4th EU Interregional Cooperation Forum

Budapest, Hungary

3-4 February 2011

Event Report

February 2011 2

Contents 4th EU Interregional Cooperation Forum, Budapest, 3-4 February 2011 ......................................................................... 3 Interregional cooperation achievements ........................................................................................................................... 4 Global view of programme results so far .......................................................................................................................... 4 Interregional cooperation achievements II ........................................................................................................................ 5 Testimonies and examples of running projects ................................................................................................................. 5 Live feedback .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Conversation with the Commission “Lessons learned, future perspectives” .................................................................... 8 Presentation of the fourth call terms of reference ........................................................................................................... 11 INTERREG IVC project development: Core factors for a winning project ...................................................................... 12 INTERREG IVC project development: Lead partners’ discussion .................................................................................. 13 Finance I: How to create a sound management system ................................................................................................. 14 Finance II: How to set up a project budget ..................................................................................................................... 16 Project II: What is an implementation plan? .................................................................................................................... 18 Communication I: Strategic communication .................................................................................................................... 19 Communication II: building a communication plan.......................................................................................................... 20 Participants overview and feedback ............................................................................................................................... 21

February 2011 3

4th EU Interregional Cooperation Forum, Budapest, 3-4 February 2011

The forum, organised by the INTERREG IVC programme and the Hungarian Presidency of the EU, was aimed at informing the participants on the latest developments in the programme, in particular on the fourth call for proposals, and providing opportunities for networking and partner search for those developing cooperation projects.

As host of the 4th EU Interregional Cooperation Forum, Dr György Nyikos, Deputy State Secretary for Development Affairs in Hungary welcomed Commissioner Hahn, Mrs Bresso and the participants to the event. She highlighted the particular importance cooperation has for Hungary on all levels, and the benefits gained by the 60 Hungarian partners currently taking part in interregional cooperation projects. Highlighting the added-value of INTERREG IVC, she emphasised the concept of ‘capitalisation’, or better use of project achievements as one area where progress should be made in the coming months to ensure the wider use of project results. Dr Nyikos also outlined the priorities for the Hungarian Presidency in initiating the debate on the future Cohesion Policy and in the evaluation of the ‘Territorial Agenda’. She finished with a reminder “that in our globalised world, Europe and its countries have no other option than to co-operate, otherwise we cannot be competitive on a global level. The INTERREG IVC programme helps us learn from each other and with this knowledge we can capitalise results through other programmes of Cohesion Policy.” Commissioner Hahn took to the floor to open the plenary discussion on interregional cooperation. Before commencing his speech, he admired the networking tool put to use during the event, hoping that it would lead to fruitful partnerships. He spoke then of the importance that the upgrade of territorial cooperation to a full objective of Cohesion Policy was in 2007, and that for the future “(w)e want not only to maintain this objective but also to strengthen it, strategically and if possible in terms of budget." The size of the overall budget for Cohesion Policy in the next period would depend on current performance, the Commissioner continued, and thus highlighted the importance of the need for regions in interregional cooperation to implement the results, and make the blueprint available to other regions. “INTERREG IVC’s added value is about much more than money”, he concluded. President of the Committee of the Regions, Mercedes Bresso, remarked that the future of the interregional cooperation programme, “one of the most talented members of this large Territorial cooperation family”, could focus on two main points: policy and governance innovation, and partnerships. In terms of policy innovation, she recognised that “experimentation is not the easiest choice at this time...financial constraints are weighing down on public finances at all levels.” However, she continued, this is a major reason in ensuring that regions and cities get a better return on investment from their funds – something that the INTERREG IVC programme can continue to provide. Mrs Bresso also introduced the idea of an “Erasmus” programme for regional and local policy-makers, to improve the management of cohesion policy programmes. The president ended by comparing the core ingredients of European progress to the Hungarian-invented Rubik’s cube: the diversity of our regions, the interdependence of our institutions, and the search for shared solutions. Michel Lamblin, Programme Director of INTERREG IVC, took to the floor after the break to give participants an update on where the programme is at the moment, considering the challenging context in place since the start of the period. An unexpectedly high demand for the programme funds, a financial crisis, and a more confirmed need for innovation and climate change policies were the three areas identified by Mr Lamblin as having an impact on the programme’s implementation. Still, the facts and figures presented showed that the

programme is well on its way to achieving its objectives. All EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland are represented in the programme, and going even further, over 80% of European regions (NUTS 2 level) participate in cooperation projects. Michel Lamblin finished with some reflections on how the programme could improve in the future, through its links with regional operational programmes, on the topics that the programme covers, and its complementarities with existing regulations.

February 2011 4

Interregional cooperation achievements Global view of programme results so far

Nicolas Singer, INTERREG IVC Joint Technical Secretariat

The programme’s Senior Project Officer, Nicolas Singer, took the floor to give the audience an insight into the first achievements of INTERREG IVC, a topic of particular importance since interregional cooperation is sometimes criticised for lacking tangible results. Each individual project contributes to the achievement of the programme’s overall objectives and is monitored through the indicators system, integrated in the application form and progress reports. The challenges of monitoring outputs and results of ‘soft cooperation’ were highlighted: the variety of topics tackled, the diverse types and intensities of projects as well as the different characters of partner institutions are factors that make the consolidation of project results on programme level difficult to achieve. In order to prevent inaccuracies, the

programme requires a sound justification from the projects for each reported figure. Nicolas Singer regretted that the richness of INTERREG IVC-funded cooperation projects is not fully reflected in the current monitoring system, and expressed the necessity to upgrade it in a future interregional cooperation programme. The first results achieved by the 35 Regional Initiative projects and the 6 Capitalisation projects1

were presented according to the programme’s main objectives:

1. To identify, share and transfer good practices

So far, 859 identified good practices from all parts of Europe have been identified by the 35 first-call Regional Initiative Projects. During the initial stage of programme implementation, 19 good practices have already been transferred in the fields of Innovation, research and technology development’ (6), ‘Entrepreneurship & SMEs’ (2) as well as ‘Energy and sustainable transport’ (11). Examples range from the ‘Super Incubation Services’ imported by the Finnish city Jyväskylä from the Innovation Centre of Sussex (UK) to a ‘User data analysis’ for transport services development exported by the Transport Operator of Livorno (IT) to the local Austrian municipality of Purbach.

2. To exchange experience and improve capacity of regional stakeholders at EU level in particular by matching less experienced with more experienced regions

In terms of geographical coverage, the 122 projects approved under the first, second and third calls for proposals are currently bringing together 1,334 partners from all EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland. Based on an average number of 11 partners per project, 82% of all EU27 NUTS2 regions (i.e. 223 out of 271) are involved in INTERREG IVC projects at the present stage. In this context, the participation of ‘Convergence’ and ‘Competitiveness’ regions within each of the first call projects can be considered as a success.

