ex-post evaluation of the interreg iii community initiative...

Panteia and Partners:

• EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg)

• Policy Research and Consultancy (Frankfurt / Germany)

• GÉPHYRES EURL (Roubaix / France)

• The Radboud University (Nijmegen / The Netherlands)

Reference R20090290/30922000/LTR/CWI

January 2010

This study has been financed by European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit.

Quoting of numbers and/or text is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned.

Ex-Post Evaluation of the INTERREG III Community

Initiative funded by the ERDF

Task 5: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE EVALUATION REPORT, elaborated by dr. L. Trofin (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands) drs. W.A. van Putten (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands) drs. F. Saçli (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands) drs. P. van Run (NEA/PANTEIA, The Netherlands)

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC

WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 3 January 2010

Foreword

The ex-post evaluation of the Interreg III 2000-2006 Community Initiative

encompasses a number of six tasks interactively and iteratively linked. Under

Task 5 sixteen Interreg III programmes from all three Strands have been in-

depthly evaluated. On the basis of these in-depth assessments an evidence-

based extrapolation of evaluation results at the Community Initiative level will be

conducted in the project final report.

Among the four Strand C programmes, INTERREG III C West Zone was selected

to be evaluated in-depthly, due to the financial, physical and intrinsic

performance of the programme. The previous West Zone Joint Technical

Secretariat and Managing Authority are currently managing the implementation

of INTERREG IVC. Their comprehensive view on both the previous and current

programming period contributes to the policy-level and inter-regional

cooperation-related analysis carried out under this project.


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 4 January 2010

Contents

FOREWORD 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

1 INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 Outline and characteristic features of the programme 7

2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY 10

3 IN DEPTH-ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN

TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS & THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC

EFFECTS 11

3.1 The financial implementation of the programme 11

3.2 The effectiveness of the programme 16

3.3 Evaluation at project level 34

3.4 The character of the programme, its constituting features and

factors of barrier and cooperation 63

3.5 Extrapolating results of effectiveness and impacts to INTERREG 69

4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS

OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY 71

4.1 Evaluation of the policy coherence of the programme 71

4.2 Analysis of the intrinsic performances of the programme 76

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 84

ANNEX 1 CRITERIA PER INTERREG III C TYPES OF OPERATION 89

ANNEX 2 INDICATIVE FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS – WEST INTERREG

IIIC 90

ANNEX 3 PROGRAMME INDICATORS AND THE ACHIEVEMENTS PER

31.12.2008 93

ANNEX 4 INDICATORS RELATED TO OPERATIONS’ PERFORMANCE 101

ANNEX 5 EXAMPLES OF POLICIES DEVELOPED, IMPROVED,

INFLUENCED BY INTERREG III C WEST OPERATIONS 103

ANNEX 6 CRITERIA USED FOR THE STRAND C TYPOLOGY 105

ANNEX 7 CRITERIA AND SUB-CRITERIA OF THE SYNTHETIC

INDICATOR 106


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 5 January 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTERREG III C West Zone is one of the four III C programmes implemented during the 2000-2006 programming period: West, East, South and North. Three types of operations were financed under the INTERREG III C West Zone programme: Regional Framework Operations, Individual Interregional cooperation projects, Networks. The operations financed under INTERREG III C, including West Zone, should have targeted one of the 5 topics for interregional cooperation: 1. Exchange of types of

activities supported under Objective 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds, 2. Exchange on Interregional cooperation linking public authorities or equivalent bodies involved in other INTERREG programmes, 3. Exchange on interregional cooperation in the field of urban development, 4. Exchange on interregional cooperation linking regions involved under the three themes of the regional innovative actions for 2000-2006, 5. Exchange on other subjects appropriate to interregional cooperation. The programme has been managed by the Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, assisted by the Joint Technical Secretariat. The ERDF budget that was finally allocated for the INTERREG IIIC West Zone was € 79,575,968.00; the certified expenditures reached € 71,922,693 (latest figures available –November 2009). This means an average achievement rate (for the ERDF contribution) of 90.38%. 414 “Innovative actions” and 415 “Information to the public” have been the intervention codes with the greatest budgetary importance. As no differentiation is made among operations, this code classification cannot reflect in a more nuanced manner the reality of the programme. The peace of the programme physical performance more or less followed the pattern of the financial spending: abruptly after the programme become operational in 2003, until 2007. In most cases the achievements of the programme (output/results/impacts) go significantly beyond the initially envisaged targets. Nevertheless, this is an indication of cautiously set up targets rather than that of significant over-performance. The interpretation of the indicators also varies, among projects, including in the case of the programme core indicator, i.e. good practices. It seems that the major challenge for the MA/JTS was to communicate the “philosophy” of the programme to the target group. Main conclusions and recommendations The programme should have a clear intervention logic, supported by adequate (i.e. relevant and accurate) analysis. If strategic cooperation is also a goal of the programme, this should be properly reflected in the programme strategy, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Further than an adequate programme strategy, a more evaluative thinking should be stimulated, at both programme level (by the European Commission) and at the project level (by the programme itself). To a large extent the system of indicators in place for INTERREG III C West adequately grasp the programme’s achievements. Nevertheless, a series of issues need to be further improved, i.e. labelling, formulating, explaining, ensuring a coherent interpretation and use of indicators. Especially the definition of “best practice”, as concept at the core of the programme rationale,


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 6 January 2010

needs to be clearly defined, coherently applied at operational level and its use monitored by the JTS. The targets for the INTERREG III C West Zone indicators were cautiously set up; consequently significant over-performance was registered. Despite this context and the few deficiencies of the indicator system (e.g. especially the definitions of “best practices” and “policies influenced/improved”), we can conclude that the programme was, to a large extent, effective. INTERREG III C contributed especially to increasing the European territorial identity and to European governance. The INTERREG III C West did contribute to the quality and efficiency of the territory covered, to the extent to which the policies addressed under operation genuinely improved their effectiveness. Regarding cultural differences, the cooperation developed or enhanced under INTERREG III C contributed significantly to an increase of “social capital” among the partners involved. Changes in partnership is one of the factor affecting negatively the financial performance of the programme. Therefore, the commitment of project partners should be better assured from the outset, through the project appraisal and selection criteria applied. Individual and organisational learning could be confirmed to a large extent in virtually all projects analysed. Nevertheless, a more nuanced image of what was learned under INTERREG III C, both at individual and organisational level, needs to be pencilled. Particularly in the case of C programmes, the Managing Authorities benefit to a very limited extent, or not at all, of the funds implemented; in some case it prefers to preserve a neutral position toward the other programme beneficiaries. In this context, the MA structure in C Strand is perceived as artificial and fragile.

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST

ZONE

R20090290.doc 7 January 2010

1 Introduction

1.1 Outline and characteristic features of the programme

INTERREG III C West Zone is one of the four III C programmes implemented during the

2000-2006 programming period: West, East, South and North. This geographical division

was made for management purposes only; the partners involved in an individual

project/network or Regional Framework Operation (RFO) could come from all the

countries covered by the programme (all 4 zones).

Geographical coverage: INTERREG III C West covered the countries: the United

Kingdom (except Gibraltar), Ireland, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The

geographical coverage of the German part of the programme included the districts of

Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland and Baden-Württemberg. The

French partner regions were the Alsace, Basse-Normandie, Bourgogne, Bretagne,

Champagne-Ardenne, Franche-Comté, Ile de France, Lorraine, Nord-Pas de Calais, Pays

de la Loire and Picardie.

Types of operations: As prescribed by the Interregional Cooperation Communication,

three types of operations were financed under the INTERREG III C West Zone

programme:

1. Regional Framework Operations

2. Individual Interregional cooperation projects

3. Networks

The Regional Framework Operation (RFO) was set up as the most innovative inter-

regional cooperation instrument and aimed to achieve an enhanced strategic and

sustainable co-operation (art.26 (a) of the Interregional Cooperation Communication).

The expectations in terms of intensity of cooperation were similar for individual projects,

only their dimension (in financial and partnership terms) was more reduced. The networks

were meant to concentrate on softer cooperation activities, such as exchange and

dissemination of experiences (see Annex 1, for the criteria related to each INTERREG III C

types of operation).

Topics for cooperation: The operations financed under INTERREG III C, including West

Zone, should have targeted one of the 5 topics for interregional cooperation:

1. Exchange of types of activities supported under Objective 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds 2. Exchange on Interregional cooperation linking public authorities or equivalent bodies involved in other INTERREG programmes 3. Exchange on interregional cooperation in the field of urban development 4. Exchange on interregional cooperation linking regions involved under the three themes of the regional innovative actions for 2000-2006 5. Exchange on other subjects appropriate to interregional cooperation


ZONE

R20090290.doc 8 January 2010

Programme strategy: The programme aimed to make use of the existing stock of

experiences collected in the context of implementation of structural funds programmes

and related to national policies with a view to improving the effectiveness of

policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion. The means to

reach this objective was to create new networks or enhance existing ones. These

networks were to be formed mainly through public authorities acting at both local and

regional, but also at national level.

The INTERREG III C West had three priorities: Priority 1/1 measure): Operations. Under this Priority 1 Measure 1 all 75 INTERREG III C West Zone were implemented. Priority 2/1 measure): Strand C coordination. Priority 3/1 measure): Technical Assistance1. The 4 programmes were similar in terms of goals, objectives and approach, types and

topics of co-operation. Nevertheless, as also differences among them were developing, a

series of inter-zone coordination measures were deemed necessary. Initially they were

carried out by the 4 programmes themselves; at a later stage, the INTERACT POINT III C

COORD took over this role and fulfilled it in a more centralised, and coherent, manner.

Until the INTERACT Point III C COORD started its activities, measures related to the 4-

zone coordination were financed through the four programmes under Priority 2.

Consequently, funds were allocated to this priority only for the years 2001 and 2002.

Each of the zones were responsible with a set of coordination measures, e.g. the West

Zone organized coordination meetings between the 4 JTS’s, INTERREG IIIC Info Days and

Partner Search Forums.

The Mid-term evaluation of the INTERREG III C programme brought new insights into the

needs for inter-regional cooperation existing in the European Union and third-

partycountries. Consequently, the strategy of the programme was slightly streamlined.

Taking into account the topics of cooperation and the expected intensity level of

cooperation four programme objectives were introduced and further used for

monitoring purposes, i.e. the operation’s performance indicators were grouped under

these four objectives:

1. Accessing the experience of other partners 2. Expanding the effects of Structural Funds and/or other regional development

programmes 3. Improving regional policies and instruments 4. Contribution to horizontal EU policies

The INTERREG III C West operations could contribute to achieving several or all four

objectives set up; in any case, all operations had to achieve the first goal (which

corresponds to the first intensity level of cooperation).

1 For an overview of the financial allocation on INTERREG III C WEST see Annex 1, table 2.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 9 January 2010

The thematic scope of the programme was wide. In order to structure, from this point of

view, the programmes activities and achievements a, series of themes of cooperation

were defined:

• Research, technology and innovation • Employment, social inclusion, human resources and education • Heritage, culture and tourism • SME development and entrepreneurship • Environment, Risk Prevention, Energy and Natural Resources • Regional Planning, Territorial Regeneration and Urban Development • Information Society and e-Government • Accessibility, mobility and transport

The issues INTERREG III C addressed are of an intraregional nature, i.e. they exist at

the level of regions; nevertheless, the approach taken to tackle them is interregional,

through co-operation amongst/“inter” regions.

Management arrangements

The programme has been managed by the Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais, assisted

by the Joint Technical Secretariat. The Paying Authority responsible was the “Caisse des

Dépots et Consignations”, Paris.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 10 January 2010

2 Research interest and methodology The scope of research is closely determined by the terms of reference of the Ex-post

Evaluation for INTERREG III and the method proposed in the Inception Report1.

1 Panteia (and partner institutes) 2009, Ex-post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006 – Inception report to

the European Commission DG Regio, pp. 82 ff. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2006/expo_interreg_report170

209.pdf


ZONE

R20090290.doc 11 January 2010

3 In depth-analysis of the results and impacts in terms of effectiveness & the socio-economic effects

3.1 The financial implementation of the programme

3.1.1 Financial analysis across the three-digit-codes of intervention

As indicated by “The New Programming period 2000-2006: methodological working paper:

Indicators for Monitoring and evaluation: an indicative methodology”, the main purpose of

applying the fields of interventions categorisation developed by the European Commission

is for the latter to prepare summary information on the activities of the Funds across the

programmes. Using the codes of intervention for reporting, monitoring and evaluation

purposed was recommended by the EC, but was not compulsory.

Due to the broad and innovative nature of the programme and the diversity of its

operations, applying the European Commission classification of areas of intervention in

the context of INTERREG III C, including West Zone, proved challenging. Consequently, C

strand operations were classified under code 414 “Innovative actions” (Programme

Complement 2007, page 22). The Technical Assistance expenditures were classified as for

other programmes, under the heading 4 “Miscellaneous” (see also table 1 annex 2):

- 411: preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity

- 412: evaluation

- 413: studies

- 414: innovative actions

- 415: information to the public

No further classification of the operations was done at a later stage, e.g. after defining

the themes of cooperation. As also the JTS representatives mention, it was from the

outset problematic to find the codes which could appropriately reflect the programme’s

intended achievements. Further than the initial decision on these codes and the initial

budgetary allocation made to the codes, these were not used for any other purposes

further than financial reporting to the European Commission.

All operations financed under the programme were classified as innovative actions (code

414). This particular situation is reflected by the high value of the intensity measure

(IM1) of the 414-intervention code under this programme (in comparison with

INTERREG as a whole) (see table 3.1).

1 The IM is expressed in terms of the share (of the programme-related) of the overall (INTERREG) certified

expenditure for 2000-2006 at the field of intervention level


ZONE

R20090290.doc 12 January 2010

Table 3.1 Expenditure, absorption rate and comparison with INTERREG1

Title Fields of intervention

Decided amount (Euro)

Certified expenditure (Euro)

Realisation rate %

code expenditure/programme expenditure %

Interreg Realisation rate %

Interreg: code expenditure/programme expenditure %

IM GM

West 411. Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity

1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 80,05 0,07 23,41 0,99

West 412. Evaluation 1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 80,55 0,23 6,49 0,99

West 413. Studies 1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 85,61 0,12 12,43 0,93

West 414. Innovative actions

74.471.568 62.438.547 83,84 93,90 84,35 0,01

6765,56 0,99

West 415. Information to the public

1.276.100 1.013.275 79,40 1,52 93,53 0,00

3525,37 0,85

Programme 79.575.968,00 66.491.644,85 83,56 The high expenditures (in comparison with INTERREG average) incurred under the 415-

intervention code are explainable by the investments done in communication/information

events organised. Before INTERACT Point III C COORD started its activity, these events

were organized for all four zones by the West Zone under Priority 2 of the programme.

However, the certified expenditure data available for the codes 411, 412, 413, 415 was

not accurate. For example the real sum spent on West Zone only-related communication

and dissemination activities is very limited, i.e. € 178.634,81, in comparison with the

total of EUR 6,6 million available for all zones.

In accordance with the JTS, the same undifferentiated approach was continued for the

2007-2013 programming period; no information on this aspect is provided by the

INTERREG IV C Operational Programme.

From the total budget for 2001 and 2002, respectively €31,2 million euros and €16,57

million euros were decommited in 2005, in accordance with the n+2 rule. This brings the

initial ERDF budget allocated to the programme to €96,153,370. The annual allocations

were done in a relatively flat way (more or less the same allocation for each year of the

programme, including 2001 and 2002) rather than gradually. No shifts in the following

years of the programme were possible, as in the case of INTERACT I.

The ERDF budget that was finally allocated for the INTERREG IIIC West Zone was€

79,575,968.00; the certified expenditures reached € 71,922,693 (latest figures available

–November 2009). This means an average achievement rate (for the ERDF contribution)

of 90.38 %.

During the programme lifetime, the JTS monitored closely the decommitment risk,

discussed within all meetings of the MC, and proposed measures to limit the

1 79,575,968 is the amount left after the de-commitment which took place in 2005 (€16,577,402). The initial ERDF budget was €96,153,370. As a uniform methodology needs to be applied to all 16 in-depth studies, these calculations are made with the data provided by the European Commission. Last figures, provided by the JTS of the programme, are used further in the financial analysis. Please see also Annex 2, table 3, were the latest figures on realisation rate per code of intervention are presented.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 13 January 2010

decommitment of funds and its impact on the programme’s financial performance, e.g.

extending the reporting period, payments to local development funds, submission of

intermediate financial reports (not audited) by project partners.

This risk could be contained to a certain extent through:

• applying a flexible approach (see table 3.2) towards funds re-allocations at

operational level;

• monitor and limit the under-spending of projects.

• intermediate financial reporting:1

Table 3.2 Flexibility rules Rule Reallocation Amount Procedure 1 Between budget

lines, components and partners

Up to EUR 20,000, or if more, up to 10% of the original amount in the respective budget line, the component or the project partner budget given in the approved application

Without prior notification of the JTS

2 Between budget lines, components and partners

Up to 20% of the original total budget given in the approved application, only once during the operation life time.

Prior approval from the JTS required

The under-spending at the level of operations was due mostly to activities

delayed/cancelled/ or carried out but paid at a later stage, or paid out but not reported on

time due to first level control difficulties at national level (especially in Italy and to a

certain extent Hungary). Most of the delays were triggered by re-arrangements in the

partnership arrangements.

80,3% of the total technical assistance budget was finally spent. From the TA an

unabsorbed budget of 86% is unspent money under the “miscellaneous” budgetary line.

In March 2006 the programme shifted € 450,000 from priority 3 to priority 1. At the

beginning of 2007 it was known that the IIIC West JTS would develop into an IVC JTS, the

latter also covered some of the staff costs planned for 2008 under INTERREG III. A

further shift of funds to priority 1 at such a late stage wouldn’t have been efficient or

effective.

3.1.2 Dynamic financial analysis

The dynamics of spending under INTERREG III C West are relatively typical: lower spending in

the first and last years of the programme and increased spending in its second part (see figure

3.1).

1 In order to include as much expenditure as possible, the JTS asked the operations in 2004, 2005, 2006

and 2007 to submit an intermediate financial report. The report covered the reporting period July to November. The expenditure reported in this report had to be actually paid out by 30 November but not necessarily confirmed by an independent auditor.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 14 January 2010

Figure 3.1 Financial Implementation of the programme 1

0

20000000

40000000

60000000

80000000

100000000

120000000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Priority 1Priority 2Priority 3Total

Source: in-depth evaluation INTERREG III C West Zone The limited spending in the first years of the programme is justified by:

• Late start of the programme due to late approval of the INTERREG Guidelines for

C-Strand. At the same time, at the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period

the Member States were focussed on putting A- en B-strand programmes on

track and limited resources were available for this new initiative. The INTERREG III C

West Zone programme started only in late 2002; the first call for proposals was

launched on the 10th of October, 2002. INTERREG III C South started even later and

the need to coordinate among all 4 zones generally hampered their initial activity.

• Although interregional cooperation as such has existed before, also financed by the

European Commission, there was no genuine “predecessor” of the programme;

therefore, the programme implementation structure, including procedures and

team, needed to be built up from scratch.

• Further than the programme implementation structure as such, the strategy,

requirements and procedures for Strand C were also new to the target group. New

partners were involved, coming from different cultural backgrounds and “getting to

know” the programme and each other required more time. As the partnerships were

new, the experience in managing European wide projects (in the INTERREG III C

context) was missing in most cases.

The Priority 1/Measure 1 of the programme had a concave spending trend. As in the first

two years of the programme, 2001 and 2002, no activities were carried out, the JTS

needed to catch up at the beginning of 2003. In June 2004 already the 4th, and last fully

fledged call for proposals was launched. In 2005 the programme was in full swing, with all

operations under implementation. Although the operational activities were closed by the

end of 2007 only 6 operations received the final payment by the end of 2007 (AIR 2007,

page 38) and most of the project’s final payments were affected in 2008 (after granting

them some time extension (1-3 months) for this specific purpose, i.e. closing the project).

However, the spending for the other 2 priorities (each with one measure) was very flat.

Priority 2 and the related financial procedures ran only until 2004.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 15 January 2010

As the programme had a limited number of priorities, most budgetary shifts took place at

operational and not priority, level. As mentioned before, at operational level the flexibility

approach was applied (see Table 3.2). Additional funds were allocated to running

operations, through three calls for additional funding (November 2005, 5 May 2006 and

31 October 2006). Some of these funds were granted for capitalisation activities (see

page 19).

Further than financial changes/shifts, the need for changes within the operational field

was caused by a modification of the partnership, budgets, activities or duration. The

number of changes (e.g. 43 in 2007, the highest number during the programme’s

lifetime), if benchmarked against the number of partners involved in the programme

(930) are actually negligible. Most changes were actually related to partnership, these

occurred due to the high number of partners (>10 average) and, to a certain extent,

due to the “newness” of these partnerships in comparison with the A en B programmes.

These partnership changes seem to be different from Strand B as they do not have a

fundamental impact on the project (especially in the case of networks). Some of these

partnership changes triggered also budgetary changes but to a limited extent. New

partners were proposed or the activities were distributed to other partners. Other changes

referred to the duration of the projects as some projects needed 3 more months to close

the budget (see also the lessons learned from GRDP project, chapter 3.3.).

Regarding co-financing, the initially envisaged private spending was a rough estimation

of what the private parties could contribute under the programme. However, private

actors were not the main target group of the programme; some scope for their

involvement existed under the RFO’s at the sub-project level but it was difficult to

estimate at the beginning how the RFO’s would be designed. On one side less RFO’s were

approved and implemented than initially envisaged; on the other side the lead partners

found it very complicated or difficult to apply all the rules/conditions related to the private

partnership involvement e.g. state aid rules.

Another challenge for the programme were the different co-financing rates. Under this

programme EDRF Funds will finance from50 % (partners coming from non objective 1-

regions) up to 75 % (partners coming from objective one regions) and even up to 85 %

(the outermost regions) of the total eligible cost. For the technical assistance priority,

ERDF co-financing was 50 %. Currently the same differentiated co-financing rates are

applied and a simple calculation mechanism is used for a clear overview of the financial

allocations.

3.1.3 Intermediate conclusions

414 “Innovative actions” and 415 “Information to the public” have been the intervention

codes with the greatest budgetary importance. As no differentiation is made among

operations, this code classification cannot reflect in a more nuanced manner the reality of

the programme. The patterns registered under the West Zone are similar with the other


ZONE

R20090290.doc 16 January 2010

three C programmes, as the same codes of interventions and funds concentration were

used on 414.

The codes were not used for the monitoring of this programme. The codes of

interventions were not used by the mid-term evaluation, either. One possible explanation

for this situation is the lack of guidance. The working paper on indicators stops at code

category 36 when giving examples of output, results and impact indicators for the codes.

No examples are given for 414.

Financial absorption was negatively affected by two main factors: the late start of the

programme and under-spending at operational level. The latter was triggered by

partnership re-arrangements, activities delayed/cancelled/ or carried out but paid a later

stage/paid out but not reported on time due to first level control difficulties at national

level (especially in Italy, to a certain extent in Hungary), to a certain extent tight project

management and reporting procedures.

The concave spending trend of the Priority 1/Measure 1 does not imply that the projects

were not experimental and/or innovative. On the contrary, all of them could be labelled in

this way. The concave form of the implementation curve is given by the implementation

approach chosen by the programme, i.e. through calls for proposals, not through rolling

application. Consequently, the project preparation phase is not reflected in the Figure 3.1

graph, only the implementation as such (from call for proposal/signing the subsidy

contract/funds commitment to funds reimbursement). Nevertheless, the projects were

even being prepared in some cases for two years before the application was submitted.

No ex-ante budgetary earmarking was done for non-Member States; no data is available

regarding the precise share of funds spent by non-Member States.

3.2 The effectiveness of the programme

3.2.1 Planned results, achievement rates at measure level and trend patterns

We address the effectiveness of INTERREG III C West zone in three steps: 1. General assessment of the achievement rate: reaching the targets initially set 2. Differentiated assessment the programme effectiveness: programme intervention logic

versus performance of the operations/programme 3. Assessment of the intensity of cooperation having taken place under INTERREG III C

West Zone and its sustainability: cooperation as both means and goal in itself 1. General assessment of the achievement rate: reaching the initially set up targets

The programme IIIC West has the highest overall achievement rate (139 %) of all IIIC

programmes (the overall C Strand average achievement ratio is 123 %). The graphs

below illustrate the success in meeting the target values of the output, result and impact

indicators for programme IIIC West zone:


ZONE

R20090290.doc 17 January 2010

Figure 3.2 Achievement rates INTERREG III C West Zone per output, result and impact

Source: INTERREG III ex-post evaluation , programme fiche Figure 3.3 % of indicators whose targets were achieved between 10 and 90%, 90 and

110% and greater than 110% Source: INTERREG III ex-post evaluation , programme fiche A large share of the West Zone indicators (59%) have an achievement rationale between

90 and 110%. Nevertheless, the indicators falling into this category are related to

programme and operations management and coordination, rather than to the

genuine performance of the operations. The indicators related to the programme

performance are to be found in the first category, i.e. 33 indicators (28% of all indicators)

with an achievement rate of more than 110% (see table 3.3). As the system of indicators

139133

243

148

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mean Output Impact Resul t

0

17,94871795

0

46,15384615

11

66

36

100

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Out put Impact Result

great er t han 110%

90% t o 110%

0% t o 90%


ZONE

R20090290.doc 18 January 2010

was common to all C problems, this trend is in general most probable: realistic targets

are difficult to set, especially for the physical performance of the programme operations.

Table 3.3 Indicators related to the programme performance and their achievement

rates Indicator Achievement rate (%)

No of staff members with increased capacity (awareness / knowledge / skills) based on the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events

289,76

No of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events

266

No of good practices identified related to Structural Funds 165,3

No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies 151,3 No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred

199 No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred 184,5 No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed 375 In setting up the targets for the programme indicators, 0 was considered as baseline. Due

to the broad, open and innovative nature of the programme, setting realistic targets

proved a challenging exercise. The approach taken in 2005 was to base the programme

targets on the targets proposed by the already approved projects and on the achievement

rates reported at that moment. For the management, coordination and, to a certain

extent, dissemination of activities, the targets were easier to approximate.

The uncertainty about the number of possible operations, their outputs, results and

impacts lead to increased caution in carrying out this exercise; therefore, lower targets

were set up in order to avoid under-performance1. Except the number of partners

involved, in the end all targets related to the indicators aimed to measure the

operations performance were significantly exceeded. Some targets were set up when

the final achievements were already known (e.g. no. of applications submitted per call -

see annex 3).

