1: Background to European Territorial Cooperation Programmes ________ 61

Annex 2: Methodology _______________________________________________ 67

Annex 3: Distribution of Welsh participations - Priorities and Themes __________ 78

Annex 4: Atlantic Area Programme _____________________________________ 82

Annex 5: Interreg IVC________________________________________________ 88

Annex 6: Ireland/Wales (Interreg IVA) ___________________________________ 93

Annex 7: North West Europe (Interreg IVB)______________________________ 101

Annex 8: Transnational element within mainstream Structural Funds__________ 106

Annex 9: URBACT _________________________________________________ 109

Annex 10: Case studies of ETC projects ________________________________ 111

WEFO Territorial Co-operation Scoping Study Draft Final Report Page i

Tables

Table 1. Sub sample by project type .................................................................................5

Table 2. Welsh organisation interactions with the ETC & TN Programmes ....................14

Table 3. Success rates for different Programmes ...........................................................16

Table 4. Number and type of project interactions by organisation type...........................16

Table 5. Welsh organisations by sample type .................................................................17

Table 6. Different cohorts by type of participation in population and sample ..................68

Table 7. Target population and sample structure in terms of ETC Programmes ............69

Table 8. Balance between ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ organisations in final sample .......71

Table 9. Number of projects by Priority - Atlantic Area....................................................82

Table 10. Participations by Member State – Atlantic Area ................................................84

Table 11. Financial profiles of ETC projects – Atlantic Area .............................................85

Table 12. Number of projects by Priority - IVC..................................................................88

Table 13. Financial profiles of ETC projects – IVC............................................................90

Table 14. Number of projects by Priority – Ireland/Wales .................................................93

Table 15. Financial profiles of ETC projects – Ireland/Wales............................................95

Table 16. Number of projects by Priority – NWE.............................................................101

Table 17. Financial profiles of ETC projects – NWE .......................................................103

Charts

Chart 1. Overall satisfaction levels with the support for project development ................46

Chart 2. Overall satisfaction levels with the support for securing project funding ...........47

Chart 3. Sample structure by Programme.......................................................................70

Chart 4. Comparison population – sample in terms of ETC project success ..................71

Chart 5. Comparison population – sample in terms of participation profile .....................72

Chart 6. Participation by Welsh organisations – Atlantic Area ........................................83

Chart 7. Participations by Member State – Atlantic Area ................................................84

Chart 8. Participation by Welsh organisations – IVC.......................................................89

Chart 9. Participation by Welsh organisations – Ireland/Wales.......................................94

Chart 10. Lead partner densities – Ireland/Wales .............................................................94

Chart 11. Participation by Welsh organisations – NWE ..................................................102

WEFO Territorial Co-operation Scoping Study Draft Final Report Page ii

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the study

During the period 2007-2013, Wales is taking part in a number of European

Territorial Cooperation Structural Fund Programmes. These are co-financed through

the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

European Territorial Co-operation (ETC) Programmes address issues which cut

across national borders and provide the opportunity for regions across the EU to

work together, share best practice, transfer knowledge and co-ordinate actions to

provide solutions to common challenges.

Additionally, the ERDF and ESF Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and

Employment Programmes, managed in Wales by the Welsh European Funding

Office (WEFO), have provision within all Priorities and Themes, to support

transnational activity.

WEFO wishes to ensure that Wales achieves the maximum possible benefits from

pro-active engagement and participation in the various ETC Programmes and, in

doing so, to help to raise Wales’ international profile. To this end, WEFO

commissioned CM International to conduct a scoping study to learn from the

experiences of organisations in Wales that have had an involvement in ETC

Programme activity. In addition, WEFO wishes to identify barriers that may have

prevented other organisations from participating in the ETC Programmes or the

transnational element available under the mainstream ERDF and ESF Programmes

in Wales.

The aim of the scoping study has therefore been to consider the experience of

organisations with active engagement in the specific ETC Programmes as well as

other EU-funded collaboration activities (e.g. Framework Programme 7) and

collaboration links and networking arrangements between Welsh organisations and

partners in other European countries outside of EU funding Programmes.

The results of the scoping study will be used to support WEFO in continuing to

engage pro-actively in the Structural Fund successor Programmes 2014-2020. It will

enable WEFO to learn lessons from current Programmes, raise awareness and build

upon the success of Welsh organisations taking Welsh involvement and influence to

another level.

WEFO Territorial Co-operation Scoping Study Draft Final Report Page 1

1.2 Research questions

The following specific research questions were addressed by this scoping study1:

1. Whether, and to what extent, Welsh organisations falling within the target

groups are, or have previously been, involved in EU-wide co-operation activity;

2. The nature of this involvement;

3. The capacity of organisations to engage in EU-wide co-operation activity;

4. The maturity of organisations’ involvement in EU-wide co-operation activity;

5. The ‘fit’ between engagement in EU–wide cooperation activity and the core

business of participant organisations;

6. The ‘drivers’ that prompted organisations to become involved - and the

reasons behind non-involvement in EU-wide co-operation;

7. The benefits (tangible and intangible) accruing to organisations of EU-wide co-

operation, including expected, and any unforeseen, results;

8. Problems and disadvantages experienced by organisations;

9. The ‘barriers’ to involvement in EU-wide co-operation, and solutions to

overcoming these barriers;

10. Awareness of the ETC Programmes and the transnational elements of the

mainstream Structural Funds Programmes amongst organisations based in

Wales;

11. The quality and accessibility of the information, advice and guidance available

to ETC applicants;

12. The quality of project development support and post approval support for the

ETC Programmes; and

13. The application process relating to ETC Programmes.

1.3 Report structure

The report addresses the key research questions posed in the specification (1) with

specific sections structured around the evidence and analysis of the evidence. The

analysis contained here is based on the data and perspectives gathered from the

1 Specification for a Research Project, Welsh Government October 2012


qualitative interviews supplemented by the results from the focus groups and case

study research.

The report begins with a brief explanation of the methodological approach (2) and the

sampling and analysis steps taken to ensure comprehensive and robust evidence.

Additional detail is included in Annex 2. Following this explanation, the nature and

extent of Welsh organisations’ involvement in EU wide cooperation activities in

general is considered (3). This is followed by a more specific description and analysis

of the participation by Welsh organisations in the ETC Programmes in particular (4).

Additional analysis is included for each Programme in Annexes 4-8.

The drivers and benefits that motivate organisations to participate in ETC and

transnational activities are then considered (5). Within this section the barriers and

problems that are typically encountered are also described and commented on. In

particular, the section examines the role that the funding provided by the Structural

Funds plays in ETC and Transnational (TN) participation.

The role played by the capacity and maturity of organisations in determining

engagement and shaping involvement of Welsh organisations in ETC and TN

activities is then examined (6); before focussing on experience of the support

infrastructures and a discussion of the various stages of project development,

application, implementation and closure (7).

Finally, the key findings and conclusions are drawn together (8) before

recommendations are made (9) that are designed to provide WEFO with

opportunities to maximise involvement in future Programmes.


2. Methodological approach

Summary of chapter

The focus of the research required a methodology that would establish the current

patterns of involvement and participation in the ETC Programmes and the extent to

which Welsh organisations’ strategies and activities go beyond ETC Programmes

with wider experiences of transnational cooperation and collaboration.

A survey tool to capture both quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the

patterns, experiences and perspectives of Welsh organisations was designed.

An appropriate research sample was devised to engage: current participants in the

Programmes (labelled ‘involved’); those who have actively considered participation

(labelled ‘interested’); and those who have had no current involvement (labelled ‘non-

involved),

A response rate of just under 80% of a total of 100 ‘involved’ (53 interviews) and

‘interested’ (26 interviews) organisations was achieved. For ‘non-involved’

organisations a total number of 40 organisations represented appropriate targets for

the research and were included in the interviews.

Eleven focus groups were undertaken, supplemented by ten stakeholder interviews.

The qualitative and quantitative data gathered from the research were analysed

alongside WEFO data on Welsh organisations’ participation in the ETC Programmes.

To answer the research questions, the research team needed to gain an in-depth

understanding of two main aspects of experience with ETC Programmes and other

transnational programmes amongst Welsh organisations:

1. Current patterns of participation in and experiences with transnational cooperation

by Welsh organisations, and,

2. The extent to which and how transnational cooperation is embedded in wider

internationalisation strategies of Welsh organisations.

2.1 Target groups and sampling

To gain a rounded, in-depth picture, the sample included organisations that are

already participating or have actively considered participating in the ETC

Programmes or transnational Structural Fund activities alongside a comparison


group of organisations that have used mainstream Structural Funds only (i.e. via

ERDF or ESF Programmes in Wales). Data on both groups were provided by WEFO.

The different target groups were described as follows:

Table 1. Sub sample by project type

Description2 Population Initial sample selected for interview3

Final sample

‘Involved’ organisations: Organisations

that are currently engaged with the ETC

Programmes or working transnationally in

regional Structural Funds Programmes in

Wales4.

58 46 53

‘Interested’ organisations: Organisations

that have had varying levels of contact

regarding opportunities from ETC

Programmes but have either not pursued

this further or were not successful.

42 34 26

‘Non-involved’ organisations: Organisations that are engaged with the

mainstream Structural Funds Programmes

in Wales (ERDF or ESF) but have had no

engagement with the ETC Programmes

during the 2007-13 programming period.

53 40 40

In selecting the final sample, a number of other criteria were taken into account,

including:

• The profile of Welsh participation across the different ETC Programmes;

• The nature of organisations; and, 2 The sample was made up of organisations rather than projects. For more details on the precise structure of the target groups and the ultimate sample used for the survey, please see Annex 2 3 Adopting an assumed 80% response rate for ’involved’ and ’interested’; for ‘non-involved’ a total number of 40 organisations represented appropriate targets for the research. 4 The European Social Fund (ESF) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programmes


• The frequency of participation by individual organisations.

2.2 Survey approach

A survey tool scalable for the different target groups was designed to collect data on

Welsh organisations’ experiences and perceptions and the role of organisational

strategies in driving participation in ETC. The semi-structured interview guide was

largely qualitative and covered questions on experiences, motivations and

perceptions of participation and, for ‘non-involved’ organisations, non-participation.

Interviews were conducted by telephone and notes transcribed for each interview in a

standardised interview template allowing multiple choice answers and the coding of

qualitative responses as appropriate.

2.3 Focus groups

In addition to the survey interviews, 11 focus groups were undertaken based on

groups drawn either from different organisations (multi-organisation) or organisations

where multiple participations in ETC Programmes were identified (single

organisation).

Multi-organisation focus groups were held in Merthyr Tydfil, Cardiff, Carmarthen and

Llandudno Junction inviting a cross section of organisations and targeting both ETC

project managers and European officers and managers. The nature of different

organisations’ remit was also taken into account to ensure that key thematic areas of

European cooperation were covered (i.e. Sustainability, environment, regeneration;

Business and enterprise; third sector, social justice, community; Tourism and

heritage; and Skills and training).

Six organisation-specific focus groups were held covering a sample of frequent

participator organisations including Cardiff University, Trinity Saint David University,

Bangor University, Powys County Council, Cardiff City Council, and Ynys Môn

Council.

In addition, a dedicated Welsh Government focus group was also held to capture

Welsh Government departmental perspectives on the role of ETC projects in

contributing to Welsh Government policy objectives.


2.4 Case Studies

To complement the evidence from the survey and focus groups, 15 case studies

were conducted. These can be found in a separate Annex.

2.5 Analysis approach

Two main levels of analysis were undertaken as follows:

First, an analysis was undertaken on the data and information provided by WEFO on

Welsh organisations’ participation in ETC Programmes to add to the understanding

of patterns of ETC participation in Wales.

Second, an analysis of interview and focus group results was conducted using a

combined quantitative and qualitative coding approach. Quantitative codes were

applied to specific scoring questions embedded in the questionnaire. Qualitative

coding was used to identify patterns and themes relating to the different areas of

research questions.


3. Wider organisational context for European cooperation Summary of chapter

The majority of Welsh organisations currently participating in the ETC Programmes,

and many of those who do not, have experience of some other existing European

cooperation activities, including previous ETC projects.

The range of previous or existing participations or engagements is wide but only a

few organisations appear to regard European cooperation as an explicit objective for

their activities and very few have explicit targets in that respect.

The main exceptions to this pattern are HEIs where European, and international,

cooperation is explicitly part of their corporate strategies.

Outside of the HE sector, there is evidence of a broad range of attitudes and

approaches indicating that most organisations have an implicit objective in favour of

European cooperation, often driven by the inherently international outlook of their

subject area. However, the defining feature of organisations’ overarching strategic

interest in European cooperation is their organisational culture and outlook.

Before considering the specifics of ETC participation, the research sought to

understand the extent to which organisations in Wales are more generally active in

European cooperation. The majority of organisations in the research sample, both

those currently participating in ETC projects, and many of those who do not, also

have existing European cooperation activities:

• 30 (57% of sample) ‘involved’ interviewees and 9 (35% of sample) ‘interested’

interviewees reported that their organisations are involved with European partners

through existing collaborations;

• 6 (11%) ‘involved’ interviewees and 4 (15%) ‘interested’ interviewees reported

that, while their organisation did have relationships with European partners, this

did not translate into actual cooperation (as discussed below);

• Only 9 (17%) ‘involved’ interviewees and 7 (27%) ‘interested’ interviewees

reported that their organisations had no other European collaborations; and

• Half of ‘interested’ interviewees (20; 50%) also indicated that they had current

European connections, some associated with active externally funded projects.


Existing connections here also included links through personal or organisational

thematic networks and commercially motivated links into other European

countries.

Of the other European cooperation programmes, involvement in EU Lifelong

Learning programmes and FP75, were the most frequently mentioned by

interviewees, sometimes referring to specific programmes and sometimes referring

generically to activities such as lifelong learning activities or European-funded

exchange visits. Similarly, many Local Authorities have European links through town-

twinning arrangements. The following quotes, taken from the interview transcripts,

are indicative of interviewee perceptions of these programmes.

‘Life long learning had a better fit to education & skills themes than Interreg. It is just

a case of it being simpler for an academic to get their head around in the area of

skills and education as opposed to economic development which seems to be the

focus of Interreg.’

‘The College is engaged in Leonardo as well, which takes a lot of time and resource.

[…] Cash flow is a serious issue for ETC projects and particularly for smaller

organisations and third sector organisations. Leonardo, for instance, makes a 10%

upfront payment. This should be considered for ETC as well.’

‘The organisation has a designated coordinator for International Development. She is

based at the national organisation and oversees the relationships around

GRUNDTVIG and LEONARDO.’

‘We are engaged in a number softer activities such as twinning arrangements and

some educational exchange programmes.

One HE interviewee summed up his organisation’s rationale for choosing different

programmes as follows; ‘FP6 and FP7 are fundamental to sponsor applied

technology and development. The UK wide funding sources are very competitive, as

are the international cooperation ones, but there are more regular opportunities to

apply and there are unique opportunities through the Structural Funds. Marie Curie

mobility schemes are an added dimension and are important around issues of kudos

and marketing the institution to prospective students, not just as a financial

consideration.’

5 A list of relevant EU funding programmes is included in Annex 1.


Other European links and relationships described by interviewees mostly related to

involvement in various professional networks and organisational affiliations, such as

international associations or a particular type of institution or thematic networks in the

areas of sustainability or the arts.

Informal arrangements with individual organisations in other European countries

were also a common theme typically involving occasional short projects or visits to

organisations, sometimes using smaller, less administratively demanding funding

streams (e.g. Youth Action in the third sector) or being invited to give talks on

particular subjects, levering what was described by one ‘non-involved’ interviewee as

‘professional and personal networks’ to inform activities and decisions or procuring

services on a European basis (e.g. using OJEU).

The more occasional nature of such interactions is illustrated well by the following

quote; ‘We have done some visits, good practice demonstration, marketing and

learning but this is not a regular occurrence.‘

The range of previous or existing participations or engagements is therefore wide

and often focused on specific activities and objectives (e.g. cooperation activities that

typically cover research or training, educational exchanges).

The research also probed with interviewees the extent to which European

cooperation is a strategic objective for their organisations and how this objective is

expressed. Here, only a few were able to report that their organisation makes

European cooperation an explicit objective or target for their activities.

The majority response (from 28 out of 47 ‘involved’ respondents) indicates that

European cooperation is implicitly embedded in their organisation’s strategy without

any specific targets. In fact, only four ‘involved’ interviewees referred to explicit

funding targets with another four referring to explicit targets regarding future

development of European activities. Where explicit targets were mentioned, these

referred to funding or collaboration in the context of externally funded projects and

publications. One interviewee, for instance, suggested that the commitment to

European cooperation was ‘central and totally explicit’ as expressed in ‘targets for

raising research funds from external - including EU – sources for the university and

each individual department’ while another interviewee saw targets for external

funding as an indirect expression of a strong generic emphasis on collaboration.


Seven ‘involved’ interviewees were clear that there was an explicit objective (as

opposed to targets) but were unclear as to its nature. As stated by one respondent,

this might, for instance, be limited to a mention in the organisation’s business plan:

'International development is fully embedded in the business plan and the

organisation intends to further strengthen its link with countries like Poland, France

and Germany going forward.’

Similarly, of 24 ‘interested’ respondents, eight described an implicit focus on

European cooperation within the organisation’s strategy. By contrast, five reported

that European cooperation was explicitly stated as a strategic objective while three

made reference to explicit funding targets, and a further six ‘interested’ interviewees

reported that European cooperation was not specifically covered by their

organisation’s strategy at all.

The nature of the strategic focus again varied between organisations with one Local

Authority interviewee, for instance, noting that European cooperation was ‘not

particularly a part of our wider strategy but it is a part of our inward investment

strategy’ and an arts organisation interviewee suggesting that ‘the initial project

approach was made because it had been built into the Business Plan submitted to

Arts Council Wales.’

Considering whether and how these strategic perspectives are linked to the nature of

the respective organisations, it is clear that international cooperation is most explicitly

considered in corporate strategies of the HEIs and, more particularly, of individual

school or departmental research strategies. Building international networks and

collaborations is a key part of the pursuit of the EC Framework 7Programme and

other research programme and funding opportunities for HEIs providing them with

important research outputs and peer group standing and reputation. This is

exemplified by one HEI respondent reporting that ‘it is an explicit strategic objective

of the university to increase its research profile at a global level including across the

EU. Cooperating at a European level is therefore a strategic objective. However,

there are no specific targets for this’.

Amongst those organisations, across all sectors, where there is an implicit objective

in favour of European cooperation, there is evidence of a broad range of attitudes

and approaches. At one end of the range, between 15 and 20 non-HE interviewees

across all three categories (‘involved’, ‘interested’ and ‘non-involved’) explicitly


referred to European cooperation as an effective way of supporting their

organisation’s aims and objectives. For example, in certain subject areas like the arts

or the environment that have an international culture and outlook or are dealing with

issues that cannot be contained within borders, organisations take the view that their

area of work is inherently international and they therefore need to engage with

international partners as part and parcel of achieving their aims and objectives.

Beyond this, however, no further defining patterns emerge in terms of the nature of

organisations represented by interviewees. Rather, the defining features for

organisations’ overarching strategic interest in engaging in European cooperation is

their organisational culture and outlook, a resulting focus on wanting to learn from

international partners and a desire to play a role in shaping policy and practice in

their particular area of activity.


4. Nature and extent of engagement with the ETC Programmes Summary of chapter

A programme by programme analysis of engagement is included in Annexes 4 to 9.

At 49% of all recorded interactions (successful and unsuccessful) by Welsh

organisations with the ETC Programmes, the Ireland/Wales Programme stands out

as what appears to be seen as a ‘natural’ home for their European cooperation

activities.

Geographic proximity, common problems and issues and a natural affinity were the

most frequent reasons quoted for collaboration with Irish institutions. In addition, the

Ireland/Wales Programme is perceived to be less competitive than other

Programmes, although this is not borne out by actual success rates for the different

programmes.

In terms of volume of interactions, the Ireland Wales Programme is followed by the

Atlantic Area Programme, the North West Europe Programme and the Interreg IVC

Programme, while the transnational elements of the Structural Funds Programmes

and URBACT have limited participation.

HEIs are the most active in exploring and realising ETC opportunities. Local

Authorities are the second largest group closely followed by the third sector.