3. To improve regional and local policies

With regard to the ambitious result indicator on ‘number of improved policies’, 13 first call projects were already able to report tangible results. Until now, their interregional exchange of experience led to the improvement of 24 local/regional/national policies under Priority 1 (‘Innovation and the knowledge economy’) and 8 policies under Priority 2 (‘Environment and risk prevention’). For instance, the lessons learnt on ‘Innovation vouchers’ within the RAPIDE project helped the Ministry of Economy of Saxony-Anhalt (DE) to create a ‘funding guideline’ on grants to support projects in the fields of innovation and R&D. In the field of environmental protection, the Regional Plan for Sustainable Transport of the Italian region Emilia-Romagna was enriched by the latest findings on innovative transport approaches in metropolitan areas, provided through a sub-project of the POWER mini-programme. Concluding his intervention, Nicolas Singer drew the attention of the audience to the leverage effects demonstrated by the 6 first call Capitalisation projects. Based on the projects' accumulated ERDF budget of EUR 8.7 m. (EUR 1.45 m. on average per project), the partnerships were able to activate approximately EUR 127 m. of funding through the transfer of good practices into their regions’ and countries’ own programmes, thus achieving a leverage effect of 14 (EUR 21.6 m. on average per project). These averages need to be treated with care, as some projects are addressing finance-intensive infrastructure investments such as the improvement of broadband infrastructure in rural areas (B3 Regions) while other partnerships are concentrating their efforts on soft measures, e.g. in the field of entrepreneurship (ICHNOS Plus). Altogether, these 6 Capitalisation projects have shown their capacity to have sustainable impacts on policy-levels.

1 These 41 projects were approved under the first call in 2008.

82% of all EU27 NUTS2 regions, or 223 out of 271, are involved in INTERREG IVC projects

19 good practices have been transferred already by the 35 first-call Regional Initiative Projects

Already 32 regional and local policies have been improved

Demonstrated leverage effects show excellent return on investment

February 2011 5

Interregional cooperation achievements II

Testimonies and examples of running projects

Karin Maatje, Province of Flevoland (NL), partner in MINI EUROPE Johannes Bardong, traffiQ – Frankfurt public transport authority (DE), partner in PIMMS TRANSFER

Aneta Widak, Marshall Office, Malopolska Region (PL), partner in PEOPLE Veleslava Abadzhieva, Euro Perspectives Foundation (BG), partner in MORE4NRG

INTERREG IVC can produce a wide variety of results such as capacity building, exchange of good practice, improvement of policies and spin-offs. The objective of this panel of four INTERREG IVC project partners was to give an insight into the achievements of running projects and how the projects got there. In this panel discussion, the projects MINI EUROPE and PIMMS TRANSFER outlined how they succeeded in transferring a good practice from one region to another whereas the projects PEOPLE and MORE4NRG demonstrated two examples of how a regional policy could be improved thanks to the exchange of experience. Promoting entrepreneurship and providing regional infrastructure for innovation is the objective of MINI EUROPE. Karin Maatje from the Province of Flevoland (NL) and Lead partner of MINI EUROPE outlined that the County of Västernorrland (SE) shared their good practice of stimulating young people’s entrepreneurial skills and mindset by assisting them to set up their own ‘mini-companies’. This initiative, called ‘Summer entrepreneur’, is one of seven good practices which have already been transferred amongst project partners thanks to MINI EUROPE. The Province of Flevoland as well as the Region of Northwest England (UK) imported this Swedish good practice. In Flevoland, a pilot project started in summer 2010 in which 38 young people participated. They received coaching as well as a small starting capital to set up their own business such as an event organisation company, an intercultural communication enterprise and a website developer. The Swedish partner trained the Province in setting up this programme. The project was such a success that Flevoland already received requests to extend the project to other parts of the Netherlands.

Johannes Bardong from the Frankfurt public transport authority (traffiQ, DE) and Lead partner of PIMMS TRANSFER, a project on mobility management services, reported on the initiative ‘Walking to school’ of the London Borough of Bromley (UK). Its idea is to encourage parents and pupils to walk to school on a regular basis instead of using the “parents’ taxi”, with the objective of reducing traffic, making the roads safer in front of schools and to generally promoting the use of public transport. Inspired by study trips of the project partners to London, this school campaign has already been transferred and adapted to 15 schools in Frankfurt. Frankfurt decided to give the primary school campaign a mascot: a penguin, and provided schools with promotional material. Pupils collect a penguin stamp each time they walk to school, and 20 stamps gets them

all kinds of incentives from the ‘penguin pack’ (e.g. lunch box, T-shirt with the penguin mascot, water bottle). Aneta Widak from the Marshal Office of Malopolska Region (PL) reported on a regional policy which was improved thanks to their exchange of experience in the framework of the mini-programme PEOPLE – Innovation for Societal Change. In 2010, the Board of the Malopolska Region updated their Malopolska 2020 strategy in the context of demographic change. Specific recommendations and experiences of the PEOPLE partners peer review were integrated in this process, especially in the context of ‘dynamic ageing’. Increased awareness of social problems and demographic changes led Malopolska region to look for new and innovative alternatives to face demographic change challenges.

Strengthening the delivery of regional strategies for renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by exchanging best practices is the main objective of MORE4NRG. The involvement of the Euro Perspectives Foundation (BG) in this project, represented by Veleslava Abadzhieva, led to an improved development strategy of Gabrovo region. A peer review was organised in Gabrovo in 2009 and involved almost all the stakeholders of Gabrovo region. Thanks to this intensive exchange, a special section on renewable energy and energy efficiency was integrated for the first time in the Regional Development Strategy of Gabrovo. For instance, a specific objective on increasing energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources was introduced in this strategic framework.

The panel discussed about the benefits of the exchange of experiences, how the transfer of good practices and the policy improvement exactly took place and what the biggest obstacles to overcome were. It was for instance concluded that the transfer of experiences is not only of benefit for the “importing” region, but that also the “exporting” partners can get something out of it, by further improving their own practices and policies. Finally, the panel pointed out that one important success factor for cooperation projects is to have committed partners on board who have political backing. Indeed, the direct involvement of the policy-makers was considered as a key to reach durable results.

February 2011 6

Live feedback

Participants interested in asking questions and getting feedback on project ideas met a panel of programme advisers who replied in front of the audience, so as to share the tips and information with all attendees. The panel was composed of:

• Marit Lani, Project & Communication Adviser, Information Point North

• Thorsten Kohlisch, Project Adviser, Information Point East

• Manuel Gonzalez, Project Adviser, Information Point South

• Akos Szabo, Project & Communication Adviser, Information Point West

• Petra Geitner, Senior Finance Officer, Joint Technical Secretariat

• Nicolas Singer, Senior Project Officer, Joint Technical Secretariat

Question: In a previous call our application was rejected because it did not meet the eligibility criteria – for a matter of two words. Are the criteria going to evolve for the 4th call? The eligibility criteria are in a yes/no format. It is important to note that 20% of applications are rejected on this basis. There was an initiative to relax the application of the eligibility criteria but this proposal was rejected by the Monitoring Committee. Question: Is there a maximum percentage of the budget which partner staff costs cannot exceed? All costs should be linked to the activities of the project. Partners’ staff costs in the budget will be assessed in relation to this. Particular attention is paid to the external expertise/partner staff allocation ratio. Where possible, the use of staff rather than consultants is promoted simply because more of the expertise gained during the project will retained at the regional/local authority level. Question: Can we foresee incentives in the budget? Financial incentives (e.g. cash prizes) are not eligible for INTERREG IVC budgets. An INTERREG IVC project is about the exchange of policy experience above all else. Question: Does the budget split amongst partners matter? The split between partners should be justified according to each partner’s participation in the activities of the project. Question: Do policymakers really care about initiatives originating from abroad? It has been seen from project monitoring that there is indeed interest on the policy-makers’ side to see examples coming from abroad. Concerning their involvement in your project, it is best to involve the policy-makers right from the start of the project and throughout the whole implementation.