2. Differentiated assessment of the programme effectiveness: programme

intervention logic versus performance of the operations

In a nutshell, the programme strategy encompasses:

1 As it is the case now with the programme over-performance, this under performance would have been

artificial.

A main goal Means Four objectives (Priority 1 related) Accessing the experience of other partners Expanding the effects of Structural Funds and/or other regional development programmes Improving regional policies and instruments

To improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion.

CO-OPERATION Expressed also under the terms: PARTNERSHIP NETORKING EXCHANGE

Contribution to horizontal EU policies


ZONE

R20090290.doc 19 January 2010

The first three objectives are interconnected and reflect the programme intervention

logic: exchange (output)-implement (result)-improve(impact).

Annex 3 summarises the programme achievements available in August 2009, and their

progress at the beginning of 2004. For the purpose of this effectiveness analysis, only the

second set of indicators, related to the operations performance, will be taken into account

(see annex 4). 2.1. Accessing into others experience

As presented in Annex 3, public equivalent bodies, old Members States and Objective 1

regions were more involved in the programmes operations. These partners also

exchanged experiences on other policies implemented at local and regional level that

were financed from structural funds or other sources. It seems that the presence of the

public equivalent bodies is even stronger in the RFO’s.

Two-thirds of the partners involved in the programme were regional and local authorities;

a significant proportion of the local and regional partners were authorities involved in the

INTERREG programmes (A en B) and less involved in the Objective 1 and 2 programmes

while the focus of the programme should have been on the latter, in accordance with the

Interregional Cooperation Communication. The same is valid for partners from the

outermost regions1. It seems that all NUTS II regions, except five of them, were involved

in at least one INTERREG C project2.

Assessing the exact “proportion” or “weight” of the 930 partners (out of which: regional -

264 and local - 285 authorities) from the total (Europe 25 and third countries) “target

group” is challenging. Some rough calculations can be made. However, the purpose of

such an exercise would be to only “project” INTERREG III C (West Zone and all four

zones) coverage against a general background. For this purpose one can take the

following data into account:

• During the 2000-6 programming period there were 114 Objective 1 programmes, 96

Objective 2 programmes and 77 INTERREG A and B programmes (287 in total; some

of them, indeed, implemented only for the 2004-2006 period)

1Interregional cooperation was set up to “improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion through networking, particularly for regions whose development is lagging behind and those undergoing conversion” ( see CEC 2004a: point 17). 2 In accordance with the official programme statistics, INTERREG C involved around 194 regions in 50 countries.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 20 January 2010

• At the same time Europe 25 counted approx. 91 NUTS 1 regions, 257 NUTS 2 regions

and 1233 NUTS III regions (a total of 1581, keeping in mind that some NUTS I and

even II regions are set up for statistical purposes only)

• The Dexia study “Sub-national Governments in the European Union” counts in Europe

25 at local and regional level: 104 first level sub-national governments, 1108 second

level sub-national governments (a total of 1212 divers regions) and 87.815 first level

authorities (municipalities).

As a very rough estimation, the INTERREG III C West reached, with its 264 regional

authorities participating, approximately 17% (if we compare the 264 regional authorities

with the NUTS system) to 20% (if we compare the 264 regional authorities with the Dexia

system) of the regions in Europe. INTERREG III C as a whole, with 607 regional

authorities, reached between 40% (in comparison with the NUTS system) and 49% (in

comparison with the Dexia figures) of its regional target group. The percentages for local

authorities are significantly lower.

We underline the fact that this rough estimation just gives an idea of the extent of

cooperation, not on its depth. On the other side, we also need to keep in mind the fact

that the number of regional and/or local authorities is significantly lower from the number

of governmental-administrative layers as labelled above.

Having new Member States involved in the programme proved difficult for a series of

reasons:

1. these countries entered the European Union only in 2004 (although they had been

integrated in the programme one year earlier (2003).

2. they were lacking the experience of being involved in INTERREG C types of operations

3. they focussed on absorbing funds from objective 1 and 2 with significantly higher

budgets

4. in some new Member States the regional governmental layer is less developed, if

existing, and the capacity and skills to develop regional and local development policy

was is weak. In this respect they could have acted as “recipients” of the policy

exchanges as such, but also for effective learning one needs a certain capacity and

openness.

It seems that geographical proximity did play a role as more new Member States were

involved in the Eastern and Northern Zones. There were no lead partners from new

Member States in the West Zone as no new Member State was geographically covered by

the programme. But there are clearly more partners form the new MS’s that take part in

the INTERREG IV operations. This higher participation has been facilitated also by the

clearer requirements of the programme, the non-fragmented geographical coverage of the

programme and their increased experience with interregional cooperation.

The current developments are to a certain extent surprising, as partners from CEEC’s

were coordinating 24% of the ECOS-OUVERTURE third phase projects (approximately 15)


ZONE

R20090290.doc 21 January 2010

(see Committee of Regions 2001, Trans-national cooperation between Territorial

Authorities, New Challenges and Further Steps necessary to improve cooperation, page

101).

The 75 operations organised a significant number of events in order to exchange and

disseminate experience, also due to the fact that half of the operations (38 out of 75)

were networks and this is their purpose), 2.503 against 1600 initially planned, which is an

average of 33,3 events per operation. The participation in these events is also a lot higher

than initially envisaged: 78.771 against 28.000. Although these expectations have been

exceeded, only approximately 10% of the participants increased their capacity/knowledge

as a result of their participation in these events1.

2.2. Expanding the effects of structural funds and/or other regional development programmes

Although the programme financed operations in a wide range of policy/thematic fields, a

good proportion of the operations carried out activities related to Objective 1 and 2, and

other structural funds types of interventions (see table 3.4). Still, 34 operations (45%)

exchanged good practices related to other types of regional/local/national development

policies (e.g. see, for examples of other topics, the STRATINC, CULTURED and e-BIRD

project case studies).

Table 3.4 INTERREG III C West categorisation of operations per Topic of Co-operation

Topic of co-operation Type of cooperation

Exchange of types of activities supported under Objective 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds

Exchange on Interregional cooperation linking public authorities or equivalent bodies involved in other INTERREG programmes

Exchange on interregional cooperation in the field of urban development

Exchange on interregional cooperation linking regions involved under the three themes of the regional innovative actions for 2000-2006

Exchange on other subjects appropriate to interregional cooperation

RFO 1 2 0 0 3 Individual 6 3 5 1 16 Network 11 5 6 1 15 TOTAL 18 (24 %) 10 (13.3 %) 11 (14.7 %) 2 (2.7 %) 34 (45.3

%) 1653 Structural Funds-related (vs. 1000 targeted) and 3.026 other policiy-related (vs. 2000

targeted) good practices were identified. Differentiating these good practices in the programme

monitoring system, also per topic of cooperation might have proved useful, in order to isolate

the results of the 18 Objective 1 and 2 –related operations. 199 of the 1653 Structural Funds-

1 Firstly, we should underline the fact that the programme did not envisage that all participants in events

increase their capacity and the achievements are considered satisfactory. Further on, if we make a basic calculation of the ration between the actual expenditure, (an average of 67,941,811.47 euros for all operation) and this effect produced, i.e. number of participants with increased capacity, the average price per person is only €8.000. Evidently, this depends on the content (what exactly did the participants learn) and quality of this individual learning. This ratio does not take into account the other outputs, results and impacts of the programme as these calculations are not made to assess accurately the efficiency of the programme (no benchmark exists), just to give a rough idea about the costs involved.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 22 January 2010

related practices were transferred (vs. 100 targeted), while for the other policyrelated good

practices, 369 were transferred. The transfer rationale is, in both cases, around 12%1.

2.3. Improving regional policies and instruments

As this is the core aim of the INTERREG III C programme, the achievements registered for the

result indicator of this third objective can be interpreted actually as the impact of the

programme. Out of the 1362 addressed policies, at regional, local, and national level, 375

were improved or newly developed (27% of the total addressed, an average of 5 per

operation2). A differentiation between local, regional and national policies should have

been made, as well as on policies in old/new/third MemberSstates; this would add more

weight to the programme impact3.

As in regards to the distribution of operations per themes of cooperation, most

operations concentrated on:

• Regional Planning, territorial regeneration and urban development,

• Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources,

• SME development and entrepreneurship and

• Heritage, culture and tourism (in this order) (see table 3.5).

Table 3.5 Distribution of themes of cooperation vis-a-vis operations

RFO Individual Project

Network Total (nr)

Total %

Research, technology and innovations 3 2 2 7 9.3 % Employment, social inclusion, human resources and education

4 2 1 7 9.3 %

Heritage, culture and tourism 2 1 7 10 13.3 % SME development and entrepreneurship 4 8 3 15 20 % Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources

3 8 8 19 25.3 %

Regional Planning, territorial regeneration and urban development

2 9 13 24 32 %

Accessibility, mobility and transport 1 2 3 6 8 % Information society and E-Government 0 1 2 3 4 %

Note: Each of 6 RFOs have identified 3-4 themes of cooperation; and one individual project (ICN) has 2 themes. Therefore, the sum of percentages above make more than 100 %.

With the future interregional cooperation programme under preparation, the Member

States regarded it as essential that running operations in all four INTERREG IIIC zones

capitalised on their results in order to maximise their achievements. In 2007 two

projects received supplementary total ERDF funding of EUR 552.006 (EUR 80,230 for the

CULTURED project on 5 February 2007 and EUR 471,776 for the CLOE project on 1 June

1 While this ration seems relatively low, the basic cost/effect ratio indicates a relative efficiency of these

results: €119.615,86 per best practice transferred. Again, this figure needs to be interpreted in the light of the nature of the best practices transferred and of the transfer results (equivalent with the programme impact; for a closer insight see Chapter 3.3. projects description).

2 €181.178,164 per policy – while, for example, a comprehensive, but small scale (at regional level) policy evaluation, which could lead to a policy improving, might cost between €50.000 and €100,000 (of course, this relevance of this comparison depends on the policy and type/degree of improving we are taking into account). If we calculate all programme results and impact of the programme, i.e. 10966 “units” of results and impacts in accordance with the programmes indicators, without weighting them in any way, the unit cost is very low, i.e. €6195. 3 For some examples of policies newly developed or influenced, see annex 5


ZONE

R20090290.doc 23 January 2010

2007). The additional funds for capitalisation were meant for activities aiming to bring

similar projects together and for activities which provided a “test bed” for new approaches

aiming to transfer experience into mainstream programmes.

The idea behind capitalisation was to enhance the experiences and learning effects of

those projects which worked in the same field by stimulating them to work together. The

first project CULTURED was a very useful experience with significant added value as it

strengthens the cooperation among a series of already existing projects and enhances the

learning effects of the institutions and individuals involved. The second project, CLOE,

was more of a experiment for INTERREG IV C: a pilot exercise for the fast-track projects

financed by INTERREG IV C. CLOE proved that there are regions that want to and are

committed and capable of cooperating more intensively to set up and implement an action

plan together.

2.4. The impact of the programme

As the horizontal analysis carried out under the INTERREG ex-post evaluation (see

INTERREG ex-post evaluation FIR, page 138) correctly notices, to measure or observe the

impact of INTERREG C on the effectiveness of regional development policies and

instruments may be easier than to measure the impact on socio-economic cohesion or

impact on the cooperation topics/themes as defined in the programme strategy.

There is only one indicator trying to capture the impact of the programme, i.e. number

of new projects/activities/ approaches resulting from the

exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events. Nevertheless, as

the main goal of the programme is to improve the effectiveness of policies and

instruments for regional development and cohesion, the impact of the programme as such

is rather related to the result indicator of the third programme objective, i.e. Improving

regional policies and instruments, respectively by the number of regional/local

policies and instruments improved or developed.

Still an open issue is the “effectiveness” of these policies; although all practices

transferred were allegedly good practices, it is difficult to capture, with the information

currently available, if the policies influenced became more effective or if the newly

developed ones are effective. As in the case of INTERACT I, in order to assess the impact

of the programme the analysis needs to be carried out outside the programme “area”: in

order to measure their effectiveness, a separate evaluation of these policies should be

carried out, as the information available “internally”, in the programme, is not sufficient

for this purpose.

The number of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the

exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events also relates to the

programme impact, but it is rather an unexpected/unintended impact, from a point of

view of the intervention logic. To a certain extent this indicator also gives information


ZONE

R20090290.doc 24 January 2010

about the programme sustainability: some networks and partnerships, created or

enhanced under INTERREG III C West Zone, continued in other contexts.

The achievements in terms of impact, as defined by the programme, are, again,

significantly higher in comparison with the targets initially envisaged (1330 new

projects/activities/approaches and 375 policies improved or developed).

2.5. Learning and experimentation

INTERREG IIIC, including West Zone, focused on learning and experimentation. Although

inter-regional cooperation had existed before INTERREG III C was launched, INTERREG III

C gave a new impetus to this type of cooperation, as it offered the necessary means, e.g.

financial but also in terms of partnership (through the partner search and project ideas

data base) and specific European project management knowledge and tools, to interested

European actors.

The number of staff members with increased capacity (awareness / knowledge /

skills) based on the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events is a

good indicator for the individual learning triggered by the programme’s activities.

Nevertheless, there are a series of other activities which triggered individual

learning, potentially more intense than the inter-regional events: e.g. studies prepared,

trainings, study visits, project management as such. The taking up of this individual

learning by organisations is qualitatively presented in the projects final reports (see also

chapter 3.3.)

As in regards to experimentation, all INTERREG III C West projects are new and

innovative, in their approach to policy problem-solving. Regarding cooperation, the

INTERREG III C programmes seem to project a two-sided image: on one side there are

clearly a series of regions and local actors ready and capable to cooperate with their

counterparts in other countries; on the other side, other regions still have to take steps in

order to understand the benefits of inter-regional cooperation, at both political and

administrative/technical levels, and/or acquiring the necessary capacity to undergo such

cooperation. Under INTERREG III C operations a learning process is triggered between the

two groups: the regions more experienced in inter-regional cooperation transfer their

knowledge and skills to the less experienced, e.g. new EU Member State, candidates and

accession countries and other third-party countries (more than 200 in the West Zone and

494 partners from New Member States and 154 partners from Third-PartyCountries for

the entire Stand C, in accordance with official statistics).

As mentioned before, especially the project management, implementation and

accountability requirements, in comparison with previous Community-financed initiatives

in the field of interregional cooperation (and other interregional cooperation initiatives) is

experimental.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 25 January 2010

3. Assessment of the intensity of cooperation in INTERREG III C West zone and

its sustainability: cooperation as a means and goal

Cooperation is seen under this programme as a means to achieve the programme goals

and objectives, but also as a purpose in itself, i.e. the point I.8 of the Interregional

Cooperation Communication which stipulates that III C should create a more stable

structure for cooperation, as opposed to one-off projects. The types of operations

financed under the programme supposed to reach a minimum degree of intensity of

cooperation (see table 3.6).

Table 3.6 Intensity of cooperation: levels

Level Intensity Definition Result 1 Exchange and

dissemination of experience

Aims at enhancing the capacities of the partners, but does not lead directly to changes in policies and instruments

New knowledge and skills

2 Transfer of instruments, projects

Aims at transferring a good practice policy concept, instrument, or project to another region

Adjusted instrument, project

3 Development of new approaches

Aims at development of new policies or instruments in at least one of the regions involved

New policy, innovative instrument, project

4 Joint development of new approaches

Aims at joint development of new policies or instruments undertaken by several participating regions

New policy, innovative instrument, project

In practice three types of cooperation were aimed at:

1. networking: meeting and learning from each other; all operations should have

achieved this first level of cooperation (basic intensity of cooperation), corresponding

to the first objective of the programme;

2. experiment through transfer of expertise among partners (the transfer always has

had as subject a good practice, e.g. policy, approach, methodology; CITEAIR seems

to be a good example in this case);

3. setting up of a joint programme (RFOs).

As mentioned before, all operations were required to achieve at least the minimum level

of intensity of cooperation. Further on, the individual projects achieved the second level

of intensity of cooperation, and the few RFO’s financed under the programme, reached the

third level. At the same time, the intensity of cooperation was not necessarily related to

the quality of the projects (e.g. the achievements of networks were sometimes much

straightforward that the results of RFOs)

Between 50% and 80% of programme funds could/should have been spent on Regional

Framework Operations, between 10% and 30% on individual co-operation projects and

between 10% and 20% on networks. The financial allocations and absorption per type of

cooperation in INTERREG III C West are presented in the table below:

Table 3.7 Weight of each type of C instrument


ZONE

R20090290.doc 26 January 2010

Type of Cooperation

Number Total budget absorbed

% of the total programme

budget (EUR 118,608,940)

% of the programme budget for operations

(EUR 109,288,844)

Total ERDF paid

% of the total ERDF

budget (EUR 79,575,968)

% of the total ERDF budget for operations

(EUR 74,471,568)

RFO 6 34,042,505.96 28.7 31.1 18.896.920,00

23.7 25.3

IPs 30 41,326,854.91 34.8 37.8 23.155.625,00

29.1 31.1

N 39 42,656,919.34 36.0 39.0 25.486.264,00

32 34.2

Total 75 118,026,280.21 99.5 107.9 67.538.809,00

84.9 90.7

Out of the total ERDF funds paid (€ 67,538,809,47) in the West Zone, 28 % was spent on

RFO’s, 34% on Individual Projects and 37% on Networks.

Less RFO’s than originally envisaged1 were implemented in the West Zone, as the JTS

emphasized more on the demand of types of cooperation, on the quality of the

partnerships and of the project as such; this approach was also approved by the MC. Out

of the 14 RFO applications submitted 7 were approved (1 approved RFO withdrawn in

2005). At the same time, the West Zone programme interpreted strictly the notion of the

RFO’s (certainly more strictly than other IIIC zones). This may explain why the demand

for this type of intervention remains limited.

One major aspect which hampered the JTS to approve more RFO’s was the relevance of

their proposed activities. Although mini-programmes allowed projects to be financed, the

objective of the RFO’s and these projects should still be the exchange of and improvement

of the local and regional policies and not the implementing of specific, concrete measures

(e.g. support of SMES’s) which could have been financed under other EU or

national/regional programmes. Two out of three currently (INTERREG IV) approved RFO’s

are being lead by previous lead partners of RFO’s.

Do regions cooperate more as a result of their involvement in IIIC? The answer to

this question is clearly yes. For the first two calls for proposals launched under the

current programming period already 1000 applications were received. 64 % of the funds

were already committed after these first two calls. The regions seem much more

interested in interregional cooperation and mutual learning. However, due to a lack of

relevance of the projects and activities proposed, the percentage of approved project

application is only about 12% (in opposition to early INTERREG III C). It seems very

challenging for the JTS to communicate to the project promoters the philosophy of the

programme. On the other side, it seems that there is a need to implement common,

cross European projects as well, in addition to further exchanging policy-related good

practices. Another gap which was not covered by INTERREG IV C is the exchange and

learning of implementation of good practices among the managing authorities and

intermediate bodies of the Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes. Financing

1 At least in terms of financial weight; in terms of absolute numbers, no indicator&target is set up in this

sense.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 27 January 2010

these gaps could be done under the Objective 1 and 2 programmes themselves, under

INTERACT II (or III) or under an INTERREG V with an adjusted strategy.

3.2.2 Reviewing the programming quality and the programme relevance on the basis of the results achieved

Re-assess quality of initial programming

The INTERREG III C West Zone programme was designed and, consequently, started, at a

later stage that the other INTERREG within the mainstream of Operational Programmes.

The strategy of the programme was based on, to a large extent, the provisions of the

INTERREGIONAL Cooperation Communication of the European Commission; practically the

former implementation of the provisions of the latter. In the initial phase a limited in-

depth analysis was carried out with a view to enhance the programme intervention logic;

no ex-ante evaluation was conducted for this programme, due to time constraints. A

limited number of stakeholders from regional and central administrations were consulted

while developing the programme.

INTERREG III C was innovative, in its programme-like approach. However, limited

continuation with previous Community initiatives financing interregional cooperation, such

as RECITE and ECOS –Ouverture, was ensured1. The major shift between the two

generations of programmes is linked to the eligible activities. Both RECITE and ECOS

financed to a large extent networks and implementation-related projects, while INTERREG

III C focused on policy learning2. INTEREG III C has been inspired by other INTERREG B

programmes: especially the INTERREG III B Baltic Sea and INTERREG III B Northwest

Europe programmes contributed in a first phase to the setting up of the programme

management and implementations system.

In 2003 the INTERREG III C Mid-term evaluation carried out an assessment of the main

needs for interregional co-operation and how the programme responded to these needs.

The MTE concluded that, in general, the objectives of INTERREG III C responded to the

needs for interregional cooperation as identified in the territory and that the programme

appears to have a strong mobilisation potential as evidenced by the high number of

applications and partners.

If the rationale and the main goal of the programme are relatively straightforward, a

more intricate construction starts at the operational level: further than the four

objectives of the programme, refined after the outcomes of the MTE were made

1 The strive to more accountability and effectiveness was initiated already during the last phase of these initiatives, e.g. projects under Recite II had to go through a 8 month “feasibility verification phase”, during which a Goal Oriented Project Planning could have been developed, to help partners reach a consensus, to develop a highly structured work programme and to run the project in accordance with its objectives. (see Committee of Regions 2001, Trans-national cooperation between Territorial Authorities, New Challenges and Further Steps necessary to improve cooperation, page 100). The single element taken over from RECIT was the flexibility issue. 2 This might be one explanation for the less relevant, implementation- focused applications the JTS

receives.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 28 January 2010

available, cooperation needed to take a certain form (RFO/IP/N) aiming at a certain level

of intensity.

The four objectives developed at a later stage reflect the intervention logic “layers”:

output/result/impact. The third new objective, i.e. improving regional policies and

instruments, overlaps with the main goal of the programme. This “flat”-type of strategy

seems to have been set up in order to smooth out the process of identifying the most

appropriate indicators to measure the programme performance.

At a later stage a thematic taxonomy of the operations was introduced (see

Introduction).

Table 3.8 Summarising the findings of the assessment of the initial programming

Criterion/scoring Excellent

Sufficient Poor

Data use and analysis

A top-down approach to programming was adopted (strategy based on the INTERREGIONAL Cooperation Communication). Limited analysis carried out when the programme was designed, nevertheless, the MTE made a more comprehensive analysis of IRC needs/challenges in the covered countries. Strategy was refined by taking into account the MTE recommendations

Focus The programme focus on “policy exchange and learning” is clear, although it seems that it was very difficult to communicate this adequately to the target group. The “position” of cooperation as such within the programme two-folds: means and goal and leads to ambiguous strategy. Several operations are categorised under other “topics” and “themes” of cooperation” (the latter after they were defined). Otherwise all operations are considered innovative actions.

Quality and logic of the SWOT analysis

No fully fledged SWOT analysis is presented in the CIP/PC; a needs assessment was carried out at a later stage (MTE)

Consistency of the programme strategy

The programme strategy is in line with the needs identified from the outset and through the MTE.

Determination of programme measures

Each priority has one measure; less can be said about this aspect.

Quality assessment of the programme system of indicators

Building up a system of indicators for INTERREG III C, including West Zone, encountered

a series of challenges, as identified also by the MTE:

• 2000-2006 was the first programming period for which the European Commission

required that monitoring of the physical performance of the programmes is carried out

through a fully fledged indicator system. Limited guidance for setting up INTERREG-

specific indicators was given from the outset; the MTE’s played an important role in

this respect for the C programme (as for INTERACT I). As in the case of the latter, the

indicators for the C programme were developed at a later stage and needed to be

applied retroactively to the already approved operations.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 29 January 2010

• The strategy of the programme was widely defined; the programme had a main

goal, e.g. to improve effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional

development and cohesion, which achievement reflects the impact of the programme,

and further a series of topics for cooperation, refined at a later stage in programme

objectives, which related to the programme performance achieved through its

operations.

• the C programme in itself had an experimental nature, aimed at achieving results

difficult to capture in quantitative terms. Certain programme objectives and actions

were intangible (e.g. “to promote interregional cooperation”, “disseminating

experience regionally”). Many of the effects (results, impacts) are of indirect nature

and can only be seen in the medium- to long-term (e.g. “to create cooperation

networks”, “changes in political and institutional structures”).

• Heterogeneity of regions and proposed actions (topics of cooperation) and dispersal of

projects made it more difficult to aggregate outputs/results/impacts through the use

of a small number of quantitative indicators.

Besides a limited series of aspects which could use improvements, the system of

indicators in place for INTERREG III C West Zone adequately reflects the programme’s

outputs, results and impacts.1 Setting up an indicator framework helped in clarifying the

programme strategy and the envisaged achievements, respectively the expected outputs,

results and impacts of the programme.2

As indicated by “The New Programming period 2000-2006: methodological working paper:

Indicators for Monitoring and evaluation: an indicative methodology, the indicator system

distinguishes between:

• programme and operation level indicators

• performance and management, coordination and dissemination

• output, result and impact indicators (see Annex 3).

The indicators set up for the management, coordination and dissemination of the

programme and operations accurately reflect the activities of both the programme and the

operations implementation structures carried out in this sense and are also meant to

account for the TA and project management-related costs.

1 As an anecdotal indication, when asked which other methodology/ways it would have used to measure the

programme achievements, the JTS answered: the same, [the system of indicators in place], as we had to set up indicators (as principle), but their selection was the responsibility of the MA/JTS itself (concrete implementation of the principle).

2 After the MTE was carried out and recommendations related to indicator system developed in this frame, the 4 JTSs made a joint effort to develop a common system for the entire Strand C. For one year additional talks with the Southern programme were carried out in order to reach an agreement on this matter. In the final stage of the programme the INTERREG IV JTS attempted to aggregate the achievements of all zones; nevertheless, due to different interpretation and application of the system, this proved to be a challenging exercise: e.g. incomplete data, differences in the interpretation of the indicators.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 30 January 2010

The indicators set up for the intrinsic performance of the operations reflect in a nutshell,

and quantitatively, the outputs and results of the programme.

The aspects which could be improved as in regards to the indicators measuring the

operations’ performance are:

Clear intervention logic: this is the most important pre-condition for a good system of

indicators. Once the global, specific and operational objectives of the intervention are

clear and logically derived from a SWOT analysis, it is more simple to set up a measuring

system of the intervention’s output, results and impacts, e.g. in the case of INTERREG III

C, it is very difficult to assess to which extent effectiveness of the regional/local policies

and instruments improved or developed were in fact improved.