Some organisations are taking a ‘tactical’ approach to European cooperation by

judging opportunities on a case-by-case basis, in particular, Welsh Local Authorities,

have a higher success ratio than other organisation types while there is a high ‘drop

out’ rate between interested and successful involved participation amongst third

sector organisations.

Only a relatively small number of participating organisations are ‘first-timers’ in

respect of ETC projects.

Welsh organisations most frequently favour Priorities and Themes that deal with

innovation and entrepreneurship, followed by sustainability and the natural

environment with urban/regional/community development as a third Priority area.

Programmes, and Priorities, tend to be chosen largely because the anticipated

activities are perceived as ‘fitting’ with the organisation’s goal, ambitions, objectives

and skills.


As a general trend, there are fewer Welsh lead partners than junior partners, with the

exception of the Ireland/Wales Programme. Engaging as a junior partner is regarded

as a relatively ‘safe’ way to engage with the ETC Programmes in terms of

bureaucracy and the managing of multi-partner projects.

A majority of organisations interviewed became engaged with their current ETC

partners through their participation in pre-existing networks or activities with

European partners, but there is also evidence of organisations proactively identifying

partners on the basis of complementary knowledge assets.

4.1 Scale of ETC participation and engagement

With the overarching understanding of the strategic perspective adopted by Welsh

organisations in mind, it is useful to review the actual patterns of their participation in

the ETC Programmes.

Firstly, the relative uptake of different ETC Programmes by Welsh organisations was

considered. Table 2 outlines how often Welsh organisations interacted with the

different ETC Programmes in various ways. In this context, securing participation in a

successful project; an unsuccessful application or a recorded direct contact with

WEFO at an earlier stage of exploring ETC project participation are all described as

‘an interaction’.

Table 2. Welsh organisation interactions with the ETC & TN Programmes Number of project

interactions per Programme

(‘involved’ and interested’)

Percentage of total project

interactions per Programme

Ireland/ Wales 133 49%

Atlantic Area 42 16%

North West Europe 49 18%

Interreg IVC 32 12%

URBACT 2 1%

Transnational element of mainstream Structural Funds

12 4%

Total 270 100%


The overall volume of interactions (successful and unsuccessful) through the

Ireland/Wales Programme at 49% of all territorial and transnational cooperation

interests suggests that Welsh organisations regard this Programme as a ‘natural’

home for their European cooperation activities. Participants highlighted that for them,

the main reason for choice of the Ireland/Wales Programme (48%) was the

geographic proximity, common issues and a natural affinity to collaborate with Irish

institutions. A recurring theme in interviews with those who had been active under the

Ireland/Wales Programme was a repeatedly expressed sense that cultural similarities

and connections between Ireland and Wales combined with a historical commitment

to working with partners in Ireland made activities under this Programme more

meaningful and more relevant.

‘Currently, Programmes other than the Ireland/Wales Programme are not relevant at

least in the area of arts and culture, because larger co-operations would tend to have

a metropolitan focus which would not be relevant to peripheral regions.’

‘There is a lot of synergy through geographical proximity- for instance the UK market

is common to both - and a lot of common issues, but differences as well.’

‘Wales Ireland is something that we are comfortable with, and like working with - the

historic partnership has stood the test of time.’

‘The choice of a partner in Dublin was particularly important because it is a ferry

journey away and therefore very accessible.’

Some of the preference shown for the Ireland/Wales Programme may also be a

result of a perception that the Ireland/Wales Programme is less competitive than

other Programmes. As one organisation referred to it, the Ireland/Wales Programme

is perceived to be ‘a soft touch’ compared with other ETC Programmes.

This impression may be misleading, however, as an analysis of the success rates in

Table 3 shows. This shows that the reality is that, at 50% the success rate for the

Ireland/Wales Programme is broadly comparable with the success rates for the

different Programmes, - 52% for the Atlantic Area Programme, 41% for North West

Europe and 44% for Interreg IVC. The perception held by some organisations

regarding the Ireland/Wales Programme may therefore be a rationalisation that they

provide for themselves after deciding not to bid into other Programmes.


Table 3. Success rates for different Programmes

No. of project interactions

Actual project participations Success rate

Ireland/ Wales 133 66 50%Atlantic Area 42 22 52%North West Europe 49 20 41%Interreg IVC 32 14 44%URBACT 2 2 100%Transnational element of mainstream Structural Funds 12 2 17%Total 270 126

Secondly, the nature of the organisation was considered in relation to the type of

ETC interaction. This is set out in Table 4 which identifies the number of project

interactions by type of organisation.

Table 4. Number and type of project interactions by organisation type

‘Involved’ ‘Interested’ Total ‘Non-involved’6

HE 46 60 106 24

FE 3 4 7 4

Local Authority 33 18 51 60

Welsh Government 4 9 13 94

Government Agency 11 9 20 15

Partnership structure/ project vehicle 2 4 6 1

Third sector 17 31 48 33

Private sector 8 8 16 8

Sectoral body/ industry association 1 2 3 1

Total 270 240

6 The ‘Non-involved’ column shows the number of Structural Funds projects by organisation type


Table 4 clearly indicates that HE organisations are the most active in exploring and

realising ETC opportunities. Of the total of 270 interactions with the ETC

Programmes in Wales, 106 (39%) correspond to HE organisations. Local Authorities

are the second largest group closely followed by third sector organisations.

Considering the ‘conversion rate’ between interested and involved for different kinds

of organisations7, Welsh HE institutes record the highest number of successful ETC

project participations, but to achieve these successes they have had to be

‘interested’ in many more opportunities than other types of organisation. HEIs

became successfully ‘involved’ on 43% of project interactions while Welsh local

authorities have a higher ‘conversion rate’ becoming successfully involved on 64% of

occasions. Only third sector organisations have a lower conversion rate than Welsh

HEIs. This suggests that the HEIs have greater capacity and willingness across a

range of departments, centres and subject areas to prepare bids. It may also be the

case that, at the project development stage, universities allow more speculative bids

to be made than other organisations, notably Local Authorities and third sector

organisations

The position of third sector organisations is also worthy of note, because as

illustrated in Table 5 below, they form the largest group of unique organisations in the

cohort of both ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ project interactions.

Table 5. Welsh organisations by sample type

NUMBER OF UNIQUE ORGANISATIONS by type of organisation and organisation's participation profile - population

HE

FE

LA

WG

Gov

. Age

ncy

Part

ners

hip

stru

ctur

e

Third

Sec

tor

Priv

ate

Sect

or

Sect

oral

bod

y

Tota

l

‘Involved’ 2< 7 0 7 1 3 0 0 1 0 19‘Involved’ >2 2 3 7 0 3 2 17 4 1 39‘Interested – applied’ 3 1 4 0 1 2 10 1 0 22‘Interested – withdrawn’ 0 1 2 0 2 0 10 4 1 20‘Non-involved’ 1 4 3 12 7 1 17 7 1 53 13 9 23 13 16 5 54 17 3 153 7 The ratio of successful interactions compared to those occasions which remained recorded as an ‘interest’


Despite this, at 48 (see Table 4) the total number of third sector ETC project

interactions is considerably lower than that of other ‘serial participators’, most notably

in HEIs (106) or Local Authorities (51) and those 54 third sector organisations

between them achieved success in just 17 ETC projects. So the ratio between

unsuccessful ETC project interactions and successful involvement in live ETC

projects is considerably higher than for other organisations. This suggests that there

is a high ‘drop out’ rate amongst third sector organisations and that overall their

propensity to become serial participators in ETC projects is lower than for both HEIs

or Local Authorities, for instance.

Only a relatively small number of participating organisations are ‘first-timers’ in

respect of ETC projects as for most organisations engagement pre-dated the 2007-

2013 programming period. Twenty-six ‘involved’ interviewees referred to repeated

personal and/or organisational ETC participations while only five described

themselves as ‘first-timers’ and three spoke of occasional participation.

Alongside this finding, it is worth noting that several ‘interested’ interviewees also

referred to previous personal involvement in ETC-related activities. Five ‘interested’

respondents could personally be described as ‘serial ETC participators’ with some

operating ‘under the radar’ - ‘I have been involved informally in a number of ETC

projects through organisations that we closely work with’ - and others having

transferred this experience and interest from a previous role.

Similarly, three interviewees who made reference to extensive previous experience

with ETC projects reported that they had not been successful in the current

Programmes. ‘The Council was very active in earlier rounds of Interreg, and had the

largest number of projects (lead and partner) in Wales, but has had no successful

projects in the recent round’. In this case this was attributed to the skills of the

European Team and the lack of a ‘political will’ because of a preference to develop

applications for large capital projects.

4.2 Patterns of participation within different ETC Programmes8

Across each of the Programmes, Welsh organisations exhibit a general trend of

choosing Priorities and Themes that deal with innovation and entrepreneurship,

followed by sustainability and the natural environment and urban/regional/community

development as a third Priority area. For example, the innovation Theme in the 8 Full details of the participation in the individual Programmes are included in Annexes 4 – 9.


Ireland/Wales Programme attracted 61% of Welsh participants; the Atlantic Area

Programme 53% and the North West Europe Programme 44% in their equivalent

Priorities and Themes. Each represents the highest proportion in their respective

Programmes.

The next most common theme of the Programmes engaged with is sustainability of

marine, coastal, natural and environmental resources. This is particularly the case in

the Atlantic Area and Ireland/Wales Programmes and might be expected, given the

geographic location of most of the partners.

Finally, strengthening urban and regional communities and cities features as a

Theme in the North West Europe and Atlantic Area Programmes with 31% and 12%

of projects respectively focusing attention in this area.

Considering further the reasons why organisations participate in a particular

Programme, after the geographic aspect and the perception of an ease of

participation noted for the Ireland/Wales Programme, the next most common answer

provided by interviewees related to operational context and the potential skills ‘fit’

with other partners. In other words, participation in the particular Programmes and

Priorities tends to be chosen largely because the anticipated project activities are

perceived as ‘fitting’ with the organisation’s goal, ambitions, objectives and skills.

Within the Ireland/Wales, North West Europe and Atlantic Area Programmes, the

highest proportion of participants comes from the Higher Education sector, followed

by Local Authorities and then the third sector. In the Interreg IVC Programme, there

are fewer clear trends in terms of theme choices, geographic location or operational

context. It is surprising that, given the extent to which HEIs are frequently seeking

research collaborators to be able to participate in EU FP7 and other Programmes,

the HEI participations in IVC projects were generally not as frequent as in the other

Programmes. Interviewees’ responses suggest that thematic opportunities and

experience with other programmes tended to override the geographically broader

reach of IVC projects.

In general terms, the spread of organisations within each of the Programmes reflects

the geographic areas covered. The Ireland/Wales Programme naturally has a good

participation from both participating Member State regions. Similarly, the North West

Europe Programme, whilst broader in its coverage, has a generally even distribution

across Members States when considered on the basis of projects with Welsh


participation. As highlighted above, the Interreg IVC Programme is open to all

Member State regions and therefore there is very little pattern to this Programme’s

participation.

4.3 The importance of project partnerships Generally speaking, there are fewer Welsh lead partners than junior partners. Of

those Welsh organisations participating in the Atlantic Area Programme, 24% are

leads (and the detailed analysis on a programme-by-programme basis in the annex

illustrates that on average, Welsh organisations tend to have a higher share of the

overall project budget in Atlantic Area projects than partners from other Member

State regions), in the North West Europe Programme 31% are leads, while in the

Interreg IVC Programme 15% are leads and in the URBACT Programme there are

no Welsh leads. Because the Ireland/Wales Programme involves only two Member

States, the Programme does not follow the same pattern. Here 66% of Welsh

organisations participating are lead partners in the Programme. Two interviewees

explicitly referred to the economic downturn having affected the ability of Irish

partners to devote the substantial resources required of a lead partner role to a

project which may have influenced this pattern more generally.

The precise project and partnership dynamics differ substantially, of course, between

different projects, but generally speaking, Welsh organisations prefer a role as

partner rather than leading a project unless there is a very strong reason to do so.

Moreover, for organisations that are participating for the first time, engaging as a

junior partner is a relatively ‘safe’ way to engage with the ETC Programmes in terms

of bureaucracy of the process and the challenge of managing multi-partner projects.

Further consideration of this pattern is given in sections five and six.

The partnerships created as a result of participation in ETC and Transnational

projects are of relevance to a range of areas investigated within this research

including, inter alia, the reasons for project success, a cause of negative experiences

and the reasons for participating in ETC in the first place. It is therefore worth

exploring how such partnerships were constructed.

A majority of organisations interviewed became engaged with their current ETC

partners through their participation in pre-existing networks or activities with

European partners.


Twenty-nine ‘involved’ respondents reported that they were able to draw on existing

network relationships to identify suitable partners, often in highly specific areas of

activity. For example, ‘The Geological Survey of Ireland had worked with small

mining groups and found partners originally. Mostly, partners have been found by

other partners recommending and suggesting as suitable partners, those groups who

had became known because of their work.’

Several interviewees also reported proactively exploring who might be suitable

partners for European collaboration projects on the basis of complementary

knowledge assets as illustrated by the following comment: ‘A colleague had heard

about the Waterford Institute's interesting developments and as a result of a number

of telephone conversations and also research on the internet, enquiries were made

as to whether there would be interest in joining the project development. The two

organisations had complementary assets - one had technology and the other the

learners who could use it.’

Others reported that they had been approached via the partner search opportunities

offered alongside the ETC Programmes, through attendance at European funding

events or, more often, through ‘multipliers’ 9 in Wales circulating such partner

searches: ‘The other partners in the proposal had sent a round-robin that was picked

up by one of our partner organisations in Wales. All other partners were identified by

the lead partner as well.’

Several organisations actively levered existing relationships into ETC projects,

including links into specialist European policy areas (e.g. autism, forest management

or design) or ‘legacy links’ from previous projects that have evolved into regular

working relationships; ‘[We had] common partners over several projects, for instance,

in the area of shoreline responses to marine pollution under a previous Atlantic Area

project where emergency response departments work together.’

In many instances, the initial project partners considered extending the project

partnership and identified who would be most suited to lead the project on the basis

of the relative merits and advantages of (potential) partner organisations. Indeed, the

evidence gathered with regard to the choice of the lead partner in projects suggests

that there is a strong element of rational thought and choice being made in projects.

9 The term ‘multipliers’ here refers to organisations that interact with many other organisations in their networks and geographical location


Across almost all projects, the interviewees were able to set out coherent reasons

why a particular lead partner had been chosen, including when the Welsh partner

took the lead. These reasons covered, inter alia, an acknowledgment of the lead

partners’ organisational capacity, their previous experience of leadership and their

‘ownership’ of the project concept.

The most frequent rationale given for the choice of a lead partner was that the

original project idea was theirs, often combined with previous experience: ‘The

Council came up with the initial project idea and have previous experience and

resources to deal with Interreg project bidding and management.’

Similarly, the lead partners’ organisational capacity, structures and previous project

leadership was taken into account: ‘They were the biggest organisation and had the

resource to develop the project’

Finally, the lead partner’s experience and connectedness in the subject area and

wider networks was a frequent factor: ‘The Austrian agency was an organisation

which was eligible to apply for ERDF funding, and had the capacity, structures,

experience, and previous experience of working with the German partner.’


5. Drivers, benefits and barriers to participation in ETC projects

Summary of chapter

The main motivations for Welsh organisations to participate in ETC projects can be

categorised under policy and learning and/or implementation drivers. Policy and

learning drivers imply that organisations seek knowledge sharing and learning

exchanges. Implementation drivers imply support for the testing or piloting of new

products or approaches and opportunities to mainstream project activities.

ETC projects are clearly seen as supporting policy and innovation outcomes and the

flexibility allowed under the ETC delivery arrangements in terms of outputs was

therefore noted as being key.

Some organisations stressed that they are willing to become involved in European

cooperation and collaboration as long as there is an identifiable benefit to local

groups such as SMEs, local residents or communities. Welsh Local Authorities in

particular adopt a more tactical approach to involvement in European cooperation

participating when they can identify direct, or indirect, operational benefits that match

their overall strategies or communities.

While funding was not the key driver for participation it was often a ‘trigger’ to

consider participation although organisations recognise that funding needs to be

allied to a strategic and structured approach if an ETC project is to make a

worthwhile contribution to an organisation’s activities. In almost all cases, funding

was noted as an important ‘enabler’ allowing organisations to undertake projects,

activities and build collaborations that they may otherwise not have been able to do.

Conversely, the overwhelming negative aspect of ETC funding mentioned by the

organisations interviewed is the ETC Programmes’ match funding requirements and

the issues encountered with regard to the financial reporting regime supporting the

ETC Programmes which have proved generally onerous and costly to manage.

Perceptions regarding the fit of ETC project activity with organisations’ remit emerged

as a key determinant of participation, not least because ensuring that there is an

organisational commitment and willingness to provide resources and support for the

development and implementation of ETC projects requires many organisations to

‘sell’ the ETC project internally.


Overall, organisations thought that their project had been a success and a majority of

interviewees were positively inclined towards future participation.

5.1 Drivers and benefits The specific factors that motivate Welsh organisations to participate in ETC projects

can broadly be categorised under two main headings, policy and learning drivers

and/or implementation drivers. In practice, most individual ETC projects present a

combination of the two. The patterns emerging from the research chime with the

analysis presented in a European Commission paper that, in analysing the

Community Added Value created by ESF funding, distinguishes between volume,

scope, role and process effects. 10.

Policy and learning outcomes as drivers are typically related to the need to develop

approaches to help policy development and decision-making; support lobbying

activities or to strengthen an organisation’s external profile. This may be allied to a

desire to obtain greater conceptual and practical clarity regarding a specific approach

or issue; to deepen the organisation’s own understanding of the way in which a

particular policy or approach works and, to create structured tools to make an

approach more rigorous or robust. This driver tends to result in knowledge sharing

and learning exchanges as the motivation for participation in the ETC Programmes.

Examples highlighted in the case studies include BTCV’s in-depth understanding of

the issues that are at stake in worklessness and how generic features of the BTCV

approach might be relevant to other activity areas. A similar example is the Brecon

Beacons National Park Authority’s achievements in communicating the concept of

sustainable tourism and, as a result, securing strong engagement with local

entrepreneurs.

Across all types of organisation, knowledge sharing and learning exchanges were

reported as the most frequent motivation for participation in the ETC Programmes.

In total, 38 ‘involved’ respondents and 19 ‘interested’ respondents considered some

form of knowledge exchange as the key benefit from engaging in ETC projects.

While, given the rationale and policy objective of the various ETC Programmes, this

finding is to be expected, a further type of learning can be distinguished here.

10 European Commission (2008), Methodological note, A framework to describe the Community Added Value of the ESF, EMPL 03/DR/AZ/…., ESF Evaluation Partnership Meeting, Plenary Session


‘Knowledge exchange’ as a motivating factor referred to exchanges based on the

project partners’ activities and target groups and usually related to the partners’

remits. However, in addition, interviewees highlighted that participation in ETC

projects could help them exchange knowledge by learning about their partners’

processes, organisational policies, management structures and stakeholder and

community interaction.

Incidentally, this description of different benefits echoes the types of Added Value

identified in the Commission paper referenced above; the first type of knowledge

exchange shares key traits with the ‘role effects’ as identified in that paper –

innovative processes or approaches being piloted and acting as multipliers, and the

second type of knowledge exchange has strong similarities with the ‘process effect’

identified there as it applies to the level of the individual organisations involved in

these projects (as opposed to the Member State level as identified in the analysis

presented in the Commission paper).

Implementation outcomes as a driver typically focus on the potential of ETC projects

to support the testing or piloting of new products or approaches and to contribute to a

tangible project which is innovative in nature, in effect further reinforcing the ‘role

effect’ Added Value. The underlying aim in an implementation driven project tends to

be product and/or business development including the actual marketing of the

organisation itself. This type of driver will tend to see opportunities to mainstream

project activities or to create indirect benefits for target groups as the motivation for

participation in the ETC Programmes. Adding to the ‘role effect’, an element of what

the Commission paper describes as ‘scope effect’ Added Value can also be detected

here therefore in that these activities broaden the benefits from European Structural

Funds ‘for groups or policy areas that would not otherwise receive support.’11

Pembrokeshire College’s success in integrating a social media application developed

by the Irish project partners into their interaction with students, for instance, not only

contributed directly to a more vibrant learning experience, it is also seen to open a

path to either develop entirely new areas of work or extend current provision and

target new audiences.

