Ex-Post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006 Initiative financed by …ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost... · INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth

Panteia and Partners:

• EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg)

• Policy Research and Consultancy (Frankfurt / Germany)

• GÉPHYRES EURL (Roubaix / France)

• The Radboud University (Nijmegen / The Netherlands)

Reference R20090275/30922000/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 INTERREG 2000-2006 Initiative financed

by the Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

TASK 5: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES

PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIB North West Europe EVALUATION REPORT, elaborated by • Dr. Thomas Stumm / EureConsult S.A. (Luxemburg) • Drs. Pieter van Run / NEA/Panteia (Netherlands)

INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth evaluation of the PROGRAMME: INTERREG IIIB North West Europe

R20090275.doc 2 January 2010

Table of contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... 4 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7 2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY ............................................... 9 3 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF

EFFECTIVENESS & THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS................................. 10 3.1 THE FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME........................... 10 3.2. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME.............................................. 18 3.3. PROJECT-LEVEL CO-OPERATION UNDER THE PROGRAMME........................ 26 3.4 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE

PROGRAMME ...................................................................................... 36 3.4.1 IMPORTANT CONTEXTUAL FACTORS CHARACTERISING THE TRANSNATIONAL

PROGRAMME AREA .............................................................................. 37 3.4.2 HISTORIC FACTORS DETERMINING THE CHARACTER OF TRANSNATIONAL CO-

OPERATION BEFORE THE START OF INTERREG III ................................... 39 3.5 RE-CONSIDERING THE “DEPTH & INTENSITY OF TERRITORIAL CO-

OPERATION”....................................................................................... 43 3.6 MAIN FACTORS FOSTERING OR HAMPERING TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION

UNDER INTERREG III ........................................................................... 48 4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND

EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................ 50 4.1 THE EXTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE PROGRAMME.................................... 50 4.2 THE INTRINSIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME ............................... 54 4.2.1 THE OVERALL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE PROGRAMME

........................................................................................................ 54 4.2.2 THE SUSTAINABILITY / DURABILITY OF THE PROGRAMME AND THE WIDER

COMMUNITY ADDED VALUE GENERATED BY CO-OPERATION ..................... 64 5 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 68 5.1 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPACT OF THE INTERREG III

PROGRAMME ...................................................................................... 68 5.2 SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 70 5.3 LONG-TERM POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 70 ANNEX 1 THE PRIORITIES AND MEASURES OF THE INTERREG III B-PROGRAMME ‘NORTH

WEST EUROPE’.................................................................................... 73 ANNEX 2 FIELDS OF INTERVENTION ..................................................................... 74 ANNEX 3 IM AND GM COMPARISON WITH INTERREG, STRAND B AND THE CLUSTER ... 77 ANNEX 4 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE ON THE CONCEPT OF “AGGREGATED MULTIMODAL

ACCESSIBILITY” & ON “URBAN-RURAL RURAL RELATIONSHIP ................... 80 ANNEX 5 MEMBERS OF THE MC & SG .................................................................... 81 ANNEX 6 THE NWE-PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (SOURCE: NWE PROGRAMME

COMPLEMENT, 2005) ........................................................................... 82


R20090275.doc 3 January 2010

ANNEX 7 CORE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA APPLIED DURING THE NWE-PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (SOURCE: NWE PROGRAMME COMPLEMENT, 2005) .................... 83

ANNEX 8 SELECTION CRITERIA APPLIED DURING THE NWE-PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (SOURCE: NWE PROGRAMME COMPLEMENT, 2005) .................... 84

ANNEX 9 TASKS REGARDING ADVISORY ASSISTANCE TO PROJECT APPLICANTS / OPERATING PROJECTS & A PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE NWE PROGRAMME ...................................................................................... 85


R20090275.doc 4 January 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction During the European Union's Cohesion Policy programming period 2000–2006, the programme North

West Europe was the financially largest of all thirteen Strand-B programmes and provided around € 330

million of ERDF support for transnational co-operation. Taking the policy goals of the “European Spatial

Development Perspective (ESDP) as a starting point, the NWE INTERREG IIIB Programme set itself the

global objective (…) to contribute, through an innovative and integrated approach of transnational co-

operation on territorial issues, to a more cohesive, balanced and sustainable development of the

European territory and of the NWE area in particular. The proposed strategy has been implemented

through five thematic priorities with two measures each and a technical assistance priority. The projects

were expected to find innovative ways for maximising the diversity of NWE’s territorial assets and for

tackling common challenges/problems of Member States, regions and other authorities through

transnational co-operation. The programme was managed in a decentralised manner and has established

a Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) for running the day-to-day affairs.