Labelling the indicators: indicator reflecting the impact of the programme labelled as

result. One impact indicator was set up, respectively the number of new

projects/activities/approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at

inter-regional events. As the global aim of the programme was “to improve effectiveness

of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion”, a more appropriate

impact indicator would have been the result indicator, i.e. no of regional/local policies and

instruments improved or developed). The former is also an (indirect, from a strategy

point of view) impact of the programme, related to co-operation as objective (and not

means).

Formulating the indicators: some indicators are insufficiently concretely formulated,

e.g. i.e. no of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed. What can be

considered as “improved” of “influenced” (as the annual implementation reports mention)

policy?

The definition of “best practices” is very wide, and leads to too great of a diversity of

interpretations; the different interpretations lead to uncertainty about the programme

results and impacts. An interesting example of “best practices” you can find in the box

bellow:

Box 1. Best Practices identified in the project E-Bird: 39 best practices “All the projects mentionned exchange of experiences or good practices within their group. For example: 2 integrated courses have been supported 9 working-networks have been created or reinforced 9 data-bases have been created More than 8000 participants in the 115 events of the operation (and other events) 3 portals have been set up with the know how of lots of different partners Many study visits and staff exchanges in the framework of project e-GRADE which led to exchanges of good practices Tens of working meeting where every partners shared their knowledge of their work Generally speaking, at least one exchange of good practice has been identified in every project. Source: E-Bird, final implementation report, page 7 Explaining the indicators: a lot has been done in this sense by the JTS, either during

seminars, bilateral discussions with the project partners and especially during the


ZONE

R20090290.doc 31 January 2010

reporting process. Nevertheless, neither the latest version of the INTERREG III C

Programme Manual, nor the Implementation Manual (April 2006) contain an explanation

of the monitoring indicators as used by the programme1.

Interpreting the indicators: differences in interpretations exist between the 4 zones and

also at operation level; as we will see also later, in chapter 3.3., despite permanent

consultations between the project lead partners and the JTS on this matter, differences in

interpretation persisted, especially in the case of the “best practice” concept, core to the

programme. This constituted a further obstacle for the JTS to capture the impact/spin off

of the operations2.

Number of indicators: although the system of indicators is comprehensive, only a small

part of it relates to the operations’ performance, as such (22 out of 75)

Applying the indicators system at operations’ level: the projects should be even

more stimulated to report on the performance 3 indicators and to justify the data

reported.

3.2.3 Comparison with horizontal results across INTERREG III C

Financial aspects

As mentioned before, only 6% of the total INTERREG budget was dedicated to

interregional cooperation. As presented in the first interim report of the INTERREG III ex-

post evaluation, page 77, INTERREG III C West Zone had the second highest budget

among the 4 C programmes (after INTERREG III C South and very close to the East

zone), representing almost 25% of both the allocated ERDF funding and total Strand C

Strand.

The ERDF allocated budget for the INTERREG IIIC West Zone was €79,575,968.00; the

certified expenditures reached €71.922.693 (final figure). This means an average

achievement rate (for the ERDF funds only) of 90.38 %. In overall terms, the absorption

rate was 92%. Compared to the other INTERREG IIIC programmes the West Zone ranked

2nd ; only the North Zone was able to achieve a better overall achievement rate (see

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation, First Interim Report, page 79). The difference between

the ERDF and total absorption rates is given by the higher spending of the national public

money, which reflects also the higher capital mobilisation potential of the programme

(together with North Zone).

The dynamics of the West programme’s financial absorption (very low in the first years of

the programme and steep curve beginning with 2004, with a pick in 2006-7) is similar to

1 In accordance with the JTS, a common, clearer definition was difficult since it required the approval of all

four zones. 2 E.g. in some project reports the number of good practices transferred is higher than the number of good

practices identified. Exceptionally, also in the programme AIR, the number of brochures created by the West Zone is higher than the number of brochures created by all zones. The correct interpretation of this might be that the West Zone created 12 brochures, while the other 4 are created by the other 3 zones.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 32 January 2010

the developments registered at Strand level and reflects the late start of all 4

programmes and the efforts made to catch up, especially for the years 2003 and 2004

(the 2000 and 2001 funds were decommited).

Effectiveness

The 4 programmes have similar strategies, stemming from the INTERREGIONAL

Cooperation Communication. The problems faced by West Zone in terms of strategy, e.g.

no ex-ante evaluation and more solid theoretical underpinning of the programme, clear

main goals and means, but intricate construction in terms of

types/topics/themes/intensity of cooperation and wide thematic and geographical scope

are common to all programmes. The later streamlining in terms of strategy, e.g.

objectives and indicators, took place in all 4 programmes, after a common MTE and

Update were carried out.

In the second part of the programming period discussions were carried out in order for

the 4 zones to agree on the common framework of indicators, their interpretation and

monitoring; nevertheless, differences in interpretation and applying this system persisted,

especially in the South Zone (see also FIR INTERREG ex-post evaluation, page 114, e.g.

the South Zone programme did not define targets for the indicators).

The achievement ratio is the highest for the West Programme, among the 3 zones which

defined targets for the indicators (see FIR, page 115).

Generally speaking the South programme seems to have performed the least among the

4, both in financial and physical terms. Some aspects mentioned during the interviews

which could constitute explanatory factors for this lower performance are: a different

approach to indicators (which were made coherent at a later stage), a more top-down

approach (i.e. calls especially for RFO’s were organised) and culture.

3.2.4 Comparison with horizontal results across INTERREG III

The ERDF budget allocated to the West Zone programme (€ 79,575,968) only raised the

INTERREG III ERDF total budget by approximately 1,5%. Nevertheless, in INTERREG

terms, it can be considered a large programme (with a total budget of more than € 100

million).

In terms of financial performance, INTERREG III C West, together with the North and

West zones, are falling into the category of programmes with a 90-100% achievement

rate, where approximately 20% of the A strand, and only one B programme also fall.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 33 January 2010

Although in a better position than other INTERREG programmes1, the INTERREG III C

West Zone encountered the same challenges as other INTERREG programmes regarding

indicators: difficulty to set up the indicators system due to deficient intervention logic;

“distributing” indicators in a different “category”, e.g. result indicators are labelled as

impact indicators or the other way around, targets intentionally pessimistically set up,

reflecting less adequately the programme performance. On the other side, the units of

measurement used for the INTERREG C indicators are rather more specific than abstract

(as defined by FIR, page 106). Nevertheless, if the definition is specific, the interpretation

as such is varied.

The average achievement ration of the West Zone programme/C Strand is lower than

Strands A and B for output and results, and higher for impact. As in regards to the

former, the lower percentage might be due to a better system of indicators, while for the

latter, we need to keep in mind that only one impact indicator was set up by the

programme.

The C programmes seem to not have encountered any problems in reaching the targets

(FIR page 139) when compared with Strand A and, especially, B.


INTERREG III C West zone had only one Priority/One measure under which operations

were financed. The peace of the physical performance more or less followed the pattern of

the financial spending: abruptly after the programme become operational in 2003, until

2007.

The delays in implementation were caused by external and internal factors. The external

factors are: late approval of the programme legal base, the novelty of the programme

which demanded more time until the necessary system was put in place, while the

operations needed some time to assimilate the procedures. The two most important

internal factors are: partnership changes (which trigger delays) and country-

specific first level control.

In most cases the achievements of the programme (output/results/impacts) go

significantly beyond the initially envisaged targets. Nevertheless, this is an indication of

cautiously set up targets rather than that of significant over-performance. The results

achieved adequately reflect the programme rationale and are generally speaking in line

with the programme objectives.

Some of the indicators are vaguely formulated e.g. policies “influenced”. The same is

valid for the “good practices” concept, which is core to the programme. The

interpretation of the indicators also varies, among projects (and zones), e.g. good

practices related to content/theme of the cooperation identified by the E-Bird project. The

1 see, for example, the programme Austria-Bavaria, excluded from analysis as no information on achieved

values were displayed on the Annual Implementation report, FIR page 101


ZONE

R20090290.doc 34 January 2010

impact of the programme, as defined by the selected indicator, is rather a positive

unintended effect (still impact, though).

It seems that the major challenge was to communicate the “philosophy” of the

programme to the target group, respectively, policy-related exchange and not

implementation of concrete policy-related measures (the latter are to be financed under

other instruments/programmes)1.

Although the significant over-performance of the programme indicates a less realistic

setting up of the targets, we could still draw the conclusion that the programme was

effective: the projects were in all cases experimental, as the programme was new, the

partnerships were new – at least further than the core partnership/initiators, and complex

in terms of types of cooperation (e.g. RFO’s) or number of partners (e.g. large networks

as GRDP)

1330 new projects/activities/ approaches were developed under INTERREG III C; there is

no data at this point regarding exactly how many partnerships continued after finalising

an INTERREG III C project ; nevertheless, it seems that this is the case to a large extent

(see chapter 3.3.). Cooperation can continue in the form of a common programme (e.g.

E-Bird) or other initiatives, financed under other instruments (e.g. GRDP).

3.3 Evaluation at project level

3.3.1 Selection of the project sample

When selecting the projects to be evaluated, the following criteria, some more specific to

Strand C, were kept in mind:

• Good representation of types of operations and topics of cooperation; for the

latter we focused on topic 1, as this was the core rationale of the programme.

• Goode coverage of achievement rates: further than the good practice example, we

identified projects facing specific challenges (partnership, first level control, low

financial absorption, overlapping or limited relevance of project’s activities) and

representing interesting success stories (spin-off and capitalisation activities)

• Good spread of themes of cooperation

• the financial volume of the project (i.e. small budget – around average budget - large

budget),

• the size of the project partnership (i.e. few partners – around average size of the

partnership – large partnership),

1 In accordance with the JTS the group that is the most aware of INTERREG (i.e. bodies governed by public law such as chambers of commerce, development agencies, universities, research institutes, etc.) is not the target group of INTERREG C which focuses directly on regional and local public authorities.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 35 January 2010

• the approval time of the project (i.e. approval at an early stage of the programme’s

life cycle - approval at the middle of the programme’s life cycle - approval at the end

of the programme’s life cycle);

The best practice project was chosen on the basis of its overall performance (financial,

partnership, relevance and impact of its activities, project management); nevertheless,

we also selected a new INTERREG III C West project, which is not yet well known, e.g.

CLOE network.

Of the final five-project samples, two projects (GRDP & PRAXIS) fall under Topic for

interregional cooperation No 1: Objective 1 & Objective 2 areas (while 24% of all

operations under Interreg IIIC West Zone contributed to Topic 1); the other three

selected projects (STRATINC, CULTURED, e-BIRD) fall under Topic 5: Other appropriate

subjects (while 45 % of all operations under Interreg IIIC West Zone contributed to Topic

5). Please note that the thematic scope of CULTURED overlaps that of Topic 1 & Topic 2.

Themes of cooperation Selected operations Research, technology and innovations e-BIRD Employment, social inclusion, human resources and education

e-BIRD

Heritage, culture and tourism e-BIRD, CULTURED SME development and entrepreneurship PRAXIS, STRATINC Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources

GRDP

Regional Planning, territorial regeneration and urban development

Accessibility, mobility and transport Information society and E-Government

3.3.2 Project study 1: e-BIRD

I. General Project information

e-BIRD is a Regional Framework Operation (RFO), a “mini-programme’’ involving a

number of sub-projects, falling under three fields, i.e. social, spatial and economic

development; culture and knowledge; and teaching, training and research, for the Grand

Region (GR)1.

The global objective of e-BIRD was to increase the visibility of the GR for its inhabitants

and reinforce their skills and training through setting up networks on economic, social and

territorial development, culture, teaching, training and research.

The sub-objective is to strengthen the GR's attractiveness with a view to making it one of

Europe's leading economical regions.

1 The Grand Region is an inter-State (Franco-Germano-Luxembourgish Agreement of 1980) and

interregional co-operation (1995 Mondorf Declaration) area in the centre of Europe. Its boundaries cover 5 regions: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Lorraine Region, Sarre land, the Rhineland-Palatinate land, and the Walloon Region, including Belgium's German-speaking community.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 36 January 2010

The project had four components. The first component covered Management and

Coordination activities.

Under the component (2) "Social, economic and spatial development " 11 sub-projects

were identified. Employment, workforce features, mobility, and spatial development

systems are among the major themes.

"Culture and knowledge" component (3) involved 4 sub-projects, ranging from cultural

portal to portal of museums. This component aimedat strengthening the sense of identity

and belongingness to the GR.

Finally, within the component (4) "education, training and research", 6 sub-projects

aimed at enhancing level of knowledge and sense of belongingness of pupils and

university students via integrated courses throughout the GR. Musical cooperation was an

interesting project, which led to 11 concerts during the operation.

Financially, the project faced the challenge of underspending. This was due to a number

of factors, which could be explained to the JTS in time and resolved. First, some sub-

projects had some delays in their activities mainly due to inefficient time planning such as

delay in submitting the invoices, etc. Later during the second half of the project, one sub-

project regarding the study of multimodal transport in the GR, which was found to not

have started, was cancelled. This led to the allocation of remaining funds to new sub-

projects. At the end of 2006, since there were still available funds, duration of some

projects was extended in order to conduct more activities. These actions allowed the

reallocation of non-used funds and to the development of new parts of the projects, which

was really beneficial for the whole operation. This change involved a modification of the

budget from € 6.145.083 to € 6.360.329. However, at the end of the operation, 97% of

the modified budget was used.

Budget allocation of the components indicated a share of 20% for component 1

(management and coordination). This component included dissemination activities as well.

The other components are practically technical, budgets of which seem to have been

allocated in accordance with the number of sub-projects they involve:

• Component 2, Social, economic and spatial development with 11 sub-projects: 40%

• Component 3, Culture and knowledge, with 4 sub-projects: 20%

• Component 4, education, training and research, with 6 sub-projects : 20%

Overall experience regarding communication with the JTS and Interreg IIIC funding

indicated that the e-BIRD RFO and JTS had a positive cooperation. Due to the early

detection by the JTS of the underspending of ERDF funds and its efficient follow-up of the

issue the e-BIRD consortium resolved the issue in time. As a result, a high rate of budget

absorption was realised. Coaching and information provision of the JTS when needed, was

highly appreciated. Reporting procedures every 6 months was found to be a reasonable

time interval to keep work in track. However, there were strict regulations regarding the


ZONE

R20090290.doc 37 January 2010

restricted number of characters. Partners underlined administrative tasks as heavy and

writing activity reports in French and German and translating them into English was

useful, yet demanding.

II. Selection process

As in the case of all 76 INTERREG III C West Zone operations, e-Bird was selected after a

call for proposals.

The idea of the e-BIRD project was based on an already existing cooperation between

the political and administrative actors of the GR. During this more than 20 year-long

cooperation, every 18 months a GR’s Summit was organised. Each of them focused on a

specific theme such as: transport and communications, sustainable development, tourism

and culture, entrepreneurial culture and concerted SME policy etc. Finally, in 2003, a

long-term common strategy was drawn up, underpinned by a strong commitment of all

partners towards its implementation. Two conditions triggered the birth of e-BIRD: first, a

strong need for cooperating at the full GR level was identified (different sub-regions of GR

used to cooperate with each other previously in Interreg IIIA programme). Second, there

was also a need for an operational and budgetary framework that could be used to

implement projects covering all GR’s territory. INTERREG IIIC, and, more specifically, the

RFO type of operation, offered the opportunity to prepare a mini-programme with 21 sub-

projects for the whole territory of the GR and its 5 sub-regions.

The strength of e-BIRD project comes from its long cooperation history in the GR, its solid

institutional structure, and the relevance of selected themes for the geo-political and

socio-economic structure of the region. The selected themes were implemented through

21 sub-projects. These sub-projects were selected based on calls for proposals; whereas

two new sub-projects which joined the RFO at a later stage, were initiated by a rolling

application procedure.

III. Partnership and sustainability

Given the long history of the institutionalised partnership in the Region, from the idea to

its implementation, the project appears to be a common action of all the partners.

Common needs were assessed by means of a survey. Expectations and interests of all

partners were oriented towards cooperation; however these varied in terms of the themes

of priority. Since the consortium was not a large one (with seven partners), it was not

difficult to reconcile all the interests throughout 21 sub-projects in the fields of "Social,

economical and spatial development", "Culture and knowledge" and "Education, training

and research" (corresponding to components 2, 3 and 4).

A partnership approach was ensured from the project idea to the daily administration. The

project lead partner was responsible for all administrative and financial tasks related to

the project. At sub-project level, the partnership approach was translated into a sub-

project coordination team and a working group. It was ensured that at least one partner


ZONE

R20090290.doc 38 January 2010

from each area of the GR was represented1 in the sub-project specific coordination team,

out of which a lead partner was chosen to facilitate the management of the operation. The

working group on the other hand was composed of the socio-economic actors of the

region, who carried out the work, in practice.

Due to the limited number of participants, project management and coordination could be

conducted smoothly and effectively.

Regarding the sustainability of the project’s achievements, it is intended to keep all the

electronic tools set up during the operation up to date by the participants. It was

expected that the sub-project internet sites would remain active even after the closure of

the project since most of the websites were hosted by one of the participants of the

project. In that sense, portals are considered crucial in remaining accessible.

The planned outputs such as a) new communication tools (internet portals, GIS, media

and plain libraries, computer networks, etc.), b) trainings (universities, training institutes,

etc.) c) exchange of experience conferences and seminars, studies (common statistics on

the Great Region, indicators of public transport schedules, etc.), d) resource centres

(statistical offices, network of rural development actors, etc.), e) books or literature

paper (common newspaper on geography, history and economy of the Great Region) were

achieved.

These outputs induced results such as ‘improved integration of the people of the region,

knowledge sharing, awareness regarding common problems of the region as well as the

willingness to deal with these problems together’. These results were at the strategic

level. Sub-projects, on the other hand, which were based on concrete topics, created

results such as ‘increased knowledge (content) and insights about the issues they dealt

with’.

In the e-BIRD RFO, the “good practices” notion was understood very widely. Of those, the

outputs which fit best with the best practices criteria (with an explicit added value), were:

1) 5 good practice guides which were produced as a result of 5 projects: a) Borderless

technology transfer, b) Networking of local development actors in the Great Region - e-

GRADE, c) Cross-national network – Craftswork in the Great Region, d) Interregional

programme for developing cross-border educational material in the Great Region, e)

Obstacle-free studying: integration and uniformity in university courses in the Greater

Region, such as the highly integrated physics curriculum in the Great Region.

2) Methodologies developed by 3 sub-projects: a) Inno-net: Promoting innovation in

the Great Region, b) Comparison of the spatial development's systems in the Great

Region, c) Knowledge of the economical flows in the Great Region.

1 Coordination of the sub-projects was included in component 1 “ Management and coordination although

the fulfilment of the project activities fell under Component 2, 3 or 4 depending on the field they were based


ZONE

R20090290.doc 39 January 2010

Results and impacts were briefly stated per partner in the final implementation report.

Qualitative themes such as enhanced cooperation, networking, knowledge sharing,

reinforcement of good relations, good reputation, etc. were commonly referred to by

partners as some of the results and impacts they achieved.

Most of the partners expected to further cooperate in their activities at the European

level. More specifically, many partners got involved in the new programme INTERREG

IVA.

Concerning the Interreg IIIC funding, it was found sufficient for conducting the activities

of e-BIRD. However, without it, it would not be possible –financially- to organise such a

large range operation.

IV. Learning and indirect effects

Twenty-one sub-projects of e-BIRD RFO indicated a learning process for the partners

about the common aspects and differences in each others’ cultures.

Study projects created the most concrete learning effect, if not at organisational level, for

sure at individual level. 2 integrated courses, which were suggested as best practice cases

were: 1) Science meets the school 2) The integrated physics course. What made them

unique was their strong content as well as multi-cultural feature.

With respect to creating an overall impact, sub-projects like plurio.net (culture portal of

GR) and the statistic portal of the GR were mentioned as the ones which could create a

sustainable impact. Wider population effects are difficult to assess but sub-project

communities worked enthusiastically, which have likely created some internal assessment

at the institutional level.

Structural information about the external dissemination was not available. However,

progress report 7 indicates that until the last 6-month period of the operation, 46 press

releases were issued and newspaper articles about the Science Meets School sub-project

were published in the French, German and Luxembourg media.

3.3.3 Project study 2: PRAXIS


Praxis is an Individual Project under Interreg III C, aiming to make rural entrepreneurship

work. The topics of cooperation under PRAXIS cover Objective 1 and Objective 2 areas

whereas the themes of cooperation entail SME development and entrepreneurship.

The overall objective of Praxis was to expose all partners in rural areas to new ideas and

approaches to entrepreneurship. It intended to identify good practices, facilitate future

development of regional rural entrepreneurship partnerships and strategies, support


ZONE

R20090290.doc 40 January 2010

business innovation and foster an entrepreneurial culture in rural areas. The project,

implemented from October 2004 to December 2007, was led by Essex City Council (UK)

with the participation of 13 other partners from 8 countries (UK, Belgium, France, Spain,

Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Romania). The approved budget for the operation was €

1,522,221.96 whereas € 872,110.98 of this budget was provided by the ERDF (with an

overall co-financing rate of 56 %).


The project proposal was firstly rejected; however, after following the suggestions for

improvement of the JTS, it was re-written and approved. The strengths of the project are

three-fold: first there was a committed network of partners across the area and focused

on a common theme. Second, as underlined by the project manager, pilot projects

attempted to provide a balance between broader objectives of the programme and

implementing innovative ideas. However, JTS’ view in this respect was slightly different,

i.e. the Praxis project neglected the overall objectives of the programme; and the focus

was rather placed on the practical, implementation-oriented, projects. At this

point, the idea of the project manager deviated from that of the JTS. The former

considered that even the INTERREG III C broad objectives can benefit a lot from

implementation-oriented projects; and learning from such projects should be encouraged

more. Obviously, this indicates a gap between the perception of the objectives and the

how to realise them. This eventually requires a better communication of the INTERREG

IIIC objectives.

III. Partnership and sustainability

The PRAXIS project partners come from the PRAXIS network, established in 2001 by a

group of regions in Northern Europe and local and regional authorities from Central and

Eastern Europe. Its declared intention was to exchange experiences and knowledge across

a range of practical regional development issues. While the Northern European regions

already had mutual cooperation through INTERREG IIC regarding coastal regeneration

issues, they also had bi-lateral regional partnerships in the Accession countries of Central

and Eastern Europe. With the PRAXIS project, the partners focused on best practices in

creating effective partnerships to promote entrepreneurship in rural areas. 4 pilot projects

that would bring an innovative approach to practical support for the competitiveness of

existing and potential businesses were implemented:

• Pilot project 1, Innovation Development Amongst Rural Entrepreneurs (I DARE)

implemented a model of innovation support for rural SME’s through mentoring and

innovation support to 25 cross-sectoral businesses (led by the Essex Rural

Partnership).

• Pilot project 2 (MESURA) encouraged the start-up of micro-enterprises in rural areas

(led by the Heraklion Development Agency).


ZONE

R20090290.doc 41 January 2010

• Pilot project 3, Virtual Community of Entrepreneurs in the Rural World (VICOR)

developed an online forum and database for rural entrepreneurs across the Praxis

Network of regions (led by the Technological Institute of Aragon).

• Pilot project 4 developed a package of support to help farm businesses to diversify

(led by the Province of West Flanders). It focused on farmers wanting to diversify and

10 farmers have been working to better integrate their farms into the landscape.

The partnership was highly relevant since issues dealt with within this project reflected

high policy concerns of some of the partners, i.e. on one hand, Poland and Romania

suffering from high unemployment rates and poverty driven by large-scale agricultural

restructuring, on the other hand EU Member States where the Common Agricultural Policy

reform towards rural development was expected to impose a dramatic impact on

agricultural businesses. Therefore, the project was a result of a genuine common action of

all the partners who agreed on the common theme of promoting an enhanced

understanding of rural entrepreneurship. During the meetings from November 2003 to

March 2004, the needs of the partners were assessed. These were similar and their

expectations homogenous. Quality of partnership was high, due to these common issues

and the exchange of learning experiences through meetings and visits proved effective.

For the first two years of the project the Lead Partner (LP) (Essex County Council)

outsourced the running of daily management and coordination tasks to ExDRA, a company

owned by the Essex County Council; and took it back over during the last year of the

project since their contract ended. The project secretariat belonged to ExDRA, which

appointed the Project Coordinator as well. Implementation of the pilot projects also

involved a partnership approach. The leading role for each of the 4 pilot projects were

undertaken by different partners while the project was managed and coordinated by the

LP

Technical implementation was well-structured. Within Component 2 (identification of the

institutional setting) rural partnerships and strategy questionnaires were filled in and the

results provided an input for the 4 pilot projects (component 3).

In the reporting on the project there was no structural assessment as to whether the

overall objective or sub-objectives of the project and the expected results and impacts

were achieved. Only the outputs per pilot project were explained:

• Pilot Project 1, I DARE: A model of innovation support; a workshop on rural

innovation; innovation support and mentoring to 25 rural businesses; an information

brochure; and visits to the businesses to evaluate the mentoring support;

• Pilot project 2, MESURA: development of local partnerships; a questionnaire as a

base evaluation; a training programme; 8 business seminars; support to the new

entrepreneurs to develop and implement 6 business plans.

• Pilot project 3, VICOR: creation of a technical team to design and build the

entrepreneurs forum and database; involvement in a mass publicity campaign for the

forum; support to the communication between rural entrepreneurs across Europe.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 42 January 2010

• Pilot Project 4: Focus on farmers who wished to diversify and 10 farmers have been

working to better integrate their farms into the landscape.

A major output, as a result of all pilot projects was the Praxis Rural Entrepreneurship

Toolkit, which offered concrete results as a result of the strongly practical case studies

involved in the pilot projects.

Due to the innovative nature of some pilot projects (1 & 4), PRAXIS could be considered

partly experimental.

With respect to administrative and financial implementation of the project, some

challenges were faced:

First, the fact that two partners needed to leave the project due to reorganization and

political issues caused an extra administrative and tasks & budget reallocation. Content-

wise, the leaving of one of the Polish partners (Pomerania) did not create a major issue

because another Polish partner, Opolskie area – was involved. Financially, there was no

extra budget required although the content of component 3 was changed. The other party

which left was French but the existence of 2 Belgian partners preserved the uniformity of

the project to a large extent. Leaving the partnership raised question marks on the

political support of the partners.

Second, communication between the LP and JT’s was sometimes delayed – as also pointed

out by the JTS. This was due to the internal delays created by the reluctance of some

partners in notifying the LP in time regarding two issues: a) their progress in delivering

the outputs, and b) underspending of the budget.