11 European Commission (2008), Methodological note, A framework to describe the Community Added Value of the ESF, EMPL 03/DR/AZ/…., ESF Evaluation Partnership Meeting, Plenary Session, p. 6


Where an important driver motivating organisations to become involved in ETC

Programmes is the opportunity to either mainstream project activities or to create

indirect benefits for target groups, the target groups referred to may be local SMEs,

economic sectors, communities etc. as illustrated by a project focused on skills

development in the construction industry: ‘The main aim of the project was to assist

with the sustainability of companies who were involved during the recession and all

of the companies are still in business. We wanted to mainstream the project and

bring in regional contractors, introducing the results into the wider organisation and it

has been very easy with it fitting seamlessly with added value and no additional

costs’.

For 11 interviewees, the benefits anticipated from working with European partners

were summarised as seeking actual new activity or new business. Further, 16

interviewees reported that the project they had worked on had been a success

because it had led to downstream benefits in the form of new business opportunities.

Similarly, by working with experienced partners some organisations felt that they

could learn directly about new market / activity opportunities that they may otherwise

not be capable of developing on their own. In this respect, the ETC project was seen

as a business development exercise. A Welsh organisation, for example, worked with

an Irish partner proficient at breaking into new retail markets and, another Welsh

partner organisation regarded their ETC project as a product development exercise

that enabled them to ‘lever-in’ complementary knowledge to strengthen their offer in

the ‘market place’.

Finally, many interviewees were clear about the strategic and ‘product development’

fit that they sought from their ETC project participations. For a number of Local

Authorities, the ETC projects were seen as important opportunities to conduct some

degree of ‘innovation’ in respect of their organisation’s strategic or organisational

remit and its planned or actual delivery activities. Similarly, a number of third sector

organisations reported that through their ETC projects they expected to be able to

generate some fresh evidence and/or to undertake ‘pilot’ activities capable of

demonstrating impact. Another organisation (in the forestry sector) referred to

building synergies with European partners to help ‘extend the range of uses for what

has traditionally been a waste product’.


As noted, many projects will be driven by a mix of both policy learning and

implementation, for example: ‘The main aim of the project is to develop successfully

tested and piloted models for this kind of community activity and then to use that

information and evidence to lobby government further. This was a new area for the

organisation and so it is useful to get a foothold and some track record with a view to

showcasing this concept to government further’.

A further key motivation reported are the opportunities afforded by the ETC

Programmes to establish and build relationships with similar organisations and

professionals in other regions and countries. This may be identified most explicitly in

the case of the HEIs who are typically seeking to build opportunities for collaborative

bidding for projects with larger funding values and more flexibility (e.g. Framework

Programme) or using ETC to secure access to research settings. These motivations

are not, however, confined to HEIs but are also apparent in the comments of other

interviewees, particularly those with a highly specialised remit.

For several organisations finding appropriate benchmarks for their activities is an

important consideration. For instance, Local Authorities who are seeking an

understanding of comparable approaches to particular issues or challenges: ‘The

economic development rationale goes back to the Council's realisation that there is

both a responsibility and requirement for the Council to look further afield for

economic development purposes. Our direct comparators will not be our immediate

neighbours, but will be further afield.’ Similarly, ‘learning from other experiences and

sharing our own experiences will give us confidence because we think that we are

doing more and better than groups in other parts of the UK, but we would like to

confirm this.’

The opportunity for an organisation to build its profile and reputation in new areas of

discourse or to strengthen a policy message beyond established circles was

identified as a further important added value benefit and motivator. Examples of

projects where this motivation applies relate to where, for example the subject of the

project is not currently high on policy agendas, such as autism or marine leisure

opportunities, and others that are highly specific, such as design or forest

management. In this context, 21 interviewees referred to enhancing their

organisation’s reputation as one reason for their view that their project could be

deemed a success. A number of the examples that are relevant here are included in

the Annex of case studies.


So ETC projects are clearly seen as supporting policy and innovation outcomes. The

flexibility allowed under the ETC delivery arrangements in terms of outputs was

therefore noted as being key. However, while some projects and organisations noted

that ‘direct outputs are hard to achieve, there is a need to look at softer impacts

instead’ other interviewees and focus group participants called for a clearer focus on

outputs and outcomes that should be embedded more explicitly in ETC projects.

This was largely because, as one interviewee expressed it, the outputs identified in

ETC project applications can be ‘over ambitious, too activity focused and need more

emphasis on quality and impact’ and that ‘a real discussion about outputs and

impacts was needed.’ Indeed, some interviewees’ feedback on previous ETC

participations suggests that a lack of focus has the potential to discourage further

engagement. One interviewee summed it up as follows: ‘The focus would have to be

on manageable objectives […]. A lesson from the past is that goals are often

unrealistic, particularly when working with partners from say Italy or Portugal where

language and cultural barriers need to be overcome and a good understanding of the

different settings in terms of culture, the legal environment etc. would need to be in

place.’

5.2 The role of funding – a driver and a barrier?

Many interviewees mentioned funding as a key aspect of why they had explored or

accessed ETC Programmes, but more detailed questioning revealed that funding, in

and of itself, was not the key driver for participation. While funding was often a

‘trigger’ to consider participation in an ETC project, more in-depth consideration of

whether and how this might work appears to have led organisations to appreciate

that, rather than a sole focus on maximising the funding available, a strategic and

structured approach was required if the ETC project was to make a worthwhile

contribution to their organisation’s activities.

Several interviewees felt that ETC participation has the potential to detract from their

core activities and therefore needed to be considered in the context of the overall

sustainability of the organisation and its activities. In some cases this led them to

make an informed choice to not participate because, for instance, ‘the main focus for

the organisation is on the local, on Wales. We are not ready to engage beyond the

local, because the local programmes are yet to be 'pinned down' in order to achieve

sustainability.’


In other cases, careful analysis concluded that ETC activities could make a

contribution to securing sustainability: ‘The aim was to create more opportunities for

clients, to broaden horizons and make the work more interesting and - importantly -

to address sustainability issues for the organisation as a whole.…Working with Irish

partners was designed to generate additional income by increasing the organisation's

visibility in Ireland and potentially market consultancy services to organisations in

Ireland.’

In almost all cases funding was therefore ultimately seen as an important ‘enabler’

allowing organisations to undertake projects, activities and build collaborations that

they may otherwise not have been able to do, but one that required careful strategic

and operational management.

A number of those interviewed did, however, note that some ETC Programmes carry

a higher intervention rate than that associated with mainstream Structural Funds

which, for some organisations, makes it attractive as an additional funding stream for

innovative activities. It was also evident that, because it offers a funding stream that

is multi-annual, ETC project funding has the possibility of providing a degree of

certainty to a project participant, albeit tempered by cash flow and timing issues. In

some cases, specifically in a third sector setting, ETC project funding may also act as

a ’lever’ for other ‘non-core’ funding by giving the third sector organisation a platform

to seek additional project funding from its sponsors in order to allow them to

undertake the ETC project.

Although the sustainability of universities and Local Authorities clearly does not

depend on ETC project funding, it appears to be the case that a number of research

centres and units within the Welsh universities and even activity streams within Local

Authorities may effectively have been ‘sustained’ to some extent with the indirect

assistance of that centre’s or unit’s participation in an ETC project or projects12.

Notwithstanding these positive aspects of ETC project funding, the overwhelming

aspect of ETC funding mentioned by the organisations interviewed is the tendency of

the ETC Programmes’ match funding requirement to limit their scope to engage in

the ETC Programmes. The financial management and reporting capacity required to

12 On this point we note from the interviews with the WEFO Project Development Officers that they routinely encourage organisations to pursue a diversity of income streams so that they do not become dependent on a succession of ETC projects.


fully and effectively manage project budgets and maximise the grant funding may

also not be readily available outside the HEIs and LAs. Even here, Local Authorities

and HEIs report that the match funding and financial reporting regime supporting the

ETC Programmes is generally onerous and costly to manage and deliver.

Where a strategic commitment to ETC projects has been made, some organisations

have ‘ring-fenced’ budgets to provide match-funding within ETC projects allowing

them a targeted pursuit of European cooperation activities as illustrated by the

following quote: ‘The marketing team has a policy of levering in funding and budget

specifically for match funding. This is designed to enable cooperative working,

partnerships and horizon scanning.’

5.3 The fit of participation in ETC with organisational remit Perceptions regarding the fit of ETC project activity with organisations’ remit emerged

as a key determinant of participation, not least because ensuring that there is an

organisational commitment and willingness to provide resources and support for the

development and implementation of ETC projects requires many organisations to

‘sell’ the ETC project internally.

For some ‘interested’ and ‘non-involved’ contacts interviewed, the decision not to

participate in an ETC project or Programme was connected to a perception that there

would only be a tenuous link to the organisation’s strategic objectives. The survey

identified different types of perceived strategy mismatch. These include, for instance,

a perceived lack of benefits for the organisation or specific target group or even a

fear that a project might attract unwelcome competition from abroad into Wales.

Some third sector organisations also felt that, because of the ETC requirement for

regional impact, projects would take them too far away from their highly localised

focus and target groups13.

Indeed, even some of those interviewees currently engaged in ETC projects, were

able to tell us that the ‘default’ position for their organisations is to not participate in

European cooperation activities of any sort. Reasons provided by interviewees

included a desire to not be distracted from securing the sustainability of core

activities; the ETC project opportunity would make only a marginal contribution to the

organisations’ aims and objectives ; or, the considerable effort involved in developing

13 While it is less typical for local third sector organisations to have explicit European ambitions, there are some notable exceptions.


and delivering a successful project with all the associated partner search, project

management and administrative tasks.

This attitude is exemplified in the following quote; ‘We have not actively explored

European cooperation before. In this instance, we were approached by the university

to join the project. It was of interest to us, because it allowed an opportunity to

integrate business engagement into the wider project by linking students with

responsible businesses to support them.’

And yet, similar types of organisations can be found amongst the ’involved’ and ‘non-

involved cohorts’ and, ‘involved’ peers of those ‘non-involved’ organisations that did

not see the relevance of ETC projects for their remit. In such cases ’involved’

organisations reported that their projects produced highly relevant results. To some

extent, therefore, apart from concerns regarding the availability of match-funding and

project management capacity and capability, decisions to not engage with ETC may

simply be the result of a lack of awareness of how such projects can produce

relevant results. The lack of European links or networks and the fact that nurturing

European networks requires a considerable upfront investment further reinforces the

perception that working with partners abroad is not relevant. This is aptly

summarised by the following quote: ‘The time and resource necessary to understand

how the system works and develop a project has simply not been available.

Developing a project with European partners is not quite the same as ringing people

locally. Overcoming language issues and agreeing a project concept and work

programme would be much more demanding - I wouldn't know where to start.'

For many ‘non-involved’ organisations, the focus rests on delivering mainstream

ERDF or ESF projects. ETC Programmes are seen by many as competing for the

same resources so that where organisations are ‘juggling’ other European projects

they may decide not to engage in ETC Programmes, because ‘it would be a mistake

to dilute the current RDP and ESF activities.’ This was expressed, in a number of the

interviews and focus group sessions, as a need to balance organisational

commitments so as not to use scarce funds that would otherwise be available to act

as unencumbered match-funding for the organisations other projects.

For the Welsh Local Authorities in particular, involvement in European cooperation

appears to be tactical, in the sense that they will judge opportunities on a case-by-

case basis, participating when they can identify direct, or indirect, operational


benefits that match their overall strategies or target groups. A full range of

approaches to European cooperation activities may be seen across the Welsh Local

Authorities.

One local authority exemplifies the stance reflected in comments made by

interviewees from five Local Authorities; European cooperation of all types (including

participation in the ETC Programmes) is seen as an important element in the

Council’s strategy and activities. By contrast the neighbouring authority has an active

involvement in European policy with direct contacts in Brussels, but has chosen to

focus on Programmes that are aimed at purely internal regional delivery (e.g. Rural

Development Plan – RDP - Axis 4). A third, also neighbouring, authority has, by and

large, decided to concentrate European cooperation activities across a range of

programmes seen as delivering better value than the ETC Programmes and targeted

on local communities and issues such as student and teacher exchange programmes

(generally 100% funded).

Finally, several other Local Authority interviewees – another five can be grouped in

this category – suggested that they recognise ETC projects as a tool to deliver on

some of their strategic objectives, but also reported that participation would require a

‘hard headed’ judgement on whether the benefits of European cooperation will offer a

strategic benefit outweighing what is seen as the ‘bother’ associated with

participation in Programmes. This group will actively explore opportunities to

participate, but will do so against the backdrop of various constraints ranging from

the availability of match-funding (to a large extent in the form of staff time), public

perceptions and being able to secure political buy-in for specific projects.

There is also a tendency for Local Authorities to be ‘scared to expose themselves to

accusations of seeking the ‘jolly’. Consequently, being able to justify expenditure

outside of core or statutory services with international travel depends on being able

to demonstrate the specific impact and value for money of ETC projects on the

organisation, the local area and target group. Gaining political approval and ‘sign-off’

is vital in those circumstances as is maintaining continued engagement of the

relevant portfolio leader and senior officers within the authority throughout the life of

the project.

Similarly, the practicalities of being involved in ETC projects can sometimes ‘jar’ with

organisational culture and ethos. A commitment to avoiding air travel, for instance,


causes some practical and philosophical difficulties for organisations with an

environmental or sustainability remit; ‘We are concerned about our CO2 footprint and

while the entrepreneurs did fly to various places, I avoided flying and have managed

not to as part of the project.’

Universities, on the other hand, are able to directly link ETC project activity to

producing research outputs. The strategic perspective where ETC projects can fulfil a

dual purpose for them makes it easier for a project manager to convince their

Department/School head to support the bid internally. On the one hand, ETC

participations allow them to nurture links and demonstrate engagement with local

stakeholders, while, on the other hand, universities lever their use of ETC projects to

embed themselves in wider collaborative research partnerships.

Engagement with local stakeholders is increasingly important for HEIs as part of the

evidence required under the Research Excellence Framework (REF) arrangements

and therefore their department’s medium term quality-based research funding.

Working on projects with a broad range of research partnerships and collaborations

also has the potential for HEIs to create a bridge into, or to complement, other

research programmes and activities such as Framework Programmes. In the special

case of HEIs therefore, ETC participation may be strongly strategic, and capable of

providing a fundamental added value benefit that is not available for most other

organisations.

5.4 Attitudes to potential future participation in ETC Overall ‘involved’ organisations (who had been successful in their project application)

thought that their project had been a success. In line with this, when asked about

future engagement and the likelihood of participation 85% of interviewees’ comments

suggested that they were positively inclined towards future participation. While 34%

of these comments suggested that interviewees would definitely consider ETC for

future cooperation, 25% of comments received referred to the need to balance all

future opportunities against their organisation’s remit and 20% to the fact that

organisations would participate if the project opportunity matched their organisational

objectives. A small group of 5% of comments stated very explicitly that they would

only consider participating as junior partners.


6. Role of capacity and maturity in shaping EU cooperation activity

Summary of chapter

Welsh organisations rely, to a considerable extent, on their own in-house resources

for the development of their ETC and other cooperation projects.

Larger and better resourced organisations such as the Welsh HEIs and LAs, but also

some national organisations, will typically be able to mobilise an in-house European

team or manager allowing a consistent process of identifying opportunities,

developing project bids and managing project implementation.

In other organisations, an individual service department will sometimes emerge as a

‘natural’ ETC lead or members of staff will adopt responsibility for developing a

project with partners. However, the close link between a project and organisational

objectives may become weaker and continuity lost when there is a change of staff.

The challenge of continuity is also apparent for unsuccessful ETC engagements.

A clear ‘political buy-in’ behind a project is identified as very useful to make

successful bids for funding under most of the ETC Programmes. However, few

organisations have the strategic capacity and maturity to generate such leverage.

Maximising the benefits of participation in ETC Programmes requires a strong degree

of maturity to manage and deliver projects effectively and efficiently and to create

tangible benefits and a legacy beyond actual project activity.

The third sector and the FE sector typically lack the strategic remit and capacity to be

able to allocate resource to the development of ETC projects and partnerships.

Universities, on the other hand, are able to take a strategic perspective where ETC

projects are concerned.

The use of a consistent internal assessment process to assess the cost/benefit of

ETC projects is seen as a hallmark of organisational maturity in managing ETC

participation.

The research considered whether the extent and success of participation in ETC

projects might be associated with an organisation’s capacity and relative maturity in

relation to such activities.


6.1 Capacity for organisations’ engagement The issue of organisational capacity can be explored in relation to the different

stages of ETC participation – bid development; securing resources; project delivery

and project closure and follow on.

A majority of ‘involved’ Welsh organisations rely, to a considerable extent, on their

own in-house resources for the development of ETC projects. Here, there are some

important differences amongst organisations.

Larger and better resourced organisations such as the Welsh HEIs and LAs, but also

some national organisations, will typically be able to mobilise an in-house European

team or manager. These will play varying roles in project development by alerting

departments to opportunities, ensuring strategic integration as outlined above, or by

supporting project development to varying degrees. In some cases, the in-house

European team may even take the lead on project development, handing projects

over to specific project officers or managers once approved. Evidence from the

interviews suggests that this approach can make a substantial difference, with 28

‘involved’ organisations or almost half of those organisations with successful projects

referring to an in-house European manager or team being involved in project

development. By contrast only three, or less than 10%, of ‘interested’ interviewees

referred to equivalent in-house resources.

Where ETC projects form part of a wider portfolio of EU activities a consistent

process of identifying opportunities, developing project bids and managing project

implementation is likely to be in place. Such a centralised EU Programmes function

will often be combined with a policy responsibility within the organisation as

exemplified by the following comment: ‘The Programmes Directorate takes

responsibility internally for this type of activity. They provide technical assistance

where necessary and support a range of members in activities.’

In the case of Local Authorities in particular, the interviews suggest that, as a result

of championing initial individual ETC projects, an individual service department will

sometimes emerge as a ‘natural’ ETC lead. Where such project experiences are

positive, this can result in the department developing a strategic view on how it may

make use of ETC Programmes which, in a number of cases, allowed the positive

experience to also extend to other departments.


In smaller organisations ETC activities are more likely to be handled by the senior

management team. Where organisations have explored ETC activities for the first

time, this will tend to be driven by a senior member of staff who identifies ETC

Programmes as an opportunity either to tap into additional funding sources or to

realise specific European ambitions. This was the case for a majority of the

‘interested’ interviewees in the sample.

In many instances, however, individual departments or members of staff will adopt

the main responsibility for developing the project and the project plan with partners.

The survey interviews suggest that this makes an important contribution to

generating project ownership that can embed a strategic focus in the project concept

and implementation arrangements from the start. However, when staff change occurs

the close link between a project and organisational objectives may become weaker

and continuity lost.

This challenge of continuity is also apparent for unsuccessful ETC engagements.

Several ‘interested’ interviewees either had no recollection of the exploration of ETC

activities as documented in the WEFO records or reported that the interest in ETC

had been driven by one particular individual who had since left or moved on to other

activities.

It was noted that tacit knowledge gained through previous contacts with the

Managing Authority or the Joint Technical Secretariat can be deployed. Two

interviewees explicitly referred to the benefits of fully understanding the mechanics of

ETC decision-making, with one suggesting that ‘the partnership was carefully

structured to include at least one partner from each relevant Member State’’ and the

second expressing his belief that ‘engagement with the Secretariat at the outset was

key to a successful application and project’.’

The interviews suggested that while only a few organisations have the strategic

capacity and maturity to generate such leverage and that many have not identified

this as an opportunity, there are instances where WEFO ‘lending some voice’ to an

application is perceived by project applicants as having made a difference.

In respect of project delivery, interviewees generally considered and recognised that

considerable organisational capacity was required to lead an ETC project. As

reported earlier the interviews suggest that generally speaking adopting the role of

the project lead is not attractive for organisations in Wales. ‘Generally I don’t see any


benefit from leading or coordinating an ETC project, because it has the potential to

distract attention from the actual project delivery. We need a reason to take on the

project lead.’ Joining ETC projects as junior partner is therefore often seen as the

approach of choice to develop greater ETC capacity before embarking on developing

an organisations’ own project concept.