Main conclusions

The Strand-B programme North West Europe (NWE) has achieved the highest depth and intensity of co-

operation (i.e. Real Rate) among all INTERREG III programmes (Strands A, B and C). In the wider Real

Rate scale-placement realised in the context of the 1st Intermediate Report, the NWE-programme is the

only Strand-B forming part of the class of the 3 programmes having achieved a “very high depth &

intensity level of territorial co-operation”. The factors having most contributed to the high degree of co-

operation performance achieved by the NWE-programme are:

the realisation of an intense initial diagnosis of the shared needs / problems which were all fully

considered in the NWE-programme strategy and also fully reflected by its financial support;

the establishment of a very inclusive strategic decision-making partnership and a truly joint / fully

decentralised programme management system;

the very high significance of joint projects implemented (similar to all other Strand-B programmes),

which were also fairly robust an durable;

the high impact project-level transnational co-operation had on the entire NWE area, as most of the

99 projects realised were focussed on those strategic themes based on shared needs/problems.

This outstanding co-operation performance achieved by the NWE-programme under INTERREG III (i.e. at

strategic & project level) is however only slightly above what could have been expected if historical

variables had been taken into account (i.e. Expected Rate). Our in-depth analysis shows that the very

long co-operation experience in NWE (i.e. CRONWE, since 1955) did not really create an “advantage” for

INTERREG III-level co-operation if compared to the other Strand-B programmes where transnational co-

operation has generally started only after 1997. In fact the short-term co-operation experience gained

under the INTERREG IIC programmes NWMA & IRMA (1997-1999) was much more decisive for the high

overall INTERREG III co-operation performance achieved by the NWE-programme. ,

With regard to the financial implementation of the NWE programme one can conclude that more than

50% of the available budget had been concentrated on a rather restricted number of intervention codes.

These codes did focus mainly on rural and urban development, labour market issues, research,


R20090275.doc 5 January 2010

innovation and ICT. One can anyway state that the majority of the allocated codes answer as well the

Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives.

As regards the programme effectiveness one can conclude that there is a high correspondence between

the results of the NWE programme and INTERREG Strand B. The intervention logic – with some minor

weaknesses - sufficiently justifies the intervention. The indicators however are less useful for estimating

the achieved results as they are too complicated and too qualitative of nature. Especially the applied

quality criteria at the level of the project selection ensure the relevance of the achieved results.

Projects funded by the NWE programme are by their nature rather experimental and complex, but their

results did strongly enhance the culture of co-operation in the NWE region. This was because – especially

within the academic world – a great interest did exist to participate in its activities and links with ESPON

were more or less evident. From former evaluations it is known that coordination of the CIs with the

mainstream programmes had been very poor. With to the public reputation of most Interreg

programmes one can state that generally the public awareness of these programmes is rather weak. On

the other hand - European wide - intensive exchanges of information takes place among local and

regional authorities, which have often a clear demonstration effect for new initiatives. There is, however,

one point that makes transnational rather weak; namely that transnational co-operation is not always

sufficiently embedded in the organisations concerned.

Short and medium term policy recommendations

While extrapolating from the specific findings relating to the evaluation of the INTERREG IIIB programme

NWE, one can elaborate a few short- and medium-term policy recommendations at a strategic level

which are capable of informing the current Objective 3 Territorial Co-operation Programme NWE as well

as other transnational programmes implemented during the 2007-2013 period.

Already under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE, a major weakness has been that the importance and

relevance of transnational co-operation could not be sufficiently passed onwards to the wider concerned

public in programme area. This also remains a continuing challenge (and problem) under the current

Objective 3 programme. We therefore recommend taking pro-active communication measures which

should be focussed at two different levels: at the European level (i.e. across all transnational

programmes) and at the project-level (i.e. on the operational level within each programme). The

programme level situated in-between the afore-mentioned levels should not be a major focus, as it

represents the merely technocratic element of co-operation which tends to “dilute” the important key

messages to be put forward.

Another concern under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE (but not a weakness) has been the quality

up-grading of submitted projects which also remains a constant task under the current Objective 3

programme for NWE. Many INTERREG IIIB NWE bottom-up driven projects had in fact been so-called

“shopping list projects” (i.e. projects with a lot of ready-made localised field actions & an over-arching

co-operation strategy to bundle/justify such actions), which often did only insufficiently address an issue

of a wider strategic transnational relevance for the NWE programme. We therefore recommend that

more attention is paid by the secretariats of the current Objective 3 programmes to a more thorough

assessment of the real “transnationality” of projects and that the respective Member States involved in

the programmes also take stronger into consideration this important issue in the final selection of

projects (i.e. in the Steering Committees).