Question: Is there a limit for project management costs? Project management costs should be limited to 20% of the total budget. Question: Can universities be Lead partners? Yes this is possible, but their link to the policy level should be clearly justified. Local/regional authorities are prioritised by the programme although bodies governed by public law are eligible to be partners and Lead partners.

February 2011 7

Question: Can an educational establishment be an LP with a local/regional authority as a partner? There are no restrictions on bodies governed by public law being Lead partners. It is better if the local/regional authority of the same region is also involved in the partnership, but still the relevance of the educational establishment should be clearly demonstrated. Question: Is it not surprising that universities are not targeted, given the focus of the 2020 strategy? No-one denies the importance of universities within regional development. This was already recognised within the Lisbon agenda. Nevertheless, the experience gained from the current and previous interregional cooperation programmes shows that the most successful projects (i.e. those who demonstrated concrete improvement of policies) are those where the drivers of cooperation are the local/regional authorities. Bodies governed by public law are welcome as long as their involvement is in line with the programme’s rationale. It should also be noted that a lot of other EU programmes are more specifically dedicated to universities and academic bodies. Question: How much administration work is needed for implementing a project? Even before the implementation phase, the preparation of the application form, subsidy contract, and partnership agreement often takes time. It should be noted that preparation costs prior to the submission of the project can be eligible for co-financing. A project manager and financial manager should be appointed. The six-monthly progress reports can take time and investment to complete. It should also be noted that the first progress report may take longer than the rest to prepare as the reporting documents have to be drafted for the first time and clarifications with the first level controller might be needed. Question: Are letters of support necessary when submitting an application form? Only co-financing statements should be attached. No other annexes are permitted. Question: Are projects initiated by policy makers or at the grassroots level? It could be either way. Regardless of origin, the policy-maker has to endorse the project at the end of the day. Question: Does the programme’s definition of cultural heritage open the possibility of creating a new form of cultural heritage? It depends of course on how you define this “new form of cultural heritage”. In general however, IVC projects should build on existing experience, and should not be primarily on the creation of new instruments. Question: Can we be flexible with the planned activities? Small changes to the budget are possible so long as the overall budget is not increased. Any deviations in budget or activities should be justified. Bigger budgetary changes of 20% between component budgets, partner budgets or budget lines are possible but an official ‘request for changes’ procedures is required – and, again, as long as the overall budget is not increased.

Question: Will the application of a flat rate administration costs be optional? Flat rate administration costs, calculated as 12% of staff costs, will be mandatory for all projects approved from the fourth call onwards. Indirect and direct administration costs are covered by the flat rate administration costs. The flat rate will not apply to previously approved projects. Question: Do you prefer external or internal project management? There is no preference but it should be noted that externalising project management can cost more.

Question: How far should the implementation go? Are good practices enough or should there be pilots? The interregional exchange of experience at policy level should be at the heart of a IVC project. Only ‘light implementation’ activities through pilot actions which benefit the whole partnership are allowed. However pilot actions are not necessarily needed. Question: Is it ok to take good practices from non-INTERREG projects? Yes, this is in fact the case for most projects. It is important that we don’t ‘reinvent the wheel’ and the added-value of these good practices is examined. Question: Can partners other than the Lead partner manage component 2 on communication? Of course. Component 2 and 3 can be led by other partners, only component 1 on management is the obligation of the Lead partner.

February 2011 8

Conversation with the Commission “Lessons learned, future perspectives”

Following the publication of the 5th Cohesion Report, and hot on the tail of the Cohesion Forum held in Brussels on 1st February, a conversation focusing on the strategic direction for interregional cooperation took place between:

• Colin Wolfe, head of the European Territorial Cooperation Unit for the Commisssion, who provided the Commission’s perspective of the future of ETC

• Balazs Simo, chairperson of the Programme’s Monitoring Committee for the Hungarian Presidency, who provided his political perspective

• Thomas Wobben of the Saxony-Anhalt region (Germany), an experienced regional policy practitioner who gave his personal perspective on what regions want and need from regional policy

• Michel Lamblin, Director of the INTERREG IVC programme. Colin Wolfe, could you give us an overview of what is currently proposed for European Territorial Cooperation after 2013 within the Cohesion Report? What have you learned from the current and previous periods that have influenced this? Colin Wolfe: A lot of significant achievements have been made by INTERREG. From the 2000-2006 period more than 100,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses were created or supported. The Cohesion Report indicated that there must be a better linkage with other programmes outside of the “cooperation community” in order to disseminate these impressive results. Part of this lack of visibility of the cooperation achievements is due to the fact that the cooperation programmes’ goals had not been set clearly enough. The link between interregional cooperation, and competitiveness and convergence programmes need to be strengthened. Another discussion that arose during the Cohesion Forum itself is the need for a simplification of the rules and procedures for cooperation programmes. Since we are often dealing with relatively small amounts of money, some more tailor-made rules would be welcome: more proportional controls and audits – or a generalisation of a procedure that the INTERREG IVC programme put into place regarding flat rates calculations in terms of overhead. In general there is a demand for more cooperation-friendly rules. The work has already started on drafting the regulation for the next period (2014-2020) and these considerations are being taken into account.

Balazs Simo, what do you think about the current positioning of interregional cooperation? What are your main priorities for interregional cooperation in the future? Balazs Simo: Firstly, interregional cooperation greatly helps the newest EU Member States to transfer best practices and know-how. There is still more to do in terms of transferring practices from ‘old’ to ‘new’ Member States and we are in favour of a strengthening of the cooperation programmes. Speaking about the future of the programme, we should improve the communication. The INTERREG IVC programme has already shown some good results and we have to see how to build on this experience in the drafting of the next programming period.

Thomas Wobben, in your experience as a representative of a region which has been involved in cooperation projects since 1994 do you think interregional cooperation is relevant for regions? From a regional perspective, how can the link between interregional cooperation and the so-called mainstream programmes be made even stronger? Thomas Wobben: Interregional cooperation matters more than ever. In the Cohesion report, the big challenge for regions is to reach the objectives, which requires strong cooperation as the EU2020 strategy clearly states. At the same time, interregional cooperation only represents 1/1000 of the total budget and so the goals that are fixed for cooperation should not be excessive. Interregional cooperation and territorial cooperation as a whole have still not penetrated enough mainstream structural funds intervention. EU2020 will require regions to work together. Local and regional authorities can be involved thanks to the programme.