However, once that ETC experience and capacity had been secured, many

interviewees reported that ‘owning’ the project concept and driving project

implementation on that basis had benefits in ensuring the relevance and focus of the

ultimate project results; ‘We had experience of being a project partner, but wanted to

be the lead this time. Even though there's more work involved, you get greater

benefits, you get to be in the middle of things and get to be in control of finance and

other things.’

The Welsh partners did, in the majority of cases, engage in the development of the

project plan and the project budgets through face-to-face meetings or virtual

conferencing. Indeed, embedding a ‘due diligence’ approach in the project

development process was evident in the comments made by some interviewees and

focus group participants. For example, observing partner behaviours in terms of the

quality and timeliness of their contributions during project development was seen as

key to assessing the calibre of project partners and therefore the commitment made

to a particular ETC application.

At the project close and follow-up stages, a particular point raised by interviewees

related to the time-bound nature of ETC funding (and therefore project posts) and

problems arising from the time-lines embedded in projects, which can lead to a lack

of focus on project closure. At the start of ETC projects, many interviewees reported

that there are unrealistic expectations placed on the project partners to be ‘up and

running’ from month one (even though they are often not finally approved until after

the official start date) while at the end of a project key staff may start to leave for

more permanent posts.

External resources may be a further way of ensuring project delivery and ‘legacy’.

This may be provided in a range of ways exemplified across the ‘involved’ projects

interviewed.

Once projects are underway, even large organisations such as the HEIs and LAs

report ‘struggling’ as far as capacity to handle project management and cash flow is


concerned. Indeed a number of interviewees reported that administration staff were

specifically ‘bought in’ for ETC projects and seen as a far better option for project and

financial management than for scarce resources of experienced permanent staff to

be allocated to manage a short to medium term ETC project.

Similarly, local partnerships with a shared ETC project interest will often contribute to

maximising resources allowing organisations to ‘punch above their weight.’ The role

of external funding officers and finance departments in the larger organisations is

important in this respect, since these may support local partner organisations with the

technical know-how necessary to enable thematic expertise and interest to flourish in

the context of ETC projects; ‘Our ETC activities are based on a strong relationship

with the local college.’

While the research conducted for this study did not specifically explore the role of

external consultants in the ETC projects, on the basis of the data collected there is

no indication that the development and management of ETC projects for Welsh

organisations attracts significant use of external consultancy. Clearly there are a few

examples of external experts being engaged to assist in some aspects of project and

partnership development however no examples came to light where the whole

project management and delivery task has been handed to external consultants.

Even in the cases identified, where external consultants have been engaged, their

role has tended to be limited to the initial development of the project concept and,

once the bid moved into a detailed discussion, the organisation’s own project

manager has taken over the responsibility.

Apart from being difficult to resource, the use of external consultants would, for most

Welsh organisations, undermine one of the main benefits sought from ETC projects,

that of knowledge exchange and learning opportunities for the organisation and its

staff. Distinctions were made by some, however, between the different Programmes

in that respect. One of the focus groups concluded that ‘working with external

consultants is not so important for Ireland/Wales projects, but for North West Europe

where projects would have to deal with potentially 10 different audit regimes,

consultancy support would be desirable to contribute to a big management task.’

6.2 Maturity of organisations’ involvement It was clear from the interviews conducted, and amplified by the focus group

discussions, that to maximise the benefits of participation in ETC Programmes,


organisations require a degree of maturity to manage and deliver ETC projects

effectively and efficiently whether they are the lead partner or a junior project partner.

The notion of maturity may have a number of different aspects with regard to ETC

Programmes and projects.

To begin with, for organisations to design and deliver their ETC activities with

strategic intent from the start requires a certain degree of maturity. For example,

when commenting on the factors which they saw as leading to successful projects,

23 interviewees referred to the strength of the core project concepts, the matching of

mutual objectives and the strength of partnership dynamics as being key. All of these

factors depend, at least to some extent, on the organisation having the confidence

and maturity to employ clarity on its strategic goals and on how the ETC project

might help it to deliver its strategy.

Maturity was also expressed as a feature of ETC participation where organisations

with considerable ETC experience are sometimes content to join a partnership rather

than developing own projects. This may be the case especially where there are pre-

existing relationships with the associated level of trust in project partners, allowing

the lead partners to develop the project objectives, project plan and the project

budgets.

Developing the maturity to successfully lever ETC projects, however, does not

necessarily depend on scale. In fact, interviews with a number of organisations,

demonstrated that, while operating at a relatively small scale, these organisations

were mature and highly astute in identifying strategic opportunities for knowledge

exchange and business development through working with European partners.

At the same time, the capacity and maturity required to strategically lever ETC

projects cannot be taken for granted in a large organisation either. For instance,

while there is a cultural and organisational expectation for academics to nurture their

international networks and lever these to contribute to the HEI’s standing and formal

REF assessments, securing international ‘reach’ and getting full benefit from ETC

projects can still be challenging for universities; ‘The university has been too insular

in the past, too inward looking when the reality is that academia is international.’

Striking an appropriate balance between individual researcher initiative while

managing an integrated organisation requires careful attention in most HEIs.


The use of a consistent internal assessment process to assess the costs and

benefits of different projects including ETC emerges from the interviews as a

particular hallmark of organisational maturity in managing ETC participation. This is

said by interviewees to allow organisational priorities regarding external funding to be

combined with an awareness of the strategic contribution that different projects can

make to organisational objectives. Similarly, a process that leads to internal project

approval may be regarded as a further aspect of the maturity of the organisation in

dealing with ETC Programme participation. Where this approach translates into a

strong strategic rationale with broad buy-in throughout the organisation it appears to

be an effective tool. However, where the link between approval processes and

organisational strategy and ‘buy-in’ is not clear, internally, this may be perceived as

an unnecessary obstacle. In the interviews there was evidence of both scenarios.

Approaches to the delivery and management of ETC projects are a further aspect of

organisational maturity in respect of ETC Programmes. In most organisations, the

role of the finance department is important for management of ETC projects since the

administrative procedures associated with ETC projects require financial

management capacity. Where projects are driven by individual departments or staff

members without the benefit of a strong and explicit strategic approach to such

activities there were examples, amongst the projects interviewed, where a project

manager might have initially underestimated the administrative burden and needed to

secure internal resource and support retrospectively.

Varying levels of organisational maturity regarding the management of ETC projects

are also evident in their approach to project closure. The challenge of understanding,

capturing and demonstrating how ETC project results contribute to an organisations’

remit and strategic objectives was evident in many of the interviews although only

three ‘involved’ organisations explicitly mentioned legacy in their interviews. The

point here is that a clear exit strategy embedded in individual ETC projects from the

outset was recognised by many interviewees as beneficial for project results to be

harnessed appropriately for mainstreaming activities. While some organisations are

sufficiently resourced and mature to create a particular remit for core staff to capture

and manage the project legacy, for others, the ‘squeeze’ at both ends of the project

may lead to a lack of time, focus and resource to adequately capitalise the project

results.


One suggestion from interviewees was that ‘there should be a ‘run-off’ period at the

end when people are often beginning to leave while final project closure and securing

the legacy still needs to be done.’ This would ideally cover the finalisation of all

administrative aspects as well as an assessment of how project results could and

should be taken forward into further activities delivered by the organisation, be it

through further project activities or through mainstreaming the outcomes achieved.

7. Programme and operational factors affecting ETC participation

Summary of chapter

Strong project management was quoted as the single most important aspect to make

an ETC project a success or to lead it to failure.

Previous negative experiences in European cooperation activities were cited as

reasons why organisations may avoid future involvements in ETC. Poor experiences

with Managing Authorities or the time consuming nature of the bid development,

project management and project reporting were also identified as a barrier to future

participation.

The option of transnational activities under the mainstream ERDF and ESF

Programmes is not generally regarded as a viable possibility. Obstacles range from a

lack of strategic fit and difficulties of integrating such activities into existing projects.

Organisations depend to a large extent on in-house ETC expertise or on lead partner

capabilities tending to minimise the use that they make of the ETC support

infrastructure. However, experience with the support infrastructure varied

considerably between interviewees.

Interviewees did not always distinguish clearly between specific contacts with WEFO

officials regarding ETC and other ERDF and ESF Programmes or activities and

negative perceptions that influenced expectations to participate in ETC projects

sometimes stemmed from unrelated dealings with WEFO in the ERDF and ESF

Programmes. At the same time, organisations have a clear expectation that WEFO

will be pro-active in alerting and supporting them in pursuit of opportunities for

European funding.

Four main types of organisations can be identified in terms of their ability to source

information and advice for ETC applications and projects:


• organisations that are highly experienced in using European funding generally

and have acquired considerable ETC expertise;

• organisations that benefit from ETC expertise held by partners, both in Wales and

outside;

• organisations that invest resource and effort in identifying appropriate sources of

information and advice; and

• organisations that have found the process of identifying the most appropriate

contacts for different kinds of information difficult and have struggled to source

advice and support that they require for project development.

A pattern emerges that the least experienced organisations appear to have the

greatest difficulty in identifying and tapping into appropriate advice and support.

Establishing the most appropriate interface to effectively integrate between ETC

Programmes and wider WG policy objectives without damaging the opportunity for

innovation and experiment offered to Welsh organisations by the ETC Programmes

will be important going forward.

7.1 Operational and application process experiences Operational aspects of ETC projects clearly influence perceptions. Previous negative

experiences in European Cooperation activities were frequently cited as reasons to

avoid or to be reluctant about future involvements in ETC generally. Partly, this was

due to difficulties that related to orchestrating diverse multi-national partnerships to

produce useful project results and partly to the experience of many organisations

with the administrative requirements associated with ETC projects.

Project management was quoted as the single most important aspect to make an

ETC project a success or to lead it to failure.

The ‘involved’ interviews reveal an inverse progression in terms of perceived difficulty

related to the different stages of the project development process:

• 79% reported that agreeing project aims and objectives was reasonably

straightforward,

• 68% reported the same for the development of a project plan: and

• 42% agreed to some extent with the statement that ‘it was easy to develop the

financial management aspects of the project’.


A very similar pattern is reflected in the ‘interested’ interview results. In other words,

probably unsurprisingly, as the detail and complexity of the project development

process increased, there was less ‘ease’ felt by both ‘involved’ and ‘interested’

respondents.

Alongside this, reported problems such as poor experiences with programme

Managing Authorities or the time consuming nature of the bid development, project

management and project reporting rankled with some organisations: ‘European

Programmes aren't the easiest to contract manage and the value versus resource

required doesn't stack up.’

Twenty-three ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ interviewees (almost 30%) explicitly referred

to bureaucracy or administrative burden as a downside of participation and this was

also a strong theme that emerged from most of the focus group discussions.

Experiences with ‘onerous and time consuming audit requirements’ associated with

the Ireland/Wales Programme were most prominently mentioned.

A number of ‘interested’ interviewees who had actively explored ETC project

applications referred to circumstantial reasons for not going ahead such as the

economic circumstances of the organisations themselves; their partners or time

scales getting in the way of further pursuit of early stage project plans and changes in

the conditions or eligibility criteria for different programmes.

Cash flow difficulties were also identified prominently as negative and demotivating

factors notably where organisations reported that they cannot afford to carry the

burden of cash flow requirements while payments are processed, especially where

there are frustrating delays in audit procedures or where ‘the rules get changed’.

A strong theme that emerged from the interviews and focus group discussions on this

aspect of ETC Programme participants was a plea for greater uniformity between the

ETC Programmes in respect of, inter alia, intervention rates; the treatment of match

funding; administrative and reporting procedures and audit procedures. In respect of

the availability of match funding in particular, many interviewees commented

positively on their understanding of the situation in a number of EU countries where

approved projects are ‘automatically’ awarded match funding for projects by their

national or regional government authorities.


7.2 Transnational elements within Structural Funds Programmes The transnational element in the mainstream ERDF and ESF Programmes warrants

specific consideration at this point.

The feedback from the interviews suggests that the option of undertaking

transnational activities under the mainstream ERDF and ESF Programmes is not

generally regarded as a viable possibility. Obstacles mentioned by interviewees

ranged from a lack of strategic fit and difficulties of integrating such activities into

existing projects to perceived shortcomings in the delivery mechanism itself.

Interviewees also suggested that the complexities involved in developing such a

project were such that it was often hard for WEFO Development Officers themselves

to advise applicants on the best way forward. This was summed up by one

interviewee by suggesting that ‘the transnational element of Convergence is

impossible - how can you demonstrate the benefit remains in Wales?’ In the limited

number of cases where a transnational element has been realised, the perseverance

of the WEFO Project Development Officer and the proposing organisation was noted

as a key factor allowing these projects to come to fruition.

Further obstacles for transnational project elements being developed include the

comment that there is a lack of ‘any evidence of it working in practice’ creating, in

effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indeed, interviewees observed that some activities

that could potentially have gone ahead in using transnational project support from the

mainstream Programmes were ultimately funded from elsewhere, because the

process of integrating this into a project was felt to be opaque. There was also some

evidence, however, that organisations’ internal allocation of roles and responsibilities

are sometimes not naturally conducive to the development of ETC projects or

transnational elements within mainstream programmes. Project officers may have a

remit that either focuses on developing European linkages or accessing external

funding with a key focus on mainstream Structural Funds. As a result there is often

no ‘read across’ from wider European objectives to the objectives associated with

mainstream Structural Fund projects.

Several interviewees did report, however, that they had actively considered

transnational elements to their mainstream projects and were open to develop such

activities in the future or, alerted to this possibility as a result of the interview,

considered that a mainstream transnational strand might be the most appropriate


instrument for their particular interest in European collaboration, because it allows a

more focussed approach to gain very specific learning inputs from other European

countries (e.g. cycling provision in Denmark or the Netherlands).

7.3 Satisfaction levels with support infrastructures Each ETC Programme has a dedicated support infrastructure designed to make the

necessary information and advice available to enable organisations to develop

successful ETC project bids and effectively deliver ETC projects. Some elements of

the infrastructure are Wales-specific (e.g. the Ireland/Wales Development Officers)

and some are for a wider UK target group of eligible organisations (e.g. the National

Contact Points).

The support infrastructures were considered from a number of aspects in the

research. These included the level of awareness of the ETC Programmes and the

transnational elements of the mainstream Structural Funds Programmes amongst

organisations based in Wales; the quality and accessibility of the information, advice

and guidance available to ETC applicants; the quality of project development support

and post approval support for the ETC Programmes; and the application process

relating to ETC Programmes.

A first general finding suggests that interviewees’ experience with the support

infrastructure as assessed by the interview survey was highly varied between

interviewees.

Out of 31 ‘involved’ organisations who commented, 65% agreed to some extent that

'the project support infrastructure for European funding helped them understand ETC

opportunities and/or develop a strong application' and 68% also agreed with the

statement that 'the project support infrastructure for European funding helped to

successfully secure their project'.

For ‘interested’ organisations, 50% of interviewees commenting on their experiences

with the support infrastructure agreed to some extent that the infrastructure to help

organisations secure projects was in place, while a smaller percentage, just 21%,

thought that the infrastructure was strong in terms of helping them to identify

opportunities.


Chart 1 presents a snapshot of overall satisfaction levels with the strength of the

support infrastructure with respondents indicating to what extent they agreed with the

statement that ‘the project support infrastructure for European funding helped us

understand ETC opportunities and/or develop a strong application.’

Chart 1. Overall satisfaction levels with the support for project development

Chart 1 illustrates that a majority of ‘involved’ interviewees had generally positive

views of the support available in identifying opportunities while a majority of

‘interested’ interviewees, probably unsurprisingly, were less satisfied with the support

available.

Chart 2 shows that, for ‘involved’ interviewees, the picture is very similar for the

statement that ‘the project support infrastructure for European funding helped to

successfully secure our project.'


Chart 2. Overall satisfaction levels with the support for securing project funding

As noted above, organisations depend to a large extent either on in-house ETC

expertise or on lead partner capabilities. This tends to minimise the use that they

make of the ETC support infrastructure. Where organisations had sought out support

and had been able to identify contacts in the WEFO TC Unit, they were generally

satisfied with the support received, particularly in terms of advocacy support for

specific applications. However, even organisations that had benefited from regular

contact with WEFO staff suggested that without their prior knowledge, this would be

difficult to find; ‘we are not aware of any specific 'front door' for information and

advice on the ETC Programmes. This might be an area for development.’

Interviewees did not always clearly distinguish between specific contacts with WEFO

officials regarding ETC and ERDF and ESF Programmes or activities and sometimes

referred to very general perceptions of WEFO based on their organisational

experiences. The experiences and perceptions that influenced organisations’ future

expectations to participate in ETC projects therefore sometimes stemmed from their

relationships with WEFO and the role of WEFO gained through perceived previous

difficult dealings with WEFO in the ERDF and ESF Programmes.

By the same token, the Ireland/Wales Development Officers’ role is, to some extent,

seen as a general gateway into ETC projects as reflected in one comment by an

experienced Local Authority European Manager who suggested that ‘the

Ireland/Wales Development Officers in particular are very good so that overall the


information available regarding ETC projects is much better than that for

Convergence projects.’

The interview results also suggest that organisations in Wales have a clear

expectation that WEFO will be pro-active in alerting and supporting them in pursuit of

opportunities for European funding.

A further finding emerging from the research suggests substantial differences in

organisations’ ability to maximise their effective use of the support infrastructure. For

example, while several of the more ETC-experienced organisations saw establishing

contact with the Managing Authority early on in an application process as crucial for

success, few of the less experienced organisations were aware of this as an option

or, if they were aware of it, were confident enough to use it.

Across interviewees, 74% of the ‘involved’ group and 54% of the ‘interested’ group

suggested that it was fairly clear to them where to turn for support.14.

‘Non-involved’ organisations most frequently mentioned WEFO (i.e. website,

mainstream Structural Fund project development officer or just as an organisation) as

their first port of call for any information regarding European funding including ETC.

In addition, many interviewees referred to either European funding teams within their

organisation or external organisations with a formal or informal role as multipliers for

information and awareness on European funding matters (e.g. West Wales European

Centre, WCVA 3SET). Very few ‘non-involved’ organisations had any awareness of

the UK National Contact Points for the different ETC Programmes or the role of the

Joint Technical Secretariats for the ETC Programmes.

One NWE ‘interested’ interviewee summed it up as follows: ‘WEFO are very good at

unofficial networking but the National Contact points are not close enough to

Brussels networks to be of real help in finding partners and making sensible bids.

There is also no 'training school' available to help bidders and partners get support

for project management which is highly specific to ETC and difficult to find your way

around.’

14 While it is not possible to distinguish clearly between different programmes in this respect, the Development Officers (which, as noted above, in some instances was a term used interchangeably to refer to the Ireland/Wales Development Officers and other WEFO project officers) were mentioned particularly often.


Some interviewees who had attended special ETC seminars or network meetings

suggested that these had been very useful, although others thought that this was too

much of a time commitment without any security regarding a return from such

investment. In particular, existing opportunities for learning and networking for the

ETC Programmes further afield require a considerable upfront investment in

accessing information and support as illustrated, for instance, in a comment

regarding e-mail invitations from the Atlantic Area Managing Authority that ‘tend to be

invites to conferences in Lisbon and such like, which is not relevant as I wouldn't be

able to justify the travelling.’ There might therefore be an opportunity to complement

this with networking and awareness-raising activities in Wales and/or the UK.

Referring to ETC project post-approval support and the formal interactions around

live projects, interviewees’ perspectives varied considerably both between and within

individual ETC Programmes. One interviewee with a live Atlantic Area project

suggested that ‘once you are delivering it, all becomes clear. Once you have been

awarded the funding, they want you to succeed so it is easier.’

Issues were frequently raised with regard to the claims process and external audit

procedures, which were widely perceived as an administrative burden. Concerns

related in particular to the requirement to submit hard copies of all receipts and for

Ireland/Wales projects in particular.

On the basis of these findings, it is possible to identify four main types of

organisations in Wales in terms of their ability to source information and advice for

ETC applications and projects.

Firstly, there is a cohort of organisations in Wales that is highly experienced in using

European funding generally and have developed considerable specific ETC expertise

which allows them to directly access the most appropriate support. For these

organisations, considerable knowledge is available in-house and specific additional

information is frequently sought, as required, from the National Contact Points. These

organisations may also have established a direct relationship with the Managing

Authority.