In the end, underspending remained as a major issue since the budget absorption rate

remained at 66.6%. Official budget allocation for the 3 components and the actual

expenditures (based on 66.6% absorption rate) was as follows:

Component 1: Management and coordination: original: 29%, actual: 43%

Component 2: Identification of institutional setting: original: 5%, actual: 6%

Component 3: Supporting entrepreneurs in rural areas: original: 66%, actual: 51%

These figures indicate a significant underspending at Component 3. It should be noted

that Component 1 covers also the costs of communication and dissemination.

Sustainability of the project could be ensured by disseminating the project results on the

PRAXIS website. The Romanian translation of the Toolkit was expected to be a useful

document for agricultural consultants in Arad.

Partners tried to cooperate further. For instance, around the project closure time, both

Aragon (Spain) and Opolskie (Poland) attempted to work on a new interregional project

building on the experiences gained through PRAXIS. The new project would continue


ZONE

R20090290.doc 43 January 2010

disseminating the results of Praxis. West Flanders (Belgium) was looking for new

innovative projects within the field of support to rural entrepreneurs. The Aragon

Research Institute (Spain) intended to participate in the RURALAND project proposal

(INTERREG IVC) after the contacts it had made through PRAXIS and the experiences it

had gained through project. As a potential future partner, Croatia could become a part of

the future activities since the Croatian Ambassador in London showed an interest in all

pilot projects and presented the LP with a list of potential Croatian partners involved in

rural development issues.

For some other partners, further cooperation in INTERREG funded projects seemed

uneasy. For instance, the LP (Essex County Council) had few plans to lead other future

projects due to the lack of capacity cased by internal, structural and organisational

changes. Other partners were too small to lead such European-wide projects.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 44 January 2010

IV. Learning and indirect effects

Partners referred to ’learning’ as a major benefit they gained as a result of their

participation in PRAXIS. An ongoing learning process indeed took place by means of pilot

projects, impacts of which were most evident in the project areas. For example, pilot

projects triggered some business activities in the project areas.

The most important aspect related to learning was the fact that partners were eager to

sustain the effects of their learning in their region and translate it into policy change. An

example is Heraklion Development Agency (Greece), who expressed its keen interest in

integrating PRAXIS results in their regional policy for sustainable rural development; and

distributing the PRAXIS materials in all the relevant conferences, meetings, seminars and

transnational cooperation events that it would be participating in. Likewise, West Flanders

integrated the network of farm products in The Westhoek in the provincial network and

would continue further on with that through provincial support. On a more strategic level,

the Essex Rural Strategy, under-drafted at the moment of this evaluation, has an

important section about rural business support, based on the results of Praxis.

The way Opolskie (Poland) learnd from Heraklion (Greece) was a clearly successful

example of knowledge transfer and learning. While the two cities had similar problems,

they had different objectives. In Opolski, where employment prospects for the highly

educated were limited, the aim was to motivate those people to establish their own

businesses in the region; innovation was an important element of investment in this

region. On the other hand, in Heraklion, located on an island (Crete, Greece), whose

economy was based on traditional industries (wine and olive oil production), some

innovative techniques of production were needed in order for these businesses to survive.

Innovation was not only about process of production but also about marketing.

With respect to the management and financial implementation of the project, it was

stated that the finance regulations could be less complicated, for example the rules

around eligible expenditures could be written in plain English to aid comprehension.

There was great satisfaction amongst the partners about the project achievements; but

sometimes administrative procedures were overwhelming. Interreg financial contribution

was found sufficient while acknowledging that there was underspending and in fact, some

pilot projects could have spent more of the budget by extending their activities. Despite

underspending, it was clear that financing such a large range transnational and

interregional project would not be possible without INTERREG funding. Overall, contact

with the JTS was based on good and fruitful cooperation.

Regarding external dissemination, available information was limited to ‘60 articles which

were published in the press/media’.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 45 January 2010

3.3.4 Project study 3: CULTURED


CULTURED is a ‘network’ type of operation, established in the fields of cultural heritage

and regional development. The chosen topic of cooperation covers ‘other appropriate

subjects’ while it cross-cuts two other topics, i.e. Objective 1 and Objective 2 areas and

INTERREG programmes. Its theme of cooperation entails ‘heritage, culture and tourism’.

The overall objectives of CULTURED are two-fold: providing best practice guidelines for

the revalorization of elements of built up cultural heritage by sharing experiences; and

stimulating further discussion and networking of cultural heritage and regional

development. The project which was implemented along 36 months (January 2005-

December 2007) was led by the University of Gent (Belgium) with the participation of 13

other partners from 9 countries (Belgium, the UK, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Latvia,

Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain). The final approved budget for the operation was €

1.301.877,80, of which ERDF funding was € 796.801,31.


The first application of the CULTURED consortium in April, 2004 for the call for proposals

was rejected due to the extensive size of the consortium and limited coherence of the

project concept. After revision, the project was approved in October 2004 and started in

January 2005. The project was selected due to the following strengths: seeking methods

and mechanisms of revalorization of built up heritage and using a market led approach;

stimulation of socio-economic development; renewed interest in the heritage issue; and

involvement of local community. In addition to these, a reduced size of the consortium

with diverse partners (due to) a) their geographical origins, i.e. 9 countries from east,

west and south regions; b) spatial levels they represent, i.e. regional and local level; and

c) their expertise regarding regional policy issues; local policy issues and academic

knowledge) also contributed to the selection of the project.

III. Partnership & Sustainability

The history of CULTURED partnership dates back to the GRIDS project (INTERREG IIIC) in

which the University of Gent, Iris Consultancy (which undertook project management and

coordination for a while), Cardiff University (which had to leave soon after the project

started) and the Flemish Ministry of Regional Administration1 worked together. With their

project idea on cultural heritage and regional development, this core team launched a call

for new partners via the INTERREG III C website. As a result, the CULTURED consortium

was formed. Before the project application a kick-off meeting between the interested

1 However, different specialist sections of the latter two partners took part in the GRIDS and CULTURE

projects


ZONE

R20090290.doc 46 January 2010

partners was organized in Brussels and the draft application was completed through e-

mail communication between the lead partner University of Gent and the partners.

The project was in varying degrees a common action of all partners. The core team

initiated the project idea while the new members contributed to its final shape. The

interests of the partners were divided in two main parts: cultural heritage and regional

economic development. Academic institutions in the consortium played a pivotal role in

bringing these policy concerns together in a common conceptual and methodological

framework. However, there were also a few partners who were less active.

In an earlier phase of the project, some changes occurred in the consortium: for instance,

due to the cut-off of national subsidy a Slovakian partner was replaced by a Dutch partner

(Alterra); due to the expected retirement of Professor Jeremy Alden - in charge of the

project, Cardiff University was replaced by Torfaen County Council (the UK).

The tasks were allocated between the partners as follows:

• Lead partner (LP) would conduct overall management and coordination of the project

(this task was carried out for a short while by a consultancy firm, hired by the LP)

• Steering Group, composed of one member per partner would make the strategic

decisions while officially all three components were under the responsibility of LP.

However, there was flexibility for the partners to take initiatives in fulfilling the sub-

tasks of these components. For instance, Bunal Local Development Agency and Ubeda

City Council supported the LP in communication activities while Alterra Research was

more involved in developing the methodology.

• Project secretariat would carry out the daily management activities.

The project was experimental as it stimulated discussions and networking between

partners with a cultural heritage background on the one hand and partners with an

economic development background on the other. In addition, what made CULTURED

experimental were two specific outputs: the policy role-play by which the participants

exchanged knowledge in terms of ‘how to develop an integrated City Plan for the virtual

city ‘Manora’. This plan would incorporate the best practice lessons of five of its key

INTERREG III operations: CULTURED, INHERIT, QUALICITIES, REVIT and ASCEND. The

second output was the methodology (the so-called “wheel of CULTURED”) which made an

abstraction of the underlying relations between heritage, regional development and

regional identity.

The intended outputs, results and impacts were largely achieved (90% of the intended

outputs were realised). Five thematic workshops on heritage policy, legislation,

restoration, added value, and guidelines provided the backbone of content related

activities. These workshops led to examination of best practice cases and production of

the methodology. Besides this, partners presented 10 innovative demonstration projects,

analysing regional identity, project content and the expected added value. Finally, 3

regional seminars in East, West and South were organised in order to disseminate the

project outcomes. All these outputs contributed to the fulfilment of the overall aims of


ZONE

R20090290.doc 47 January 2010

‘increased knowledge exchange and networking’ regarding heritage and regional

development’.

Throughout the course of the project, its sustainability was ensured first by the project

activities. Cooperation involved a diversified range of partners, which gave the

opportunity to include multi-dimensional and multi-spatial levels of policy issues and

experience. While regional and local authorities had relevant policy experience and the

authority to make decisions, research organisations facilitated in the incorporation of

academic knowledge.

Sustainability of the project was further strengthened by capitalisation activities, by

means of which CULTURED got the opportunity to share knowledge and achievements

further with the other heritage driven projects such as REVIT (III), QUALICITIES,

INHERIT, ASCEND in a Joint meeting; meet INHERIT and QUALICITIES structurally once a

year; and present CULTURED in meetings of CULTMARK, ASCEND and HERMES (INTERREG

CADSES).

A remarkable aspect of this project is related to Ubeda County Council’s involvement in 2

other INTERREG III C West projects (QUALICITIES and INHERIT) dealing with heritage. It

seems that while in CULTURED Ubeda provided its experience and best practices and

demonstration cases regarding ‘rural’ heritage, their focus on INHERIT was on ‘urban’

cultural heritage. Finally, QUALICITIES supported the first two projects since it aimed at

creating a quality label for all heritage actions (embedded in the broader perspective of

developing quality label for urban sustainable development).

Regarding further networking, the post-project era remained rather inactive although a)

ambitions of the partners were high regarding further cooperation; b) some bilateral talks

already took place; and c) some topics within INTERREG IVB and C Strands were already

mentioned especially in regards to combining environmental management and sustainable

development issues with cultural heritage. Neither the concrete intention of the project to

look for funding actively for 5 of the 10 demonstration projects of CULTURED nor the idea

of an eventual "CULTURED +" (with more focus on new ways of ensuring successful

exploitation on heritage in time and the value for the local community) was realised. The

main reason for this is stated as the lack of staff capacity of the partners.

Nevertheless, one concrete action was taken after the completion of CULTURED: The

proposal for COLLABOR (INTERREG IVB) was developed by 3 CULTURED partners

(University of Gent, Torfaen County Council and Alterra Research).

In terms of administrative and financial implementation, project management was

assessed as quite demanding. This was due to the large size of the consortium and delays

by some of the partners caused by possible late delivery of administrative and financial

inputs (submission of individual progress reports of the partners went on time). Here the

administrative cultures of countries like Spain and Italy played a role. It was definitely a

challenge but not a major issue.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 48 January 2010

Learning and Indirect effects

The achievements of the project definitely created a learning spin-off, and this is most

visible in the project areas where partners come from.

Learning and policy impacts are interrelated. Ideally, a learning process culminates with a

concomitant policy impact in the project area and goes even further. And this happens

best and most easily in the areas where the partner is a local or regional authority.

CULTURED experiences showed that the best practice and demonstration cases of the

partners fit well with the existing policy principles. However, an impact on the future

policy of the project area was evident only in a few cases: for instance, the Flemish

Ministry of Regional Administration’s involvement in CULTURED not only created an

expected medium-term impact on the ‘Flanders Heritage Plan’ but also led to

organisational learning. Namely, the Ministry which represents the top policy level

learned about a policy context in which partners from different policy levels and expertise

areas were involved. Cork County Council’s involvement in CULTURED, on the other hand,

created an impact at national level, causing the Irish "National Heritage Plan" and thus

drawing attention to the promotion of best practices and increased awareness of the built

up heritage.

Another learning impact came from the programme level; in the form of the

communication and financial management related seminars organised by the JTS and

attended by relevant partners of the project.

When it comes to the Impacts of CULTURED on other stakeholders and in the larger

region, evidence remains rather limited when compared with the impacts on the partners.

Likewise, dissemination of impacts on external stakeholders and broader regions is not

known.

During the 6th Steering Group meeting, partners expressed their satisfaction with the

various aspects of CULTURED, such as insight gained regarding international differences,

site visits, critical remarks of experts, coordination of the LP, method of the template as a

way of preparing the workshops, and common activities, etc.

Partners were also satisfied with the INTERREG III C Programme. The application

procedures were clear and the JTS staff was very open, helpful, constructive and eager to

listen and respond. INTERREG funding was sufficient to cover the activities planned.

However, the impact could have been more extensive if there was more budget

available by means of for instance ‘implementation’ projects regarding restoration.

Overall, the project could not be realised without INTERREG funding. There were also

some issues: For instance, working with indicators was found useful although it

was not always clear what sort of answers were expected.

While internal and INTERREG -wide dissemination was intensively carried out, structural

information regarding mass media coverage of the project was not available. However, a

few sporadic examples have been traced back as such to th LP being interviewed on


ZONE

R20090290.doc 49 January 2010

Ubeda and Kurzeme radio/TV channels, and a radio programme set up in Bunol where

citizens could participate in local policy issues including heritage.

3.3.5 Project study 4: STRATINC


STRATINC is an ‘Individual Project’ type of operation, focused on Strategic Intelligence

and Innovative Clusters. It falls under priority topic ‘Research, technological development

and SMEs’ while its topic of cooperation refers to ‘other appropriate subjects’ and its

theme of cooperation entails to ‘SME development and entrepreneurship’.

The overall objective of STRATINC as stated in the application form is to improve the

competitiveness of territories, local businesses and industrial clusters through

strengthening capacities of strategic intelligence and foresight which will allow territories

and companies to manage innovation and to address the challenges of globalisation, in

particular with a European-wide vision.

Although the project was initially scheduled to run from July 2003 to 31 October 2005,

due to the long contract negotiation process, it officially started in December 2003,with a

number of extensions and alasted until 30th June 2007.

The project was led by Regional Council of Lorraine (RCL) (France) with the participation

of 5 other partners from Germany, Greece, Spain and Norway. Initially, the overall budget

was € 1,621,225 and ERDF share was € 767,167.75. However, the budget was later

reduced to € 1.445,660.10, out of which € 665,927.55 was ERDF funding.


The STRATINC proposal was submitted in response to a call for proposals and was

approved in the first round. According to the Lead Partner (LP), the proposal was

selected due to the following strengths: it addresses the overall objective of INTERREG

IIIC and falls under priority topic ‘research technology and SME’s’. The project itself not

only has a clear policy focus, i.e. policy driven innovation actions, especially cluster

development, but it is also based on specific sectors of applications that each region

selected a local industrial cluster to participate in the project, namely: wood (Lorraine),

ICT (Central Macedonia), biotechnology for health (Oslo), agro-food (Murcia/Tenerife)

and new materials (Nordrhein-Westfalen). In addition, experience of the LP, in particular

in the field of developing strategic intelligence actions and with implementation of an

economic intelligence platform for five industrial sectors during the period 2002-2005

(www.decilor.org) provided an added value.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 50 January 2010

III. Partnership & Sustainability

STRATINC consortium partners were already cooperating bilaterally or trilaterally in

different INTERREG funded projects such as NETWIN or RECITE II projects. However, the

consortium was initiated by the Director of Innovation of RCL, an expert on strategic

intelligence and innovation.

Partnership approach involved the presence of an active LP and yet, tasks were allocated

to various operational groups which brought a decentralised approach to the project.

These operational groups were:

• Coordination Committee (COCOM), composed of the Coordinators of each partner and

led by the Coordinator of LP, is the decision-making body (with the support of external

consultancy company hired by the LP). LP is at the same time responsible for some

tasks either under COCOM or validated by Scientific Board.

• Scientific Board (SB), dealing with methodological and content related issues at

critical steps

• Local Steering Committees and Local Working groups, per partner, representing the 5

sectors of identified local industrial clusters (wood, ICT, bio-technology for health

agro-food and new materials)

Other than the routine procedures, the project was externally evaluated by a consultancy

company, and an evaluation report was produced in September 2006.

STRATINC conducted a largely shared diagnosis and needs assessment. The strategic

information needs of 190 local SME’s were identified through a survey; their sectoral and

regional differences in terms of technological development, position in the value chain or

socio-cultural practices were taken into account. Expectations of the partners were to a

large extent homogenous. A majority of them expected to expand their networks and

extend strategic intelligence tools to support innovating cluster creation.

The project was composed of 5 components, which were: 1) Management and

coordination of activities. 2) Knowledge of clusters and sectors needs for strategic

intelligence 3) Technical study: available software tools, conception and design of a model

of Strategic Intelligence platform, 4) Exchange of experience between the partners:

sharing information, knowledge and practices, 5) Dissemination activities: setting up and

testing pilot Strategic Intelligence Platforms

The project’s intended outputs, results and impacts were largely achieved. The most

relevant output of the project, which triggered also policy impacts was the Blueprint, a

methodological guidebook, providing a step-by-step approach to building a cluster by

using four tools: benchmarking, foresight, knowledge management and economic

intelligence. Further, it involved best practices and key lessons to be learned. The

Blueprint was disseminated during the Final Conference in Brussels in September 2006

where 100 people participated. In addition, this very blueprint created already a transfer

of knowledge into NANO4M, another project funded by IV C where RCL was invited to join.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 51 January 2010

Related to the Pilot Strategic Intelligence Platforms, partner regions experimented with e-

platforms following the results of the initial surveys; these platforms function as a section

of an institutional website as in Murcia, or as part of a professional website as in RCL.

Partners were well aware that strategic intelligence plays a key role in creating,

European-wide and globally "competitive advantages" for the regions. Various instruments

were tested within different European regions - partners of the project are still available

on the Internet and can be used by enterprises and clusters.

The project was especially experimental because it tested a new methodology as

presented in the Blueprint, which involved four strategic intelligence tools and aimed at

exploring to what extent they were able to support the creation of innovative clusters.

STRATINC also stimulated sustainable regional partnership since local clusters in selected

sectors were actively involved in the process.

However, implementation in financial and administrative terms was not free from some

difficulties. Underspending mainly caused by the Community of North Tenerife eventually

led to a budget reduction. The Community became inactive in the final year of the project

due to the organisational changes it underwent.

Another problematic issue proved to be public procurement; irregularities in applying the

public procurement rules were identified through the 2nd level control. Finally, €

12.606,63 was deducted from the final budget following the rule that the ‘LP has to

deduct 25% of contract’s share if the payment could not be demonstrated’.

STRATINC has a strategic potential to be sustainable due to the keen interest of partners

in pursuing inter-regional projects aimed at mutual learning and experience exchange in

the area of regional cluster policy. In terms of project ideas in the further programme

period, RCL is at the moment, a partner of a new selected INTERREG IV C project called

“NANO4M”. Due to their STRATINC based experience, RCL was contacted by the NANO4M

project who was interested in using the STRATINC Blueprint to improve its Intelligence

Strategy.

Learning and Indirect effects

Most evident learning effect of the project was content-related, at partner level and within

the project areas. This was because at least half of the partners had already had some

knowledge regarding strategic intelligence and/or cluster actions. This accelerated the

pace of learning. Partners indicated a strong interest in themes of project and expectation

of results. There was a good potential for exchange of experience and transfer of know-

how from ‘leading’ to ‘lagging’ regions. And more specifically, Pilot Strategic Intelligence

Platforms (PSIP) were used pro-actively to develop/define clusters (such as in Murcia and

Central Macedonia).


ZONE

R20090290.doc 52 January 2010

Moreover, some clusters, e.g. Oslo Teknopol (OT), gained also organisational skills by

taking part in the project. OT and is now leading a network of 5 sectoral clusters; Murcia

region was able to create a "clustering process" among the business community, and

improve its internal human resources. Another concrete example of learning occurred at

RM, which used its knowledge of cluster development policies (based on STRATINC) to

create TECHNOPOLIS - Technology Park for the Information Technology. Regarding

strategic level learning and broader policy impact, another example comes from the LP,

who was able to use STRATINC findings (such as the importance of the "economic

intelligence toolkit" and raised awareness regarding the necessity of clusters) in

developing an innovation strategy for the Lorraine region. However, because the

experience was limited to a small number of regions, there is definitely a need for support

for further policy learning and regional cooperation in this field. Regarding broader policy

impacts, clear evidence was not observed.

Regarding bureaucratic procedures, it was sometimes experienced that compliance with financial

reporting requirements (e.g. reviewing administration costs to be in line with INTERREG

procedures when other EU funds accept flat rate) was uneasy and that the need for support on

financial management was underestimated.

Partners were generally satisfied with the project; however, they experienced difficulties, too.

For instance, sometimes it was an issue to integrate STRATINC work into a diversity of tools and

institutions already in place in order to strengthen the cluster and provide better coordination,

increase coherence etc. The partners considered that the funding was sufficient to cover the

planned activities; without it, the project would not have been implemented. While the JTS was

found to be helpful in overall terms, provision of sufficient data was limited regarding the formal

management of an overview of other INTERREG IIIC projects, so that contacts could be

established. The INTERREG III C Newsletter was not sufficient for establishing such contacts.

While dissemination of internal activities (conferences, newsletters, website) was commonly

practiced, it is uneasy to assess the level of mass media coverage because relevant information

was not available at the project level.

3.3.6. Project Study 5: GRDP (Good Practice Project Study)

A. General Information

GRDP (Greening Regional Development Programmes) is a “network” type of operation. It

covered the topic of cooperation: Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions and the theme:

Environment, risk prevention, energy and natural resources.

The overall objective of the GRDP is to harness experience from Structural Funds

implementation and to work towards developing a common European methodology for

integrating environmental sustainability as a horizontal theme within current regional

development programmes. The project had an initial duration of 3 years (July 2004- June

2007) and was extended with 4 months (dedicated to project closure). The project led by

the Environment Agency for England and Wales – South West England Region (UK),


ZONE

R20090290.doc 53 January 2010

involved a wide network: 17 legal partners from 8 EU Member States (UK, Austria, Spain,

Italy, Malta, Poland, Hungary and Greece) and 17 associate partners.

Approved budget for the operation was € 1.581.906.,9 whereas € 973.410,12 of this

budget was provided by ERDF (with a rate of 62%).

B. Project aim: The story of an idea and turning it into reality (concept, partners,

expectations, application procedure)

The project idea of GRDP was born in March 2003, when the Environmental Agency of

England and Wales attended a Conference in Cantabria on Environment and Structural

Funds. There, the core project idea of ‘promoting the integration of environment in the

current and future Structural Funds programmes through the exchange of good practices’

was proposed by the Environmental Agency and two other conference participants,

namely, Spanish and Italian Environmental Authorities.

In 2004, as a result of the discussions carried out between a core group of partners

(Ministries of Environment of Italy, Austria and Spain, Malta Environment and Planning

Authority (MEPA) and the Exeter Environment Agency) joined by further institutions

identified via INTERREG IIIC Partner Search Forum, the GRDP was officially established.

The project development phase involved full participation of all partners in 4 meetings

throughout 2003-2004 in Brussels, Lille, Madrid and London. What brought them together

was their common interest in regional policy development, and more specifically, in

developing best practice guidance for the mainstreaming of the environmental horizontal

theme in the Objective 1 and 2 programmes. However, their specific areas of interests

varied. During these meetings which took place prior to the call for applications,

diversified interests were put on the table and refined into specific topics which would

later form the basis of technical seminars of the project. The process of reconciling this

diversity in a single project was not free from its challenges; however, it was also the

very same challenge of the GRDP partnership which featured as a strength.

Just like any project in INTERREG IIIC, the GRDP submitted its application in response to

a call for proposals. The JTS was supportive in the development phase of the project and

the application was approved in the first round.

C. Political and Strategic context (the strengths of the project concept and the

expectations from the policy level)

Environmental and sustainable development issues had already been on the rise during

1990’s on the global political and policy agenda’s. These issues were taken on board by

international organisations and national, regional and local governments, and by the

European Union. On the other hand, the EU set one of its major goals as to support social

and economic restructuring throughout its Member States. Structural Funds have been in

the last decades the instruments to reach this goal. In this context, the EU expected that


ZONE

R20090290.doc 54 January 2010

all programmes supported by Structural Funds throughout 2000-2006 would pursue these

two key priorities, i.e. environmentaL and sustainable development.

As GRDP partners expressed in their “Lessons Learnt” report, ‘the environment is both an

opportunity and an asset, which needs careful management if long-term economic benefit

and prosperity are to be secured’. Therefore, the project consortium had the ambition ‘to

demonstrate to organisations involved in regional development that there are clear

benefits in integrating the environment in their development policies, strategies,

programmes and activities’.

The overall goal of the project was to raise and share knowledge regarding an integrated

policy approach in which the environment would be incorporated in regional development

policies, strategies, programmes and activities’. This approach would require involvement

of organisations in a network like the GRDP, representing not only regional but also local

and national authorities as well as environmental organisations, development agencies

and research institutions.

The strength of the GRDP stems from its insights into this integrated policy approach

supported by its diversified range of partners representing policy makers at various

governance levels and other partners with various expertise areas.

D. Implementation: The story of activities and cooperation among partners and

with external stakeholders

The background of cooperation and activities during the project development phase were

elaborated in section B. The project kicked-off in December 2004 in Bath, UK. The

following meetings and further deliverables were interlinked and adjoined by adequate

dissemination activities.

After the kick-off meeting, partners prepared their regional “audit” reports, i.e. assessing

the practice in the region regarding “greening regional development policies”, which

provided an input for an overall report: ‘Green Growth’. This overall report helped refining

the focus of the project and let the partners better grasp the extent of each others

experiences in this field. It would be fair to say that ‘Green Growth’ formed the backbone

of further work to be conducted throughout the project.

A meeting in Vienna in May 2005 gave an opportunity to present ‘Green Growth’ to all

partners and discuss it. This led to the development of the GRDP Declaration, called

‘Learning from our experience in integrating the environment into regional development

programmes and looking ahead’. During the first two years of the project, 3 other

technical seminars were organised in the UK, Hungary and Greece and 7 technical reports

were produced. The most prominent reports were:

1) ‘Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Cohesion Policy 2007 –

2013’: This handbook got a good reputation in the European policy environment and was


ZONE

R20090290.doc 55 January 2010

highly appreciated by DG Environment and DG Regio. It was endorsed by the two and

promoted among the MA’s for the 2007-2013 programming period. It was translated in

Hungarian and Polish.

2) “Greening Projects for growth and jobs”: In order to put this guiding tool into practice,

a special work group of partners and experts met in May 2006 in Malta with national

Managing Authorities and the Environment and Planning Authority. External dissemination

of this document took place during the Open Days in October 2006.

With the last seminar "Integrating the environment into future regional development

programme in November 2006 in Patras (Greece), the founding stones of the GRDP toolkit

and the Charter were established.