R20090275.doc 6 January 2010

Long-term recommendations

Taking into account the interconnection between territorial cohesion and the spatial cross-reference

between regional/local weaknesses and key sector policies, then future transnational co-operation should

play a particular role. It has to offer an intermediate macro-level of action (alongside other levels of

action) which generates an integrated approach to practical cross-country policy making among different

layers of government (local, regional, national and EU). In times of increasingly scarce public resources

future co-operation should focus on a more limited number of strategically relevant themes under which

tangible results and lasting impacts can be achieved. This approach should be more pro-active and

generate synergies with other territorial development practices.. This can be achieved by further

developments along the lines “increased quality of project-level co-operation” and “more widespread

durability/sustainability of projects”: rather than by re-shaping existing co-operation areas.

The experience gained under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE shows that the key success factors for

establishing genuine / truly joint transnational co-operation is formed by a jointly elaborated intervention

strategy with clear orientations (objectives & actions), a strong focus on project results and impacts and

the existence of sound information / communication approach. Based on this, it is generally

recommended for future programmes to pay much more attention to the development and approval of

high quality transnational co-operation projects. For developing high quality transnational co-operation

projects, however, three important preconditions need to be met:

1. Firstly, it is necessary that project-level co-operation takes place in a thematically more informed

way, which can be achieved if operational information on territorial development potentials is

provided to and pro-actively used by projects.

2. It is secondly necessary that the rich previous experience made with transnational co-operation

projects over the past 10 years is more systematically assessed and spread to future projects. The

joint NWE-response to the “Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion” rightly points out that (…) to this

end a professional knowledge management is urgently needed (…) which facilitates an efficient use

of project-level data and transforms them into accessible information.

3. For the future, we therefore recommend that a more pro-active approach is developed by all

programmes (not only for NWE) which significantly enhances the long-term sustainability of

transnational co-operation projects.

Such an approach should consist – alongside the needs and specificities of each programme – of a

combination of incentives and operational provisions which will have to be observed by future projects.


R20090275.doc 7 January 2010

1 INTRODUCTION

Already between 1955-98 co-operation on issues related to a joint spatial planning/development had

taken place in the context of the “Conference of the Regions of North West Europe” (CRONWE) to

address common issues resulting from the increasing effects of a growing interdependence of the

countries in North West Europe. However, no overall spatial vision was developed and spatial strategies

were only developed for smaller cross-border areas such as between Germany and the Netherlands and

within the Benelux countries.

In 1996 a new strand of the Interreg Community Initiative (Interreg IIC) was introduced (1) to help

restore the spatial balance between different areas of the EU by promoting social and economic cohesion,

(2) to foster transnational co-operation initiated in this field by Member States and other authorities

responsible for spatial planning and (3) to improve the impact of Community policies on spatial planning.

The Interreg IIC Operational Programme for the North Western Metropolitan Area (NWMA) was based on

the so-called Central and Capital regions as identified in the European Commission Report „Europe

2000+“, enlarged with adjacent regions in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the whole of

Ireland. This area is characterised by its dominant position within the European Union concerning

population, concentration on economic activities, and a high degree of urbanisation and highly developed

infrastructure networks.

The INTERREG IIIB programme area North Western Europe (NWE) is geographically fragmented by seas,

cutting off the UK and Ireland from the mainland parts of the programme area. The NWE programme

covered all of Ireland, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Luxembourg, while the other four participating

countries are only partly covered (Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland)1. The transnational co-

operation area NWE covered 787,400 km2 or around 24% of total EU (15) land surface. The largest

proportion of the area was located in France (35%), followed by the United Kingdom (31%) and

Germany (15%). Ireland accounts for 9% of the area whilst the Netherlands and Belgium represent 4%

each and Luxembourg accounts for 0.3% of the total. No less than 45% of the total EU15 population

lived within the boundaries of NWE (about 171 million people), which makes its average population

density almost twice as high as the EU average. Like the EU as a whole, the population of the NWE area

is aging, which strongly impacts the overall activity rate of its population. The NWE is further

characterised by important concentrations of metropolitan and urban areas, meanwhile surrounding

areas tend to have a more rural character. The NWE programme overlaps the co-operation area of five

other INTERREG IIIB Programmes: the Alpine Space, the Atlantic Area, the North Sea Area, CADSES and

the Northern Periphery.