A second group of organisations benefits from ETC expertise held by partners, both

in Wales and outside. This will often be accessed through a lead project partner or

through organisational relationships with ETC multiplier organisations in Wales, most

notably the HEIs and Local Authorities.


A third group of organisations invests resource and effort in identifying appropriate

sources of information and advice. They report that this is not straightforward but, in

most cases, they have persevered and have been able to source the information they

need. For this group of organisations, accessing the knowledge and expertise within

WEFO can often be difficult, but where contact is established with ETC staff or other

WEFO officers who are able to adopt an ‘account management’ approach,

interviewees suggest that the results are most often good. For this group in

particular, the National Contact Points were generally commented on quite positively

Finally, a fourth group of organisations have found the process of identifying the most

appropriate contacts for different kinds of information difficult and have struggled to

source advice and support that they require for project development. Their

impression is that there is no clear route for finding information and obtaining the

advice appropriate for the project and the organisation. This is confirmed by many of

the more experienced organisations. Much appears to depend on personal

relationships, on perseverance and on developing the ‘political’ skills required to raise

the profile of a particular project.

From the research, a pattern emerges that the least experienced organisations

appear to have the greatest difficulty in identifying and tapping into appropriate

advice and support. This is to some extent linked to organisations’ own capacity to

devise a suitable project concept and develop a robust project plan, which might be

seen as an appropriate self-selection filter for participation in ETC. There are,

however, also instances where organisations felt discouraged by their initial

interactions with some elements of the support infrastructure, but in spite of this went

on to secure and deliver successful projects.

7.4 Welsh Government and WEFO – influence on ETC participation

The relationship between Welsh Government, WEFO and the ETC Programmes was

raised by a large number of interviewees as well as in the focus group discussions.

Although Welsh Government departments do not have a formal role in the ETC

Programmes, they are regarded as key ‘players’ that may influence, both positively

and negatively, the participation of Welsh organisations.

The Welsh Government approach to working with the ETC Programmes was

described at one focus group as ‘ad hoc and opportunistic’; a view not contradicted

by the WG officials who participated at a specific WG focus group. It further appears


that knowledge and experience of ETC Programmes and projects varies

considerably between different WG departments depending on their experience of

actively participating in ETC projects.

The extent to which ETC activities of Welsh organisations could, or should, be

aligned and integrated with Welsh Government policy was a point raised in a number

of discussions.

On the one hand, the view was expressed that in order to make policy, and most

notably the mainstream Structural Funds Programmes, work more effectively with

ETC Programmes and projects, WG guidance on integrating different activities and

funding streams should extend to the whole range of sources from RDP to

ERDF/ESF and ETC.

On the other hand, however, it was felt that a type of ‘open innovation approach’

could be promoted between Welsh Government policy areas and ETC projects

allowing greater buy-in and input from WG departments to projects being developed

by Welsh organisations.

Key to the question of integration seems to be the effectiveness of the WG

department’s awareness of, and engagement with, ETC projects that address the

departmental policy remits. For example, marine environment and management or

innovation and enterprise and so on. The view put forward by many interviewees was

that WG departments are not always sufficiently aware of the projects, themes and

results being supported under the ETC Programmes and involving Welsh partners.

Welsh Government interviewees themselves and WG focus group participants feel

that they would be keen to ‘get alongside’ relevant and interesting ETC projects more

but, ‘there is a lack of communication at the start’ and that WG does not necessarily

get timely ‘feedback from WEFO, regardless of whether a project had been a

success or not.’

However, since the interviews and focus group evidence indicates strongly that

Welsh organisations regard ETC Programmes as offering the flexibility to explore

innovative areas of activity that are driven by organisational objectives, this raises

questions regarding the most appropriate interface to effectively integrate between

different Programmes as well as between activities and policy objectives without

damaging the opportunity for innovation and experiment offered to Welsh

organisations by the ETC Programmes.


8. Key findings and conclusions

The majority of organisations currently participating in the ETC Programmes, and many of those who are not, have experience of European cooperation activities, including previous ETC projects. While the range of previous or

existing participations and engagements enjoyed by Welsh organisations covers a

wide range of collaboration types and funding programmes only a few organisations

see European cooperation as an explicit objective or target for their activities.

The main exceptions to this pattern are HEIs where European, and international,

cooperation is explicitly part of their corporate strategies. By contrast, Welsh Local

Authorities adopt an approach to involvement in European cooperation that is more

‘tactical’, participating when they can identify direct, or indirect, operational benefits

that match their overall strategies or target groups or communities.

For most organisations European cooperation is only implicitly held as an objective. This allows them to become involved in European cooperation and

collaboration when an identifiable benefit to local groups such as SMEs, local

residents or communities or a clear contribution to the organisation’s own remit and

strategic objectives can be established.

The 270 project interactions that WEFO hold on its database correspond to a total of 100 unique Welsh organisations. This includes all Welsh universities,

Welsh Local authorities and many Welsh Government departments and government

agencies all of whom are well represented through both successful and unsuccessful

interactions with the ETC Programmes. Third sector organisations are also well

represented through successful and unsuccessful ETC interactions although almost

always as single, rather than serial, participants and with a lower success rate than

other organisation types.

The Ireland/Wales Programme accounts for almost 50% of all interactions (successful and unsuccessful). While, with only two Member States, this

Programme is more likely to have stronger Welsh participation, this nevertheless

suggests that Welsh organisations regard the Ireland/Wales Programme as a

‘natural’ home for their European cooperation activities. Geographic proximity,

common problems and issues and a natural affinity were all frequently indicated as

the main reasons for this preference although there is also a perception that the

Ireland/Wales Programme is less competitive than other Programmes.


Across all organisation types, Welsh HEIs are the most active in exploring and realising ETC opportunities. However, compared with other organisation types,

HEIs have to create a much greater number of project ideas, concepts and

applications to gain successful projects. This suggests that they have greater

capacity and willingness across a range of departments, centres and subject areas to

prepare bids. It may also be the case that, at the project development stage,

universities allow more speculative approaches to be made than other organisations,

notably Local Authorities and third sector organisations.

Local authorities tend to take a tactical approach to European cooperation in general and, possibly as a result, have a higher success ratio (‘involved’ to

‘interested’) than other organisation types while third sector organisations by contrast

suffer a higher ‘drop out’ rate (between ‘interested’ and ‘involved’) than other

organisations.

Welsh organisations tend to favour Priorities and Themes that deal with innovation and entrepreneurship, followed by sustainability and the natural

environment with urban/regional/community development as a third Priority area.

Participation in Programmes, and then Priorities, tends to be chosen largely because

the anticipated project activities are perceived as ‘fitting’ with the organisation’s goal,

ambitions, objectives and skills. However, the lead partner’s choice of Programme

and Priority is in most cases likely to dictate the decision for most projects where the

Welsh organisation is a junior partner.

As a general trend, there are far fewer Welsh lead partners than junior partners, with the exception of the Ireland/Wales Programme where the presence of only two member States makes this more likely to be the case. Engaging as a junior

partner is seen by many organisations as a default position and a relatively ‘safe’ way

to engage with the ETC in terms of bureaucracy and managing multi-partner projects.

Welsh organisations participate in ETC projects for a range of reasons although these can be broadly categorised as either policy and learning benefits and/or implementation opportunities.

Policy and learning drivers provide organisations with knowledge sharing

opportunities and learning exchange while implementation benefits will typically

include support for the testing or piloting of new products or approaches and


opportunities to mainstream project activities or to create indirect benefits for target

groups

Funding was not a key driver for participation but was often noted as a ‘trigger’ to consider participation. However, Organisations are clear that funding must be

allied to a strategic and structured approach if the ETC project is to make a

worthwhile contribution to an organisation’s activities and sustainability. In almost all

cases, where funding was noted as an important ‘enabler’ it allows organisations to

undertake projects, activities and build collaborations that they may otherwise not

have been able to do.

When funding was mentioned by Welsh organiations, it was most frequently in the

context of the ETC Programmes’ requirements for match funding and organisations’

perception of the financial reporting regime supporting the ETC Programmes as

generally onerous to manage and deliver.

The importance of the link between the ETC project objectives and the organisations’ core business and strategy is emphasised as a positive driver. This is the case particularly where projects are deemed successful but also

conversely, as a driver for non-participation when bids or experiences have not been

successful.

The option of transnational activities under the mainstream ERDF and ESF Programmes is not generally regarded as viable. Obstacles reported range from a

lack of strategic fit and difficulties of integrating such activities into existing projects.

Larger and better resourced organisations such as the Welsh HEIs and LAs, will typically be able to mobilise the capacity and resources of an in-house European team or manager. This capacity allows them the benefit of being able to

adopt a consistent process of identifying opportunities, developing project bids and

managing project implementation. In other organisations, an individual service

department will sometimes emerge as a ‘natural’ ETC lead or members of staff will

adopt responsibility for developing a project with partners. However, when staff

change the close link between a project and organisational objectives may become

weaker and continuity lost. The challenge of continuity is also apparent for

unsuccessful ETC engagements.

Maximising the benefits of participation in ETC Programmes requires a strong degree of maturity to manage and deliver projects effectively and efficiently


and to create tangible benefits and a legacy beyond actual project activity. In the

project development and delivery stages, ‘political buy-in’ behind a project is useful to

make successful bids for funding and to make internal calls on management

resources. However, few organisations felt that they have the strategic capacity and

maturity to generate such leverage.

The third sector and the FE sector typically lack the strategic remit and capacity to be able to allocate resource to the development of ETC projects and partnerships, while universities, on the other hand, are able to take a strategic

perspective where ETC projects are concerned.

Strong project management was quoted as the single most important aspect to make an ETC project a success.

Welsh organisations depend to a large extent on in-house ETC expertise or on lead partner capabilities and therefore make only limited use of the wider ETC support infrastructure (e.g. National Contact Points, direct contact with Managing

Authorities) over and above the Ireland/Wales Development Officers. However,

experience with the support infrastructure varied considerably between interviewees.

It is clear that the least experienced organisations appear to have the greatest

difficulty in identifying and tapping into appropriate advice and support.

Four main types of organisations can be identified in terms of their ability to source information and advice for ETC applications and projects;

• organisations that are highly experienced in using European funding generally

and have acquired considerable ETC expertise

• organisations that benefit from ETC expertise held by partners, both in Wales and

outside

• organisations that invest resource and effort in identifying appropriate sources of

information and advice, thus building up their own expertise and capacity

• organisations that have found the process of identifying the most appropriate

contacts for different kinds of information difficult and have struggled to source

advice and support that they require for project development

Previous negative experiences in European cooperation activities were cited most frequently as reasons why organisations may avoid future involvements in ETC. Poor experiences with Managing Authorities or the time consuming nature of


the bid development, project management and project reporting were also identified

as a barrier to future participation.

Interviewees did not always clearly distinguish between specific contacts with WEFO

officials. Negative perceptions of ETC opportunities therefore often stem from an

organisations’ view of their relationship with WEFO gained through ERDF and ESF

Programmes, as much as through their involvement or interest in ETC Programmes,

although they have a clear expectation that WEFO will be pro-active in alerting and

supporting them in pursuit of opportunities for European funding.

Welsh organisations are explicit that ETC Programmes offer the flexibility to explore innovative areas of activity that are driven by organisational objectives.

It is important to establish the most appropriate interface to effectively integrate

between ETC Programmes and wider WG policy objectives without damaging the

opportunity for innovation and experiment offered to Welsh organisations by the ETC

Programmes.

9. Recommendations

The following recommendations are built on the findings from the scoping study as

summarised within the key findings and conclusions section supplemented by

discussions arising from the focus group meetings and with stakeholders. As far as

possible, the recommendations take into account an appreciation of the Welsh policy

and institutional landscape with a view to ensuring that the recommendations are

balanced, feasible and likely to prove effective.

Nine recommendations are presented structured around three overarching themes:

1. Maximising the opportunities for strategic engagement across policy areas

and programmes and enhancing the ‘fit’ with organisations’ objectives and

activities.

2. Supporting the development of organisational capacity and maturity to engage

in ETC Programmes and other international links and relationships.

3. “De-risking” participations in ETC and other Programmes for Welsh

organisations.


1. Maximising the opportunities for strategic engagement across policy areas and Programmes and enhancing the ‘fit’ with organisations’ objectives and activities.

1a) Welsh Government and WEFO should between them clarify thinking regarding the extent to which it is viable and beneficial for ETC projects with Welsh participation to be strategically integrated with WG policy drivers.

As noted in the scoping study, while Welsh organisations see that ETC

Programmes offer them flexibility to explore innovative areas of activity, the

view was also expressed that integrating priorities across different activities

and funding streams could improve overall Welsh benefits and impact from the

ETC Programmes as well as mainstream Structural Funds Programmes.

However, the position is not clear and there are arguments in both directions.

It is therefore recommended that Welsh Government and WEFO should

consider an appropriate interface to effectively integrate between ETC

Programmes and wider WG policy objectives without damaging the

opportunity for innovation and experiment offered to Welsh organisations by

the ETC Programmes.

1b) Instigate a ’challenge fund’ that will provide an element of match funding for projects going forward to ETC Programmes meeting specific and transparent Welsh Government policy priorities.

One possibility that should be considered is the development of a ‘challenge

fund’ where organisations wishing to undertake ETC projects could be

challenged to also bid for match funding if the project theme is in line with a

limited range of published policy priorities identified by the Welsh Government.

This would act as a ‘pump-priming’ support to assist Welsh organisations to

consider more directly the extent to which their organisational objectives may

be practically integrated with WG policy as well as with ETC Priorities and

Themes through the implementation of ETC projects. A challenge fund should

however only cover a small part of overall ETC activity leaving organisations

to innovate as is presently the case.


1c) Information regarding ETC projects and results with Welsh participants should be more effectively disseminated amongst Welsh Government departments and government agencies.

As noted earlier in the report, many organisations interviewed feel that WG

departments are rarely aware of their projects and results under the ETC

Programmes. Similarly, Welsh Government interviewees themselves felt that

they would be keen to ‘accompany’ relevant and interesting ETC projects in

their policy areas.

Dissemination of results should also be enhanced and better linkages forged

between the ETC projects, WEFO and Welsh Government departments and

agencies. This would also improve overall understanding of the value and

impact of the ETC project results and learning experiences.

2. Supporting the development of organisational capacity and maturity to engage in ETC Programmes and other international links and relationships.

2a) Assist Welsh organisations develop their capacity and maturity to undertake ETC and other EU collaboration activities by facilitating the partnering of more experienced ETC participants with less experienced or novice participants.

The construction of partnerships at an interregional level is a key part of the

ETC project development phase. The scoping study revealed that while many

Welsh organisations are sufficiently mature to undertake this aspect of the

project comfortably, others, notably smaller organisations or those considering

an ETC involvement for the first time, are often discouraged and daunted at

this point.

WEFO, as part of its support for project development, could encourage

experienced Welsh organisations to adopt or mentor a more junior Welsh

partner organisation. This would help give organisations more confidence,

experience and capacity to continue to develop their EU cooperation and,

specifically, ETC participations in the future. The role of the current Ireland

Wales Development Officers goes a considerable way to carrying out this role

already although there is no ‘formal’ process or encouragement in place to do

so.


2b) Enhance the ‘brokerage’ of project development opportunities across organisations, sectors and Programmes.

Alongside recommendation 2a) above, project development support provided

by WEFO in some Programme areas could be extended to cover the range of

Programmes including the transnational element of mainstream Structural

Funds and all ETC Programmes. The aim should be to actively broker project

development opportunities across all parts of Wales and all appropriate

organisations.

This would strengthen partnerships and broaden the uptake of ETC and

Transnational elements across the geography and organisational landscape of

Wales.

2c) Create a ‘showcase’ of successful ETC projects and partnerships.

The scoping study concludes that there are barriers to involvement in ETC

and Transnational Programmes due to a lack of awareness and understanding

about the activities and results of ETC projects. Showcasing the success of

projects and partnerships, will encourage other organisations to participate

and help Welsh organisations gain internal and external buy-in to the notion of

transnational cooperation and collaborations.

3. “De-risking” participation in ETC and other Programmes for Welsh organisations.

3a) WEFO should continue to leverage its role in helping to shape ETC Programmes to achieve greater uniformity between programmes.

The scoping study concluded that there is a need across Welsh organisations

for greater clarity, simplicity and, more than anything, uniformity in the

regulations and procedures under which the various ETC Programmes are

managed.

While it is recognised that WEFO is not a Managing Authority for any of the

ETC Programmes and therefore has limited independence of action on this

point, it is still possible for WEFO to use its ‘voice’ and ‘seat at the table’ on

each ETC Programme committee (whether directly or indirectly expressed) in

order to encourage greater uniformity regarding intervention rates, financial


reporting procedures and the payment processes and timings that can make

the project cash flow untenable for some smaller Welsh organisations.

3b) Develop single contacts and advice across all EU Programmes within WEFO and nurture sub-regional networks with required knowledge and experience

The scoping study showed that the less experienced Welsh organisations in

respect of ETC involvement were also those whose knowledge of the sources

of information and advice was most limited. One key improvement that could

be made is for WEFO to strengthen the points of information and advice by

enhancing programme awareness for all WEFO Development officers so that

they can equally advise appropriately on ETC and TN project opportunities

alongside ERDF and ESF Programmes.

3c) Transnational opportunities require more positive support and encouragement from across WEFO with exemplars and sensitivity in respect of timescales and outputs.

Including a transnational project element within a mainstream Structural Funds

project is not currently regarded as viable by most of those organisations

surveyed. Where TN opportunities are being considered more positive support

and encouragement from WEFO Project Development Officers should be

provided and opportunities to include a TN element considered for all

mainstream projects.

This will require better support and information for Project Development

Officers regarding the appropriate circumstances and conditions for a

successful TN element; better explanation for Welsh organisations of the

advantages and disadvantages of including a TN element; and, greater

flexibility and sensitivity in WEFO in appraising mainstream projects with a TN

element so that variations in budgets, timescales and outputs caused by the

inclusion of a TN element is not held to penalise the mainstream project

application.

To support this, examples of successful mainstream projects with a TN

element should be made widely available.


Annex 1: Background to European Territorial Cooperation Programmes At the EU level, in the period 2007-13 the European Territorial Co-operation

objective15 covers three types of Programmes16:

• Fifty-three cross-border co-operation Programmes along internal EU borders.

ERDF contribution: €5.6 billion.

• Thirteen transnational co-operation Programmes cover larger areas of co-

operation such as the Baltic Sea, Alpine and Mediterranean regions. ERDF

contribution: €1.8 billion.

• The interregional co-operation Programme (INTERREG IVC) and three

networking Programmes (Urbact II, Interact II and ESPON) cover all 27 Member

States of the EU.

Together, these Programmes provide a framework for exchanging experience

between regional and local bodies in different countries supporting EU Cohesion

policy that encourages regions from different EU Member States to work together

and learn from each other through joint programmes, projects and networks.

The main strands of territorial co-operation that are relevant to this scoping study are:

Ireland/Wales Cross Border Programme

The €70m Ireland/Wales Cross-border co-operation Programme links the west coast

of Wales with the south-east of Ireland targets knowledge, innovation and skills for

growth and climate change and sustainable regeneration.

The Managing Authority is the Southern and Eastern Regional Assembly (SERA) in

Waterford, Ireland.

Atlantic Area Transnational Programme

The €159m maritime focused Programme links regions on the Atlantic coast in five

Member States, the UK (including all of Wales), Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal

addresses priorities including securing and enhancing the marine and coastal

environment, innovation, accessibility and urban and regional development.

15 formerly the INTERREG Community Initiative 16 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/cooperation/transnational/index_en.cfm



The Managing Authority is the North Regional Co-ordination and Development

Commission (CCDR) in Porto, Portugal.

North-West Europe Transnational Programme

The €697m North West Europe Programme supports activities concerned with

innovation, the environment, connectivity and sustainable urban and community

development covers the UK (including all of Wales) Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg

and areas of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

The Managing Authority is the Nord-Pas de Calais Region in Lille, France.

Inter-regional (IVC) Programme

The €405m Programme targets innovation and the environment across the whole

EU27 supports traditional networking through regional initiative projects and

capitalisation projects aimed at dissemination of best practice into mainstream

Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programmes.

The Managing Authority is the Nord-Pas de Calais Region in Lille, France.