The final GRDP conference in April 2007 in Logroño, Spain gave the opportunity to launch

the two final reports of the project:

1) The GRDP Charter “Regions for Sustainable change”: This charter was open to be

signed up by all organisations which would like to commit for sustainable regions.

2) The final GRDP toolkit "Beyond compliance: how regions can help build a sustainable

Europe”: This toolkit aimed to help public sector bodies throughout Europe incorporate

environmental issues in their development programmes.

After the final conference, dissemination activities intensified, i.e. a smaller dissemination

event targeting new Member States in May 2007 in Budapest; partners and the project

team participated in 12 events in the UK, Spain, Greece, France, Belgium, Poland, Italy in

order to promote the GRDP results.

All in all, throughout the project dissemination activities were carried out, e.g.

presentations at meetings and events, articles, creating local GRDP web pages,

newsletters, targeting key people in their region / country, organizing local seminars and

using their networks. Additionally, 2 newspaper articles in the Marche region and 2 in

Malta were published; GRDP related news appeared in the INTERREG IIIC newsletter

(nr.4, December 2004).

The positive cooperation spirit established in the project development phase was

preserved during the implementation of the project. Partners were aware of the multi-

cultural aspects of their cooperation and they were eager to learn lessons from each

others’ practices.

The activity was most effective when small and specific working groups of a few partners

met informally to work on reports and to organise the technical seminars. In these

groups, communication and meetings proved to be more efficient, and partners felt a

stronger ownership of the task / product/ outputs. However, in the overall sense, not all

partners were equally proactive in taking initiatives. Therefore, a sub-group of the

partners appeared to be more active and more influential in the directions that the project


ZONE

R20090290.doc 56 January 2010

would take. Although not to a significant extent, the partners who were relatively less

active in making technical contributions were driven with one or more of the following

reasons:

• Lack of capacity (time): partners are full-time occupied with other duties

• GRDP was low on the partners priority list, they could dedicate little time to it.

• Lack of interest in some of the topics.

Additionally, language could have also been a barrier since competence in English was

considered essential for all participants in order to express themselves well within the

partnership.

During the course of the project, the composition of the partnership changed when the

South Aegean Regional Development Fund (Greece) left the partnership. In the same year

(2006) the Italian Marche and Sicily Regions joined the network. This situation did not

create much complexities regarding the content-wise implementation of the project;

however, due to the complex bureaucratic, auditing and financial procedures of Greece

and Italy, the project management faced some delays. With the partnership change, the

management of Common Costs (i.e. the common costs of the project were managed at

central, LP, level), which was discussed with and approved by the INTERREG IIIC West

Secretariat, and yet proved to be complicated in implementation, got even more

complicated.

The most significant management challenge was linked to the cash contributions to the

common pot and the difficulty in some countries (Poland, Greece, Italy) to have the

claims audited and certified in time. Delays caused by highly demanding audit procedures

of especially Greece and Italy (5 months are needed for their national auditors to audit

each claim) and the need for more time for final project dissemination activities and

closure led to a non-budgetary project extension of 4 months.

The project budget was fully absorbed. Allocation of the budget into components indicated

a high share of Component 1: (common) management and coordination costs (about

70%) while Component 2: Joint Working on Interregional Topics and development of the

Final Product consumed 20% and Component 3: Communication and Dissemination, 8 %

of the total budget. Not unexpectedly running smoothly such a large network proved to

require significant management and coordination. Nevertheless, this investment is

justified in the light of the projects results and impact.

E. Effectiveness: What could the project achieve?

The GRDP activities involved a number of sequential and interlinked meetings. These

activities and outputs of the project generated a cumulative effect; and these effects were

reflected in the achieved results and impacts.

It could clearly be observed in the below table that all planned outputs were delivered.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 57 January 2010

Table 3.9 Planned Outputs vs. Delivered Outputs, GRDP Project PLANNED OUTPUTS PLANNED OUPUTS WHICH WERE DELIVERED

AND MORE A-Audit for baseline information on status & operation of environmental theme in partner region. Good practices identified; B- 4 Inter-regional topic seminars organised to share knowledge between and within regions. C-Reports on the seminars published. The results of the seminar will help develop the common methodology. D-Development of a project web-site E-Production of a best practice guide. A common European methodology for mainstreaming the environmental horizontal theme into regional development programmes. F-Production of communication material (other than the common methodology). G-Organisation of a project launch and a final conference

A – One Audit “ green growth” report produced, gathering good practice and tips from across the partnership. B – 4 seminars organised. C - 7 technical reports published. D – One project website developed: www.grdp.org E – Production of the GRDP toolkit “Beyond Compliance: How regions can help develop a sustainable Europe” and production of a GRDP Charter: “Regions for sustainable change”. F – 2 brochures were created, as well as posters for each events, etc. G – The project launch took place in December 2004 and the final conference in April 2007.

Source: Project Closure Report, Environment Agency of England and Wales, 2007, p.2 The keyword for linking these outputs with the achieved results and impacts appears to

be ‘learning’. The whole course of the project was a reciprocal learning process for all

partners. The aim of the GRDP ‘to develop a dynamic and lasting platform and to establish

learning mechanisms for sharing of experience, results and lessons’ was achieved to a

large extent.

This learning process was also about the functioning of EU projects and how organisations

in Europe deal with a similar issue elsewhere and benefit from the technical expertise

across Europe.

Expected results of the project were enlisted in the application form as follows:

• An improved understanding between partner regions on environmental integration and

sustainable development in the context of Structural Fund programmes.

• Delivery of environmental horizontal theme in Structural Funds post 2006 influenced.

• Presentation of economic case for environmental mainstreaming.

• Dissemination of best practice guidance and principles for environmental

mainstreaming in regional development programmes.

• Partners sign up to a GRDP Regional Charter at the completion of the project.

• Transfer and exchange of ideas and experience at 4 Inter-regional topic seminars

held.

• Regions outside the project are able to access best practice guidance & principles.

The following expected long-term impacts were described in the application form:

• Consistency and best practice in implementing the environmental horizontal theme

under existing and future Objective 1 and 2 programmes

• Experience gained through Objective 1& 2 informs other regional funding plans and

programmes, contributing to the sustainable development of participating regions.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 58 January 2010

• Joint progression towards extending the methodology, best practice & principles to

regional funding instruments in partner regions and beyond.

• Development of better co-operation between environmental authorities at regional,

national and European level beyond project.

Based on the analysis carried out we can draw the conclusion that these results were

largely achieved. As in regards to the impacts, there are clear indications regarding policy

impacts of the project in the countries where partners come from. The GRDP in this

sense, provided practical means to achieve a “greener”, integrated approach to regional

development policy. Anecdotal cases, e.g. the SEA Handbook was the main

methodological instrument used in carrying out the Strategic Environmental Assessment

for 4 out of 7 2007-2013 Operational Programmes in Romania, indicate that the impact of

the project goes beyond what is already known, at this point.

The GRDP has influenced a series of national and regional programmes (Lessons Learnt

Report, 2007, p.9-11):

Hungary:

• The development of the Hungarian Operational Programmes as well as the new Rural

Development Strategy.

• Debrecen University (GRDP partner) was entrusted with the development of the SEA

of the National Action Plans (2007-2009) and used GRDP results.

Italy:

• Marche region developed a SEA methodology for regional programmes 2007-2013.

• The drafting and assessment of the programme documents related to the 2007-13

period in Sicily Region.

Malta:

• The application in practice of the SEA handbook meant a change in approach to ex-

ante evaluation of programmes.

• They also saw the emergence of specific horizontal environmental evaluation criteria

used in project appraisal.

Poland:

• In Wroclaw (Poland), they will use the results of GRDP in the development of the

Environment Protection Programme for Wroclaw Administrative District and Commune

for the years 2004-2015.

• The Polish Region of Dolny Slask (Lower Silesia, capital: Wroclaw) is going to recruit a

"ESTM" (Environmental Sustainability Theme Manager) within the management team

of their OP, thus, they follow the good practice identified in England.

Additionally, the GRDP induced organisational learning and change in England related to

financial management of EU funded projects. It contributed to the establishment of a

National External Funding Governance Team within the Environment Agency for England

and Wales – South West England, serving not only for this agency but also –potentially-

offering delivery of an expert financial bid, claim and audit preparation service for the

other Government departments in the future.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 59 January 2010

Some structures have changed in various countries but it is hard to assess the role that

GRDP played in this process:

Malta:

• Institutional change on the basis of lessons learned regarding programming and

implementation structures (especially related to the environmental institutions

providing support for environmental integrated approach)

• GRDP helped to enhance the collaboration between Malta Environment and Planning

Authority and the Structural Funds managing authorities, effectively broadening local

understanding of the many aspects of environmental integrated approach.

Hungary:

• The institutional restructuring of the Ministry of the Interior into Ministry of Local

Government and Regional Development.

England:

• A serried of English Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), involved in the managing

the use of ERDF in England took on bord the GRDP SEA methodology.

• The same was the case in Wales, where the Assembly Government is also involved in

SFs implementation.

Italy:

• Sicily Region: Higher awareness of the need of working in an integrated manner, by

taking environmental aspects into account.

Greece:

• Western Greece Region: the collaboration between the regional managing and

environmental authorities improved during the planning phase of regional

development programmes. A representative of the regional environmental authority

participated in the committees managed by managing authorities.

The GRDP Toolkit was used by the Regional Environmental Centre in Slovenia to organise

a training session on it. However, the Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment

for Cohesion Policy 2007 -2013 had a much larger impact.

The SEA Handbook as described in the “Lesson Learnt Book” of the project (p. 12) ‘has

been the most successful practical document of the project and stepped in at the right

time by providing a product that many asked for. Partners have used it extensively:

• MEPA developed national guidance on Strategic Environmental Assessment on the

basis of the Handbook. SEAs conducted on SF/CF and EAFRD programmes are

following this guidance, resulting in a change in approach to ex-ante evaluation of

programmes.

• In Austria, the SEA Handbook influenced the SEA of the NSFR, the Austrian

programmes and was common methodology in the planning process of the cross

border programmes.

• In Marche region, it was used to carry out SEA for some regional programming

documents 2007-2013. They developed a methodology based on the Handbook, which

was presented at consultation meetings with relevant environmental authorities.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 60 January 2010

• The Sicilian region used it in part in carrying out the SEA of the 2007-13 programming

documents

• In Greece, it has been used successful to carry out 3 SEA in different Greek regions

for the new Structural Funds programme, 2007 -2013: A) SEA for Competitiveness, B)

SEA for Crete and Aegean Islands, C) SEA for increasing accessibility.

• In England, it was also used in Wales, UK for the new Structural Funds programmes’.

F. Sustainability: How are the partners cooperating currently?

Following the completion of the project, the GRDP network aimed to ensure that the

project website continue and integrate the achievements of the project. Sharing

experiences and information was considered of strategic nature. While the link to the

project website is at the moment connected to the official website of the Environment

Agency (Lead Partner), there are many examples that project achievements were

integrated into policy practice. These examples were to a large extent provided in section

E. Most partners are expected to continue working on these topics in any case, as most of

them are members of the European Network of Environmental Authorities.

Regarding concrete projects being developed or conducted, two could be named: REC

(Hungary) initiated a follow-up project, funded by Interreg IVC, in which Cornwall County

Council, MEPA and Wroclaw City Council also take part. This project aims to promote an

EU-wide shift to carbon neutral economies by developing the potential of regional

development programmes to stimulate mitigation and adaptation to climate change whilst

delivering sustainable socio-economic growth. In addition, the Austrian Ministry of

Environment and of Navarra (Spain) cooperated further on rural development topics.

G. Conclusions

The GRDP, as an EU-wide network, brought together partners representing local, regional,

national authorities and environmental organisations, development agencies and research

institutions from 8 EU Member States, with experience in Objective 1 and Objective 2

programmes. This variety brought a wide range of expertise and experience in the

network, and enriched the learning process of the partners in their aim of harnessing

experience from Structural Funds in developing a common European methodology to

integrate environmental sustainability as a horizontal theme in their regional development

programmes.

The partnership had a solid structure and the implementation of the project followed a

strong content-wise structure. This led to production of a series of reports, guidebooks,

with practical relevance for the policy makers. The impacts of these publications is

widespread in the partner countries and beyond. As suggested in the Lessons Learnt

Report, ‘the GRDP work and brand are now recognised by experts in the field, in particular

at DG Regio, DG Environment but also amongst key NGO’s promoting environmental

integration in EU policies’. Furthermore, one of the project partners argue that the GRDP


ZONE

R20090290.doc 61 January 2010

even contributed to the dialogue that DG Regio and DG Environment got engaged in about

how to make more sustainable use of the Structural Funds.

As a result of the project, the GRDP partners not only strengthened their international

project experience, but their political messages in their own regions were easily spread

because their involvement in the EC funded projects gave them an ‘added weight’. As

stated in the Lessons Learnt report (p.9), ‘the involvement of EU representatives in the

GRDP activities has been considered a key element for its success. It helped get wider

recognition and acceptance from involved people and a better chance to influence policies

and strategies by partners through the GRDP products’.

The GRDP was courageous enough to have a self-critical look in assessing its project

management and implementation. They reproduced a large set of improvement ideas

regarding all aspects of project management, coordination, implementation, contacts with

external parties etc.

The GRDP evaluated its cooperation with the INTERREG IIIC Joint Technical Secretariat

(JTS) as positive. The JTS had always been helpful and open with their professional,

committed, flexible and very friendly staff members, which is very important to the lead

partners.

Strong points of INTERREG according to the GRDP partners were as follows (Lessons

Learnt report, p.13):

• Clear rules and forms help to be precise in the financial aspects.

• INTERREG helps promoting wide networks all around Europe and supports the

exchange of information and experience.

• Openness to innovative project ideas.

• INTERREG is a relatively small amount of money which can catalyse public sector

institutions toward self-improvement.

• INTERREG helps European regions to deal with their problems and reduces barriers

among EU different countries.

The key issues for the lead partner on GRDP were:

• the compliance with EU and INTERREG rules required strong time commitment from

the GRDP project team.

• Lack of clarity on the issues with the Italian Authorities, regarding the great delays in

auditing.

• Different rules between INTERREG programmes (i.e. INTERREG IIIB and IIIC).

• INTERREG offices in partner countries sometimes take a different stand on legal and

financial issues.

The following weak points were enlisted (Lessons Learnt report, p.14):

• Insufficient co-ordination between projects possibly resulting in overlap.

• Interreg should help disseminate project results.

• Weak possibility of influencing the Community and National legislation on environment

and development integration.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 62 January 2010

• Heavy bureaucracy and reporting mechanisms, resulting into high cost (staff time).

• Inconsistency in national / regional / interregional Interreg authorities procedures.

• There is no external assessment of the technical results of the project.

• Lack of flexibility within INTERREG for subcontract

Last, but not the least, a project like the GRDP with an extensive international network

would not be able to be realised without Interreg IIIC funding.

3.3.7 Conclusions

All aspects of the synthetic indicator have been explored across the project sample. It can

be concluded that all reviewed projects have been common actions, although with a

different emphasis on developing ideas, planning and implementation. Ownership was

fully assured in most cases as the partnership approach (lead partner principle). The

level of complexity and experimental nature among the projects is mixed. All

projects are partially or largely experimental by nature to the extent that they introduce

new project ideas and concepts (I DARE, Innovation Development Amongst Rural

Entrepreneurs, PRAXIS; Blueprint for local sectoral cluster development, STRATINC;

Toolkit, GRDP; the Wheel of CULTURED, CULTURED) The geographical impact of the

projects is limited to a large extent to the project areas. In all cases there had been a

shared diagnosis and need assessment among the partners of the project. Although in

some projects expectations and need assessments differ in the beginning of the co-

operation, consensus was reached and the success of the co-operation assured.

Sustain long-term co-operation is in the nature of the projects. This is notably the

case for e-BIRD (plurio.net, the culture portal of the Grande Region and the statistical

portal). Demonstration projects of CULTURED (reuse of heritage sites) are not meant to

continue, however, the co-operation will be taken further as long as there is a joint need

(e.g. use of the Wheel of CULTURED, the methodology of revalorization of rural heritage).

Sustainability of cross-border ‘Science Meets School’ sub-project (e-BIRD) is not ensured;

however, co-operation between the partners can be durable despite that. By and large the

likelihood of durable co-operation and the respective sound justification of funding have

been major selection criteria which seem to materialise in the project reality. INTERREG

funds were necessary in all cases. Financial viability of the projects have been affected to

some extent by the exit of some partners from the project, due to lack of political support

(STRATINC), compliance with the public procurement rule (STRATINC) and the related

risks of financial losses.

The programme structure and the choice of priority fields and measures have been

adequate from the viewpoint of the project partners. A major issue for some project

partners has been the apparently complicated formal and administrative provisions of

INTERREG itself.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 63 January 2010

Individual and organisational learning can be confirmed to a large extent in virtually all

projects. Learning and indirect effects are of even more importance than the direct effects

from the projects.

3.4 The character of the programme, its constituting features and factors of barrier and cooperation

All C programmes/zones belong to one “cluster” developed under the overall INTERREG

typology. The criteria used in order to assess the characteristics of the four programmes

are inserted in annex 6.

The values for each of these criteria for all programmes are displayed in the table 3.10

below:

Table 3.10 Values for the INTERREG III C programmes/typology

Programme C1.1 C1.2 C2.1 C3.1. C3.2. C3.3 C3.4

South Zone 0,68 0,81 69,22 0,67 2,00 35,00

West Zone 0,54 0,82 76,33 0,91 2,00 1,39 5,00

North Zone 0,23 0,96 75,47 0,98 1,00 1,28 25,00

East Zone 0,57 0,80 77,97 0,79 3,00 1,03 40,00

As also presented in table 3.4, indeed, 54% of the INTERREG III C West operations were

financed under the first 4 topics of cooperation and 45,3% under other subjects; the

latter is, still, a relatively large percentage. It seems that in the North Zone it was even

more difficult to concentrate funds on the first 4, specific, topics of cooperation and a

very large proportion of the funds were spent on exchanges on other subjects appropriate

to interregional cooperation. The situation is opposite in the South Zone, were almost

70% of the operations were financed under the 4 specific topics of cooperation1.

As presented in annex 3, 16% of the participants in INTERREG III C West operation came

from new Members States, 0,7% from outermost regions and 5,7% from third-party

countries (22,4 % in total). Therefore, the score for criterion 1.2 should be lower

for C West; it is not possible to asses the scores of the other programmes without the

necessary data. In accordance with some statistics from May 2007, more than 2650

partners participated in INTERREG III C as a whole, out of which 494 partners from New

Member States and 154 partners from Third Countries, respectively 25% of the total; 25

would be a realistic, average score for the strand as such for this criterion.

Criterion C2.1. (The depth / intensity of programme- and project-level inter-regional co-

operation) is discussed in detail in sub-chapter 3.4.2. The value for the criterion C 3.3

(The overall “degree of achievement for all quantifiable outputs & results at programme

1 It would be interesting to validate this figure, explore the factors of this success and apply eventual

lessons learnt in this respect in the current programming period. Nevertheless, these actions are not possible in the framework of the current ex-post evaluation.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 64 January 2010

level”) is relative, in the light of the discussion about the realism of the targets initially

set.

The criterion 3.4. (The overall “degree of robustness / durability of projects) might have

been interpreted differently by the 4 MAs/JTSs. Strictly speaking, when the problem

meant to be tackled by an operation is solved, there is no reason for the project to be

continued (i.e. the sustainability of the project); another issue is the sustainability of the

partnership among the participants to the respective operations. As it is to be seen also in

chapter 3.3., most partnerships, once created/enhanced under INTERREG III (West) tends

to perpetuate, in other forms/projects, on the same or other topics. If this criterion is

strictly interpreted, the score for West Zone adequately reflects the reality of the

programme; one good example in this sense is the ECRIF-AV, which became self-

sustainable and currently employs two full-time workers. Nevertheless, the higher

scores for the other three programmes should be validated, for the case when

their interpretation of this criterion was not the strict, but the wide one.

3.4.1 Historic factors determining the character of the programme

There is a 27 year-long previous tradition in interregional cooperation in Europe;

INTERREG III C West built, in terms of programme rationale, on this previous

experience. Nevertheless, the “programme approach”, i.e. financing interregional

cooperation under the umbrella of a programme, whose management is entrusted to the

Member States through a MA/JTS/MSC, is new.

As INTERREG C covers the entire European Union and some third-party countries, no

specific inter-state agreement was necessary in order to create the institutional structure

for the programme implementation. The use of domestic law-based / Community law-

based instruments, not specifically designed for territorial co-operation, was possible. The

relationships between the programme and the participant Member States is regulated by

bilateral agreements, as in the case of INTERACT I. Both the JTS and the MA see this

solution as being perfectly feasible; in their view the lack of a tailored legislative base is

in no way an obstacle to cooperation, as solutions can be found.

The Managing Authority of the programme was hosted by the regional government; the

JTS was created as an European Economic Interest Grouping, i.e. semi-public association

of two governmental regions, both interested in territorial cooperation. This solution was

adopted for the JTS because the French public law does not accommodate the needs of

such a specific structure: due to the profile of the staff (not categorised as French civil

servant), and their workload, they need to have more competitive salaries, flexible

procedures should be set up regarding their travelling requirements and irregular working

time.

As observed also during the evaluation of INTERACT I, the challenge is to convince the

hosting organisation of the needs of the specific staff and to create understanding and

acceptance in this respect.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 65 January 2010

The structure in place for INTERREG III C West Zone is a public law-based permanent

structure achieving/promoting co-operation on a multi-thematic basis & project-level ad-

hoc co-operation on specific topics. However, for the previous, 2000-2006, and current

programming period, this structure can be considered permanent but changes might be

operated in the future programming period.

As in regards to the relationship and influence of historic variables on the ‘real rate’ of the

West zone programme, as in the case of all C zones, the actual depth and intensity of

cooperation achieved is close to what would have been expected if historical variables had

been taken into account.

Effects (*) Determining

Factor at programme level at project level Historic factors determining interregional co-operation

Previous co-operation tradition

The high/very high age of the cooperation does not seem to have had a major impact on the depth and intensity of cooperation under INTERREG III C West. 2 possible explanations exist for this: either the synthetic indicator, the way it is constructed, needs more adjustment to the specificity of the INTERREG C strand; Or the lack on continuity between previous programming periods and the 2000-6 programme approach affected this depth and intensity of cooperation. Both seem to be pertinent.

At project level it seems that previous cooperation between project partners is a positive factor in triggering INTERREG III C operations.

Prior existence of specific legal instruments

Specific legal instruments not necessary; other solutions for setting up the programme management and implementation were found in the domestic law; this was not seen as an obstacle to cooperation.

The different systems of the partners are challenging; nevertheless, solutions are found in order to make IRC happen.

Prior existence of permanent co-operation structures

For the previous, 2000-6, and current programming period, this structure can be considered permanent. Nevertheless, changes might be operated in the future programming period.

At project level it seems that previous cooperation between project partners is a positive factor in triggering INTERREG III C operations.

other factors - -

(*) A distinction between effects at programme and at project level is necessary because in many cases projects do not intervene across the entire programme area. Hence, effects can be rather different.

3.4.2 Re-considering the “depth & intensity of territorial co-operation”: the synthetic indicator

The synthetic indicator aims to measure the depth and intensity of co-operation and

consists of 6 Main “Criteria” or “Components”: 1 historical criterion (see also 3.4.1.)

and 5 “INTERREG III related Criteria”, respectively:

• intensity of shared diagnosis

• partnership and decision making power

• management structures

• nature and location of joint projects and

• impact of projects


ZONE

R20090290.doc 66 January 2010

The detailed definition of those indicators is given in the Inception Report1 and annex 72.

The arithmetic mean of all scores for the INTERREG C West Zone programme is 76.33

(see table 3.11); therefore, the INTERREG III C West, as the other zones, achieved a

medium depth and intensity level of territorial cooperation.

Table 3.11 The “depth and intensity of cooperation” under the INTERREG C West

programme measured by the synthetic indicator

COMPONENT SUB-INDICATOR VALUE

1. Historical criteria (not included in the ‚real rate’

si013 54

si02 30

si03 70

Σ 154

2. Criterion si04 30

Joint identification of needs si05 90

Σ 120

3.Criterion si06 30

Governance and partnership si07 30

si08 70

Σ 130


Nature and location of joint projects

si10 97

si11 20

Σ 225


Density of common actions si13 100

si14 100

si15 100

si16 100

si17 100

Σ 600


Impact of projects Σ 70

Gross Score SI 4-S I18 1145

Real Rate (RR) 76,33

The synthetic indicator (real rate) mean value for Strand C is 74,74. INTERREG III C West

zone is slightly above stand average. All other zones are very close to this average,

except the South Zone, which, with a synthetic indicator value of 65,25 falls behind.

1 Panteia (and partner institutes) 2009, Ex-post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006 – Inception report to

the European Commission DG Regio, pp.62 f. 2 The aggregation of the sub-variables of the 5 “INTERREG-related criteria” has been defined as the so-called ‘real rate’, a normative synthetic indicator (arithmetic mean) measuring the performance of an INTERREG programme in terms of “depth and intensity of cooperation”. Furthermore, the separated historical criterion is added to estimate by regression analysis how historical ties have had an impact on the programme depth and intensity of cooperation, i.e. the so called “expected rate”. 3 Labels of the sub-indicators are listed in the annex 4.1.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 67 January 2010

Table 3.12 The synthetic indicator of INTERREG C West Zone compared to the strand C Zone The depth / intensity of co-

operation (=real rate) %-deviation from the mean

West 76.33 102,123

North 75.47 100,97

East 78 104,36

South 69.25 92,65

Mean strand C 74,74

In comparison with INTERREG as a whole, INTERREG West Zone scored above the

INTERREG average for components 1, 4, 5, 6 and under average for components 2 and 3

(intensity of shared diagnosis/partnership and decision making power). As we will explain

later, for Component 3 the total score should be higher.

INTERREG 3 C West scored significantly higher (in comparison with North and East zones)

at sub-indicator 4 and 5, respectively the nature and quality of the information sources

used to identify shared needs/problems and the extent to which the explicit programme

objectives did address the needs identified and the financial allocation adequately reflect

their respective performance.

As both the initial programming and the later adjustments of the strategy (carried out

after the MTE) were done more or less along the same lines for all 4 zones, the higher

scores for these two sub-indicators reflect the subjective perception of the JTS. The high

value of SI 5 is explained also by the rather simple/linear strategy of the programme: one

main goal/one priority/one measure/one budget (please see also the assessment of the

strategy quality).