During the European Union's Cohesion Policy programming period 2000–2006, the programme NWE was

financially the largest of all thirteen Strand-B programmes and provided around € 330 million of support

to transnational co-operation. Taking the policy goals of the “European Spatial Development Perspective

(ESDP) as a starting point, the NWE INTERREG IIIB Programme set itself the global objective (…) to

1 In the Netherlands the north of the country is excluded, in Germany six Länder are concerned (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland, Hessen, Baden-Württemberg and the northern and western parts of Bavaria), in France thirteen regions are included (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Ile-de-France, Bourgogne, Centre, Picardie, Champagne-Ardennes, Basse- and Haute-Normandie, Lorraine, Alsace and Franche-Comté, Bretagne and Pays de la Loire) and in Switzerland fifteen cantons participate (Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Aargau, Solothurn, Bern, Jura, Uri, Schwyz, Obwalden, Nidwalden, Luzern, Glarus, Zug, Zürich, Neuchâtel).


R20090275.doc 8 January 2010

contribute, through an innovative and integrated approach of transnational co-operation on territorial

issues, to a more cohesive, balanced and sustainable development of the European territory and of the

NWE area in particular. The proposed strategy has been implemented through five thematic priorities

with two measures each and a technical assistance priority (see Annex 1). The projects were expected to

find innovative ways for maximising the diversity of NWE’s territorial assets and for tackling common

challenges/problems of Member States, regions and other authorities through transnational co-operation.

The programme was managed in a decentralised manner and has established a Joint Technical

Secretariat (JTS) for running the day-to-day affairs.


R20090275.doc 9 January 2010

2 RESEARCH INTEREST AND METHODOLOGY

The scope of research is closely determined by the terms of reference for the Ex-post Evaluation for

INTERREG III and the method proposed in the Inception Report. In this pilot evaluation we follow strictly

the terms of reference and the corresponding methodology.


R20090275.doc 10 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

For an in-depth financial analysis we have accessed the entire database at the three-digit code level for

INTERREG, since the two-digit aggregated database does not show the variations that could underpin a

rigorous analysis. This makes it possible to view the distribution patterns of the codes, the characteristic

features of that distribution in comparison with Interreg in general, the expenditure rate (thus giving

some insight into financial performance within the programme). Furthermore, the analysis will provide

evidence on whether or not the respective field of intervention has the same weight as the average in

the cluster to which the programme belongs (Alpine Area, North Sea and CADSES belong to the same

cluster as NWE). If expenditure for an INTERREG-relevant field of intervention is relatively small, it might

reveal problems or weaknesses in the programme with respect to the declared strategies of the

respective INTERREG strand. Finally, light will be shed on the absorption patterns for different fields of

intervention.

In addition to the analysis of areas of intervention, the dynamic of financial implementation is to be

examined as well (different trend patterns in implementation). This analysis, which can only be based on

the trends at measure level, should display the financial performance over time and should also provide

insight into the distribution of funds among the different intervention fields. The codes of intervention

should help the European Commission to compare expenditure in the context of policy intervention

sectorally.

The analysis at the three-digit code level

The funding support from INTERREG III has been thematically rather broad. In total 94 codes were

covered when taking all 64 programmes into account. The most frequent codes under INTERREG have

been those for technical assistance (e.g. monitoring/implementation, evaluation, studies, information, all

belonging to the code family 41), and furthermore, rural development (130) and non-physical

investment in tourism (172), education (230), human resources (220) and basic infrastructure (31-35).

The codes with a high frequency are more or less completely also covered by the NWE programme. The

only exceptions are codes related to basic physical infrastructure for transport, environment and

telecommunication, for which activities were neither scheduled nor implemented under the programme.

The less frequent codes are also less represented in the NWE programme. By and large, the sectoral

structure of codes of intervention of NWE is strongly associated with the sectoral structure at the CI

level. Figure 1 shows the ranking of frequency of codes under INTERREG and how the NWE corresponds

to this.

The NWE programme is covered by relatively numerous fields of intervention. For 66 codes funds are

allocated. That means that for more than 70% of all INTERREG codes activities have been generated by

the NWE programme. Therefore, this programme can be counted amongst those with the broadest scope


R20090275.doc 11 January 2010

of interventions. Because concentration is a major criterion under EU cohesion policy, including

INTERREG, a lack of focus could be concluded from this. By comparing the NWE programme we see that

in fact most other programmes support a lower number of different codes (around 35 on average). The

NWE programme, however, is from a budgetary point of view, one of the largest, certainly with regard

the INTERREG IIIB programmes.

On the other hand, it could also be argued that the relatively high level of wealth of the participating

countries / regions this programme could provide opportunities for have a broad scope of - experimental

- activities on a various number of themes / sectors. The overarching intention, therefore, for the NWE

programme has been to develop good-practice with a view to triggering sustainable co-operation and

further deepening the historically grown ties within the West European area.