February 2011 9

Michel Lamblin, from the interregional cooperation programme’s perspective, how could this ‘increased link’ be put into practice? Michel Lamblin: We must insist on the communication, not only to managing authorities but also to networks around us, and we need to convince the Member States as well as different units within the Commission. Cooperation still needs to be structured, with clear and coherent indicators used in the same way by all. Not all regions are bordering another country. Some of them are not concerned by the core priority of cross-border programmes, and interregional cooperation has this exclusive character of being available to all regions. Different possibilities are considered in order to put in practice this closer link: we can organise targeted calls, we can provide support by offering trainings, and we

can bring our support to those regions that want to deepen some of their partnerships. We have seen the high demand and popularity of the programme, with 1000 applications involving 10,000 regional and local authorities. However the success rate remains at 10-15%. This programme is supposed to be a ‘strategic’ programme, influencing policies, so what is your view on this high demand for cooperation? Colin Wolfe: The demand is there, but we have to find a more suitable outlet in terms of linking cooperation with the ‘mainstream’ programmes. The arguments are there to persuade those who control the budget that there should be more resources made available for the cooperation objective in general, and the interregional part of it in particular. Again, this point has to be made not to like-minded people but to those outside of the interregional cooperation community. Thomas Wobben: Within territorial cooperation, Member States are strongly interested in cross-border, and now there is a growing focus on thematic strategies like the Danube strategy. There is a danger that the interregional part is left behind because it doesn’t have such a strong lobby. The European Parliament and the Committee of Regions have a strong say in the definition of the future of the interregional cooperation and should be our communication targets. If we would only increase the budget for the next programming period by 1/1000 this would double the budget. If we want to improve regional development, we have to look at what has been learnt and who has this knowledge. For instance, should only local and public entities be engaged in the programme as currently, or should more links with other types of organisations be allowed as is the case in other programmes? Another point is the number of applications received, which is too high for a success rate that is too low, thus creating frustration on the regions side. Lowering the co-financing rate is not a solution in a time of economic austerity. Finally, we need a joint process that would include the regions in the drawing up the next programming period to ensure better links with the regional operational programmes.

Michel Lamblin: We should work more closely with National Contact Points in order to filter the numerous applications that come our way. Colin Wolfe, would you agree that the thematic concentration in the framework of EU2020 would improve the interregional cooperation? Colin Wolfe: In a sense, the INTERREG IVC programme already does that: it has got two main priorities. I think that there is a real worth in defining this concentration, that if it addresses major EU problems like growth or unemployment then interregional cooperation would not be seen as marginal. There is recognition however that, in terms of cooperation not all regions are the same. The fact that they joined the Union at different stages, that they show disparities, means that there is an option in cooperation to work on capacity building. Balazs Simo: It is important that all the stakeholders: regions, the Parliament, and Member States even municipalities are involved actively in the drafting of cooperation programmes. The interregional programme has to be in line with the EU2020 objectives, but these strategies have to be implemented locally as well. This means that in the drafting of cooperation programmes, the EU2020 priorities have to be divided into more specific sub-themes, giving the flexibility on regional level to carry out activities that contribute to the overall strategy. Thomas Wobben: The thesis that a higher thematic concentration (or more priorities) will lead to a higher impact of the progamme is a myth! There is a scarce amount of money. The EU regulations do not properly develop “interregional cooperation”; it is seen as a supporting tool for the other programmes. We need to develop concepts of interregional learning, interregional innovation, and so on. It is lacking in the regulations so far, and therefore in the programme as well. Michel Lamblin: As a programme our role is to serve the EU priorities: the Commission proposes, the Member States decide and we apply. However there is a contradiction between the idea of thematic concentration and the fact that we are asked to follow the EU2020 strategy, which is technically broadening the scope compared to our current two priorities. Thomas Wobben: The 5th Cohesion report looks at the international dimension of cooperation: it compares Europe with the USA, China and Brazil. If we want to have the best regional development in the

February 2011 10

future we need to invite the countries and regions where development is taking place, and interregional cooperation is the only framework in which the possibility is given to invite these regions and countries, share with them and learn from their experience. Question to the audience, invited to vote via their Spotme devices: “In your opinion, should a future interregional cooperation programme have more thematic focus than the current programme?”

Thomas Wobben: This result is an interesting reflection of the debate on Cohesion policy. Apart from Ireland, all the other countries that just voted Yes to this question are the net payers. One fraction needs more concentration, one fraction needs more flexibility: the vote of today’s participants reflect the discussions on the Cohesion policy. Balazs Simo: It reflects that the EU15 and the other countries have different development levels. 12 countries feel that the scope of the thematic focus should be narrowed down. The other countries’ vote indicates that they would rather have a wide thematic focus in order to reach the biggest part of the population possible, which would help communicate better on the results of cooperation. Colin Wolfe: This is fascinating: what the Cohesion Forum was thinking of was the EU12 situation - that it is in this part of Europe that we could open the scope more because there is a need for capacity building, people-to-people contact, etc. The EU Commission was taking this line from the Cohesion Forum. But the results of the participants’ vote today show the contrary – that it is in the EU12 zone that participants would like the focus to be more precise. All I can say is that I need to reflect on these results! Last but not least I’d like to ask Michel Lamblin about the simplification of the administrative costs within INTERREG IVC projects. Michel Lamblin: We have proposed at the request of many regions to simplify the reporting of costs. We proposed reporting all administrative costs, whether direct or indirect to be limited to a level of 12% of the staff costs of the partnership of project. The Member States of the programme’s Monitoring Committee have accepted this proposition for the future fourth call approved projects. We have good hope that the Commission will support this proposal. Colin Wolfe: We’ll do everything we possibly can to make sure that it does go through as this is an immensely important example. For the next programming period, proportionality, this notion that there are thresholds under which you do not have the same level of control and audit is an option that will be examined. Other simplifications could involve the application forms that are largely common across the programmes – and INTERACT has a role to play here. Thomas Wobben: In our region, the regional Court of Auditors complained that the costs for auditing were much higher than other programmes. As a programme which tries to be innovative we should try to find a consensus on an acceptable level of risk. If you take no risk you have no fun.

YesNo

48.3%

51.7%

February 2011 11

Presentation of the fourth call terms of reference

Erwin Siweris, INTERREG IVC Deputy Programme Director

The programme’s Deputy Director gave a presentation of the terms of reference for the 4th call for proposals. The key elements of his speech are summarised below.

• Timing of the call: 1 December 2010 - 1 April 2011

• All priorities and sub-themes open

• Types of intervention: open only to Regional initiative Projects (excluding mini-programmes)

• Budget available: all remaining funds, around EUR 100 million ERDF

EUR 62 million ERDF for priority 1 EUR 38 million ERDF for priority 2 EUR 1 million Norwegian national funding still available for partners from Norway

• There are clear rules on geographical coverage:

At least one partner from each of the four Information Point areas:

IP North: DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LV, NO, SE IP East: AT, BG, CZ, HU, PL, RO, SK, SI IP South: CY, EL, ES, IT, MT, PT IP West: BE, CH, FR, IE, LU, NL, UK

At least one partner from the 12 most recent Member States (joined 2004 or later):

BG, CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK, SI

• Additional output – implementation plan – required in component 3 (“exchange of experience”) to be produced by each participating region, specifying how each region will work to integrate the lessons learnt from the cooperation into its policies. The aim of this additional output is to professionalise the exchange of experience and to contribute to improve the durability of the project results.

• The innovative character of the proposal is very important – applicants must clearly demonstrate the added-value of their application with regards to the 122 approved projects in particular regarding the topic tackled and the partners involved.

• A financial simplification of the administration costs is put in place. Up until now all expenditure reported was based on real costs. For the 4th call applications, administration costs are automatically calculated as 12% of budgeted (and later on reported) staff costs.