Regarding SI 6, in accordance with the JTS, the MC and SC functioned very well;

decisions could be taken efficiently, as only 7 MS’s were represented in the S/CM. The

score here should be higher than 30(=poor), as due to the nature of the programme it is

not as relevant, as for a Strand A programme, to have NGO’s and socio-economic

partners, in the S/CM.

Regarding SI 7, the programme management structure is, indeed, truly joint; as in

regards to decentralisation, the zone-division as such can be seen as a way to bring the

programme implementation closer to the target group. At the same time, the JTS as such

does the bulk of the work. Due to the nature of the programme, further decentralisation

was not needed. In the current programming period the 4 Information Points do

complement, at a lower level, the JTS/MA work.

INTERREG III C West financed 76 operations in total, therefore, there are only 76 Lead

Partners. Most lead partners are either national or NUTS II authorities. Therefore, the

value of the SI10 is incorrect; using the NUTS 3 area as measurement unit is not the


ZONE

R20090290.doc 68 January 2010

most appropriate for Strand C; these were eligible under Strand A, indeed, but the

whole Community, no matter the level, was eligible for Strand C.

SI 11 is very relevant for Strand C as it reflects its very spirit. As different levels of the

intensity of cooperation were expected from the three different types of operations, 50

reflects adequately the programme achievements in this respect. The nature of the

programme, i.e. joint nature of its operations, determined maximum values for SI12-17,

which pushed the programme above average for this Component 5, as mentioned before.

As in regards to the initial SI 18, a very rough estimation of the weight of the authorities

participating in INTERREG III C West operation, and C programmes in general is done in

chapter 3.2. The value attributed to the impact of the programme (SI 18c new), might be

slightly overestimated, in the light of the indicators analysis presented above.

No other topics have been identified which should have been taken into consideration

when constructing the synthetic indicator.

3.4.3 Main factors fostering (or hampering) integration and means to promote positive factors or to overcome persisting obstacles

INTERREG C is a specific programme, both in thematic and geographical scope; it does

contribute to the “integration” of the European Union and between the European Union

and previous and current accession countries and other third-party countries.

Nevertheless, the manner in which INTERREG C contributed to this “integration” is

difficult to depict; this contribution is, obviously, connected with the programme intended

and also the unintended effects and impacts.

Pushing the discussion even further, let’s consider “territorial cohesion” (instead of

“territorial integration”), as having the following elements (as circulated in the literature

and summarised by INTERREG ex-post evaluation First Interim Report, Task1):

• territorial quality (the quality of the living and working environment; comparable

living standards across territories; similar access to services of general interest and to

knowledge);

• territorial efficiency (resource-efficiency with respect to energy, land and natural

resources; competitiveness of the economic fabric and attractiveness of the territory;

internal and external accessibility; capacity for resistance against de-structuring

forces related to the globalisation process; territorial integration and cooperation

between regions); and

• territorial identity (presence of ‘social capital’ and a sense of belonging that

translate into a competitive advantage of each place and territory) (Battis and Kersten

2008)


ZONE

R20090290.doc 69 January 2010

• the governance dimension of territorial cohesion, as the need for coordination across

a wide range of legal competences, namely the integration of the spatial impacts of

sector policies (horizontally), across different levels of government (vertically), and

across territories (geographically) is widely recognised.

INTERREG III C contributed to territorial cohesion in the EU and other participant

countries, especially as regards the last two elements, i.e. territorial identity and

governance. The INTERREG III C West did contribute to the quality and efficiency of the

territory covered, to the extent to which the policies addressed under the 76

operations genuinely improved their effectiveness.

Two factors hampered the convergence of the area covered by the INTERREG III:

cultural differences on one side, and one, apparently significant, administrative factor,

respectively the different audit rules in the MS’s; the latter seems to have been of even

more importance as the former.

Differences in institutional/administrative/regulatory frameworks can be overcome if

cooperation is genuinely wanted. The associated asymmetries between the actors involved

(in terms of their status and competencies) did not constitute obstacles in INTERREG III C

West, as the cooperation was built up in most cases bottom-up, based on the genuine

interest of the partners.

Assuring coherence with other financing instruments, e.g. Phare, Meda, Cards, proved,

indeed, challenging.

3.5 Extrapolating results of effectiveness and impacts to INTERREG

The results of the in-depth analyses confirm, to a large extent, the outcomes of task 1, 2

and 4, regarding the programme, Strand and INTERREG as a whole.

The main “deviations” are connected to the achievement rates; these are relative if we

take into account the less realistic targets initially set for the programme’s physical

performance. Unlike other INTERREG programmes, the system of indicators for C

programmes is well developed and to a large extent it captures the results, effects and

impacts of the programme. There are still matters which can be improved regarding the

labelling of the indicators, i.e. results or impacts, clear formulation and definition, and

especially, coherent interpretation of these indicators across the programme.

Results of the in-depth analysis

Already suggested by the results of tasks 1 and 2

(Yes - to some extent –

no)

Strength of evidence for INTERREG (clear - with uncertainty - no evidence)

TASK 1 Fuzziness of objectives Yes Clear Insufficient monitoring systems

Yes with uncertainty


ZONE

R20090290.doc 70 January 2010

Lack of reference data Yes Clear: baseline 0, differences in interpreting the indicators, especially results and impact ones

Emphasis on financial control (n+2)

Yes Clear: significant decommitement took place at the beginning of the programme

Accountable and additional tranfers

Yes Clear

Evaluation, failure of Yes Clear: evaluative thinking should be enforced at all levels: European, programme, projects

Poor integration with the mainstream programmes

Yes CLEAR, significant further efforts should be made in this sense, at all levels

Difficulty in translating individual learning to organisational learning and change

Yes Uncertain: mixed picture is presented, partial evidence is available (e.g. GDRP)

Ambitious expectations Yes clear Existence of Institutional and mental barriers

Yes Clear: but they can be overcome

TASK 2 1.High performance of financial implementation

Yes Clear from financial analysis and typology analysis

2. There were only minor shifts of programming

Yes Clear

3. High achievement rate at programme level

Yes Clear; but relative

4. Projects are robust and sustainable

Yes/no Projects are robust; sustainable to the extent you take the project as such into consideration, or the partnership (the latter more sustainable than the former)

5. The contribution from the non-member countries has been sufficient and proportional.

No Limited contribution, across strand and in West zone

6. Measures show a more or less curved trend in financial implementation.

Yes Clear evidence

7. Indicators are useful for estimating the achieved results; some issues remain open as regards the indicators labeling, formulation/definition and coherent interpretation/ targets

To a certain extent

Clear evidence from the effectiveness anslysis

8. Communication remains a significant bottleneck: explaining the programme philosophy and reaching the targets, especially the authorities involved in Objective 1 and 2 programmes.

No Clear evidence from analysis

9. Projects funded are by their nature experimental and complex. A more bottom-up approach was applied by the West programme, i.e. answering to the needs of the target group

no Clear evidence from analysis

10. great impact of the programme, nevertheless, regarding the programme goal, i.e. improving the effectiveness of policies, rather than on socio-economic development

Yes Partially confirmed by the analysis


ZONE

R20090290.doc 71 January 2010

4 In-depth analysis of results and impacts in terms of utility and efficiency

4.1 Evaluation of the policy coherence of the programme

Policy coherence is defined by the level of interaction and co-ordination with other

spatially relevant Community- / national- / regional-level policies and the systematic

embedding of a programme into the overall regulatory framework. A high level of policy

coherence can contribute to enhanced policy synergy and contributes, thus, to the

programme’s efficiency and effectiveness. The coherency of the programme with national

and regional policy objectives and their instruments could also guarantee the availability

of sufficient co-funding from national resources.

As in regards to the analysis of the coherence of INTERREG III C West Zone other

Community policies and EU funds, the CIP just made reference to its general community

value added and left to the evaluators to analyze the value-added in terms of EU-policies,

including horizontal policies like environment, sustainability and equal opportunities.

For this task we try to find evidence in the West programme and their underlying

documents (annual reports and the mid-term evaluations) regarding the extent to which

this coherence was taken into account during the programme implementation. The

following aspects will be considered:

1. Interreg IIIC guidelines;

2. Documents (CIP and PC) and annual reports and MTEs;

3. Relevant indicators and selection criteria;

4. Approved and executed projects;

5. Coordination with other structural funds.

4.1.1 The INTERREG guidelines

The five topics chosen for interregional co-operation in the 2000-2006 period were the

following:

- Exchange of experience on activities supported under Objectives 1 and 2;

- Exchange of experience on cross border and transnational activities;

- Urban development;

- Topics covered by new innovative actions;

- Other subjects appropriate for interregional co-operation.

Operations under INTERREG IIIC should be conducted by applying a more strategic

approach to interregional cooperation, so that synergy among the mainstream structural

funds/INTERREG/ programmes could be created through exchange of experience and best

practices. This approach would guarantee a greater degree of coherence, not only within

interregional cooperation but also within INTERREG III and Cohesion Policy, as a whole.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 72 January 2010

Urban development is currently one of the key regional policy issues in Europe. In

addition to the targeted actions supported under the URBAN Community initiative and the

mainstream objective programmes, the Commission considers that wider cooperation

actions related to urban development issues should be enhanced. As a result, this topic

will encourage the dissemination of urban development practices through concrete

exchanges of experience among local and regional authorities.

Further on, the article 25 of the INTERREG III C guidelines say that supported activities

should be consistent with the other Community policies such as research, the information

society, enterprise, transport, energy, the environment, rural development (common

agricultural policy), equal opportunities and competition. Most of these issues were taken

into account in the CIP as well as in the project applications approved.

4.1.2 The programme documents, including annual reports and MTEs

Chapter 4 of the CIP had been devoted to its Coherence with other EU policies. The

activities of INTERREG IIIC should focus in the first place on policy-related issues being

part of other structural fund programmes. This was a core element of this programme and

guarantees therefore, that its activities are in line with EU-policies content-wise (as given

in article 25 of the IIIC-communication).

The Programme Complement referred to the compatibility with Community policies by

including for instance its effect on the environment, equal opportunities and sustainable

development in the list of output indicators for the programme. These indicators will be

the basis for the monitoring of projects and provide basic data for the evaluations.

Furthermore, clear reference to the need for compatibility with other community policies

was also made in the Programme Manual as part of the application pack. This manual

stresses in particular the need to obey competition rules, along with the public

procurement directives and requirements on state aid. Last but not least, each applying

Lead Partner signed a statement in the application form confirming the compliance of

their application with the relevant EU and national legislation and policies.

In the 2006 and 2007 annual reports references were only made with regards to more

operational aspects, such as the auditing rules, the operations relevance and possible

double-financing.

During the mid-term evaluation – as proposed in the CIP - the coherency with the EU

horizontal policy objectives regarding environment and equal opportunities were

assessed, as well as the community value added related to employment, enterprise

development, R & D and urban and rural development. This assessment that had been

carried out at a strategic level and especially the programme bottom-up character and its

potential to expand the individual SF interventions throughout Europe were highly

appreciated. It proved – according to the MTE - its value added of working at

transnational and interregional level.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 73 January 2010

4.1.3 Used indicators and selection criteria

Just a small number of output and result indicators were proposed in the Programme

Complement to measure the effects of policy coherence of the project proposed:

Coherency related output indicators

- No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies

- No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred

- No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred

- No of regional/local policies and instruments addressed

- No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed Coherency related result indicators

- % of operations with equal opportunities as main focus/positive/neutral

- % of operations with sustainable development main focus/positive/neutral

- % of operations with environment as main focus/positive/neutral With regards to the outputs we can conclude that an over-performance of the coherency

related indicators between 1.5 and 6 times their target values was registered. The

coherency related results (operations that contributed to three EU horizontal objectives)

scored in most cases according to their target values. Only the equal opportunity

objective scored rather below its target value.

With regards to the eligibility and selection criteria one can identify a number of criteria

which can be considered as relevant for assessing Community Value Added or/and the EU

policy coherence:

- Proposed operation is in line with relevant national and EU legislation and policies

- Proposed operation provides added value and excludes double financing from other

EU and / or national sources

- link to other regional development related activities1

- Expected influence on other structural fund programmes co-financed by the ERDF;

- Degree of innovation to be achieved (new methods, new goals for regional policies,

development of political structures and systems).

- Provisions to ensure the durability of the project effects (e.g. strategy to ensure

financing, strategy for further co-operation;

- Expected results should promote sustainable development of the participating

regions, in the meaning of combining economic growth, social cohesion and

protecting the environment

- 1 (e.g. maritime and coastal co-operation, spatial planning issues, co-operation on insular and ultra-peripheral issues, on solutions to natural or man-made catastrophes, on alleviating the economic effects of handicaps such as very low population density or mountainous conditions, cooperation in the areas of research, technological development and SMEs, the information society, tourism, culture and employment, entrepreneurship, environment)

-


ZONE

R20090290.doc 74 January 2010

4.1.4 Approved and executed projects

With regards to the themes of cooperation covered by INTERREG IIIC projects the

following remarks can be made:

The concept of sustainable development refers to a form of development that meets

present-day needs without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their

own requirements. It aims to improve individuals’ living conditions in the short, medium

and – above all – long term. In practical terms, it means creating the conditions for long-

term economic development with due respect for the environment. The Copenhagen world

summit for sustainable development (March 1995) stressed the need to combat social

exclusion and protect public health. The Treaty of Amsterdam wrote an explicit reference

to sustainable development into the recitals of the EU Treaty.

At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, European Union leaders set out a new strategy,

based on a consensus among Member States, to modernize Europe. This became known

as the “Lisbon Strategy. After initially moderate results, the Lisbon Strategy was

simplified and re-launched in 2005.

Improving regional policies and instruments is the core aim of the INTERREG IIIC West

Zone. All projects addressed local or regional policies in their partner regions in different

fields e.g. air quality, sustainable transport, business succession, water management etc.

There are indications that some projects will have a wider policy impact (still mostly at

local/regional level). In fact, it is not possible to measure the true effect of projects on

regional policy and the real number of policies improved is probably much higher (than

illustrated by the indicators system). Although the projects have now been closed, many

of the partners are still working on implementing the best practices, which were

exchanged in their local area. The momentum created by the projects means that the full

impact on policymaking will mainly become evident beyond the end of the projects’

lifetime.

4.1.5 Coordination with other structural fund programmes

One of the side-effects of the Interreg IIIC West Zone was the transfer of experiences and

knowledge on developing and implementing projects that could be supported by the EU

structural funds to the new Member States. Based on a sample of good practice examples

organized by all JTS’s1 it was among others concluded that the analysed projects did

provide ample evidence that INTERREG IIIC contributed to improved regional

development by sharing experiences, transferring know-how and enabling innovative

solutions. Many of these practices are transferable to other projects and regions.

1 INTERREG IIIC – A Good practice survey


ZONE

R20090290.doc 75 January 2010

During the interview with the JTS it was confirmed that the cooperation with INTERACT

was two fold:

1. The INTERREG III C west zone benefited from trainings organized by INTERACT points. At

the same time it was considered as very useful to work within INTERACT together with

other INTERREG programmes to exchange ideas and learn from each other;

2. Interaction with INTERACT is more concrete through the coordination measures taken

through the INTERACT Point IIIC Coordination. These coordination measures were essential

in order to achieve coherence between all zones.

Cooperation with ESPON in the 2000-2006 programming period hardly existed. Just one

tool developed in ESPON – a map to make the geographical coverage of the projects

visible - had been very useful and this type of cooperation should be continued in

INTERREG IVC. Because of the overlapping of funding activities, cooperation with URBACT

had been more problematic. The JTS’s of the mentioned programmes further cooperated

in matters of financial control, when the system was set up and exchange of experiences

in this respect took place.


From a strategic point of view, the programme implements faithfully the INTERREGIONAL

Cooperation Communication.

All INTERREG IIIC zones worked on the basis of similar programmes and their

complements. A great number of coordinated activities with regards to the mid term

evaluations, common supportive publications and information seminars were organised,

also through the INTERACT Point III C COORD. Cooperation with ESPON was mainly based

on practical issues and kept to a lower level. The coherence (of strategy and action)

should have been better assured with the URBACT programme.

INTERREG IIIC indented to contribute to a better exchange of knowledge and experiences

between regions in working with the mainstream programmes and other Community

Initiatives. As was proved by the indicators, this had certainly been the case.

In the case of INTERREG IIIC West Zone there is hardly talk about inter-institutional

coordination, other than in their own management and administrative organisation

(including MS and MC) and with the other zones. Nevertheless, the programme has

offered plenty opportunities for working together within a multi-governance atmosphere,

in which NGO’s and private parties (with a particular sectoral interest) were also present.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 76 January 2010

4.2 Analysis of the intrinsic performances of the programme

4.2.1 Evaluation of the programme management system

Application procedures, publicity and reputation of the programme

The application procedure for IIIC West Zone was based on periodical calls for proposals,

which had to be submitted to the JTS by the lead partners. Upon request the JTS

delivered the documents needed for the development and submission of an application.

The Application Pack comprised all relevant programme documents; an application form, a

manual and forms for co-financing statements. After the project appraisal the definitive

selected projects were sent for approval to the Steering Committee (SC). In total four

calls for project proposals had been launched; the last one almost 2 years before the end

of the programme period on the 8th of October, 2004.

The overall aim of the publicity plan was to constantly provide different types of target

groups with adequate and high-quality information about the INTERREG IIIC West Zone.

An efficient communication of information should both increase the public awareness

about the programme as well as provide the stakeholders with accurate and reliable

information and data. Due to the specific nature of INTERREG III C with an

administrational structure divided into four zones it was especially important to ensure

consistent information on the programme throughout the eligible area.

Therefore, all information and publicity activities were closely coordinated between the

four zones. The common website (www.internet3c.net) constituted a major information

and communication tool. On the web page one could find, among others, information for

potential applicants, overviews of operations, publication of newsletters and a rubric on

news and events.

Considering the programme area, the evaluator needed to take a different approach (in

comparison with the A or even B Strand programmes) in order to asses the “reputation”

of the programme. This assessment is conducted mainly on:

1. programme achievements in terms of communication and dissemination

2. assessment of press materials made available by the JTS and projects evaluated in-

depth

3. interviews with the JTS, Managing Authority and the 5 projects.

Communicating and disseminating the programme was carried out in two steps: from

the JTS to the (potential) applicants and institutions involved in the programme’s

operations and from the operational level to the partners involved in the project and

further, to the project network and wider public.

As the annex 3 also displays, (category of indicators 1.3.) the focus of the programme

communication and dissemination policy was directly on the potential beneficiaries of the

programme and not the wide public (only 5 press releases were disseminated in

comparison with the brochures, newsletters published and events organised). The press


ZONE

R20090290.doc 77 January 2010

releases appeared 155 times in mass media (1,25 per country and year, if we take into

account the programme 5 years duration and 25 countries-target group).

Dissemination to the wider public was done mostly at operation level (see annex 3,

category of indicators 2.2.2); these dissemination activities were extensive, going

significantly further than the targets proposed: 1699 of press releases were disseminated

(target 300), and 3605 of articles/appearances published in the press and other mass-

media (28/year/country).

In some cases, different “terminology” than INTERREG, or even more specific, INTERREG

III C West Zone, was used in order to present the origin of a project funding: e.g.

“European funds”.

It is difficult to assess the public reputation of INTERREG III C, given its wide

geographical scope; nevertheless, the focus of the programme communication strategy is

on its target group/directly interested parties and less the wider audience. For the

latter the 75 projects organised more dissemination activities (mainly press releases and

brochures - instruments such as events on a specific topic and newsletters/web-page are

more adequate for the programme target group and potential applicants).

Selection criteria and quality of the cooperation at project level

The Program Complement comprised information on the eligibility and selection

criteria for the selection of operations (Annex 1 presents an overview of minimum

application criteria per INTERREG III C type of operation). The eligibility criteria were

distinguished in core (applying for all operations) and specific criteria (applying for

specific topics). Eligible applications were subject to a ranking in accordance with the

selection criteria; an external pool of experts assisted the secretariat. The appraisal and

selection procedure was managed by the JTS, which prepared the necessary

documentation on the basis of which the Steering Committee took its decisions. All

rejected projects received a complete assessment of their appraisal, which was

considered very useful by the applicants.

The MTE evaluator assessed the project selection procedures and criteria and

recommended to the JTS to inform weighting of project selection criteria; provide full

feedback on the quality assessments; include detailed reasons for decisions in the MC/SC

minutes, carry out quality assessments by external independent experts and to organise

SC preparatory meetings in which relevant regional / local level representatives could

be involved. Most of these recommendations were taken on board in the second phase of

the programme implementation.

The involvement of external experts, however, in project appraisal proved – according

to the JTS’ opinion - less efficient. The quality of their assessment was considered as

limited, which needed to invest further resources in improving the assessment reports

retroactively.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 78 January 2010

Governance and management modes: Formalisation of Co-operation

The Management Authority (MA) of the programme is part of the regional government,

while the JTS was created as an European Economic Interest Group (EEIG), i.e. semi-

public association of two governmental regions, both interested in cooperation. The JTS

did not form part of the French administration as its staff members had a specific

profile and workload; they needed to have competitive salaries. Besides this, flexible

procedures had to be set up regarding their travel requirements and irregular working

times, etc. The challenge is to convince the mother organisation of the needs of the

specific staff and to create understanding and acceptance in this respect.

According to the interviewees, the major concern in this context is the MA position.

The programme-approach to interregional cooperation was beneficial for all main

stakeholders (MS, MC, EC, MA itself, beneficiary countries). However, in contrast with the

Objective 1 and 2 and INTERREG A programmes, where the MA itself is a direct

beneficiary of funds, in INTERREG B and, especially C , the MA’s are in a confict of

interest: they cannot apply for funds they manage. This was one of the reasons for which

the JTS was entrusted with all tasks. However, this measure was not enough to avoid

conflicts of interest.

Further on, regarding the task delegation from the MA to the JTS, this was, however, not

done on a certain legal basis or a via “contract”-like type of agreement. A system audit

recommended that this relationship be formalised and that clear control mechanisms

needed to be set up.

The Monitoring Committee (MC) and the Steering Committee (SC)

The MC was made up by representatives of the national and/or regional authorities

of the participating Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxemburg, The

Netherlands and the U.K.). A representative of the European Commission, the Paying

Authority, the European Investment Bank participated in an advisory capacity. The MC

supervised the programme and monitor the effectiveness and quality of the programme

implementation. The SC had the same composition (in terms of countries

represented) as the MC. It draws up its own rules of procedure in agreement with the

MC. The SC had the following main tasks: decision on selection of projects; following of

implementation.

Because only 7 Member States were involved in the Monitoring and Steering Committes

during the 2000-2006 programming period, consensus could easily be reached.

Measures were taken in the MC and SC in order to facilitate the decision making process;

in this context only expressed votes were taken into account. Changes in the operations

were discussed at the meetings of the SC and the JTS was delegated to implement them.

In the MTE was stated that participation of partners from new Member States (NMS’s)

was weak and urged for actions to improve this situation. The participation level of NMS’s


ZONE

R20090290.doc 79 January 2010

in the West Zone can be considered as satisfactory (taking into account the geographical

area covered), participation rates going in line with targets set and assuring

administrative compliance.

From the evaluators point of view a stronger involvement of social and economic

partners and representatives from operation related NGO’s could strengthen the

effectiveness of its operations and also contribute to intended integration effects of

interregional cooperation.

Also in accordance with the previous programme evaluations, we can conclude that the

joint implementation structures generally functioned well and also good working

relationships were established between the various actors involved, i.e. MA, JTS and

MC/SC. MC/SC members worked in strong cooperation with the JTS in particular during

the selection of operations. Although it took time to establish and make the programme

management operational, the implementation structures were functional in the shortest

time possible and no major weaknesses in this respect were reported (except the position

of the MA, as explained above). The various programme-level institutions (JTS, MA,

MC/SC, PA) worked efficiently, regular contacts and communications were established and

capacity, knowledge and expertise commonly developed.

On the other hand Member States, as some project promoters and beneficiaries, did

consider as a weakness the lack of timely information about operations and applications

in other zones. Also representatives of Member States in the MC’s argued that they often

didn’t have knowledge about national – non lead - partners that have applied with

projects in other zones. Communication between management and operations was mostly

focused on the Lead Partner organization. Lack of detailed information about applications

in other zones could also result in the duplication of certain project activities (parallel

approval of applications submitted for activities in similar fields).

The MTE stated that only a minority of project applicants were facing difficulties with

applying for topics and the types of cooperation. Nevertheless, a majority of Lead

Partners (LP) encountered some difficulties during the project implementation. Very

often solutions could not be provided because they were outside their control (e.g.

national auditing rules). In these situations they tried to facilitate lead partners by

providing tools and guidance (e.g. audit guidelines). With surveys and interviews among

lead partners the JTS could identify common problems and provide support were possible

(e.g. how to cope with some indicators).

So, according to the evaluators the joint implementation structures were generally

functioning well. A limited number of recommendations made by the mid-term

evaluation were not taken over during the 2000-2006 implementation period (e.g.

merging MC and SC meetings).


ZONE

R20090290.doc 80 January 2010

4.2.2 Added value and sustainability

Programme added value

The programme in its entirety has an absolute added-value: all financed operations are

European-wide and without INTERREG III C West Zone (and the other three) no or

significantly limited inter-regional cooperation would have taken place in the previous

programming period. All 5 operations evaluated in-depth in the framework of this

evaluation wouldn’t have been carried out without INTERREG C funds.

The programme added-value could be further assessed on the basis of its contribution to

good governance, development of partnership and the better exchange of good practices.

Contribution to “good governance”

It is generally confirmed that the INTERREG IIIC West Zone concerned cooperation among

a great number of local and regional (and sometimes national) government partners with

often a great variety of administrative structures, procedures and traditions. Besides,

these partners/authorities dispose of rather divergent competences. This forms, of

course, not an ideal basis to promote common strategies and implementation

mechanisms.

As it was stated also in the study on “Effectiveness and Impact Assessment of INTERREG

IIIC operations” it is too early yet for any conclusions with regards to

improvements in policy-making, policy coordination or adaptation of strategy

development capacities as a consequence of the implemented operations.

It is also stated that the situation is such that the policy-makers are not giving the

attention to the results of the INTERREG IIIC operations that these deserve. Most

beneficiaries of the operations think there’s a need to strengthen the dissemination effort,

in order to achieve a bigger impact.

Contribution to development of “partnership”

The main goal of the INTERREG IIIC programmes is to improve the effectiveness of

policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion. This should be

materialized by enhancing developments through access to the experiences of others

and by disseminating experience interregionally.