Taking the regional economic situation into account and the specific history of co-operation in this

transnational area, this approach can strongly be supported. However, the comparison of frequency

alone does not yet sufficiently reveal the budgetary weights of the single fields of intervention and thus

also not the real financial character of the NWE programme.

The overview table (Annex 2) gives a more comprehensive overview of the different codes of

intervention covered by the NWE programme in terms of budget, certified expenditure, achievement

rate, shares of expenditure and the comparison with the average expenditure shares and achievement

rates of Interreg (Intensity Measure and Gap Measure).

Fig. 1 Codes of intervention represented by NWE related to ranking of frequencies of codes

under Interreg

The most important codes used in this programme – in budgetary terms - are 130/131 (adaptation and

development of rural areas), labour market related field (210-250), urban related issues (351/352/360)

and research issues (181 - 1830. Also transport related fields – although very little hardware

investments - were often used, while the 410 codes (preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity)

are clearly underrepresented. This can also be shown by comparing the ten most and least financially

Interreg frequency of codes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Codes

Code ranking interreg


R20090275.doc 12 January 2010

important codes in INTERREG, the strand and the cluster with those in the NWE programme (see table

1):

Table 1. Codes of intervention NWE

Fields of intervention NWE C.I. Strand B Cluster

413. Studies 0,2 6,05 13,46 5,55

312. Roads 3,7 5,55 1,16 2,91

130. Promoting the adaptation and the development of rural areas 6,8 4,71 4,97 6,25

131. Encouragement of tourist activities 5,4 3,47 3,7 5,6

172. Non-physical investments (development and provision of tourist services, etc) 1,4 2,6 1,16 1,09

323. Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education) 1,6 2,34 1,45 1,69

170. Tourism 1,4 2,22 2,09 0,57

313. Motorways 0,3 2,21 0,07 0,19

350. Planning and rehabilitation 2,21 7,58 2,81

353. Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment 2,21 1,43 0,2

154. Services to stakeholders (health and safety, providing care for dependants) 0,8 0,05 0,21 0,52

144. Aquaculture 0,3 0,04 0,15 0,19

148. Measures financed by other Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF) 0,3 0,04 0,07 0,19

141. Adjustment of the fishing effort 0,3 0,02 0,07 0,19

142. Renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet 0,3 0,02 0,07 0,19

146. Socio-economic measures 0,3 0,02 0,07 0,19

147. Actions by professionals (including vocational training, small coastal fishing) 0,3 0,02 0,07 0,19

146. Socio-economic measures 0,3 0,02 0,07 0,19

147. Actions by professionals (including vocational training, coastal fishing) 0,3 0,02 0,07 0,19

The relatively small share of studies within the NWE programme (0,2 %) can – as said before – be

explained by the fact that most studies were executed under the thematic codes, while the JTS had the

opinion that studies under code 413 relate explicitly to programme related study activities, e.g. studies

related to the spatial vision project.

Fig. 2. Expenditure rates codes


R20090275.doc 13 January 2010

We note that, on the lower end, the expenditure levels are similar in a way that most of the ten least

important INTERREG codes score much lower than 1% of expenditure in the NWE programme for

INTERREG, the strand and for the cluster. We also note that – on the one hand - some of the important

INTERREG codes are also among the most important ones in the NWE programme, as e.g. for activities

in rural areas, including diversification, rural infrastructure, tourism and protection of the environment.

However, on the other hand we also see that important INTERREG codes like basic infrastructure and

advisory services for SMEs and citizens play hardly a role at all. Compared to the strand B and

particularly the cluster the deviations are much less pronounced. Because of the over-representation of

NWE in its cluster (> 70%, a comparison with the latter is not really correct). This is proved by graph 2

in annex I, in which more or less a complete correlation of this programme with the cluster as a whole is

indicated.

The relative weight of the codes can be calculated by comparing the budgetary share of a code in the

programme to the share of the code in INTERREG in general. The results for that Intensity Measure (IM)

are given in the overview table (Annex 3). Values > 1 show codes that have an over average significance

for the NWE programme. About 80 % of its expenditures score above par, of which ca. 45% between 2 –

16 times more than is average the case in all programmes. The highest score (16) was reached by code

154 (Services to stakeholders on health, safety, etc), while other important codes – also from a

budgetary point of view, were 130/131 (rural development activities, 182 (innovation and technology

transfer), 230/240 (related to labour market issues), 322 (information and communication technology)

and 411 (technical assistance related issues). The IM ratios decrease if they refer to those of the strand

and tend towards complete par with regard to the cluster ratios.

The overview below shows clearly the abovementioned positions in a percentage of the total certified

expenditures of the NWE programme.