Erwin Siweris then presented the application pack, which is made of the terms of reference for the 4th call, the programme manual, the application form and a co-financing statement template, and gave the provisional dates for the next steps:

Step 1: Eligibility check: April-May 2011 Step 2: Quality assessment: May-November 2011 Step 3: Decision & notification: November 2011 Step 4: Fulfilment of conditions: December 2011 Effective start date of project: January 2012

• The explanation of the eligibility check’s rationale and process was the last element of the presentation. A strong emphasis was put on checking and double-checking the formal requirements, especially since 60% of ineligible project applications in previous calls were due to problems with the co-financing statement.

February 2011 12

INTERREG IVC project development: Core factors for a winning project

Silke Brocks, Project Officer, INTERREG IVC

Elena Ferrario, Project Officer, INTERREG IVC Elena Ferrario started the presentation highlighting the main factors that make a difference between good and less relevant applications, explaining to the audience the main elements that assessors check. Her first recommendation is to adhere to the programme’s rationale. If the success rate in the previous calls for proposals was low (14%), it was mainly due to a lack of understanding of the programme’s rationale. Therefore applicants were invited to assess and check carefully if their project idea matches the programme’s core values: sharing knowledge, disseminating and transferring good practices in a given policy area, with a goal to improve regional policies. Elena Ferrario stressed key elements deriving from the programme’s rationale: regional and local authorities are the drivers of the cooperation; the region’s needs are the best motivator to participate in a IVC project and ensure that local policies will be improved; and the core activity of all IVC projects is the exchange of experience.

Silke Brocks continued the presentation by showing participants how they can turn programme requirements into strengths. Silke Brocks invited applicants to use the opportunity provided by the programme’s wide geographical coverage to exchange experience between more experienced and less advanced regions. She then explained that the required innovative character of a project can be proved by demonstrating its added-value in terms of theme and partnership, and the possible synergies with the programme’s 122 already approved projects. Silke Brocks went on to name the main points that turn an application into a winning application form. She invited applicants to personalise their application forms by being as specific as possible, with a clear project rationale, precise description of activities and outputs, and to carefully outline each partner’s contributions and expectations. A final tip was to have someone outside of the project read the application form, to make sure it is clear and understandable.

The presentation was followed by a question and answer session, opened by a potential partner from Greece addressing administrative costs and the specific situation in Greece where the first level control (FLC) considers staff costs eligible only under certain conditions. In response, Petra Geitner, Senior Finance Officer informed that this issue should be further clarified with the FLC, for example, clarifying in advance what staff costs will be considered as eligible. The members from the JTS also confirmed that projects may submit scanned or fax copies of the co-financing statements. It was also confirmed that one partner can participate in more than one project. In which sub-themes would the JTS expect most applications? In admitting that it was almost impossible for the JTS to know in advance what the proportions would be between Priority 1 and Priority 2, Erwin Siweris informed that there might be reallocation of funds between priorities, if the Monitoring Committee decides so. In general, it is more important to ensure that projects demonstrate their innovative character and comply with the quality requirements. The presenters stressed again the importance of understanding the programme’s rationale: exchange of experience on good policy practice to improve regional policy. This should be the underlying principle of each project.

February 2011 13

INTERREG IVC project development: Lead partners’ discussion

In this panel discussion four successful project developers who are currently leading running INTERREG IVC projects shared their own experiences and gave advice to the potential applicants.

• Eszter Balázsy, Észak-Alföld Regional Development Agency (HU), Lead partner of NEEBOR • Eszter Héjj, CeRamICa project manager, representing Municipality of Hódmezővásárhely (HU), Lead partner of CeRamICa • Alberto Preti, Institute for Transport and Logistics Foundation, Emilia Romagna Region (IT), Lead partner of CASTLE • Peter Tramberend, Environment Agency Austria – EAA (AT), Lead partner of SURF NATURE

How did you start building up your partnership? Alberto Preti informed that they started building the CASTLE partnership using the partners they had already cooperated with in previous projects. Peter Tramberend also underlined this proceeding and invited everyone to turn to their previous partners first. In some cases these contacts can also suggest appropriate partners they know. He also stressed that it is very important to know at least 4-5 partners in advance. Eszter Héjj informed that also in their case, they first turned to the existing partners and twin cities. NEEBOR partnership was built on the existing wider network, selecting partners that share the same challenges and problems and that demonstrated their interest in deepening the cooperation.

Did you seek advice from the programme? If yes, was it useful? Eszter Héjj confirmed that they used the opportunities provided by the programme. They not only managed to find partners through the programme but also used the possibility to attend individual consultations. The consultation was very useful. Peter Tramberend stressed their good cooperation with the National Contact Point and invited everyone to use all the possibilities provided by the programme. Alberto Preti also highlighted the importance of the professional advice. In their case the consultations helped to understand the core values of the programme and to really refocus the project so it would concentrate only on policy improvements.

How long was the time frame to set-up your partnership and write the application form? The development of the NEEBOR project application lasted approximately one year. Also in the case of the SURF NATURE project the preparation of the project application was rather time-consuming. It was especially hard to achieve the full commitment of all partners. Alberto Preti said that 4-5 months would be the minimum time required. However, the presenters stressed that the biggest challenge is to achieve a full commitment of all potential partners. Potential applicants should be ready to face the last minute changes, which in turn might lead to a redevelopment of the entire application forms (budgets, activity division etc.). It might also explain problems projects are facing with co-financing statements.

Did you face any particular difficulties in completing the application form? Eszter Balázsy highlighted challenges created by the space limitations. Alberto Preti said that they did not meet any particular difficulties. However, he invited everyone to clearly state their ideas as well as clearly explain the partnership composition and roles of all involved partners. Peter Tramberend in turn said that the application form is rather demanding, as it forces applicants to condense the topic and to concentrate only on the most relevant aspects.

What posed the biggest obstacle during the preparation of the application? Now that your project is running, are there things that you would have liked to have paid more attention to in the development phase? Eszter Balázsy named problems related to partners dropping out as the most challenging. The participants were strongly invited to pay sufficient attention to the partnership issues. It is very important to involve only committed partners that would stay with the project until the end. Alberto Preti turned the attention to the challenges local elections can create in terms of political support or new priorities. Eszter Héjj invited to pay more attention to budgets and budgetary implications. Eszter Balázsy and Peter Tramberend invited to pay special attention to indicators, planned outputs and results. After all, planned activities will have to be implemented; and planned results achieved. Communication with partners is very important.

Based on your experience, what would be your main advice to those developing a project for the first time? Peter Tramberend invited the potential applicants to find the necessary time and to cross check the application carefully. It was also suggested to pay sufficient attention to the partnership issues, selecting only the most appropriate and committed partners. Participants were also invited to seek professional advice.