The realization of synergy effects is an important component to determine the impact of

interventions. Therefore, the opening-up of new regional or international cooperation

opportunities is perceived as a value in itself. Therefore, interregional partnerships can

be considered as a key asset in shaping the development trends of territories and

constitute therefore a crucial factor of regional competitiveness. Positive partnership


ZONE

R20090290.doc 81 January 2010

relations were strengthened and could be interesting as to form a basis for building up

further common experiences in other programmes.

There is a strong will and interest of stakeholders to participate in further discussions and

meetings amongst each other, to share ideas about the links and interrelations between

regional strategic development, structural funding and the IIIC Operations.

Contribution to a “better exchange of good practice”

In a joint initiative the INTERREG IIIC Joint Technical Secretariats, in cooperation with

Lead Partners of a sample of 30 INTERREG IIIC projects1, have engaged in an exercise to

identify good practice approaches and related examples. This exercise was based on a

common methodology2 that was developed in 2004. The main conclusions and

recommendations resulting from this exercise were:

• The report includes a wealth of good practice examples, thus providing ample

evidence that INTERREG IIIC contributes to improved regional development by

sharing experiences, transferring know-how and enabling innovative solutions. Many

of these practices are transferable to other projects and regions.

• Desk research findings do not indicate that good practice approaches depend on

a specific type of operation. Instead it appears that these approaches work for all

types of Operation—Regional Framework Operation, Individual Project and Network;

• A main weakness identified in the course of this study is that sample operations

showed limited understanding of the concept of indicators. Nevertheless project

promoters consider as an important aspect of the overall implementation process.

During the first mid-term evaluation the value added of INTERREG IIIC was assessed. At

strategic level INTERREG IIIC can contribute to sustainable inter-regional co-operation

in a number of ways (see the BOX below).

BOX: Expected contribution to sustainable inter-regional co-operation • In the field of employment, INTERREG IIIC can contribute to the delivery of policies and to

strengthen the institutional capacity through operations that address social inclusion issues, adaptability, entrepreneurship, life-long learning and equal opportunities. SF Guidelines call for effective implementation including the regional/local level, stressing efficient and effective operational services;

• In the field of sustainable development and the environment, inter-regional co-operation can contribute to better integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable regional development. Many regions have already moved towards a more sustainable path in their SF ming. Inter-regional co-operation will help spread this experience and promote best practices;

• In the field of Research and Development (R&D), SF s have already adopted a more strategic approach to the promotion of innovation and R&D at the regional level. Inter-regional co-operation can take the experience gained via existing innovative actions programmes and expand it to other regions. More specifically, the type of co-operation set up to provide systematic exchange of experience between regions is exactly what INTERREG IIIC can build on and expand;

• In the field of enterprise development, the EC identifies innovation and entrepreneurship as key drivers of European competitiveness. INTERREG IIIC can contribute to sustainable inter-regional co-operation in this field, focusing on operations that address common weaknesses;

• In the field of urban and rural development, INTERREG IIIC can contribute to sustainable inter-regional co-operation through its inclusive and bottom-up approach, addressing common issues facing rural and urban areas in Europe.

1 INTERREG IIIC – A Good practice survey 2 Roland Blomeyer, independent consultant and expert presented a methodology to undertake research on “good practices” among a sample of 30 INTERREG IIIC operations.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 82 January 2010

It was further concluded that at the level of operations there was evidence of high

potential for inter-regional co-operation, because:

• Compatibility between SF priorities and INTERREG IIIC co-operation topics enable

regions to learn from each other new ways of using SF;

• Partnerships developed for the exchange of know-how and experience links for the

future as experiences are not static, but could lead to sustainability of partnerships;

• Dissemination is a component in practically all approved operations. It is a proof of

the value assigned to sustainability of the proposed co-operation;

• Generally, approved operations assign responsibilities to all partners, either for a

specific component or for leading a working group, etc. This helps to build strong and

sustainable partnerships;

• Some operations included “sustainability” as one of their main objectives.

It is further widely recognised that the “EU label” increases commitment of partners and

creates the conditions for attracting more partners. It is often stated that the amount of

funding available would not have raised much interest if it was not offered under the “EU

label”. Therefore, at a strategic level the programme demonstrates value added and

offers strong potential for sustained inter-regional co-operation.

Moreover, while there have been many notable efforts to ensure sustainability

beyond the end of INTERREG IIIC funding, sustainability in the sense of durability of

results is thus far neither addressed systematically nor early enough. Indeed, there are

still a relatively high number of operations that consider continued EU funding as the

basis for sustainability. Other operations only seem to discuss this issue towards the end

of their activities, when it is usually too late to develop a sound basis and strategy to

continue their work beyond the lifetime of the project.


For the IIIC programmes there was no need for a specific legal instrument to set up

implementation structures/formal cooperation. Practical solutions were found in this

respect. INTERREG IIIC West Zone had established formal programme structures of co-

operation (MC, SC and the JTS as an supportive entity for these committees and the MA.

National and/or regional authorities from all 7 MSs were represented in above mentioned

bodies (MC/SC).

The MA’s and JTS’s set-up indicators that are the most suited to their programme as long

as its achievement is measured. Policy recommendations from MTE’s were partly taken

over in the same programme period; some others were taken on board in the new

INTERREG IVC programme.

The financial management of the programme was to a large extent effective. For RFO’s

the risk of underspending was higher, and this made their implementation particularly

difficult in the light of the N+2 rule.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 83 January 2010

The selection of the projects had been based on clear criteria. The JTS supported the

applicants in developing their project ideas, nevertheless, conflicts of interest between

project development and appraisal was avoided. As a best practice we identified the

approach to non-approved projects: their Lead Partners received the full assessment of

the applications, which helped them in either bringing further improvements, or

renouncing the idea of applying for INTERREG III C funds.

The community added value was assessed on the basis of the contribution of the

programme to respectively: good governance, development of partnership and the better

exchange to good practices. INTERREG IIIC West Zone contributed greatly to improving

the climate for working at interregional level.

In terms of continuity, the West Zone programme published its last call already in the

autumn of 2004; this was followed by some calls for additional funding. For the future a

more balanced out spread of calls would be advisable.

Networks seem to be the most successful types of sustainable co-operation that are

likely to be durable even without Structural Fund support.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 84 January 2010

5 Conclusions and recommendations

Programme strategy

1. A clear intervention logic, supported by adequate (i.e. relevant and accurate)

analysis, is the first precondition for the success of a programme. The strategy of

INTERREG III C West was upgraded by taking into account the outcomes of its mid-term

evaluation. While the programme objectives were refined into a more straightforward

logic of action, the types/topics/themes of cooperation approach blurs the image of the

real rationale of the programme.

Regarding “co-operation” as such, it is not clear if this could be considered also a

programme goal in itself (further than a means to achieve the programme objectives).

The Interregional Cooperation Communication stresses several times that under

INTERREG III C the cooperation at operational level should be strategic and depart from

one-off types of projects (the RFO was the type of operation embodying this more

strategic cooperation). However, during the programme implementation better quality

projects achieving best results in terms of policy exchange and improvement were

favoured. If strategic cooperation is also a goal of the programme, this should be

properly reflected in the programme strategy, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation.

2. A balance should be stroke between the top-down and bottom-up approach to the

programme: while the European relevant legal provisions are to be respected when

setting up the programme strategy and approach, these should also be corroborated with

the interregional cooperation needs of the target group. The tension between the two

approaches, is reflected at operational level by the differences in demand for (by the

target group) and request of Regional Framework Operations (by the Interregional

Cooperation Communication). The RFO’s implemented under INTERREG III C West prove

that there are 25 regions in Europe prepared to carry out this type of more intense,

strategic and programmatic cooperation. Nevertheless, this capacity seems to be limited

to some regions only. While, in accordance with the Interregional Cooperation

Communication, the RFO’s seem to best correspond to the “philosophy” of INTERREG IIIC

in terms of cooperation, networks were often the best at demonstrating a high impact on

the policies addressed. As Regional Framework Operations are partly preserved during the

current period as Miniprogrammes, a more in-depth assessment of this type of

interventions (i.e. INTERREG III RFO’s and IV C Miniprogrammes), as opposed to

networks, should be carried out, in order to possibly identify ways to optimise this

instrument and enhance its capacity to stimulate strategic cooperation in Europe.

3. Especially the RFO’s signalled that there is a need for interregional cooperation at

implementation level. At the same time, identifying, exchanging and learning from

good practices related to the management and implementation of Objective 1 and

2 programmes are also of interest for interregional cooperation in Europe. The

possibility of extending the scope of interregional cooperation, either under INTERREG V


ZONE

R20090290.doc 85 January 2010

or other European programmes, to cover also these two aspects, as well as the financial

implications of such a scope expansion need to be investigated. In this respect, it is of

major importance that genuine coherence with Objective 1 and 2 programmes should be

ensured, from the European, strategic level, to the regional/local, implementation level.

4. In terms of strategy and approach little continuity exists between INTERREG III C and

previous interregional instruments financed by the European Commission, e.g. Recite and

ECOS-OEVERTURE. The debate on the future of interregional cooperation should take all

three programming periods into account: 1994-1999, 2000-2006 and 2007-2013.

Measuring the achievements of the programme

A clear intervention logic is the pre-requisite for setting up an adequate system for

measuring a programmes’ achievement (through indicators or in other, more qualitative,

ways).

5. To a large extent the system of indicators in place for INTERREG III C West adequately

grasp the programme’s achievements. Nevertheless, a series of issues need to be further

improved, i.e. labelling the indicators as reflecting the programme’s impacts, results or

outputs1, formulating the indicators in a clear way, explaining the indicators to the

partners involved in the operations, ensuring a coherent interpretation and use of

indicators, at both programme and operational level, re-asses the number of indicators

needed for measuring the programme’s achievements.

6. Especially the definition of “best practice”, as concept at the core of the programme

rationale, needs to be clearly defined, coherently applied at operational level and its use

monitored by the JTS.

7. A second concept which needs clarification as it is essential in order to depict the

programme’s impact is the following: “policy influenced/improved/developed”, e.g.:

• source developed under an INTERREG C operation quoted in a policy instrument (e.g.

CONCEPT)

• methodology developed under an INTERREG C operation used in the

planning/programming phase of a policy (a. carrying out the analysis related to the

programme, b. SWOT Analysis, c. setting up the strategy, d. setting up the monitoring

and evaluation systems) (e.g. GRDP)

• methodology developed under an INTERREG C operation used in implementing a

policy, e.g. GRDP

• analysis carried out under an INTERREG C operation find their way in the strategy as

such of a policy, as a priority/measure, e/g/ COTOUR, EURBEST.

At the same time, a weighting of the policies influenced should be considered:

local/regional/national/European ( for the latter, if any).

1 Nevertheless, this depends in the first place on the clarity of the programme strategy


ZONE

R20090290.doc 86 January 2010

8. Regarding the mechanisms for overseeing “cooperation”, as mentioned in the first

paragraph of these conclusions, the current system provides comprehensive information

on the legal status and location of authorities involved in INTERREG III C West Zone as

such; nevertheless, more differentiated information on the 1330 new

projects/activities/approaches developed as a result of participation in INTERREG III C

West operation should be provided through indicators, e.g. new INTERREG (A,B,C)-

financed common project, new project financed by other (own, regional, national, other

European programmes) sources, new common programme (as it was the case with Grand

Region and E-Bird) etc. as these differentiated information give a more comprehensive

picture on the impact of the programme in terms of sustainable cooperation.

9. Further than an adequate programme strategy, a more evaluative thinking should be

stimulated, at both programme level (by the European Commission) and at the project

level (by the programme itself).

Effectiveness of the programme

10. The targets for the INTERREG III C West Zone indicators were cautiously set up;

consequently significant over-performance was registered. Despite this context and the

few deficiencies of the indicator system (e.g. especially the definitions of “best practices”

and “policies influenced/improved”), we can conclude that the programme was, to a large

extent, effective.

11. Nevertheless, increased attention needs to be paid to the taken up of the

registered outputs, e.g. the rate of good practices transferred was around 12% of the

practices identified. At the same time, as the programme supposed to focus on Objective

1 and 2 regions and outermost regions (see the Interregional Cooperation

Communication, points 8, 12), a differentiation of these good practices per topic of

cooperation should have been carried out, in order to isolate the results of the 18

Objective 1 and 2 –related operations.

12. Strictly speaking, the impact of the programme depends on its declared main goal, in

our case to “improve the effectiveness of regional development policies”; also “indirect”

effects can be registered. Taking into account the achievements of the programme as

reported by the monitoring system, i.e. the number of regional/local policies and

instruments improved or developed (375), the number of staff with increased capacity

(8693) and the number of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the

operations’ activities (1330), we can conclude that the programme had a significant

intrinsic impact.

13. Nevertheless, it is close to impossible to project this intrinsic impact in a wider

frame (of Europe 25), as the necessary data is not available. Collecting the necessary

data, e.g. asses the effectiveness of the influenced/developed policies, to which extent

this increased and to which extent this increase is due to the participation in an

INTERREG III C West operation would imply, as in the case of INTERACT I, to step

outside the programme “area” and involve significant resources. The impact of the


ZONE

R20090290.doc 87 January 2010

projects is limited to a large extent to the project areas, and the same is valid for the

impact of the programme.

14. Taking the discourse on territorial cohesion into account, INTERREG III C contributed

especially to increasing the European territorial identity and to European

governance. The INTERREG III C West did contribute to the quality and efficiency of the

territory covered, to the extent to which the policies addressed under operation

genuinely improved their effectiveness.

15. Regarding cultural differences, the cooperation developed or enhanced under

INTERREG III C contributed significantly to an increase of “social capital” among the

partners involved. Knowing each other set aside preconceived ideas/mental barriers

about other cultures and proved that cooperation is possible. As demonstrated in

numerous works on culture as determinant of democracy and on social capital theory, this

is an important independent variable for socio-economic development. This is the added

value of INTERREG III C, as in terms of socio-economic effects, it is again, close to

impossible, to distinguish its effects from effects determined by other programmes (only

6% of the entire INTERREG budget was dedicated to interregional cooperation while the

allocated ERDF budget of the West Zone programme (€ 79,575,968) only raised to

approximately 1,5% of the INTERREG III ERDF total budget).

Partnership

16. In the case of INTERREG III C West, several partners in a project continued to

cooperate, in different forms, after the project was closed. Nevertheless, changes in

partnership is one of the factor affecting negatively the financial performance of the

programme. At the same time, it seems that the degree of “involvement” in an operation

may vary from partner to partner. The approach for INTERREG III C was, indeed,

innovative, and partners needed to adjust to the new procedures. However, the

commitment of project partners should be better assured from the outset, through the

project appraisal and selection criteria applied.

Learning

17. Individual and organisational learning could be confirmed to a large extent in virtually

all projects analysed. Nevertheless, a more nuanced image of what was learned under

INTERREG III C, both at individual and organisational level, needs to be pencilled. For

example, we could distinguish between:

1. content related knowledge (on policies as such); this capital is illustrated to a

certain extent by the number of regional/local policies and instruments improved or

developed

2. social capital/mutual trust: further projects, sustainability of partnership/ set aside

prejudices, cultural obstacles

3. inter-regional cooperation management skills: both at project but also at

programme level. The former might be “measured” by the number of efficient and


ZONE

R20090290.doc 88 January 2010

effective further common projects developed by partners. An indication of the latter is the

significantly improved quality of the 2007-2013 INTERREG IV C Operational Programme.

Programme management

18. The administrative burden of project management seems to have been relatively

high, despite the availability of and the extensive support the JTS gave to Project Leaders

and partners. A large number of operations needed between 1 and 3 extra months to

close the project. While further simplifying the procedures might go against the

programme-related requirements, this short coming might be addressed by assuring that

the JTS has adequate capacity to deal with their project management tasks.

19. The major concern identified is related to the institution of Managing Authority, more

precisely, the position of the hosting institution in the role of Managing Authority. In the

case of Objective 1 and 2, and even for INTERREG A programmes the position of the MA is

very different; the MA is a direct beneficiary of funds. In the case of B and especially C

programmes, the MA’s benefit to a very limited extent, or not at all, of the funds

implemented; in some case it prefers to preserve a neutral position toward the other

programme beneficiaries. In this context, the MA structure in C Strand is perceived as

artificial and fragile; as the regional governments receive very little back for their

involvement as MA, there is a risk that they will renounce, at a certain point, to this

function. Corroborating this perspective with a real situation in the case of INTERACT I,

the risk is not to be underestimated. The synthesis report should take a look at the

ESPON evaluations, too, in order to see if a “trend” in this respect is registering.

Communication

20. It seems that a major challenge for the JTS was to communicate the “philosophy” of

the programme to the target group, respectively, policy-related exchange and not

implementation of concrete policy-related measures. Several factors might have

contributed to this situation, i.e. history of the scope of interregional cooperation as

financed by the European Union, need for implementation-related interregional

cooperation, communications instruments chosen by the JTS (e.g. Objective 1 and 2

Managing Authorities were not contacted directly by the JTS), the INTERREG brand of the

programme which triggered larger participation from authorities familiar with INTERREG

as such.

Adequate communication and dissemination measures should be taken at JTS/MA level

should be intensified, both towards the programme target groups and wider audience.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 89 January 2010

Annex 1 Criteria per INTERREG III C types of operation

OPERATIONS-Type of Application Regional Framework

Operations Individual Projects Networking

Minimum number of partners from member states

Regions from a minimum of three countries, of which at least 2 should be member states. For RFO internal projects: participants from different countries

Partners from a minimum of three countries, of which at least two should be member states

Partners from at least five countries, of which at least 3 should be member states

Types of partners/participants

Regional authorities or equivalent regional bodies, on project level: public authorities or public equivalent participants, private participants

Public authorities or equivalent bodies

Public authorities or equivalent bodies

Minimum of intensity of cooperation

Transfer Transfer Dissemination, exchange

ERDF contribution From EUR 500.000 to EUR 5 mln.

From EUR 200.000 to EUR 1.000.000

From EUR 200.000 to EUR 1.000.000

Source: INTERREG III C West CIP, page 18


ZONE

R20090290.doc 90 January 2010

Annex 2 Indicative Financial Allocations – West INTERREG IIIC

Table 1 The priorities and measures of the INTERREG IIIC-West Zone programme and the

distribution of intervention codes

Source: Programme Complement, page 30)

Table 2 Final financial allocations in accordance with the last version of the Programme

Complement (2007)

Third

Countries Public Expenditure Total Costs Total Public ERDF National Private1 Operations 109,228,844 107,574,264 74,471,568 33,102,696 1,714,580 - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

10,478,637 9,827,584 21,667,922 21,947,263 22,134,389 23,233,049

10,269,064 9,631,033 21,017,884 21,288,845 22,123,389 23,233,049

6,287,182 5,896,551 15,167,545 15,363,084 15,494,072 16,263,134

3,981,882 3,734,482 5,850,339 5,925,761 6,640,317 6,969,915

209,573 196,551 650,038 658,148 0 0

- - - - - -

Strand C Coordination

1,110,880 1,110,880 999,792 111,088 0 -

2001 2002

277,778 833,102

277,778 833,102

250,000 749,792

27,778 83,310

0 0

- -

Technical Assistance

8,209,216 8,209,216 4,104,608 4,104,608 0 -

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1,380,790 1,500,736 1,556,300 1,559,552 1,551,530 660,308

1,380,790 1,500,736 1,556,300 1,559,552 1,551,530 660,308

690,395 750,368 778,150 779,776 775,765 330,154

690,395 750,368 778,150 779,776 775,765 330,154

0 0 0 0 0 0

- - - - - -

Total 118,608,940 116,894,360 79,575,968 37,318,392 1,714,580 - 2001 2002

12,137,205 12,161,422

11,927,632 11,964,871

7,227,577 7,396,711

4,700,055 4,568,160

209,573 196,551

- -

1 Although the participant of private actors under this programme is warmly welcome, their indicative

financial contribution is hard to estimate in advance. If the indicative private contribution within the national contribution (public and private) of 5 % for the years 2001 and 2002 and 10 % for the years 2003 and 2004 is not realized, the Member States will guarantee the total national co-financing from public resources.


ZONE

R20090290.doc 91 January 2010

2003 2004 2005 2006

23,224,222 23,506,815 23,685,919 23,893,357

22,574,184 22,848,397 23,685,919 23,893,357

15,945,695 16,142,860 16,269,837 16,593,288

6,628,489 6,705,537 7,416,082 7,300,069

650,038 658,418 0 0

- - - -

Source: Source: INTERREG III C West CIP, page 43 Table 3 Allocated and spent budget on codes of intervention November 2009

Priority/Measure Total

Total Eligible Actually Paid Expenditure

% of Eligible

Cost Field of intervention

1 2 3=2/1 Budgeted

Actual (as share of

(2))

Priority 1

Measure 1.1: Operations 109.288.844 116.761.928,36 106,84% 414

(100%) 414 (100%)

Total ERDF related 74.471.568 67.628.809,00 90,81%

Priority 2

Measure 2.1: Strand C Coordination 1.110.880 1.106.581,86 99,61% 415 (100%)

Total ERDF related 999.792 995.923,69 99,61%

411, 412, 413, 415

(25% each)

Priority 3

Measure 3.1: Technical assistance 8.209.216 6.595.920,86 80,35% 411

(94.44%)

Total ERDF related 4.104.608 3.297.960,54 80,35% 415

(2.71%)

411, 412, 413, 415

(25% each)

412 (1.22%)

Total 118.608.940 124.464.431 104,94%

Total ERDF related 79.575.968 71.922.693 90,38% Source: Source: INTERREG III C West JTS

INTERREG III ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIC WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 93 January 2010

Annex 3 Programme indicators and the achievements per 31.12.2008

Purpose/ 0bjective to be measured Indicators

Actual as per 31 dec 2004




Actual as per 31 dec

2008 Target as per 31

dec 2008 1. Programme management performance

Output Indicators Total INTERREG IIIC budget of the approved operations ? ? 125.517.519 127.693.201

128.185.246 106.931.406

Overall ERDF co-financing rate for approved operations ? ? 58,45% 58,49% 58,26%

68,13%

Amount of ERDF committed 2.223.470 11.232.163 73.361.265 74,683,334[1] 74.680.892

74.471.568

% of total ERDF budget committed 3,0% 15,2% 99,0% 100,0% 100% 95,0%

Amount of ERDF paid by PA (main budget line operations/TA) 13.629.080 24.232.839 31.646.824 56.625.386 70.669.050 79.575.968

% of total ERDF budget paid out 17,1% 30,5% 40,0% 71,0% 88,8% 95,0%

No of seminars for financial managers /auditors 1 2 2 3 0

3

No of participants in seminars for financial managers / auditors 64 111 111 191 0

190

No of partners checked by the second level controls 0 0 12 27 29

50

Result Indicators Amount of ERDF decommitted 16.577.402 16.577.402 16.577.402 16.577.402

16.577.402 16.577.402

% of ERDF decommitted (rate of decommitment) 17,24% 17,24% 17,24% 17,24% 17,24% 17,24%

1.1. Financial Management

% of irregularity reported in total INTERREG IIIC budget 0% 0% 0% 3,81% 6,94%

0%

Output Indicators No of "Individual Consultations" (IC) with applicants 245 260 260 260 260 275

No of participants in "Individual Consultations" (IC) 500 530 530 530 530 550

No of "Lead Applicants Seminars" (LAS) organized (total/NMS) 3 3 3 3 3 3

No of participants in "Lead Applicants Seminars" (LAS) 188 188 188 188 188 188

1.2. Operations related activities

No of calls for proposals 4 4 4 4 4 4


R20090290.doc 94 January 2010

No of applications submitted per call:

· 1 call (RFO/IP/NET) 18 (3/9/6) 18 (3/9/6)

18 (3/9/6) 18 (3/9/6) 18 (3/9/6) 18

· 2 call (RFO/IP/NET) 40 (4/21/15) 40 (4/21/15)

40 (4/21/15) 40 (4/21/15) 40 (4/21/15) 40

· 3 call (RFO/IP/NET) 40 (3/22/15) 40 (3/22/15)

40 (3/22/15) 40 (3/22/15) 40 (3/22/15) 40

· 4 call (RFO/IP/NET) 58 (4/30/24) 58 (4/30/24)

58 (4/30/24) 58 (4/30/24) 58 (4/30/24) 58

· 4+ call (RFO/IP/NET)

19 (0/10/9) 19 (0/10/9) 19 (0/10/9) 19

No of applications assessed (=eligible operations)

· 1 call 17 17 17 17 17 17

· 2 call 35 35 35 35 35 35

· 3 call 38 38 38 38 38 38

· 4 call 54 54 54 54 54 54

· 4+ call

18 18 18 18 18

% of eligible applications per call

· 1 call 94,4% 94,4% 94,4% 94,4% 94,4% 94,4%

· 2 call 87,5% 87,5% 87,5% 87,5% 87,5% 87,5%

· 3 call 95,0% 95,0% 95,0% 95,0% 95,0% 95,0%

· 4 call 93,1% 93,1% 93,1% 93,1% 93,1% 93,1%

· 4+ call

94,7% 94,7% 94,7% 94,7% 94,7%

No of applications approved (RFO/IP/NET)

· 1 call 8 (1/4/3)

8 (1/4/3) 8 (1/4/3) 8 (1/4/3) 8 (1/4/3) 8

· 2 call 18 (3/7/8)

18 (3/7/8) 18 (3/7/8) 18 (3/7/8) 18 (3/7/8) 18

· 3 call 18 (1/7/10)

17 (0/7/10) 18 (1/7/10) 17 (0/7/10) 17 (0/7/10) 18

· 4 call

22 (3/9/10) 22 (3/9/10) 22 (3/9/10) 22 (3/9/10) 22

· 4+ call

11 (0/4/7) 11 (0/4/7) 11 (0/4/7) 11 (0/4/7) 11

No of reports received total (start up/preparation cost/progress/final)-

96 (26/25/45/0) 215

(26/54/135/0)

212 (26/54/135/2)

344

509

450

No of "Lead Partner Seminars"(LPS) organized 3

5 5 5

5

No. of participants in "Lead Partner Seminars" (LPS) 111 172 172 172 172 180


R20090290.doc 95 January 2010

No of RFO Steering Group meetings with MA/PA/JTS participation 9 27 39 46 46 50

% of RFO Steering Group meetings attended by MA/PA/JTS 90,0% 96,4% 78,0% 70,0% 70,0%

90,0%

Result Indicators

% of increase/decrease of operations submitted per call

· 1 call

- -

-

· 2 call 122,0% 122,0% 122,0% 122,0% 122,0% 122,0%

· 3 call 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

· 4 call 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0%

· 4+ call

% of approved applications compared with submitted applications (success rate) (RFO/IP/NET)

· 1 call 44.4% (33.3/44.4/50)