For that reason codes were clustered, also to demonstrate and prove some focus / concentration in the

interventions:

• Rural development, incl. tourism (130/131) 12,2%


R20090275.doc 14 January 2010

• Labour market related (210 – 250) 13,4%

• Urban related activities 10%

• Research / RTDI (181-183) 11,9%

• ICT (322) 3,7%

• % of total expenditures 51,2%

(= 25% of used codes)

This overview also underscores the anticipation of the Lisbon spirit in the NWE programme under

Interreg III.

Finally, a rather interesting finding is that code 414 (Innovative Actions) is simply not allocated under the

NWE programme because innovative actions are per definition understood as a standard selection

criterion for all projects. Similarly, as said before, studies were commissioned under the thematic codes

and were not booked under code 413. This also clearly shows that the codes are not clear-cut.


R20090275.doc 15 January 2010

As regards the Intensity Measure one could make an analysis based on four categories:

Cat IM scores

Budget %

Some interesting codes in category

1 >10 2 % 154. Services to stakeholders (health and safety) 146. Socio-economic measures

2 >3 < 10 23 % 125. Restoring forestry production 152. Environment-friendly technologies 183. RTDI Infrastructure 351. Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites 161. Investment in physical capital 181. Research projects based in universities and research institutes

3 >0,8 <3 57% 360. Social infrastructure and public health 230. Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) 240. Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, etc. 182. Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks, etc. 322. I C T (including security and safe transmission measures) 318. Multimodal Transport 174. Vocational training 324. Services and applications for SMEs

4 <0,8 19 % 164. Shared business services 413. Studies 415. Information to the public

Achievement rates are in more than 80 % of the cases on par or far above the achievement rates at the

CI level. Shared business services and notably the abovementioned publicity, study and information

activities deviate negatively from the INTERREG average.

Apart from viewing the frequency of codes and comparing their budgetary weight, the absorption

patterns are also worthy of being analysed. In comparing the absorption rate of a code within the NWE

programme to the absorption rate of the same code under INTERREG we can calculate a relative

absorption rate, which is called the Gap Measure (GM). If the absorption rate of a code under the NWE

programme exceeds the absorption within INTERREG in general and if the GM ratio is more than 1.

The overview table (Annex 2 & 3) shows that absorption rates are in the majority of the cases on par or

far above the rates at the INTERREG level with a variation between 1 and 1,52. Only interventions in the

field of urban transport (317), noise (342), motorways (313), air (341, electricity, petrol, solid fuel (331)

and airports (314) are with ratio’s between 0,93 and 0,88 slightly below par. So, one can conclude that

NWE programme proves to be one of the ‘best performers’ among all programmes.

Even though the absorption rate – measured on the basis of the 2007 figures - is not particularly high,

85% still indicates a good dynamic. Absorption rates are on the one hand a positive indication of a

dynamic programme, but can – on the other hand also indicate that funds are spent without sufficient

consideration of need and efficiency. Especially the n+2 rule could have created a skewed incentive to

consider quick absorption rather than need for orientation (cf. the findings of the literature analysis,

Interim Report of this ex post evaluation). However, related to the NWE programme in particular, n+2

has been neither a factor of skewed incentive nor did it lead to bottlenecks in absorption. During the

interview with representatives of the JTS, however, it was admitted that this risk could exist. In the case

of the NWE programme the n+2 rule worked out – according to the JTS - in two ways: it sped up the

programme activities as a whole as well as those of individual projects, but in their case at a certain

moment changes in the budget were executed by transferring money towards the more popular

measures.


R20090275.doc 16 January 2010

For that reason in mid June of 2005 the NWE budget had been revised and resources were re-allocated

among priorities and in some priorities among the measures. Also the budget for technical assistance

was cut with almost 30%. Especially the budget of priority 1 on Regions & Cities had for this reason

strongly been increased.

Even though the programme was elaborated before the publication of the Lisbon strategy, we can

confirm that the programme emphasizes fields of intervention related to Lisbon to a large extent. The

Lisbon-targets are notably covered by codes 162, 164, 181, 182, 230, 240, 250, 311, 322, 323, 324.

The figure below shows that in most fields associated with ‘Lisbon’ the NWE programme is relatively

strong compared to Interreg. This is particularly the case for Research and ICT related interventions.

Also labour market related issues (codes 210, 220, 250) are also relatively strong represented in the

NWE programme. Urban transport, intelligent transport systems and ‘Information & Communication’ are

also represented above average. By and large, this programme has a clear ‘Lisbon’ orientation, what is to

be considered very positive from the retrospective point of view.