February 2011 14

Finance I: How to create a sound management system Workshop run by: Petra Geitner, Elisa Milos and Mahesh Bhardwaj

The presentation covered two issues: project management and the first level control. The first part “Setting up efficient management procedures” covered the general guidelines that should be respected in order to ensure the successful

preparation and later implementation of the project (e.g. active involvement of partners in all the steps, need to respect partners’ interests, etc.). This part of the presentation also provided practical guidance needed for the preparation of the specific application form sections (mainly Component 1 and section 2.3 “Management and coordination”). The participants were invited to consider the following questions: 1) who will coordinate the project (own staff or subcontracted according to public procurement procedures); 2) how will the interaction with the Steering Group be organised; 3) how will decisions be made at strategic level. The Finance team also reminded participants about the importance of the public procurement regulations when subcontracting services (including project management). In the second part of the presentation “First level control considerations” the Finance team explained the role of the first level control (FLC) and the existing different FLC systems. A summary of the applicable FLC system as presented on the programme’s website (see the “country specific requirements” section) is provided in Section 5 of the application form. Furthermore, in case of a decentralised system with a choice between internal and external controller, the relevant partner has to indicate which option it will choose. The staff insisted that the contact details of the controller in an externalised system not appear as subject to public procurement. Greek and Irish partners were invited to foresee a budget for their FLC, even though operating in a centralised system. Do projects need to plan time for cost certification, because projects often experience delays due to FLC inefficiency? Very often delays are caused by late submission of project documents to the FLC. In case the FLC cannot handle the reports, there is a possibility to extend the reporting deadline (notifying JTS about delays and problems). What is the role of the Lead partner in the certification of partner costs? Petra Geitner answered that she would not limit the information to the partner control confirmation. To gain additional assurance about the quality of the work carried out, she invited Lead partners to ask for at least the list of expenditures and control report (incl. control checklist). Petra Geitner also stressed that the Lead partners do not have to double check each individual invoice. Is it preferable to have an in-house FLC or external controllers (in a decentralised system)? There is no real preference for either option. In the case of an internal first level controller, the controller must belong to a unit that is sufficiently independent from project activities and finances. The costs can be reported as staff costs if the national rules allow it, and if timesheets are filled in as supporting documents. If an external controller is chosen, s/he must be independent from the project and the partner, and sufficient budget must be foreseen under the external expertise budget line. In both cases, the controllers must be sufficiently aware of applicable EU and programme rules as the FLC of a European project goes far beyond the checking of accounts. In any case, the actual choice of the controller is then subject to approval by the Member State approbation body. How long are the reporting periods? Reporting has to be done every 6 months, from January to June and from July to December. The deadline for submission is then 1 October and 1 April. Are there limits to external expertise or staff costs per partner? The application form only shows the total budget per partner without a breakdown per budget line. Therefore, the cost limits are calculated at project level. External expertise should not exceed 50% of the total budget. Staff costs should be in line with the activities planned per partner and reflect its actual involvement in the project. Does the simplification of administration costs apply for external staff? The administration flat rate covers all project-related administration costs that occur in the partner organisation officially listed in the application form. Administration costs incurred by external staff are included in the external expertise budget and reported depending on the terms foreseen in the contract. Is it possible to apply the majority principle for decisions to be taken by the Steering Group? Usually decisions are taken by consensus, but some running projects are also applying voting-systems based on the majority principle (2/3 or ¾ majorities). Lead partners should precisely define the decision-making rules in the application form and then in the partnership agreement, a mandatory document which has to be signed by all partners of the project. Contributing his practical experience, a representative of the Italian Lead partner institution of the FLIPPER project (Public Transport Authority of Bologna) underlined the consensus-driven cooperation atmosphere within their partnership. In order to be transparent, additional management meetings are often organised in combination with project events, thus preparing the ground for the next official Steering Group meetings.

February 2011 15

Is it required to set-up an external evaluation for the project? The programme does not expect that projects carry out any external evaluation, but rather sets-up internal mechanisms in order to review and improve its performance and achievements. Therefore, external evaluators are not necessary. Is an authority obliged to apply public procurement rules even when a general service contract with an agency is in place, e.g. for communication services? These cases should be tackled with particular care and closely checked with the legal department and the first level controller.

February 2011 16

After a short reminder on co-financing rates, eligibility periods and preparation of activities, the focus was on the different budget lines as well as section 4 (‘Budget’) of the application form. The five relevant budget lines

Finance II: How to set up a project budget Workshop run by: Katja Ecke, Marie Lèbre and Stefania Amorosi The presentation provided an overview of the key elements of an INTERREG IVC project. (staff, administration, travel & accommodation, equipment and external expertise) were introduced together with respective points of attention. For instance it was emphasised that, except for the budget line ‘external expertise and services’, all other budget lines are exclusively reserved for personnel employed by partners mentioned in the application form. Additionally it was mentioned that for 4th call projects a flat rate for administration costs applies, and that budget for equipment has to remain reasonable. Next, the participants were provided with good and bad examples of how to fill sections 4.3 (specification of budget line ‘External expertise and services’) and 4.4 (specification of budget line ‘Equipment’) of the application form to illustrate common mistakes and how to avoid them. Giving precise description of items, drawing clear links to the activities planned in the work plan and paying attention to correct allocation of items in the components were among the tips given by the finance team. Finally, the importance of the payment forecast (section 4.2 of the application form) and the general programme recommendations concerning the budget were highlighted. As the 4th call introduces a simplified rule, administration costs are calculated automatically as 12% of the staff costs. This applies to all partners in all states participating in the INTERREG IVC programme. For the budgeting (and later reporting) of staff costs, and for the costs under the other budget lines, the real cost principle continues to apply. As further advice it was suggested to limit shared costs as much as possible (mainly to external expertise costs), as due to the different first level control rules it may cause difficulties for the project. Including a procedure on the regulation of shared costs in the partnership agreement is also advised. When a partner is hiring staff for the project that is directly employed by the partner, or in case a partner employs someone on a short term basis (paid by invoice), can it be considered as staff cost or external expertise? In principle this depends whether the hired person is on the payroll of the university or if the work will be based on invoices: in the first case it is considered staff costs, for the second it is considered external expertise. What happens if the actual administration cost is less than the 12% flat rate? The flat rate is an automatic calculation, depending on the reported staff costs. The principle of “actual costs” is in this case neglected, as the reported costs do not have to be backed-up with evidence. Regarding public procurement, should we follow national rules only? First of all it is important to keep in mind that for all partners involved in INTERREG IVC projects public procurement rules apply. Then, depending on the threshold, different procedures and levels of publicity apply. If you are above the EU threshold you have to apply EU public procurement rules. It should not be forgotten that even below European thresholds, European public procurement principles (transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination), national and internal rules apply. Where can specific information on public procurement be found? Public procurement questions should always be discussed with the legal experts dealing with public procurement matters in your organisation and then with the first level controller. The Lead partner intends to contract someone to support the development of the application: is this subject to public procurement? For all external expertise items the compliance with public procurement rules has to be checked. Please make sure that the basic requirements of the public procurement are respected even if you are below the European threshold and the procedure is well documented. What should be done if there is not enough space to specify the external expertise costs (section 4.3 of the application form)? Costs which belong together can be clustered, e.g. in case of a workshop organisation, costs such as room rental, catering, and translation can be grouped together. Please then specify the partners who would use this external expertise, e.g. P2, P3, P7 and P9. In any case, items of different nature should not be clustered together.