44,4% 44,4% 44,4% 44,4% 44,4%

· 2 call 45.0% (75/33.3/53.3)

45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0%

· 3 call 45.0% (33.3/31.8/66.7)

45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,0% 45,7%

· 4 call

38,0% 38,0% 38,0% 38,0% 67,0%

· 4+ call

57,9% 57,9% 57,9% 57,9% 60,0%

Output Indicators

No of pages of the programme’s website 75 75

75

No of brochures (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated) (All zones/West zone)

03 / 02 4 / 12 4 / 13 04 / 13

No of newsletters (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated)

09 / 00 15 / 01

12 16 16 16

No of dissemination events organized (All zones/West zone)

- / 05 - / 07 12 / 07 13 / 10 13 / 10 13 / 10

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

25 25 41 80 80 26

No of press releases disseminated (All zones/West zone)

06 / 03 09 / 03 12 / 05 13 / 05 13 / 05 10 / 05

1.3. Communication / Information & Publicity measures

Result Indicators


R20090290.doc 96 January 2010

No of articles/appearances published in the press and in other media (All zones/West zone)

20 / 02 All zones 40 42 / 152 42 / 152 43 / 155 30 / 190

Average no of hits per month on the operation’s website

- - 11,000 8,700

5,000

No of copies of newsletters disseminated 5,350 7,350 7,350 5,000

No of copies of brochures disseminated (All zones/West zone)

432,000 / 0 598,000 / 0 80,000/140 80,500/9,945 80,650 / 10,295

80,000/8,400

Estimated no of participants in events (organized and participated in)

2.500,00 4.000,00 8,000 17,635 17,636 5,500

2. Operation’s performance

2.1. Contribution of operations to programme objectives

2.1.1 Accessing into others experience

Output Indicators

No of partners involved – Total:

584 930

930 930 930 900

by legal status

· Local public authority: 166

285 285

285 285 280

· Regional public authority: 180

264 264

264 264 260

· National public authority: 25

41 41

41 41 30

· Public equivalent body: 213

340 340

340 340 330

by location

· old EU MS 442

724 724 724 724 700

· new EU MS 101

153 153 153 153 140

· objective 1 regions 219

335 335 335 335 350

· outermost regions 5

7 7 7 7 5

· third countries 41

53 53 53 53 65

For RFO:

No of participants involved – Total: 215

517 517 517 517 400

by legal status

· Local public authority: 23

101 101

101 101 -


R20090290.doc 97 January 2010

· Regional public authority: 40

144 144

144 144 -

· National public authority: 4

13 13

13 13 -

· Public equivalent body: 145

253 253

253 253 -

· Private bodies: 3

6 6

6 6 -

No of partners involved – Total: 930

930 930 900

by location

· old EU MS 174 385 724

724 724 -

· new EU MS 40 75 153

153 153 -

· objective 1 regions 47 100 335

335 335 -

· outermost regions 0 0 7

7 7 -

· third countries 1 7 53

53 53 -

No of interregional events organised by the operation to exchange and disseminate experience

369 2.010 1.789 2.345 2.503 1.600

No of participants in these interregional events 5.778 18.094

52.850 73.300 78.771 28.000

Average No of countries represented in these interregional events

8 7 8 8 8 8

Result Indicators

% of partners involved by legal status

· Local public authority: 28,4%

30,6% 30,6% 30,6% 30,6% 31,1%

· Regional public authority: 30,8%

28,4% 28,4% 28,4% 28,4% 28,9%

· National public authority: 4,3%

4,4% 4,4% 4,4% 4,4% 3,3%

· Public equivalent body: 36,5%

36,5% 36,5% 36,5% 36,5% 36,7%

% of partners involved by location

· old EU MS 75,7%

77,8% 77,8% 77,8% 77,8% 77,8%

· new EU MS 17,3%

16,5% 16,5% 16,5% 16,5% 15,6%

· objective 1 regions 37,5%

36,0% 36,0% 36,0% 36,0% 38,9%

· outermost regions 0,9%

0,7% 0,7% 0,7% 0,7% 0,6%

· third countries 7,0%

5,7% 5,7% 5,7% 5,7% 7,2%


R20090290.doc 98 January 2010

For RFO:

% of participants involved by legal status

· Local public authority: 10,7%

10,7% 10,7% 10,7% 10,7% -

· Regional public authority: 18,6%

18,6% 18,6% 18,6% 18,6% -

· National public authority: 1,9%

1,9% 1,9% 1,9% 1,9% -

· Public equivalent body: 67,4%

67,4% 67,4% 67,4% 67,4% -

· Private bodies: 1,4%

1,4% 1,4% 1,4% 1,4% -

For RFO:

% of participants involved:

by location

· old EU MS 80,9%

80,9% 80,9% 80,9% 80,9% -

· new EU MS 18,6%

18,6% 18,6% 18,6% 18,6% -

· objective 1 regions 21,9%

21,9% 21,9% 21,9% 21,9% -

· outermost regions 0,0%

0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% -

· third countries 0,5%

0,5% 0,5% 0,5% 0,5% -


1.472 5.787 7.292 8.193 8.693 3.000

Impact Indicator

No of new projects/activities/approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events

160 525 792 1.213 1.330 500

Output Indicators

No of good practices identified related to Structural Funds

398 2047* 1.459 1.623 1.653 1.000

No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies

- - 2.386 2.814 3.026 2.000

Result Indicators

2.1.2 Expanding the effects of Structural Funds

No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred

108 380* 138 187 199 100


R20090290.doc 99 January 2010

No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred

- - 187 314 369 200

Output Indicator

No of regional/local policies and instruments addressed

117 468 1.084 1.301 1.362 250

Result Indicator

2.1.3 Improving regional policies and instruments *

No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed

21 113 302 360 375 100

Result Indicators

% of operations with equal opportunities as

· main focus 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 3,0% 5,0%

· positive 58,8% 58,8% 58,8% 58,8% 49,0% 60,0%

· neutral 41,2% 41,2% 41,2% 41,2% 49,0% 40,0%

% of operations with sustainable development (will be available after closing of all operations)

· main focus - - - - 43,0% 20,0%

· positive - - - - 48,0% 30,0%

· neutral - - - - 9,0% 50,0%

% of operations with environment as:

· main focus 29,4% 29,4% 29,4% 29,4% 27,0% 30,0%

· positive 52,9% 52,9% 52,9% 52,9% 49,0% 50,0%

2.1.4 Contribution to horizontal EU policies

· neutral 17,6% 17,6% 17,6% 17,6% 24,0% 20,0%

2.2. General performance of operations

Output Indicators

No of Steering Group meetings 103 266 432 535 579 500

Average % of Steering Group members attendance in Steering Group meeting

84,1% 85,0% 87,0% 88,0% 86,7% 80,0%

2.2.1 Management and coordination

% of deviation between planned and actual ERDF payment requests by LP (under/overspending)

- - -22 -26 -10 -10


R20090290.doc 100 January 2010

For RFOs:

§ No of calls - - 16 16 16 16

§ No of applications received - - 174 174 174 174

§ No of applications approved - - 110 110 110 110

Result Indicator

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

16% 16% 15% 10% 20%

Output Indicators

No of pages of the operation's website - - 11.244 15.666 16.525 2.250

No of brochures (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated)

60 194 416 687 730 200

No of newsletters (No of editions created, not No of copies printed or disseminated)

72 232 386 625 667 350

No of dissemination events organised 145 462 1.082 1.437 1.563 700

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

245 1.557 1.440 2.021 2.184 1.000

No of press releases disseminated 1.298 510 1.143 1.600 1.699 300

Result Indicators

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

286 1.063 2.499 3.265 3.605 1.000

2.2.2 Dissemination

Average no of hits per month on the operation’s website

? ? 4.923 6.766 6.889 1.500

No of copies of newsletters disseminated 94.861 231.318 632.667 655.358 150.000

No of copies of brochures disseminated 294.825

83.390 333.275 523.270 576.445 120.000

Estimated no of participants in events (organized and participated in)

3.452 67.046 275.532 333.322 485.656 16.500

* Lower figures in the following year can be explained which the fact that the JTS was more and more demanding in the justification of the indicators (without precise justification, figures are not accepted by the JTS).


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 101 January 2010

Annex 4 Indicators related to operations’ performance

Programme objectives/Indicators Accessing into others

experience Expanding the effects of

Structural Funds Improving regional

policies and instruments

Contribution to horizontal EU

policies Output Indicators Output Indicators Output Indicator

No of partners involved – Total No of good practices identified related to Structural Funds

No of regional/local policies and instruments addressed

by legal status No of good practices identified related to other local/regional development strategies/policies

by location For RFO: No of participants involved – Total: by legal status No of partners involved – Total: by location No of interregional events organised by the operation to exchange and disseminate experience No of participants in these interregional events Average No of countries represented in these interregional events

Result Indicators Result Indicators Result Indicator Result Indicators % of partners involved by legal status

No of good practices related to Structural Funds transferred

No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed

% of operations with equal opportunities as

Local public authority: No of good practices related to other local/regional development strategies/policies transferred

main focus

Regional public authority positive National public authority neutral Public equivalent body % of operations

with sustainable development

% of partners involved by location main focus · old EU MS positive · new EU MS neutral · objective 1 regions % of operations

with environment as:

· outermost regions main focus · third countries positive

For RFO: neutral % of participants involved by legal status Local public authority: Regional public authority: National public authority: Public equivalent body: Private bodies: For RFO: % of participants involved: by location

· old EU MS · new EU MS · objective 1 regions · outermost regions · third countries



WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 102 January 2010

Impact Indicator

No of new projects/activities/ approaches resulting from the exchange/dissemination of experience at inter-regional events


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 103 January 2010

Annex 5 Examples of policies developed, improved, influenced by INTERREG III C West Operations

• Examples of impacts on policies, including those at national level: GRIDS The preparation of Regional Development Strategies and Spatial Plans for EU regions has attracted increasing interest in recent years. GRIDS aims to produce best practice guidelines for the preparation of such documents, in particular within the context of the recent EU enlargement. Through a series of intensive workshops, the three GRIDS partners with no previous experience of Structural Funds (Lithuanian Mo, Latgale RDA and Stockholm School of Economics) have all benefited from a number of presentations and study visits from stakeholders with Structural Funds experience (e.g. visit to ‘Regionaal Landschap Kempen en Maasland’ where extensive EU funding, in particular Objective 2 funds, were used for nature development projects as an instrument of regional development in Flanders). More importantly, where the policies were in the process of being formulated, GRIDS had a positive impact; in particular on the Latvian National Spatial Plan and National Development Plan, Latgate Regional Spatial Plan, Riga City Development Plan and the revised Flemish Structure Plan. For instance, the GRIDS team was invited in October 2005 to participate in a brainstorming session on national planning documents with Latvian planners. According to the Secretary of State in Latvia, the lessons learnt and good practices from GRIDS were directly integrated into the new spatial planning and regional development strategies of Latvia. • Example of impacts on regional policies and strategies: CITEAIR CITEAIR aims to develop better and more efficient solutions for assessing the impact of traffic in large urban areas and informing professional users and the public of the environmental situation. Several of the participating cities have a solid base of previous and ongoing work in the area of transport and environmental management. These partners – and in particular AIRPARIF (Paris) and STA (Rome) – are currently transferring their know-how in the field of traffic and air quality modelling to the Emilia Romagna Region. Thus, CITEAIR has a strong impact on the environmental policy of Emilia Romagna, who is developing for the first time a Decision Support System. This system will allow the assessment of the environmental impacts of urban traffic at near-real time, at local to regional scales. CITEAIR may even have an influence on policies and strategies at the European level. Indeed, the project has forged close links with the European Environmental Agency (EEA), to mutual benefit. It started with a participation of the EEA at the CITEAIR events. But recently, the European Topic Centre for Air Quality and Climate Change prepared a review of different air quality indicators, including the one from CITEAIR. These noticeable achievements of the CITEAIR initiative may also have a positive impact on the durability of the operation’s results. • Example of impacts on local policies and strategies: AQUA-FIL The overall objective of AQUA-FIL is the improvement of river management through an integrated, sustainable and participative approach. This approach is developed through the creation of ‘Water Resource Centres’ and the implementation of the ‘River Contract’ model. AQUA-FIL had a direct impact on the local strategies of the Portuguese and Hungarian partners. These two partners have directly benefited from the experience and know-how of the other participating local authorities. As a result, the Water Resource Centre model and the environmental education tools (e.g. awareness-raising materials for children on water quality) were transferred to these Portuguese and Hungarian partners. • The main objective of the COTOUR operation is to create a strategy for upgrading tourism as a tool for regional development. Up to now, two local policies have been influenced thanks to this operation. First, the results from COTOUR had an influence on the preparation of the integrated strategies for regional development of the Lithuanian partner (County of Telsiai). This policy document was established on 17 December 2004 and COTOUR contributed to the creation of the priority “Encouragement of entrepreneurship abilities and development of businesses in rural areas” with two specific measures: Measure 1: "Establishment of Rural Crafts Centre"; as well as Measure 2: "Development of small businesses in rural areas". Second, the Polish partner (MARR: Malopolska Agency for Regional Development) participated in the regional strategy preparation process in 2005. MARR succeeded in integrating some of the lessons learnt from COTOUR into the strategy of the Malopolska Region for the period 2007-2013 (priority dedicated to regional development through tourism). • The CoPraNet operation is addressing two major areas of regional policy: sustainable tourism and coastal erosion. Partner 3 (Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, UK) reported that their coastal policies for Regional Spatial Strategy were amended to include reference to the EU ICZM (Integrated Coastal Zone Management). This recommendation was as a direct result of awareness gained from their participation in CoPraNet. The North West Coastal Forum (UK) is currently considering using the EU ICZM Progress Indicators to aid development of a regional ICZM strategy. Partner 6 (Central Region Authorithy in Portugal) is revising its coastal policy instrument (Coastal Zone Master Plan) for Central Portugal and is presently involved with the development of the National Strategy for the implementation of the ICZM Recommendation. Partner 13 (Institute of Marine Sciences, Canary Islands) has improved the management plans of several Marine Natura 2000 sites thanks to the know-how and experience gained within the CoPraNet network. Finally, the same positive influence has been reported by Partner 2 (Storstrom County Council, Denmark) on their Regional Plan 2005 (including principles of ICZM), which was adopted by the County Council in December 2005. • In CONCEPT, whose aim is to improve regional transport strategies, two policy instruments related to Road Safety initiatives were influenced. In particular, the new


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 104 January 2010

2005 Aberdeenshire Road Safety Plan makes specific reference to the experience exchanged within the operation. • In EURBEST, at least 3 polices have been directly influenced thanks to the exchanges of experience within the operation. Further to their participation in the EURBEST Entrepreneurship Study Tour, the Society for the Promotion of Industrial Reconstruction of Bilbao has integrated a proposal called “Entrepreneurial Society” into their new Competitiveness Plan for 2010. This Study Tour also has a direct impact on the individual entrepreneurship support policy of the Regional Council of North Karelia, where EURBEST findings were used to influence the updating of their regional strategic programme. The same positive impacts were reported on the Canaries Regional Innovation System Plan. • The overall objective of RUSE is to improve the use of Structural Funds (and other financial sources) in urban development projects, leading towards a better integration of sustainable energy issues in the supported projects. Several policies or strategies were influenced thanks to the RUSE activities. Partner 2 (Polish Network ‘Energies- Cités’) was involved in the consultation process of the Polish National Development Plan 2007-2013 through a written contribution used by the Ministry's special secretariat. Based in Kaunas (Lithuania), Partner 4 (Lithuanian Energy Institute) had the opportunity to improve the City's strategic development plan with suggestions for the energy sector and use of SF for energy projects. As a governmental organisation, Partner 3 (Slovakian Energy Agency) regularly advises both the local authorities (via their regional branches) and the Ministry of Economy in the legal process through regular and numerous contacts. In particular it has been involved in the preparation of the so-called "Energy conception for municipalities" national regulation. • The main objective of the SusSET operation is to strengthen economic and social cohesion across Europe by creating frameworks to better support small traditional, yet expanding, towns in the context of the emerging EU 'competitiveness agenda'. Experiences under the ‘tourism/identity' theme as well as from its participation in the main conferences (September and November 2005). Further to these activities, this municipality has prepared a town promotion strategy based on SusSET knowledge exchange. Similarly, following thematic discussions in Sweden and Poland, Partner 5 (Municipality of Leba in Poland) has taken the first step towards preparing a specific strategy for its town centre. • The LNet project (entrepreneurship in derelict urban areas) is in line with key national policy and funding developments in the field of enterprise promotion, with a particular focus on deprived urban areas. The main policy documents that LNet has influenced are as follows: for London, the ODPM's Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (which aims to reinforce the role of business in community regeneration) and the DTI Small Business Service (which has a priority remit to encourage enterprise in disadvantaged areas); for Prague, the Strategic Plan for the City of Prague (2000), and the Bohemian Regional Innovation Strategy (BRIS) for Prague (2004); for Hamburg, the Regional Development Concept of the Hamburg Metropolitan Area, and the Hamburg Development Concept “Hamburg - the Growing City”; for Amsterdam, the ‘Sociaal Structuurplan’ (Social Structure Plan) for 2005 and the 2003 Economic Development Programme HERMEZ. • In Portugal, the lessons learnt from the FARLAND operation (land consolidation) were used to draw up a National Strategy for Land Consolidation, with the aim to refute the negative image that land consolidation has in Portugal. • As a result of attending the Theme 5 session on “Planning, Conservation and Heritage” of the SUSSET operation, the Polish City of Puck elaborated on its draft strategy to revitalise the town. Similarly, as a result of attending the Theme 1 session on “Tourism and Town Identity”, the town of Lebork subcontracted a branding package for the town for the first time. While working on the exchange of experience with partners of TOCEMA Europe (town centre management), two Italian Regions (Lombardy and Liguria) that are not part of the consortium showed interest in considering Town Centre Management as a tool for urban revitalisation in their application of the national law on urban revitalisation. This national law (n. 114/98) aimed at assessing the existing situation of commercial activities and to balance competition between shopping centres, hypermarkets and supermarkets versus independent retail in town centres. Within the framework of this national law, all 20 regional governments enacted thereafter their specific laws. Thanks to the exchange with TOCEMA, Lombardy and Liguria now considers including the concept of town centre management as a tool in their programmes: PICS for Lombardy (integrated program for system competitiveness), and CIV for Liguria (integrated street centres). • The AMICA project is focusing on local and regional strategies dedicated to climate change. Within this operation, a Mitigation Tool as well as a method for evaluating climate change policies have been developed. These tools were integrated in the drafting of the ‘Grand Lyon’ Climate Protection Plan. • The following three programmes supported by ERDF in the Region of Thessaly have been influenced by the NBG project, which deals with the theme of business succession: application of the Business Incentives' Law, measures for enhancing entrepreneurship under the Regional Development Programme of Thessaly, Competitiveness Operational Programme, run by the Ministry of Development. These policies had never dealt with the business succession issue in the past. • In Wales, the GATE project has a route into political decision making via the Woodland Strategy Advisory Panel. This acts as an advisory panel to Ministers and Forestry Commissioners on the implementation of the Wales Woodland Strategy. This has been re-written and, under the influence of GATE, the promotion of wood as a sustainable building material has been added and described as making a valuable contribution to the fight against climate change. The ASCEND policy recommendations, as presented at the final conference in June 2006, are being utilised locally, regionally and nationally to influence future work related to the regeneration of military land and heritage. For instance in Venice, ASCEND's findings have contributed to the development of guidelines for the regeneration of the dryland fortifications and have helped determine the location of the future maritime museum within the Arsenale.

Source: INTERREG III C West Zone, AIR 2007


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 105 January 2010

Annex 6 Criteria used for the Strand C Typology

Criteria used for the Strand C Typology C 1.1 - The overall degree to which the programme has contributed to improve and add value to the European Union's regional and cohesion policy as a whole determined by the share of operations approved under the four co-operation topics “Structural Funds Objective 1 & 2 Regions”, “INTERREG programmes”, “URBAN & urban development activities” and “Innovative Action Programmes” in the totality of operations approved C1.2 - The overall degree to which the programme has encouraged co-operation between maritime areas (coastal regions, insular regions and most remote regions) and a participation of actors from the applicant countries determined by the share of participants from these regions/countries in the total number of participants involved in all operations approved. C 2.1 - The depth / intensity of programme- and project-level inter-regional co-operation which is the weighted “expected rate” achieved by a C-Strand programme across the 5 INTERREG III-related Criteria & the Historical Criterion, either in absolute or relative values (quantitative).

C 3.1 - The overall “financial performance of the programme” determined by comparing initial expenditure forecast with actual expenditure realised. C 3.2 - The overall “degree of programme sustainability” determined by the effect that all content-related & financial re-programming activities had on the initial intervention strategy of the INTERREG programme . C 3.3 - The overall “degree of achievement for all quantifiable outputs & results at programme level” determined by comparing the initial target values with the most recent values actually realised under each priority and by calculating an average achievement ratio across all programme priorities C 3.5 - The overall “degree of robustness / durability of projects” determined by the ratio of projects continuing to operate 2 or more years after the end of ERDF-support among all approved projects.


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 106 January 2010

Annex 7 Criteria and sub-criteria of the synthetic indicator

1. Historical Criterion: “Co-operation tradition existing due to previous INTERREG programmes and/or

initiatives outside of INTERREG programmes”

Sub-criterion 1.1: “Duration of already existing cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation”. SI 1: Number of years during which structured and visible cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation has existed within parts or all of the programme area (quantitative). Sub-criterion 1.2: “Existence of directly applicable legal instruments that can be used by territorial authorities in the context of cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation”. SI 2: Nature & quality of the directly applicable legal instrument that can be used for cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation within parts or all of the programme area (qualitative). Sub-criterion 1.3: “Existence of permanent cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation structures that are established between territorial authorities”. SI 3: Nature & quality of existing permanent cross-border / transnational / interregional co-operation structures established between territorial authorities that operate in parts or all of the programme area (qualitative).

2. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “The intensity of a shared needs / problem diagnosis and its adequate reflection in the

initial programme strategy”

Sub-criterion 2.1: “How programme needs were identified & to what extent this process was joint”. SI 4: Nature and quality of the information sources used to identify shared needs / problems & the range of key stakeholders (i.e. central/regional/local public administrations; socio-economic organizations; NGOs etc) involved in the needs / problems identification process (qualitative). Sub-criterion 2.2: “Relevance / appropriateness of the initial programme strategy”. SI 5: Extent to which the explicit programme objectives did address the needs / problems prevailing in the co-operation area & the extent to which the initial priority-level financial allocations adequately reflected their respective importance (qualitative).

3. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “The type of governance and nature of the partnership

set up at the level of the programme”

Sub-criterion 3.1: “Scope and depth of the strategic partnership put into place at programme-level”. SI 6: Range of actors represented on the Programme Monitoring Committee and extent of their formal powers in the strategic-level decision making process (qualitative). Sub-criterion 3.2: “Nature and quality of shared management structures at programme-level”. SI 7: Extent to which the overall programme management structure is truly joint (i.e. Managing Authority, Paying Authority & joint bank account, Joint Technical Secretariat, other structures providing support to projects) and is – at the same time – characterised by a decentralised delivery of the related tasks (qualitative). Sub-criterion 3.3: “Quality of the joint day-to-day programme management process”. SI 8: Effects of a non-existence / existence of conventions, protocols or agreements concluded between principal programme partners on the joint day-to-day programme management process (qualitative).

4. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “The location and nature of all projects implemented under the programme”

Sub-criterion 4.1: “The location of projects within the programme”. SI 9: Extent to which the actual “ERDF-demand of approved projects” matched the initial “ERDF-funding supply” at the level of the various programme priorities (quantitative). Sub-criterion 4.2: “The location of projects within the programme area”. SI 10: Share of programme NUTS 3 areas hosting one or more of the Lead Partners / Main Partners involved in all approved projects (quantitative). Sub-criterion 4.3: “Degree of complexity / sophistication of co-operation actions, degree of experimentation, level of ambition”. SI 11: Extent to which the approved projects have performed all of the following project activities (quantitative):


WEST ZONE

R20090290.doc 107 January 2010

• A mutual exchange of experience on the project's themes. • A joint development of policy strategies, policy instruments and other policy support

tools. • Individual pilot projects (always carried out by one project partner) and /or joint pilot

projects (always carried out by more than one project partner), which tested or applied joint outcomes and generated tangible cross-border, transnational, or interregional results.

5. INTERREG III-related Criterion:

“Significance of joint projects / operations implemented under the programme”

Sub-criterion 5.1: “The relative importance of joint projects / operations in the context of overall project-level co-operation realised under the programme”. SI 12: The number of joint projects / operations approved as compared to the total number of projects approved under the programme (quantitative). SI 13: The number of partners directly involved in joint projects / operations as compared to the total number of partners directly involved in all projects approved under the programme (quantitative). Sub-criterion 5.2: “The relative financial importance of joint projects / operations within the programme”. SI 14: The total cost volume of joint projects / operations as compared to the grand total cost volume of all approved projects (quantitative). SI 15: The volume of ERDF-funding allocated to joint projects / operations as compared to the grand total volume of ERDF-funding allocated to all approved projects (quantitative). Sub-criterion 5.3: “The relative importance of joint projects / operations in addressing major needs /problems prevailing in the programme area”. SI 16: The total cost of joint projects / operations approved under the two financially most important programme priorities as compared to the grand total cost of all projects approved under these two priorities (quantitative). SI 17: The volume of ERDF-funding joint projects / operations approved under the two financially most important programme priorities as compared to the grand total volume of ERDF-funding allocated to all projects approved under these two priorities (quantitative).

6. INTERREG III-related Criterion: “Impact of all projects at the level of the entire programme area”

Sub-criterion 6.1: “Effect of all projects on national / regional / local level political & administrative processes”. SI 18a: Cross-border co-operation: Extent to which public administrative units existing in the programme area (at national level, at NUTS 1-3 levels, at LAU 1 & 2 levels) were directly involved in all approved projects (quantitative). SI 18b: Transnational co-operation: Extent to which public administrative units existing in the programme area (at national level, at NUTS 1-3 levels, at LAU 1 & 2 levels) were directly involved in all approved projects (quantitative). SI 18c: Inter-regional co-operation: Extent to which public administrative units existing in the EU (at national level, at NUTS 1-3 levels, at LAU 1 & 2 levels) – including those in the Third Countries concerned – were directly involved in all approved projects (quantitative). Sub-criterion 6.2: “Effect of all projects on the wider population”. SI 19: Number of persons directly involved in and reached by all approved projects compared to the total population living in the eligible area (quantitative).