Figure 3. Lisbon shares in expenditure compared

L isbon shares in ex pediture compared

00,51

1,52

2,53

3,54

4,5

164. Sha

red

busine

ssse

rvices

(bus

ines

s

182. In

nova

tion

and tech

nology

tran

sfers,

establishm

ent

240. W

orkforce

flexibility,

entrep

rene

urial

activity,

311. Rail

323. Service

san

dap

plications

for

the citizen

C odes

Perce

ntages

C ode s hare NWE

C I exp. c ode exp.\

In the up-date of the Midterm Evaluation it was with regard to the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives

concluded that the programme objectives of the NWE INTERREG IIIB programme were formulated before

the existence of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies (the Lisbon Strategy was agreed in 2000 and the

Gothenburg Strategy in 2001). It was, nevertheless, interesting that it could then be positively concluded

with regard to the relevance of the NWE programme objectives with these two strategies. This was seen

as particularly relevant for developing ideas for future programming under Objective 3 since relevance to

the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies are likely to be crucial.

Dynamic financial analysis By comparing the budget and expenditure data at code level on the one hand with the respective data at

measure level we note that sums differ slightly. This has possibly to do with different points of time in

reporting.

At measure level, the dynamics of the single measures are strikingly uniform, all more or less following

the same trend such as at programme level with only very little variation.


R20090275.doc 17 January 2010

The graphs below (both calculated on budget and expenditure data provided by the JTS) reveal that

apart from priority 6 on T.A. which started from 2002, virtually all measures show a more or less linear

trend starting in 2003. As there was no need to re-programme the intervention and the budgets could be

spent in a rather linear trend, the ex-ante budget has met the effective demand. While certified

expenditure has achieved about 85% of the original budget, per 31 December 2007, mid-2009 this figure

amounted mid-2009 to 95% of the committed budgets.

Fig. 4 Financial implementation of the priority axes and programme (cumulative)


R20090275.doc 18 January 2010

Intermediate conclusions

The financially most important codes are:

- 130-131, Rural development, incl. tourism (12,2 %)

- 210 – 250, Labour market (13,4%)

- 300, Urban related activities (10%)

- 181 – 183, Research / RTDI (11,9%)

- 322, ICT (3,7%)

In total >50% of total expenditures

About 80 % of NWE expenditures score above par, of which ca. 45% between 2 – 16 times more than

the Interreg codes. The highest score (16) was reached by code 154 ( Services to stakeholders on

health, safety, etc), while other important codes – also from budgetary point of view were 130/131 (rural

development activities, 182 (innovation and technology transfer), 230/240 (related to labour market

issues), 322 (information and communication technology) and 411 (technical assistance related issues).

The IM ratios decrease if they refer to those of the strand and tend towards completely par with regard

to the cluster ratio’s;

At the lower end we find: studies, publicity, evaluation and at the upper end: Investment in physical

capital, business services

The overview table (annex 1.2) shows that absorption rates are in the majority of the cases on par or far

above the rates at the INTERREG level with a variation between 1 and 1,52. Only interventions in the

field of urban transport (317), noise (342), motorways (313), air (341, electricity, petrol, solid fuel (331)

and airports (314) are with ratio’s between 0,93 and 0,88 slightly below par. So one can conclude that

NWE programme proves to be one of the ‘best performers’ among all programmes

As there was no need to re-programme the intervention and the budgets could be spent in a rather linear

trend, the ex-ante budget has met the effective demand. While certified expenditure has achieved about

85% of the original budget, per 31 December 2007, mid-2009 this figure amounted mid-2009 to 95% of

the committed budgets.

At measure level, the dynamics of the single measures are strikingly uniform, all more or less following

the same trend such as at programme level with only very little variation. Budget shifts mainly took

place to improve absorption about at the end of the implementation period and to avoid problems with

n+2 rule.

3.2. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME

This chapter aims to shed light on the degree of achievement of the goals initially set as well as an

analysis of the degree of relevance with regard to the needs of the NWE-area. Effectiveness means the

achieved share of a pre-defined objective. In its simplest form it is just a comparison of plan and

achievement. Achieved results are, however, not necessarily relevant; at least results may be obtained

at high opportunity cost. This means, there might have been alternatives to achieve a goal or even

alternative goals.


R20090275.doc 19 January 2010

Plan and achievement

The strategic objectives of the programme – each directly related to the proposed priorities - comprise:

An attractive and coherent system of cities, towns and regions

External and internal accessibility

Sustainable management of water resources and prevention of flood damage

Sustainable development, prudent management and protection of other natural resources and of

cultural heritage

Promoting the maritime potential of NWE and its territorial integration across seas

In terms of indicators and quantification of strategic objectives the programme aimed to generate the

following results.