URBACT II Programme

The €70m URBACT II Programme covers the EU27 and focuses on sustainable

urban regeneration and knowledge transfer and exchange of experience between

European cities.

The Managing Authority is the French Ministry for Urban Policy Saint Denis, France.

Additionally, ERDF and ESF Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and

Employment Programmes managed in Wales by WEFO, have provision within all

Priorities and Themes, to support transnational activity. Each Programme allows for

the ‘mainstreaming’ of transnational and Interregional co-operation to add value to

their implementation by facilitating collaboration in areas of mutual interest with other

European Regions.

The mainstreaming of transnational activity in the main ERDF and ESF Programmes

requires all projects to be consistent with the aims and objectives of that Programme

and Priority and deliver outputs expected for that particular element of the

Programme17.

17 Territorial co-operation: strategy for strengthening co-operation 2007-13, WEFO, February 2008

Other relevant European Commission funding programmes

Alongside the Structural Funds, there is a number of funding schemes that are administered directly by the respective Directorate Generals or on by the Member States. Not all of them focus on transnational cooperation, some are designed to help fund activities with European added value. However, all of them extend the potential scope of organisations’ activities and raise beneficiaries’ profile on the European stage. Each of them is framed in the particular policy context of the respective Directorate General which creates the backdrop for fundable project activities delivered by organisations throughout Europe. The following table lists the main relevant programmes that survey respondents might have engaged with in addition to ETC and Structural Fund transnational programmes. Name Description Policy focus Main target group Link

Seventh Framework Programme FP7

The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development is the EU's main instrument for funding research in Europe and it will run from 2007-2013. FP7 is also designed to respond to Europe's employment needs, competitiveness and quality of life. It bundles all research-related EU initiatives together under a common roof playing a crucial role in reaching the goals of growth, competitiveness and employment.

Research excellence

Universities in cooperation with industry

Cordis

Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme

With small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as its main target, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) supports innovation activities (including eco-innovation), provides better access to finance and delivers business support services in the regions. It encourages a better take-up and use of information and communication technologies (ICT) and helps to develop the information society. It also promotes the increased use of renewable energies and energy efficiency. The CIP runs from 2007 to 2013 with an overall budget of € 3621 million. The CIP is divided into three operational programmes. Each programme has its specific objectives, aimed at contributing to the competitiveness of enterprises and their innovative capacity in their own areas, such as ICT or sustainable energy: • The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) • The Information Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT-

PSP) • The Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE)

Enterprise and innovation

SMEs http://ec.europa.eu/cip/

Europe for Citizens Programme

The aim of this programme is to bring Europe closer to its citizens and to enable them to participate fully in the European construction. Through this programme,

European citizenship

all stakeholders promoting active

Europe for Citizens


http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/cip/

http://ec.europa.eu/cip/

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/citizenship/

citizens have the opportunity to be involved in transnational exchanges and cooperation activities, contributing to developing a sense of belonging to common European ideals and encouraging the process of European integration. The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Agency Executive Agency (EACEA) is responsible for the management of certain parts of the EU's Culture programmes under supervision from its parent Directorate-General for Communication (DG COMM of the European Commission). Europe for Citizens Points (ECPs) have been set up to facilitate participation in the Europe for Citizens Programme.

European citizenship

Lifelong Learning Programme

The European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme enables people at all stages of their lives to take part in stimulating learning experiences, as well as helping to develop the education and training sector across Europe. With a budget of nearly €7 billion for 2007 to 2013, the programme funds a range of actions including exchanges, study visits and networking activities. Projects are intended not only for individual students and learners, but also for teachers, trainers and all others involved in education and training. There are four sub-programmes which fund projects at different levels of education and training:

• Comenius for schools • Erasmus for higher education • Leonardo da Vinci for vocational education and training • Grundtvig for adult education

Other projects in areas that are relevant to all levels of education, such as language learning, information and communication technologies, policy co-operation and dissemination and exploitation of project results are funded through the "transversal" part of the programme. In addition, the programme includes Jean Monnet actions which stimulate teaching, reflection and debate on European integration, involving higher education institutions worldwide.

Lifelong learning Education and learning providers

Lifelong Learning Programme

The Culture Programme has been established to enhance the cultural area shared by Europeans, which is based on a common cultural heritage, through the development of cooperation activities among cultural operators from eligible countries, with a view to encouraging the emergence of European citizenship. The aim of the multi-annual Programme is to encourage and support cultural cooperation within Europe in order to bring the European common cultural heritage to the fore. The Programme proposes funding opportunities to all cultural sections

Cultural cooperation within Europe

projects, organisations, promotional activities and research in all branches of culture, except the

Culture 2007


http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm



http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/culture/programme/who_participate_en.php

and all categories of cultural operators contributing to the development of cultural cooperation at European level, with a view to encouraging the emergence of European citizenship. The programme mainly promotes:

• trans national mobility of cultural players; • trans national circulation of artistic and cultural works and products; • intercultural dialogue and exchanges.

With a total budget of 400 million EUR for 2007 – 2013 the Programme allows to co-finance around 300 different cultural actions per year.

audiovisual branch

MEDIA Since its creation, MEDIA, has supported the development and distribution of thousands of films as well as training activities, festivals and promotion projects throughout the continent. The MEDIA programme is jointly run by the European Comission Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) and the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (EACEA Unit P8), which is in charge of the operational management The MEDIA Programme helps the European Union film and audiovisual industries with financial support in the development, distribution and promotion of their work. It provides assistance with getting projects with a European dimension off the ground and in nurturing new technologies; it contributes to enabling European films and audiovisual works to find markets beyond national – and European – borders; it part-funds the training and development of budding filmmakers and established professionals. Through MEDIA Mundus, the EU fosters partnerships between European filmmakers and their counterparts throughout the world. MEDIA Literacy explores how citizens can make more informed choices when accessing all forms of media.

Sectoral competitiveness

European film and audiovisual industries

MEDIA Programme

PROGRESS The PROGRESS programme is a financial instrument supporting the development and coordination of EU policy in the following five areas:

• Employment • Social inclusion and social protection • Working conditions • Anti-discrimination • Gender equality

PROGRESS is open to:

Coordination of employment and social affairs policy in Europe

Activities with a strong Europe-wide dimension and of an appropriate scale to ensure EU added value

PROGRESS programme


http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=327

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=327


• EU countries • Candidate countries and potential candidate countries • EFTA/EEA countries (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein)

PROGRESS's ultimate objective is to help achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The programme has three objectives designed to contribute towards the Europe 2020 strategy: • Effective application of EU rules on worker protection and equality: Promoting

better standards of inspection, monitoring and enforcement by EU countries and reviewing how EU legislation has been applied

• Shared understanding and ownership of EU objectives: EU countries have agreed to common guidelines and goals to inform, coordinate and strengthen national-level reforms

• Effective partnerships: Involving stakeholders throughout the policy process: problem definition, information gathering, consultation, development of options, decision-making, implementation and evaluation

LIFE+ programme LIFE is the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the EU, as well as in some candidate, acceding and neighbouring countries. Since 1992, LIFE has co-financed some 3708 projects, contributing approximately €2.8 billion to the protection of the environment. The LIFE programme is the EU’s funding instrument for the environment. The general objective of LIFE is to contribute to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental policy and legislation by co-financing pilot or demonstration projects with European added value.

implementation, updating and development of EU environmental policy and legislation

pilot or demonstration projects with European added value

LIFE+

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm

Annex 2: Methodology Sampling approach

An initial level of data analysis was undertaken to identify and describe the size and

profile of the different sub-groups, identifying unique organisations rather than

projects. This is because a number of organisations had more than one ETC project

or project application and the primary research interest rested on understanding the

organisational perspective.

The data analysis and sampling approach resulted in the following key figures for the

different target groups for the research:

1. The main cohort of organisations (‘involved’ and ‘interested’) have actively

engaged with European funding for transnational activities, either through

successful ETC or Structural Fund transnational projects (TN) or through initial

enquiries or unsuccessful project applications18. Of these,

• 58 unique organisations were involved in at least one successful ETC or TN

project and

• 42 unique organisations were on WEFO records as having explored ETC or

TN project participation or having been involved in an unsuccessful project bid.

The main sampling group was therefore made up of 100 unique organisations with a

total of 268 ETC project interactions (i.e. successful participations - ‘involved’,

unsuccessful project applications – ‘interested – applied’, or ETC/transnational

funding-related enquiries – ‘interested – withdrawn’).

2. A further cohort of organisations (‘non-involved’) was established that have

engaged with the two mainstream Structural Funds Programmes in Wales,

Convergence and Competitiveness and Employment but have not participated or

expressed any interest in participating in either ETC Programmes or transnational

elements within the Structural Funds Programmes), included 53 unique

organisations19.

18 A data-cleaning exercise of the WEFO database on ETC project participation involved removing duplicates/ensuring consistency of organisations listed under different names, removing Irish organisations, etc. 19 Different Welsh Government departments were considered as unique organisations for purposes of this analysis.


Following data cleansing and removal from this list of project sponsors within

different Welsh Government departments20 left a total of 40 unique organisations

in this second sub group that were targeted by the telephone survey.

In summary therefore, the total population used for the sampling consists of the

following groups:

Table 6. Different cohorts by type of participation in population and sample

Description Population21

100

Sample size22

‘Involved’ - Organisations that are currently engaged with

the ETC Programmes or working transnationally in

regional Structural Funds Programmes in Wales23

58 46

Interested - Organisations that were unsuccessful in

obtaining funding or had considered accessing the ETC

Programmes /engaging transnationally, but did not pursue

this further

422434

‘Non-involved’ - organisations that are engaged with the

mainstream Structural Funds Programmes in Wales but

have had no engagement with the ETC Programmes.25

53 40

The following tables and graphs provide details of how the sample structure was

determined in comparison to the population as a whole.

20 They were not a main target group for this research. 21 Unique organisations 22 applying an 80% response rate 23 The European Social Fund (ESF) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programmes 24 This represents a slight shift between ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ since the presentation of the survey protocol. This has occurred following clarification of the status of the mainstream Structural Fund transnational projects. 25 Initially a further sub category was anticipated for organisations that have had no engagement with Structural Funds at all, but reflected certain characteristics of the main cohort. However, the results obtained through interviews with the other cohorts provided sufficient depth and breadth.


1. Coverage of different ETC Programmes

The study needed to cover the different ETC Programmes.

The following table sets out the population and required sample structure together

with the number of actual interviews undertaken for each cohort.

Table 7. Target population and sample structure in terms of ETC Programmes

Ireland/ Wales

Atlantic Area

North West Europe

IVC URBACT SF TN Totals

No. of project interactions26 132 42 49 32 2 11 268

% of project interactions 49% 16% 18% 12% 1% 4% 1

No. of interviews in sample27

39 13 15 10 1 3 80

Actual no. of interviews undertaken

38 11 12 13 2 3 79

% of interviews undertaken

48% 14% 15% 16% 3% 4% 100%

The following diagrams further illustrate how the relative importance of different

Programmes in the population is reflected in the sample of interviews undertaken.

For the smaller Programmes a slightly higher level of interviews was included in the

sample in order to suitably reflect the respective perspective in the findings.

26 Successful projects, unsuccessful applications and enquiries 27 applying an 80% response rate


Chart 3. Sample structure by Programme

2. Coverage of successful and unsuccessful projects

Differences were also likely to exist between the experiences of ETC project

development and delivery by organisations that are frequent participants and those

that may only occasionally participate or consider participation.

A typology accounting for different organisational participation profiles was therefore

used to further structure the sample:

• ‘Involved’ 2< - organisations with 3 or more project interactions (i.e. at least

one successful project and more than 2 total projects, unsuccessful

applications or enquiries);

• ‘Involved’ >2 - organisations with 2 or less project interactions (i.e. at least one

successful project);

• ‘Interested - applied’ - organisations with at least one unsuccessful project

application;

• ‘Interested - withdrawn’ - organisations with at least one enquiry regarding

ETC project participation.

The following charts highlight how the actual survey sample compares with the

population as a whole in terms of ETC project success.


Chart 4. Comparison population – sample in terms of ETC project success

Interviews by organisational participation profile ETC only - survey sample

36.7%

30.4%

20.3%

12.7%

‘Involved’ 2< ‘Involved’ >2 ‘Interested – applied’ ‘Interested – withdrawn’

Unique organisations by participation profile ETC only - whole population

19.0%

39.0%

22.0%

20.0%

‘Involved’ 2< ‘Involved’ >2 ‘Interested – applied’ ‘Interested – withdrawn’

As can be seen, ‘involved’ organisations are represented more strongly in the sample

than ‘interested’ organisations. This is a result of the nature of the underlying

database. Data regarding successful projects was more robust than that about

applications or ETC-related enquiries often dating back some time. As a result, it was

not possible to complete a higher proportion of ‘interested’ interviews, because

contacts were, for example, no longer in post or could simply not recall any

interactions around ETC enquiries.

This introduced a slight bias in the structure of the main sample of ‘involved’ and

‘interested' organisations as illustrated in the table below.

Table 8. Balance between ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ organisations in final

sample

Unique organisations

No. of unique org's % of total

target sample

size actual sample

actual % of total

Involved' 58 58% 46.4 53 67.1%

Interested' 42 42% 33.6 26 32.9%

Total 100 80 79

However, as the survey progressed the results that were emerging suggested that

the differences between ‘interested’ organisations and organisations that had not

sought to access ETC at all (described as ‘non-involved’ for sampling purposes) were

often not that pronounced and, as a result, the perspective of organisations in Wales

that have not participated is therefore suitably captured between these two groups.


Comparing the representation of the different sub samples taking organisations’

status as ‘involved’, ‘interested’ or non-involved’ into account therefore provides a

more balanced picture as illustrated by the two following pie charts.

Chart 5. Comparison population – sample in terms of participation profile

As these charts show, the non-participant perspective is reflected by almost 55% of

interview respondents compared to a proportion of just over 62% in the population as

a whole.

3. Coverage of different types of organisation

A further criterion that needed to be reflected in the sample to be included in the

survey was the type of organisation.

The following diagram provides a snapshot of the sample structure in that respect.

Unique organisations by participation profile - whole population

12.4%

25.5%

14.4%13.1%

34.6%

‘Involved’ 2< ‘Involved’ >2‘Interested – applied’ ‘Interested – withdrawn’‘Non-involved’

Interviews by participation profile - whole sample

24.8%

20.5%

13.7%

8.5%

32.5%

‘Involved’ 2< ‘Involved’ >2‘Interested – applied’ ‘Interested – withdrawn’‘Non-involved’


Again, a decision was taken to ensure that the survey provided a balanced

perspective of different organisational settings and experiences.

Consequently, a slightly lower number of interviews were undertaken with HE

institutions and Local Authorities than would have been proportionate to their level of

participation while relatively more interviews were undertaken with FE Colleges, the

private sector and the third sector in particular.

Regarding HE institutions, a small number of unique organisations also represented

a large number of project interactions. While this was reflected in the sample by

including several interviews for the most active organisations (both HEs and others),

a suitable coverage of the broader range of individual organisations also needed to

be secured.

A large proportion of Welsh Government project interactions (as well as Local

Authority ones) relate to mainstream Structural Funds rather than ETC. Since the

main research question for the survey related to ETC participation, fewer interviews

overall were therefore concluded these organisations.

Considering the sample structure in terms of unique organisations as presented in

the following table and diagram illustrates that third sector organisations and Local


Authorities make up a substantial part of unique organisations that have had some

level of involvement in ETC.

The table also confirms that a relatively low number of unique HE institutions are

responsible for high levels of ETC participation.

Comparison population - sample structure: UNIQUE ORGANISATIONS

% of total unique ‘involved’ and

‘interested’ organisations

% of ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ interviews

HE 12% 22%

FE 5% 5%

Local Authority 20% 20%

Welsh Government 1% 1%

Government Agency 9% 8%

Partnership structure 4% 1%

third sector 37% 29%

Private Sector 10% 10%

Sectoral body 2% 4%

4. Coverage of different frequencies of participation in ETC

The overall frequency of project interactions by the respective organisations was also

taken into account in the sampling approach.

As the ratio between the number of organisations and the number of projects

suggests, there are a number of organisations with multiple projects and/or project

interactions (‘involved’ and ‘interested’) as illustrated in the diagram below28.

The following diagram illustrates how the number of interviews undertaken relates to

the cohorts of organisations with different intensities of interaction with the ETC

Programmes.

28 The frequency of participation needs to be assessed on the basis of ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ interactions together because, our analysis shows, a majority of ‘involved’ organisations also have ‘interested’ interactions.


Number of unique organisations with corresponding number of ETC project interactions

51

24

15

5 40 1

32

15 14

7 6

0

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 25 26 to 40

Number of ETC project interactions by unique organisations

No.

of o

rgan

isat

ions

Total no. of unique organisations with project cluster size No. of interviews from this group in the sample

A decision was made to include a proportionately higher number of unique

organisations with only one project interaction in the sample than would have

corresponded to them in terms of the total number of project interactions. This was

designed to ensure that the perspective of organisations with less frequent project

participations is suitably integrated into the study since it may be surmised that they

are likely to be the ones with the greatest scope to increase participation.


The table below, setting out the sample structure in terms of the frequency of ETC

project interactions by organisations in Wales, confirms that the ratio targeted for the

sample of around 60% being made up of the cohort of organisations with more than

two projects or project interactions (59% in actual sample) and 40% made up of

organisations with up to two projects or project interactions (41% in actual sample)

has been achieved.

Number of project interactions per organisation

Number of project

interactions -

population

% of project

interactions by this group -

population

No. of interviews from this group - sample

% of interviews

for this group - sample

1 51 19% 32 41%2 48 18% 15 19%3 to 10 92 34% 21 27%11 to 15 41 15% 6 8%26-40 36 13% 5 6%

Up to 2 99 37% 47 59%3 or more project interactions 169 63% 32 41%Total 268 100% 79 100%

5. Survey approach

A survey tool scalable for the different target groups was designed to collect data on

Welsh organisations’ experiences and perceptions and the role of organisational

strategies in driving participation in ETC. The semi-structured interview guide was

largely qualitative and covered questions on experiences, motivations and

perceptions of participation and, for type 3 organisations, non-participation.

In a sequential process of populating each sub-sample the recruitment of

interviewees was undertaken on the basis of projects rather than organisations

making contact with individuals within the organisations. To achieve this end, a

database structured by unique organisations was created that allowed sampling on

an ongoing basis by:

a. identifying the organisations in each sub-sample (i.e. ETC Programme, nature

of organisation, frequency of participation);

b. matching each organisation with specific project interactions and contacts;

c. identifying target interviewees in line with the required sample structure;


d. monitoring coverage of different projects;

e. replacing targets where contact could not be made;

Interviews were scheduled by the core study team and allocated to interviewers who

were also provided with key project information. Interviewers then conducted the

interview by telephone and transcribed the notes for each interview in a standardised

interview template allowing multiple choice answers and the coding of qualitative

responses as appropriate


Annex 3: Distribution of Welsh participations - Priorities and Themes The following tables set out the pattern of Welsh participations in the different ETC

Programmes in terms of the Priorities and Themes chosen.