February 2011 17

Project I: How to estimate your project achievements

Workshop run by: Nicolas Singer and Benoît Dalbert

This workshop was dedicated to estimating project achievements: the notion of “achievements” refers to the projects’ outputs and results. Their estimation is carried out through quantification, via the programme’s indicators. First, the importance of programme indicators was stressed. At programme level, the indicators system ensures the consistency of projects’ results. At project level, the indicators

system should not be seen as a burden but as an already available evaluation tool which helps projects to monitor their project and measure their successes. Second, the distinction between outputs (project deliverables) and results (effects deriving from project outputs) was further explained. Finally, the following points of attention were raised:

• The direct link between certain outputs and results indicators;

• The necessity to remain realistic when estimating project achievements;

• The meaning of three core result indicators (number of staff members with increased capacity, number of good practices successfully transferred, number of regional/local policies improved);

• The need to carefully check the definition of each indicator provided in annex 3 of the programme manual before completing the application form.

Significant deviations from the original plans are inevitable since a project is approved approximately 1 year after its submission. This means that deviations will happen no matter whether they are positive or negative. What is the JTS’ opinion on these inevitable deviations? The project referred to by the questioner is an exception since it went through a Lead partner change at the start which is very rare and leads to a loss of experience/knowledge for the partnership. Still, the initial application form is the basis for the JTS to monitor the project. Deviations are possible as long as they are justified. In case of difficulties during the implementation, what kind of support is the programme providing? The JTS is providing two contacts to help the project during its implementation: the Project Officer / Project Adviser for the activities monitoring, and the Finance Officer for financial issues. Besides JTS support, the National Contact Points (NCP) are an important help for projects in case of difficulties with the partnership. The NCP can help to motivate passive partners or to find partners from the same region/country in case of partner withdrawals, although these changes have to be avoided as much as possible.

Is it a problem if the initial target values set for the indicators are not achieved during project implementation? Nobody can ensure that all expected results will be achieved. However, it is important that the project provides the reasons why a specific expected result was finally not reached. Does the indicator ‘number of policies improved’ only refer to policies that are changed or does it also include situations where the knowledge gained from the exchange of experience leads to improving the way the policy is implemented without necessarily modifying it? An improved policy can only be reported when clear evidence of modifications can be provided (e.g. introduction of a new measure in a programme, modification of a policy document). The additional knowledge is anyway reflected in the indicator dedicated to staff with increased capacity.

What is the difference between results and outcomes on one hand, and between results and objectives on the other? INTERREG IVC follows the EC guidelines on programme monitoring and evaluation. These guidelines precisely refer to three levels: outputs, results and impacts. To facilitate the monitoring it was agreed since the previous programming period that interregional cooperation programmes would remain at the level of outputs and results. The wording ‘outcomes’ is sometimes used as a synonym for outputs and results but, to avoid confusion, the JTS advised the applicants to use the official programme terminology. The difference between objectives and results is that objectives are set at the beginning of the project whereas results are the successes achieved during the project’s implementation; successes that should contribute to the achievement of the project’s initial objectives. When are staff considered to have ‘increased capacity’? Can we consider that the capacity has increased after one meeting? It is true that after 3 years of running a project, there is no diploma or certificate for staff with increased capacity, so this indicator can be more difficult to measure. The programme considers that only staff directly involved in the project would be counted in this indicator, and that increased capacity would be gained over at least several meetings/workshops etc. This indicator is expected to be completed towards the end of the project. Each project can also add its own indicators in the application form, which serve for its own evaluation and on-going assessment.

February 2011 18

Project II: What is an implementation plan? Workshop run by: Martina Bačová and Erika Fulgenzi During this workshop the representatives of the Joint Technical Secretariat were explaining to the participants why this additional output is required from 4th call applicants and what is actually meant by the implementation plan. As for the background, the speakers highlighted that the necessity of an implementation plan was also recommended in the intermediate programme evaluation by the programme evaluators. The implementation plan aims to increase the tangibility of the results, not only at project level but also at programme level, in addition it helps to increase the durability of project results and also makes the projects more goal-oriented. When coming to the features of the implementation plan it was stressed that this output focuses on future activities in order to ensure that the results are not lost; actually through this “roadmap” a project can already pave the way for future implementation, namely how they will put into practice the good practices transferred to their region. The document itself does not have a binding character. No template exists as the implementation plan needs to be adapted to each region. Therefore they are to be prepared in national languages; however an abstract in English also has to be provided for the INTERREG IVC programme. As practical advice the speakers highlighted the section where applicants need to give details on the implementation plan, namely sections 2.1.4 Expected outputs and results of the project; 2.1.8 Durability of the project results and in component 3. When giving details in these sections, consistency is important and it should always be mentioned for which regions an implementation plan is foreseen. Furthermore, as the implementation plans need to be produced at the end of the project and as an abstract in English needs to be prepared, translation costs should be foreseen. In case two partners come from the same region, how many implementation plans need to be prepared? As the implementation plan focuses on regions, in principle only one implementation plan needs to be prepared for both partners. The implementation plan is for regions but if the partner is a local authority, should there be an implementation plan for local level (NUTS level 3)? The notion of ‘region’ in INTERREG IVC is quite broad and refers to each local or regional authority involved in the project. For instance, in the case of one project related to urban mobility, which involves one public transport authority that operates only at urban level, one implementation plan has to be produced at local level by this partner. The implementation plan comes from project activities, what happens if we do not achieve the expectations? The implementation plan reflects the intent of the regions and shall not be considered as a binding document. It is a final output elaborated in the last phase of the project implementation in order to capitalise on the lessons learnt during the cooperation and to create further commitment to the results at partner level. As different stakeholders might be involved in its implementation, the programme is aware that the expectations originally foreseen could be different from the results that will be effectively reached. Is an implementation plan also needed if a project plans to conduct pilot actions? Yes, even if pilot actions are planned, an implementation plan must be prepared for each region participating in the project. Although pilot actions can be regarded as a sort of implementation activity, they should remain very limited within an INTERREG IVC project and this in many respects. Pilot actions do not replace the preparation of implementation plans. The main aim of implementation plans is to outline for each participating region, how it will further capitalise on the knowledge and experience gained during the project. They should also take up the results of the pilots and develop how these results will be evaluated and integrated into existing strategies of the related regions (e.g. are further spin-off initiatives or generalisation of the piloted instruments foreseen). Must universities make implementation plans together with local authorities? If a university is a project partner participating in all project activities with the objective of improving regional/local policies through good practice exchange, it needs also to prepare an implementation plan. Only if the university has a specific scientific advisory role in the project, no implementation plan for such partner is needed. In case a territory is represented by more than one partner, only one implementation plan is needed for the territory. The preparation should be driven by the local and region authorities and if needed assisted by other related partners on the same territory (e.g. universities, regional development agencies, chambers of commerce).

February 2011 19

Communication I: Strategic communication

Workshop run by: Nuala Morgan and Zornitsa Tsoneva

This specific session on how to prepare a joint communication plan covered the following points: communication objectives, target groups, project messages and evaluation methods.