Atlantic Area Priority 1: Promote transnational entrepreneurial and innovation networks No. % 1.1 Develop knowledge transfers between companies and research centres 2 11.8%

1.2 Enhance competitiveness and innovation capacities in maritime economy niches of excellence 1 5.9%

1.3 Stimulate economic conversion and diversification by promoting regional endogenous potential 6 35.3%

Total 9 52.9%Priority 2: Protect, secure and enhance the marine and coastal environment sustainability 2.1 Improve maritime safety 2 11.8%

2.2 Sustainable management and protection of the resources of marine spaces 2 11.8%

2.3 Exploit the renewable energy potential of the marine and coastal environment 1 5.9%

2.4 Protect and promote natural spaces, water resources and coastal zones 1 5.9%

Total 6 35.3%Priority 3: Improve accessibility and internal links 3.1 Promote interoperability and continuity of existing transport networks 0 0%

3.2 Promote short sea shipping and cooperation between ports 0 0%

Total 0 0% Priority 4: Promote transnational synergies in sustainable urban and regional development 4.1 Pool resources and skills in the field of sustainable urban and rural development 0 0%

4.2 Make cities and regions more influential and attractive through networking 1 5.9%

4.3 Conserve and promote Atlantic cultural heritage of transnational interest 1 5.9%

Total 2 11.8%


Interreg IVC Priority 1: Innovation and the knowledge economy No. % 1.1 Innovation, research and technological development 1 7.7%

1.2 Entrepreneurship and SMEs 2 15.4%

1.3 Information Society 2 15.4%

1.4 Employment, Human Capital and Education 1 7.7%

Total 6 46.2% Priority 2: Environment and the risk prevention 2.1 Natural and technological risks, climate change 2 15.4%

2.2 Water management 0 0%

2.3 Waste prevention and management 0 0%

2.4 Biodiversity and preservation of natural heritage; air quality 1 7.7%

2.5 Energy and sustainable transport 2 15.4%

2.6 Cultural heritage and landscape 2 15.4%

Total 7 53.8%

Ireland/Wales Priority 1: Knowledge, Innovation and Skills for growth No. %

1.1 Innovation and competitiveness 14 34.1%

1.2 Skills for competitiveness and employment integration 11 26.8%

Total 25 61% Priority 2: Climate Change and Sustainable Regeneration 2.1 Climate Change and Sustainable Development 8 19.5%

2.2 Sustainable Regeneration of Communities 8 19.5%

Total 16 39%


North West Europe (NWE)

Priority 1: Capitalizing on innovation No % 1.1 promote greater entrepreneurship and facilitate the translation of innovations and knowledge etc 5 31.3%

1.2 develop new and strengthen existing growth clusters and SME networks etc 1 6.3%

1.3 strengthen the institutional and territorial framework for innovation and the transfer of knowledge 1 6.3%

Total 7 43.8%

Priority 2: Managing natural resources and risks

2.1 promote an innovative and sustainable approach to natural resource management, 4 25%

2.2 promote an innovative approach to risk management and prevention, 0 0%

2.3 promote a transnational and spatial approach to improving the quality of soil, water and air, 0 0%

Total 4 25% Priority 3: Improving connectivity 3.1 optimisation of the capacity of existing transport infrastructure 0 0%

3.2 support effective and innovative multi-modal strategic actions and efficient interoperable 0 0%

3.3 develop innovative approaches to the use of ICT in order to improve connectivity, 0 0%

Total 0 0% Priority 4: Strengthening communities 4.1 enhance the economic and social performance of cities, towns and rural areas; 3 18.8%

4.2 improve the environmental quality and attraction of towns and cities 1 6.3%

4.3 promote transnational responses to the impact of demographic change & migration 1 6.3%

Total 5 31.3%


URBACT Priority 1: Cities, Engines of Growth and Jobs No. % 1.1 Promoting Entrepreneurship 1 50%

1.2 Improving Innovation and Knowledge Economy 0 0%

1.3 Employment and Human Capital 0 0%

Total 1 50%Priority 2: Attractive and Cohesive Cities

2.1 Promoting Entrepreneurship 1 50%

2.2 Social Integration 0 0%

2.3 Environmental Issues 0 0%

Total 1 50%Priority 3: Technical Assistance

0 0%

Total 0 0%


Annex 4: Atlantic Area Programme Projects and Priorities

Welsh organisations participated in 17 Atlantic Area (AA) projects. Within these 17

projects there were 24 participations from Welsh organisations with several projects

having more than one Welsh partner.

The projects cover 3 of the 4 AA Priorities as illustrated in the table below.

Table 9. Number of projects by Priority - Atlantic Area

Priority No. of projects %

1. Promote transnational entrepreneurial and innovation networks 9 53

2. Protect, secure and enhance marine and coastal environment sustainability 6 35

3. Improve accessibility and internal links 0 0

4. Promote transnational synergies in sustainable urban and regional development 2 12

The majority (53%) of Atlantic Area projects with Welsh participation were in Priority

1 which accounted for nine of the 17 projects. A substantial number of projects were

listed under priority 2, six of 17 or 35%, which means that the first two Priorities

account for 88% of AA projects with Welsh participation. The remaining two Atlantic

Area projects with Welsh participation were in Priority 4. No Welsh organisations

participated in projects under Priority 3.

Within Priority 1, Theme 1.3 'Stimulate economic conversion and diversification by

promoting regional endogenous potential' accounted for over 35% (six of 17) of the

total number of projects with Welsh participation29.

Distribution of organisations within the Programme

This Programme has been mostly taken up by just three types of organisation in

Wales. Twenty-one (21) of the twenty-four (24) participations by Welsh organisations

in the Atlantic Area Programme were either from higher education institutes (HEIs),

Local Authorities (LAs) or government agencies. The other three participations were

by private and third sector partners.

29 Details of these projects in terms of the different themes are included in Annex 3.


Chart 6. Participation by Welsh organisations – Atlantic Area

Spread of organizations

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

HE LA GovernmentAgency

PrivateSector

Third Sector

Participations

Unique WelshOrganisations

HEIs account for 37.5% (9 of 24) of all Welsh participations in the Atlantic Area

Programme with Local Authorities accounting for a further 29% (7 of 24). Five (21%)

participations came from government agencies and two were by the private sector

with one participation by a third sector organisation.

Sixteen Welsh organisations participated in projects under the AA Programme.

Amongst the nine HEI participations only five HEIs were involved while the seven LA

participations came from five LAs. One government agency participated in two

projects as did the sole private sector organisation.

Welsh leaders / junior partner densities

Of the 17 projects that included Welsh-based participants only four (23.5%) were led

by Welsh partners. In the remaining 13 projects (76.5%) Welsh organisations were

junior partners (15 participations) or associate partners (five participations).

Thirteen of the Atlantic Area projects with Welsh participation had only a single

Welsh partner. Three projects included two Welsh partners and the final project

included a junior partner and four associate partners.

Occurrence of Member States and regional partners

The 17 Atlantic Area projects with Welsh participation also had 135 participations by

organisations from other Member States.


Chart 7. Participations by Member State – Atlantic Area

The lead country in respect of participations in the 17 AA projects with Welsh

participation was Spain with 29% (46 of 159) of all project participations. Portugal

and France were also high on the list with 20% (32) and 19% (30) each. 11.3% (18)

of participations were by Irish organisations and the other 5.6% were made up of the

other countries in the UK.

Table 10. Participations by Member State – Atlantic Area

Member State

Number of participations

Unique organisations

France 30 27

Ireland 18 17

Portugal 32 30

Spain 46 41

UK 'other' 9 9

Wales 24 16

Most of the 135 participations by other Member States in the cohort of Atlantic Area

projects with Welsh partners were by unique organisations. In other words, there is

no identifiable pattern of unique organisations from other Member States partnering

repeatedly with Welsh organisations in these projects.


Financial project profiles

On average, Welsh organisations tend to have a higher share of the overall project

budget in Atlantic Area projects than partners from other Member State regions.

Table 11. Financial profiles of ETC projects – Atlantic Area

Match funding

€.00

ERDF grant allocated

€.00

Welsh partner average 108,285 192,431

Other Member State partner average 79,629 149,422

Average ERDF intervention rate – Welsh

partner 64%

Average intervention rate – other

partners 65%

Highest Welsh partner share in individual

project30

489,566 909,194

Lowest Welsh partner share in individual

project31

58,400 69,422

Welsh total under the Atlantic Area

programme

2,598,839 4,618,356

On average, the intervention rate for Welsh partners in Atlantic Area Programme

projects appears to have been marginally lower than for regions from other Member

States. This is skewed, however, by two projects where the data suggests that Welsh

organisations have had contrasting fortunes. In one of the projects the intervention

rate for the Welsh partner was just 27% (compared to the average of 68% for the

other partners). By contrast, another project had the Welsh partner's intervention rate

at 71% compared to the average of 51% for the partners from other Member States.

30 For projects with more than one Welsh partner the Welsh share was averaged across the number of partners. 31 As above


Apart from these two anomalies, the intervention rates for the other 15 were the

same for Welsh partners and the average of other UK or Member state partners.

Experience of support infrastructures

72% of ‘involved’ interviewees (n=7) who commented on the support available to

identify ETC opportunities agreed to some extent that this had helped understand

opportunities or develop strong applications. Two interviewees also suggested that it

had helped them secure their project. Interested interviewees who had contacted

WEFO with regard to a potential Atlantic Area project had not progressed far enough

to be comfortable to comment on the strength of support available.

Specific qualitative feedback from Atlantic Area project interactions including both

successful projects and unsuccessful applications or initial interest is the most

positive of the various Programmes with 73% of comments in that respect being

overall positive, most strongly for the National Contact Point.’

Welsh partners’ perceptions of the Atlantic Area Programme

For the Atlantic Area Programme, the research results confirm32 that the main

reasons for the choice of the Programme and Priority related to the operational

context of organisations or their skills matching with the priorities of the Programme.

This reason is followed closely by a geographic fit with the main partners involved;

the fact that, usually, a lead partner made the choice of Programme and Priority

therefore leaving the Welsh partner with a fait accompli; and, the availability of

budget. Only a small number of the interviewee comments referred to existing

contacts as the main reason for choosing the Programme.

In terms of perceptions of project success, all Atlantic Area Programme interviewees

considered their project a success and were positive about the experience of the

project.

Generally, the strategic reasons why projects were considered a success revolved

around the potential for a high level of ‘downstream buy-in’ to project results and the

mainstreaming of the project results. Organisations also frequently felt that projects

added value to their internal, current activities and were positive about the extent to

which partners’ objectives had matched leading to good partnership dynamics.

32 As referred to by interviewees


Where this was cited, to a large extent it was attributed to a strong project concept

and the commitment of organisations involved to making the project a success.

In terms of practical reasons given for the success of projects, the key element most

commonly cited for the Atlantic Area projects was strong project management

arrangements supplemented by good internal support and expertise in the

organisations delivering the projects.

Three interested interviewees represented unsuccessful Atlantic Area applications.

Only one of them was able to consider why the application had not been successful,

which was attributed to issues arising from staff changes. The member of staff

responsible for the project left before the application had been completed and this

was the reason the application wasn’t progressed.

In terms of the likelihood of future engagement with the ETC Programmes, 86%

(n=7) of the ‘involved’ Atlantic Area interviewees responded positively whilst 14%

responded negatively.

In terms of positive responses, two interviewees suggested that they would favour

future participation in the Programme without making any additional qualifications

while a further two interviewees would participate in future if the opportunity arises.

One interviewee suggested that the organisation would participate as long as the

strategic fit in terms of their remit and beneficiaries was sufficient to outweigh the

administrative burden that participation involves. Finally one interviewee suggested

that the organisation would participate in future as long as the Programme cost

model would “stack up” for universities, specifically, an intervention rate of more than

50% and the ability to recover overheads through a full economic cost model.


Annex 5: Interreg IVC Projects and Priorities

Welsh participation in this Programme with 14 Welsh participations in 13 IVC

projects, might be expected given the size of the area covered by this programme

which is open to regions in all Member States..

The Programme is split between two Priorities with Welsh projects shared across the

Priorities and Themes; six projects (46%) come under Priority 1 and the other seven

(54%) under Priority 2.

Table 12. Number of projects by Priority - IVC

Priorities No. of projects %

1. Innovation and the knowledge economy 6 46%

2. Environment and the risk prevention 7 54%

Welsh organisations did not appear to favour any Priority Themes in the Interreg IVC

Programme far more than the others as is the case in some of the other

Programmes. Five of the ten themes had two projects with Welsh participation with

the remaining three projects under one further Theme and only two Themes without

Welsh participation.33


The Welsh Government accounted for the highest proportion of participations in the

Interreg IVC Programme with the Welsh Government being a partner in four of the

projects. Government agencies accounted for a further three participations (21.4%).

Together they therefore accounted for 50% (7 of 14) of all Welsh participations in the

Interreg ICV Programme.

Local Authorities and HEIs accounted for three participations each and one third

sector organisation was responsible for the final participation.



Chart 8. Participation by Welsh organisations – IVC


0

1

2

3

4

5

HE LocalAuthority

WelshGovernment

GovernmentAgency

Third Sector

Participation


Only nine unique Welsh organisations participated in the Programme despite there

being 14 participations altogether. One LA accounted for three of the participations.

Similarly, the Welsh Government accounted for four participations. HE participations,

meanwhile, were all from unique organisations contrary to the pattern for HEI

participation in other ETC Programmes.


Two of the 13 projects were led by Welsh partners, which again taking the size of the

Programme area into account appears appropriate. Welsh organisations participated

as junior partners in the other 11 projects with a total of 12 junior partners

participations overall.


A large number of organisations participated in the IVC projects with Welsh

involvement although none stood out in terms of their frequency of participation.

Organisations from Spain accounted for the highest number of participations

accounting for 13.4% (20 of 149) of the total. Italy participated 13 times (8.7%)

followed by France (6%). Eastern European regions participated relatively frequently

accounting for 30.8% of the total led by Poland (6%) and Romania and Bulgaria

(4.7% each).

Belgium and Greece (4.7% each) also participated relatively frequently. Other

countries made up the rest of the participation total with between one to four

participations.



As is the case in other Programmes, the data indicates that Welsh partners have, on

average, provided slightly more match-funding to project participations than their

partner regions and therefore receiving, in proportional terms, less ERDF grant than

other regions.

Table 13. Financial profiles of ETC projects – IVC

Match funding

€.00


€.00




partner 75%

Average intervention rate – other partners 79%


project34

124,468 373,404


project35

8,227 24,681

Welsh total under the Interreg IVC

programme

693,646 2,080,936

These figures are more variable in IVC projects than in the other Programmes where

the intervention rate has been fairly consistent for the different partners in a majority

of projects.


The picture for the Interreg IVC Programme is quite similar with four (n=5) ‘involved’

organisations commenting on this question tending to agree that 'the project support

34 For projects with more than one Welsh partner the Welsh share was averaged across the number of partners. 35 As above.


infrastructure for European funding helped them understand ETC opportunities

and/or develop a strong application?'

As in the Atlantic Area sub-sample, interested interviewees tended not to comment

in any details on the support infrastructure.

In terms of the strength of the support available for successfully securing a project

under Interreg IVC, six out of eight interviewees felt they weren’t really in a position to

comment on this. Referring to the support available during project delivery,

interviewees’ comments suggest that much of this was provided by ‘ETC-fluent’ lead

partners, but that support in Wales was not very well developed.

In the Interreg IVC cohort, 58% (n=12) of all comments suggested an overall positive

experience. The focus here was on positive experiences with the ‘Development

Officers’, a term that, in this programme, appears to have been used interchangeably

by respondents to refer to both JTS and WEFO staff rather than the National Contact

Point.

Negative comments from interested interviewees referred to a perceived general

lack of clarity regarding where to turn for initial information on the different ETC

Programmes.

Welsh partners' perceptions of the Interreg IVC Programme

In Interreg IVC three of the eight interviewees from the ‘involved’ sample reported

that the choice of the IVC Programme was a natural progression from previous

activities or relationships and networks while a further 3 interviewees joined a project

that had already been developed under Interreg IVC by a lead partner. Only one

interviewee referred to the need for the geographic spread that was only possible

under Interreg IVC.

In terms of perceptions of project success, for the Interreg IVC Programme seven out

of eight ‘involved’ projects in the sample considered their project a success, five of

them agreeing strongly with the corresponding survey statement. None of the

interviewees thought that their project had not been successful, although one

organisation thought it was too early to judge.

From a strategic perspective, a range of reasons were given for success of projects.

Participants particularly noted the strong partnerships and the commitment of the

organisations involved in the project to making it a success. A number of


interviewees also felt that there would be downstream benefits in terms of the

development of useful materials and resources for their organisations which allowed

for potential mainstreaming of results.

Organisations also highlighted the benefits they gained in terms of enhanced

reputation, knowledge exchange and new collaborations that were made. This led in

some cases to the potential for new business opportunities and for further

opportunities to collaborate.

From a practical perspective, interviewees felt that key to ensuring the success of

Interreg IVC projects were the project management arrangements, linked to good

communication and internal support and expertise in European projects. It was also

recognised that in this Programme the flexibility of the Programme objectives and

Priorities were a further practical reason for success.

Three Interreg IVC interested organisations were interviewed as part of the survey.

In terms of what would have made their application successful, for the one

organisation that explicitly commented here, the complexities of merging different

interests and agendas within organisations meant that managing the project

development stage was too complex to successfully complete the application

process.

In terms of likelihood of future engagement with the Interreg IVC Programme all

interviewees (including interested) responded positively. Three interviewees

reported that further ETC plans were already being pursued while three others said

that they would be interested, if the opportunity arises. One further organisation was

already in discussions to be a junior partner, encouraged by their experience with

their current project and the lead partner in that project.

One interviewee said that their organisation would be interested in further ETC

participation, but in the event would seek to ensure that proactive project

management would be in place.


Annex 6: Ireland/Wales (Interreg IVA) Projects and Priorities

The Ireland/Wales (I/W) Programme consisted of 41 projects shared between two

Priorities, each priority containing two different Themes36.

Table 14. Number of projects by Priority – Ireland/Wales

Priorities No. of projects %

Knowledge, Innovation and Skills for growth 25 61%

Climate Change and Sustainable Regeneration 16 39%

Welsh organisations favoured Priority 1 by a substantial margin with 61% (25 of 41)

of the projects falling under 'Knowledge, Innovation and Skills for growth' while the

other 39% (16) opted for Priority 2, 'Climate Change and Sustainable Regeneration'.

A third of all projects, (34% - 14) addressed Theme 1.1 ' Innovation and

competitiveness' while the rest of the Priority 1 projects, 27% (11), addressed Theme

1.2 'Skills for competitiveness and employment integration'.

Priority 2 was split evenly in terms of project numbers with almost 20% (eight) each

opting for the 2.1 and 2.2 Themes.


Within the 41 projects there were a total of 68 participations from Welsh

organisations with the most notable number of participations being by HEIs,

accounting for nearly 37% of the participation total.

Local authorities accounted for 23.5% of participations while third sector and private

sector organisations also relatively prominent, making up 25% of the participation

total between them or 14.7% and 10.3% respectively.

The remaining participations were made up of government agencies (four), further

education colleges (three), partnership structures/project vehicles (two) and sectoral

bodies/industry associations (one).



Chart 9. Participation by Welsh organisations – Ireland/Wales


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

HE

FE

Local Authority

Government Agency

Partnership structure / project vehicle

Third Sector

Private Sector

sectoral body / industry association

Participations Unique Welsh Organisations

HEIs typically participated on multiple occasions with their 25 participations coming

from only six unique organisations giving an average of four participations per

organisation. This was also true of LAs each of whom participated twice on average

with only eight unique LAs participating.


Welsh organisations were the lead partner in 66% of the Ireland/Wales projects and

junior partners in the remaining third. In just over half of the projects there was only a

single Welsh partner but there were multiple participants in the other 20; ranging from

two to four participations.

Chart 10. Lead partner densities – Ireland/Wales


Twelve of the 27 project leads were HE organisations. Therefore almost half of HE

participations (12 of 25) were as the lead partner. Government agencies' lead partner

ratio was also high with half of their participations (two of four) being as the lead.


While 40 of the 68 Welsh participations were from unique organisations, similarly, 42

of the 64 Irish participations were also from unique organisations.

Many Irish organisations participated in multiple projects. Waterford Institute of

Technology participated most frequently (six) and then University College Dublin

(four) followed by Dublin City University, Trinity College Dublin, University College

Cork and the Irish Exporters Association who each participated three times.


On average, the data shows that Welsh partners are contributing more match-

funding and receiving more ERDF grant than the Irish partners in the Ireland/Wales

projects. On average, (and similar to other Programmes) the intervention rate for

Welsh partners is marginally less than is the case for other Member States.

Table 15. Financial profiles of ETC projects – Ireland/Wales

Match funding

€.00


€.00



Average ERDF intervention rate – Welsh partner 71%


Highest Welsh partner share in individual project37 809,861 1,798,250

Lowest Welsh partner share in individual project38 47,118 135,313

Welsh total under the Ireland/Wales programme 10,815,233 26,648,763

37 For projects with more than one Welsh partner the Welsh share was averaged across the number of partners. 38 As above.


In the majority of Ireland/Wales projects (24 of 41), the average intervention rate for

Welsh and Irish partners have been the same. However, in a substantial proportion

of the projects (13 projects) the intervention rate for Welsh partners has been less

than that of Irish partners.