The programme staff started by reminding the participants about the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 – articles 8 & 9 which highlight the obligation and importance of informing about the use of the funds obtained. They also emphasised the fact that a wide dissemination of project results will allow other EU regions to benefit

from the good practices identified, lessons learnt and achievements. The importance of developing a communication plan as a key to a successful communication strategy was then stressed. A recommendation was made to the applicants to first clearly define their target groups and then develop a series of messages accordingly. Examples of means to promote the messages were also provided, such as press releases for the media or leaflets to explain to the citizens what the project is about. As with messages, appropriate tools need to be selected for each target group. In any case, it is very important to foresee measures to evaluate the impact of any activity undertaken. Another practical tip given to the participants was to make any activity or objective “SMART”: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely. To better understand how to define the target groups, a concrete example was provided by asking the potential applicants to think about the key audiences for a cooperation that would deal with policies on climate change mitigation. Regarding the proposed example, it would not be specific enough to only identify the target groups as policy-makers and EU-level bodies. Instead, the Ministry of Environment or environmental NGOs should be considered as the targets. The second part of the presentation focused on the messages in terms of language style, vocabulary and content. As a general rule, the technical jargon should be as much as possible avoided so that non-specialist could understand what the project is about and intends to achieve. People outside the projects are not interested in process-related issues: instead of telling the audience how many meetings the partnership has held, projects need to focus on what the audience cares about - results and meaning. The participants were invited to refer to the communication guide available on the INTERREG IVC website for examples of possible communication activities. This document covers many aspects related to the development of a good communication strategy.

February 2011 20

Communication II: building a communication plan Workshops run by: Kelly Zielniewski and Marit Lani The focus of this session was on the points to consider when completing section 3.2 of the application form dedicated to component 2. It covered examples of communication activities, definition of outputs and results, and the division of communication-related tasks within the partnership. Marit Lani presented the main communication activities carried out by projects, such as publishing brochures and press releases, organising conferences and events, creating a project website, and participating in external events. She asked the audience for some other ideas they could think of, in terms of communication activities. Karin Maatje, of the MORE4NRG project, gave the example of videotaping important project activities, e.g. peer reviews, or creating a you tube channel, which she found to be useful for short clips within her project. Other social media, such as facebook, twitter or Linked-in, were suggested by Andrew Mackenzie, who has had good experience in project managing through his facebook page. Marit reminded that it is important to think of the audiences who use these pages, but that they can be effective if used correctly. Another example arose of a project (ERIK ACTION) who held a photography contest around the theme of innovation, to promote their project and use at their final conference. The difference between ‘outputs’ and ‘results’ when completing the application form was then explained. Outputs are measured in physical units, e.g. the number of press releases issued. Results try to measure the effect the outputs have had, e.g. the number of press articles written (because of the press release issued). The programme manual provides guidance for programme indicators, and should be followed carefully. A question concerned the indicator value for ‘no. of newsletters sent’ for electronic newsletters. It was reminded that even if the newsletter was available for download from the website, it still needs to be ‘sent’ actively for it to be considered as dissemination, and the number of registered emails in mailing or contact lists would be a good indicator. This could be compared to the number of clicks on that link on the website to determine the number of ‘readers’, as a result indicator. In terms of responsibilities, it is important to have one partner responsible for component 2, but that does not mean that this partner is responsible for doing all the communication activities of the project. The component 2 leader, in close cooperation with the Lead partner, makes sure there is a coherent communication plan, and that all partners carry out their activities as planned. It is extremely important that communication activities are carried out by each partner, on a local level. In reply to a question from the audience, it was confirmed that while communication within the partnership and to the programme has to be in English, communication activities on partner level can of course take place in the most relevant language. This is necessary to ensure that the message is passed. In this respect, translation costs, and other external expertise costs, should be carefully thought of when constructing the programme budget. All projects are required to have a website, for example, so external expertise may be required here. However, since the website has to be kept live for 5 years after the end of the project, the costs incurred after the project lifetime would have to be borne by the partnership, outside of the project funding.

February 2011 21

Participants key feedback figures

84% considered their networking to have been fruitful

86% thought the workshops were “very good” or “excellent”

91% of the participants deemed the general organisation of the Forum “very good” or “excellent”

Participants overview and feedback

As the INTERREG IVC programme supports projects in which more experienced regions collaborate with less advanced ones, the organisers were pleased to welcome almost 500 participants from all of the 29 countries covered by the programme (EU27 as well as Norway and Switzerland). In terms of the programme’s four Information Point areas, the East was the area which provided the highest number of participants (150). The breakdown of participants per type of organisation they work in shows that two-thirds of attendees were either local/ regional/ national authorities or bodies governed by public law. These bodies constitute the programme’s main targets as they are the most likely drivers of cooperation in successful INTERREG IVC projects. Extending the partners base beyond those whom have already been involved in the programme is one of the recommendations of the programme’s intermediate evaluation. In that respect it was even more promising that 60% of the public authorities and bodies were completely new to INTERREG, having had no experience in former projects (whether under IIIC or IVC) nor in “sister programmes” of INTERREG A or B. With relevant potential partners from all over Europe, the networking part of the Forum generated the exchange of nearly 2500 electronic business cards via their Spotme devices. On average, a given participant exchanged 6 business cards, retrieved 14 documents in pdf format, and sent 8 messages to other attendees – and had a fruitful event, as shown by the participants’ feedback.

Upon their arrival participants were asked to state what were their main objectives for the Forum. Overwhelmingly “networking / finding partners” was the attendees’ main goal. Upon their departure, when asked whether their networking was fruitful, 84% of the participants answered that it was. The second main objective cited by the participants was to get information about the 4th call’s terms of reference in particular, and about the programme in general. Workshops addressing specific finance, communication and project matters were offered to that effect and were very well received with an average of 86% of participants claiming they were “very good” or “excellent”, and 98% finding their 30-minute format satisfying. All in all 91% of participants thought the Forum’s general organisation was “excellent” or “very good”.

2 Out of the total number of "primary targets", 60% were never involved in any INTERREG project before. 3 54 out of 77 consultancies (70%) are currently preparing a project on behalf of a region.

Participants per type of organisation

Body Governed by Public Law 23% Regional Authority 21% National Authority 11% Local Authority 11% Sub-total "primary targets" 2 66% European Institution 1% ETC Programme 7% Private company / Consultancy 3 17% Other 9%

February 2011 22

Thorsten Kohlisch Michel Lamblin Marit Lani Marie Lèbre Laure Lesec Elisa Milos Nuala Morgan Nicoleta Petrea Nicolas Singer Erwin Siweris Akos Szabo Aous Tamimi Zornitsa Tsoneva Kelly Zielniewski

Stefania Amorosi Martina Bačová Mahesh Bhardwaj Silke Brocks Ilze Ciganska Benoît Dalbert Pilar Diez de Rivera Katja Ecke Elena Ferrario Erika Fulgenzi Aline Gavelle Petra Geitner Manuel Gonzalez-Evangelista Ulrike Klose

Joint Technical Secretariat

Région Nord - Pas de Calais Les Arcuriales, Entrée D, 5e étage

45 rue de Tournai – 59000 Lille France

www.interreg4c.eu info@interreg4c.eu

+33 (0)3 28 14 41 00

Information Point West Information Point East Information Point South Information Point North IP-West@interreg4c.eu IP-East@interreg4c.eu IP-South@interreg4c.eu IP-North@interreg4c.eu +33 (0)3 28 14 41 04 +48 (0)32 205 32 30 +34 961 922 618 +49 (0)381 454 84 52 92

INTERREG IVC 4th Interregional Cooperation Forum report compiled by Grégoire Tardy

Contributors:

All photographs © INTERREG IVC Joint Technical Secretariat