Ireland/Wales ‘involved’ participants’ views on the strength of the support

infrastructure to support organisations in understanding opportunities and/or

developing strong applications tended to be positive with 70% of interviewees (n=24)

agreeing to some extent with this positive statement and 21% strongly agreeing.

Unsurprisingly, the picture was less positive for ‘interested’ organisations, with four

out of five disagreeing to some extent. The same picture is reflected in the

quantitative findings regarding the strength of the support infrastructure in helping

organisations secure successful projects.

Considering that not only does the lead partner have an obligation to ensure all

partners are aware of the support available, but also that there is a requirement for all

partners to attend an applicant workshop and that projects cannot be submitted

unless they have been working with their Development Officer, a surprisingly large

proportion of interviewees in the Ireland/Wales cohort reported that they had no

dealings with the support infrastructure or were not able to comment with one

suggesting that ‘nothing had been offered or mentioned to him in the project

development or implementation phase’. Some contributed this to the lead partner

dealing with all project development and project administration, but a few were

themselves the project lead and commented that they had dealt with all project

development tasks in-house.

The role of the WEFO Development Officers was a source of positive experience for

Ireland/Wales Programme participants (‘involved’ and ‘interested’) with 56% of the

comments made reflecting the strong support received to the extent that one

interviewee raised concerns that; ‘if the support officers are doing this for everyone

they will soon be overstretched.’

Generally, it may be said that 24% of the comments from Ireland/Wales Programme

participants (‘involved’ and ‘interested’) had a more negative tone to them and this

was reflected in a number of the focus groups. Many tended to focus on

unsatisfactory interactions with the Managing Authority around Programme


management and financial reporting aspects (e.g. their responsiveness, clarity of

guidance and rules, changes to the Programme regulations).


Welsh partners’ perceptions of the Ireland/Wales Programme

As might be expected, amongst ‘involved’ interviews conducted, the major reason for

choosing the Ireland/Wales Programme was geographic fit (49%) of the

organisations involved. However, the geography alone was not the only feature

making an Ireland/Wales project attractive; the perception of Welsh organisations

sharing some ‘common ground’ with Ireland can be summarised in the following

comment; ‘There is a lot of synergy with the UK market common to both! However, in

spite of the geographical proximity and lots of common issues, there are also

differences to learn from.’

The role of Ireland/Wales Development Officers in promoting and encouraging

participation in the Ireland/Wales Programme was also explicitly mentioned while

existing relationships played a role for a number of Programme participants. More

mundanely, one interviewee explicitly refers to the intervention rate of 75%; ‘It is no

more strategic reason than that. It is hard to find 50% match.’ and five interviewees

suggested that this had been chosen by the lead partner.

Only two interested organisations commented on the reasons for choosing the

Ireland/Wales Programme. In one case this was because they were approached by

an Irish partner and the other suggested a good project fit with the Programme

criteria and Irish/Welsh issues.

In terms of perceptions of project success, for the Ireland/Wales Programme 92% of

projects tended to consider their project a success and were positive about the

experience of the project. In fact, 40% of participants interviewed were very positive

with regard to their project and the level of success. None of the interviewees

considered their project to be unsuccessful while two organisations were not able to

answer the question largely due to the project not being complete at the time of

interview.

From a strategic perspective, the overwhelming key reasons for success of the

projects in the Ireland/Wales Programme were felt to be the downstream benefits

and the mainstreaming opportunities that arose from the projects. A number of

organisations found new collaborators that were considered strategically important

through the projects and the opportunity to demonstrate the success of their

partnerships tested ‘for real’ in a real project environment were considered key to

project success. This is reflected further in the importance attributed by interviewees


to partnership dynamics and organisational commitment by Ireland/Wales

participants as a signal of their project success.

In practical terms, good project management was seen by interviewees as the key

reason for success of projects followed by good internal support and expertise in

running ETC Programmes amongst organisations. The availability of funding from the

Programme and, finally, staff continuity amongst organisations involved were noted

as positive practical factors contributing to project success.

Concerns were raised by a number of interviewees regarding financial and

administration burdens and some Programme constraints that had negative cash

flow implications. In some cases this had apparently been managed successfully by

strong internal staff commitment, for others it meant the projects were classed as a

‘qualified success’ only. The negative effects of the economic downturn in Ireland

was mentioned explicitly by two interviewees as having an adverse effect on the

project management process a factor that also emerged in interviews with ‘interested’

projects.

Fourteen ‘interested’ Ireland/Wales interviews were conducted. Three organisations

highlighted the lack of available funding as the reason for lack of success of their

project concept/application. Two of these three had issues with raising sufficient

match funding where the Irish partner withdrew match funding and the other could

not raise sufficient own match funding. For the other organisation, even though a

100% intervention was allowed, the organisation could not justify the development

cost of the project in the context of the demands posed by the organisation’s wider

activities.

Three interested interviews highlighted a lack of organisational commitment as the

main reason for not completing project bids or for unsuccessful applications. In one

case, the young people who would have been the beneficiaries failed to show

enthusiasm for the project whilst in the other two cases, lack of support from senior

management was the main cause cited for an unsuccessful application. In a similar

vein, two organisations cited a lack of strong project management to drive forward

the development process of applications and here there was also some criticism of

insufficient guidance from the Managing Authority with respect to the Programme.

In terms of likelihood of future engagement with the Ireland/Wales Programme

amongst all interviewees, 78% responded positively and 22% responded negatively.


In terms of the positive responses, 22% of interviewees felt that they would definitely

encourage further and future participation of their organisations in the Programme.

Similarly, 22% would participate in future with the qualification of the opportunity to

do so clearly being there with a good rationale to do so.

14% of interviewees would participate as long as their organisational remits or their

beneficiaries warranted it. One interviewee would participate in future and was

already in discussions to do so but only as a Junior Partner. This was largely due to

the experience of their current project and the lead partner in that project.

Finally, 17% (six organisations) were positive that they would participate in future for

‘Other’ reasons. This was principally revolving around the capacity to raise match

funding for the application and to lever development funding from within their

organisations. If this was not possible, they would be very cautious about further

participation.

In terms of negative responses, two organisations felt that they had achieved

insufficient added value to warrant future participation or to make the argument within

their organisations. One interviewee suggested that the process would be too

onerous. A lack of funding to participate and a generally poor ETC experience were

other reasons given for not being likely to participate in the future.

Finally, two organisations thought that personal preference of the project manager

would prevent the organisation from participating in future while for another, the fact

that the Irish partners no longer had the match funding meant that they were not

interested in ETC any further at this point in time.


Annex 7: North West Europe (Interreg IVB) Projects and priorities

There were 16 projects with Welsh participation and 21 participations in total from

Welsh organisations within the North West Europe (NWE) Programme. The

Programme consisted of four different Priorities, each with three different Themes.

Table 16. Number of projects by Priority – NWE

Priorities No. of projects % 1. Capitalizing on innovation 7 44

2. Managing natural resources and risks 4 25

3. Improving connectivity 0 0

4. Strengthening communities 5 31

Priority 1 with 44% (seven of 16) had the highest number of NWE projects and

Priority 4 also had a substantial proportion with 31% (five) of the project total.

Twenty-five per cent of the projects were in Priority 2 leaving Priority 3 with no Welsh

participation.

Projects with Welsh participation were strongly clustered amongst the Themes within

the Programme. Just three (of 12) Themes accounted for 75% of the NWE projects

with Welsh participation. Priority Theme 1.1 had the highest proportion of projects

with Welsh participants with 31% (five of 16). Priority Themes 2.1 and 4.1 were also

high on the list with 25% (four) and 19% (three) respectively. Priority Themes 1.2 and

1.3 and Priority Themes 4.2 and 4.3 had a single project each whilst the others had

none.39


Welsh participation in NWE came from one of an HEI (43%), a LA (33%) or third

sector organisation (24%).

The 21 participations came from 14 unique organisations. HEIs participated nine

times from only five unique HE establishments. Local Authorities participated seven

times but only from four unique organisations while all third sector participations were

‘one-offs’ by unique organisations.



Chart 11. Participation by Welsh organisations – NWE


02468

10

HE LocalAuthority

Third Sector

Participations



Of the 16 projects with Welsh participation, five (31%) were led by Welsh

organisations with the remaining 11 (69%) containing Welsh organisations as junior

partners. In 11 of the projects there was just a single Welsh participation with two

Welsh participants in the other five projects.

With three participations, one HE organisation participated more often than any of the

other Welsh organisations, albeit each time as junior partner. Five organisations

participated twice, on three occasions as lead partner.


In the 16 NWE projects with Welsh participation there were 156 participations from

eight other Member States.

Some countries appear most frequently as projects partners for the Welsh

organisations with French organisations featuring 30 times closely followed by

Belgium (29) and English and German organisations participating on 26 and 22 times

respectively. Ireland and other parts of the UK were also regular partners. Italy,

Luxembourg and Switzerland appeared as partners on one occasion each.

The only regional partner outside of Wales to participate multiple times (>2) was

Ghent University in Belgium which featured in 3 projects with a different Welsh

partner each time.



The overall average project value is higher in the NWE Programme than most of the

other Programmes.

As is the case in the other Programmes, on average, Welsh organisations have a

greater share in projects than the other regions (in both providing match funding and

receiving ERDF grant).

Table 17. Financial profiles of ETC projects – NWE

Match

funding

€.00

ERDF grant

allocated

€.00




partner 50%



project41

993,550 993,550


project42

144,668 144,667

Welsh total under the North West Europe

programme

7,980,199 7,980,197

Welsh organisations have a higher average share of the overall project value than

the other project partners in 67% of the projects (10 of 15). In the remaining five

projects the overall Welsh partner share in the project is lower than the partner

average. 40 Under NWE other Member States appear to be receiving a marginally lower (less than 1% differential) average intervention rate. 41 For projects with more than one Welsh partner the Welsh share was averaged across the number of partners. 42 As above.



Seventy-five per cent (n=8) ‘involved’ interviewees in this cohort agreed to some

extent with the statement that 'the project support infrastructure for European funding

helped them understand ETC opportunities and/or develop a strong application' with

most of them agreeing (rather than merely tending to agree or more strongly

agreeing). There were slightly lower levels of positive response (51%) regarding

support to secure the project. Fewer ‘interested’ organisations agreed with both

statements.

Sixty-nine per cent of interviewees’ qualitative comments regarding their experiences

with the support infrastructure were positive with one interviewee highlighting that

‘WEFO Project officers were helpful and encouraging’ and suggesting that the

organisation had had ‘very useful and amicable meetings pre-submission and later’

with the Joint Technical Secretariat.

Negative comments here again tended to focus on a lack of awareness-raising and

limited accessibility of the Programmes for organisations that could potentially

benefit.

Welsh partners’ perceptions of the North West Europe Programme

For the North West Europe Programme, the two key reasons for choice of the NWE

Programme were around the geographic and thematic fit with six organisations

referring to this as a reason for choice while existing partnerships were mentioned in

five interviews.

Similar to other Programmes two ‘involved’ and two ‘interested’ interviewees reported

that the choice of the NWE had been made without their contribution prior to them

being invited to participate. One interviewee noted that a previous project partnership

wished to expand the geographical reach of their activities while another interested

interviewee commented that this was the only ETC Programme with sufficient budget

availability at the time of developing the project.

In terms of perceptions of project success, for the North West Europe Programme

75% of the surveyed projects considered their project a success and were positive

about the experience of the project. None of the interviewees considered their project

to be unsuccessful, but two organisations were not yet able to answer the questions,

because the project had not been completed at the time of interview.


From the strategic perspective, the downstream benefits of participating in the North

West Europe Programme were cited as the key reason for project success. Five

interviewees explicitly referred to specific tangible results from the project including

research outputs for one HE interviewee. Participants also emphasised the match to

Programme objectives between partners and partner commitment and focus as a key

reason for the success of their project.

At the level of practical reasons given for success, fewer responses were provided by

participants of the North West Europe Programme. Generally, clear and good

communication and strong project management was cited as the key reason for

success. Some interviewees did raise specific concerns, however, one with regard to

language as a barrier, particularly for a community-related project, and one with

regard to misunderstandings regarding the intervention rate and match-funding

requirements, which caused serious issues for the project.

One interested interviewee highlighted particular issues around effective

communication as a key reason why a project had not come to fruition. With

hindsight reliance on telephone meetings during the application process seemed to

them a false economy.

In terms of likelihood of future engagement with the North West Europe Programme

89% of interviewees for this Programme responded positively and 11% responded

negatively.

In terms of positive responses, for four organisations this was a definitive ‘yes’ while

another five caveated this response with reference to issues of future eligibility,

issues around the match-funding and internal resource, particularly citing different

funding programmes competing for scarce project development and delivery

resource.

In terms of negative responses, one interviewee felt that they had ‘fallen out of the

loop’ in terms of communications on ETC projects and that WEFO support was not

readily available to enable them to participate in the future.


Annex 8: Transnational element within mainstream Structural Funds Distribution of organisations within the Programme

Two Welsh organisations participated in projects with a transnational element to the

mainstream structural funds Programme. One was a third sector organisation and the

other was a higher education institution.


Not applicable


In addition to the two Welsh partners, there were a further seven partners in other

Member states in the two projects.


Generally comments on the support available to integrate transnational activities into

a mainstream Structural Funds project suggests that there is a considerable

opportunity to provide improved support in this respect. This may be summed up in a

comment that; ‘the process of integrating this into an ESF project remained

mysterious and nobody could explain how to go about it'.

Amongst both ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ interviewees less than half of respondents

were aware of the possibility of integrating transnational activities into a mainstream

ERDF or ESF project. Forty-six per cent (n=52) of ‘involved’ interviewees and 26%

(n=23) of ‘interested’ interviewees. Among the ‘non-involved’ cohort, that is those

with mainstream ERDF or ESF projects but no ETC participations, it appears that a

total of 100% were either not aware or not sure about the opportunity to add

transnational element to their projects43.

The few project examples that have successfully achieved a transnational element in

an ESF or ERDF project acknowledge that they have depended to a very large

extent on the perseverance and commitment of the respective WEFO project officers;

‘The PDO was very good and helpful.’ However, interviewees also reported that there

was perceived to be a general lack of certainty, even within WEFO, as to how this

would work; ‘At the time WEFO were developing their own thinking on the

43 59% of ‘non-involved’ interviewees were not aware or ‘not sure’ of this possibility while 41% of ‘non-involved’ interviewees reported that they did know about it.


transnational element of mainstream and therefore they didn't really have the right

information in sufficient depth.’

As one interviewee noted, the organisation’s understanding that it was a ‘WEFO

requirement that the project must not be to the economic benefit of organisations

outside of Wales’ meant that the organisation felt it ‘couldn't credibly make an

argument for a project with such a requirement’. This and similar perceptions will

have added to organisations’ difficulties in realising such projects compounded by the

lack of exemplars where, since few of transnational projects have come to fruition, in

the words of one interviewee, organisations would ‘not have seen any evidence of it

working in practice’.

A further obstacle identified by interviewees was that the inclusion of a transnational

element within a mainstream ERDF or ESF project would require changing a

Business Plan for a project that may already have been approved. Interviewees

referred to a perceived 12 month time-line to achieve this and one commented that

this wasn’t ‘worth the hassle’.

Finally, it was reported by interviewees and focus group participants that since, in

larger organisations, responsibility for European collaboration and use of the

mainstream Structural Funds is often split between different members of staff or even

departments the read across is difficult to achieve.

Welsh partners’ perceptions of the transnational activity within mainstream

Programmes

As there are limited numbers of Structural Fund transnational Programmes there are

only two reasons given for choice of the Programme.

In the first, the choice of the transnational element was a fait accompli in the sense

that they were already bidding for an ESF Programme and the transnational element

was added during this process.

In the other case, the ERDF Programme was seen as the best vehicle in relation to

the sums that were required for the project and it was seen as more suitable than

Interreg in this respect.

Both of the Structural Fund transnational Programmes considered their projects to

have been very successful.


Strategically, the reasons given for considering the projects successful were around

four main areas: enhancements in reputation of the organisations involved; acquiring

new project experience and track record; the opportunity for mainstreaming the

results; and, the commitment of the organisations to making the project a success.

Practically, communication between partners was considered as a reason for the

success of the project. This is complemented by the development of new business

opportunities as a result of the projects.

In more general terms, across the range of ‘involved’ and ‘interested’ projects

surveyed, 40% of interviewees were aware of the possibility of integrating

transnational elements into Structural Fund projects; 39% were not aware of this

possibility; and, 21% were unsure.

Of those who knew about the possibility of integrating transnational elements into

Structural Fund projects, several thought that this was not well promoted by WEFO

and were unsure of how they would go about integrating this into their ESF/ERDF

projects. Similarly, others were aware of the possibility, but perceived that the effort

involved in integrating this into their Structural Fund projects negated the potential

benefits. Finally, there were interviewees who were aware of the possibility but who

had specifically decided that the remit of their organisations prevented this. For

example, one organisation with a remit to assist young people had looked at the

possibility and discounted it as it was felt to risky taking the focus away from their

core Structural Fund remit.

In terms of likelihood of future engagement with the Structural Funds’ transnational

element, both organisations with successful projects felt that they would definitely

engage with it again. In one case, one of their partners had shown an interest in

taking the methodology forward in the next period with a potentially wider

partnership.


Annex 9: URBACT Number and distribution of project Priorities and Themes

There were only two URBACT projects containing Welsh participation with a single

Welsh participant in each. URBACT had three different Priorities with three Themes

each in the first two, and just a single theme in the third.

The two Welsh projects were part of Theme 1.1- 'Cities, Engines of Growth and

Jobs', and Theme 2.1- 'Attractive and Cohesive Cities' with no participation in the

other Themes .


Both organisations were Local Authorities which is not surprising considering the

nature of the Programme involves promoting cooperation between cities.


None of the Welsh partners led their projects; they were a junior and an associate

partner respectively.


There were 16 different participations in the two projects with Welsh participation

from 11 Member States (including Wales).

Partners from Spain, Germany and Bulgaria occurred a couple of times each and the

other countries who participated were Austria, France, Greece, Ireland, Poland,

Romania, Slovakia and Northern Ireland.

Financial differences between Wales and other regions

Associate partners do not have a financial role in the projects and so there is

financial data for only one Welsh participant. In this case, the Welsh organisation

contributed less match funding than the average of other regions but received only

15% less in ERDF grant. Participation by the associate partner in the other URBACT

project was funded by the British Council.

As there are limited numbers of URBACT Programmes, there are only two reasons

for Programme choice. For the first project, the Programme and Priorities were

selected by the French lead partner and to an extent the choice of Programme was a

fait accompli. For the second project, the URBACT Programme was chosen because


it offered an opportunity to carry on work that had been started between a smaller

group of European cities under a previous project.

Both of the URBACT Programme projects considered their projects to have been

successful.

Strategically, the reasons given for considering the projects successful were around

three main areas: the project added value to current activities of the participant

organisations; the downstream buy-in to the project results that was generated; and

the dynamics of the partnership.

Practically, the reasons given for considering the projects successful were around

three main areas: the opportunity to build a new network of contacts; the flexibility of

project objectives to facilitate the projects; and the actual project concept itself.

As there were only two URBACT projects, no perspectives were gathered on

unsuccessful applications.


Annex 10: Case studies of ETC projects

Sixteen case studies have been prepared and are awaiting approval by the organisations concerned before being published separate to the Final Report.

The Case studies have been selected on the basis that they are illustrative of

particular themes and trends emerging from the scooping study evidence and

findings.

Case study projects are illustrative of: • Profile raising / reputational

o Environment Agency - Surf nature o Swansea University – Energetic Algae o RSPB- Fame

• Direct Target Group Benefits

o Aberystwyth University – Sustainable Learning Networks o Pembrokeshire College – Technology Mcommunity o Brecon Beacons Nat Park – Collabor8

• Mainstreaming of results

o Menter a Busnes - Channel clusters o Powys CC – B2N / i-Speed

• Integration with internal objectives and strategy

o Trinity St David o Merthyr CBC - Share o Cardiff University - MAREN

• Policy influencing aims

o Autism Cymru o WCVA – CCIA

• Strategic ‘fit’ with external policy & strategy

o Arts Council Wales - Toolquiz o Bangor University - Winning in Tendering

• Transnational element within a mainstream Structural Fund project

o BTCV


wales european funding office final report · territorial co-operation scoping study c255/2007/09...

Documents