Programme level The indicative targets at programme level set in the ex-ante situation were as follows:

Priorities Estimated

number of

projects

Number of

supported

projects

Priority 1: Cities and regions 60 (27%) 33 (33 %)

Priority 2: Accessibility 60 (27%) 17 ( 17 %)

Priority 3: Water 40 (18%) 18 ( 18 %)

Priority 4: Nature & Culture 35 (16%) 17 ( 17 %)

Priority 5: Co-operation across seas 30 (13%) 14 (13 %)

Total CIP 225 99

Selected output indicators and targets:

Indicator Target

Number of transnational spatial planning documents developed by

governments

21

Number of transnational permanent networks of employees in civil

and private sectors created (in at least 3 NWE countries)

14

Number of co-operation/co- decision mechanisms between sectoral

ministries established on issues strongly related to spatial planning

24

Three types of projects should be funded under the various measures of the NWE INTERREG IIIB

Programme: Actions, Investments, and Studies:

‘Action’ projects, of which tangible results were expected to achieve with real impact beyond the

lifetime of INTERREG IIIB.

‘Investment’ projects, which should bring about the visible ‘hardware’ for further and lasting

activities

‘Study’ projects, which corresponded to the cross-cutting theme ‘building a better knowledge base of

the NWE area as a whole and of its relationships with other parts of Europe’.

Rather than being strict categories, this project classification will reflect the overall emphasis of a

particular project. It is clear however, that projects will often consist of combinations of various types of

activities, which – as explained before – made the dedication of the activities to the Commission’s list of

interventions rather complicated.


R20090275.doc 20 January 2010

Major critical points at issue level have been deficiencies in consistency and clarity of the system of

variables. The intended broad scope of policy intervention (i.e. the deliberate renunciation of

concentration) is clearly visible among the indicators. At programme level it is intended to support 225,

while the final outcome amounted to 99 projects, which is about 44% of the intended amount. The

division of the intended amount of projects among the five priorities was for the priorities 3 to 5 more or

less the same as initially planned, while a rather great difference does exists between the initial and

realized target. About 27 % of the budget had been initially allocated for priority 1 (cities and regions)

and finally this priority received 33% of the whole budget, while these figures for Priority 2 (Accessibility)

amount respectively to 27 and 17%. Due to this the average project volume had been doubled and more

than initially planned and even tripled for projects financed under priority 2 on accessibility.

Achievement rates

The above described changes with regards to the number of projects to be supported by this programme

did not, however, effect the achievement of the programme targets. As is demonstrated by the next

graph, the average achievement rate at programme level amounts for the NWE programme to 208

%,(un-weighted average). The achievement rates for the output, results and impact indicators amount

respectively to 307%, 166% and 152%.

Fig. 5. Achievement rate at programme level

Achievement rate at programme level

307

166

152

208

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Output

R es ult

Impact

Means

%

With exception of the measures 1.1 (more attractive metropolitan areas) and 2.2 (Improved access to

the information society) more or less the same picture (see the graph below) can be presented for the

achievement rates at the level of the priorities and the measures. An over-achievement with regard to all

output indicators (at least 200%), while all result indicators did reach at least 100% of their targets and

for 6 measures (1.2., 2.1., 3.2., 4.1., and 5.2.) at least 200%. The programme, however, was less

successful with regard to the their intended impact targets: 3 measures (2.1. on Promotion of

accessibility), 3.1. on land-use and water systems and 4.1. on Stronger ecological infrastructure) didn’t

achieve their targets, while especially the impact targets under the priority 1 measures scored very well

with more than 200%.


R20090275.doc 21 January 2010

Fig. 6. achievement rates at measure level

Achievement rates measure level

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1.1. 1.2. 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 5.1. 5.2.

Measures

%% Output

Res ult

Impact

After our experiences with the assessment of the outputs, results and impacts of the proposed priorities

and measures three remarks have to be made concerning the use of the indicators during the

implementation of the NWE programme and their role during this update of the mid-term evaluation:

1. In chapter 4 of the Programme Complement (PC) the use of the indicators and especially its three

level approach - outputs related to operational objectives, results related to the specific objectives

and impacts to the global objectives of the NWE programme - was explained. This explanation had

been based on the fact that each programme type has to be based on its focus on particular policy

issues and objectives. In the case of trans-national cooperation in the field of spatial development

policies did this mean that in the programme complement indicators were proposed that differ

strongly from those normally used in other operational programmes;

2. The output and result indicators proposed in the PC are numerous as is shown by the forms used for

project application and for reporting purposes. An analysis of these indicators leads to the conclusion

that – although all indicators are virtually relevant – only a limited number of them are well defined

and operational. The applied system of indicators distinguishing between results, impact and output

is not clear. Several indicators listed under output indicators are in fact related to impacts. For

example , the first indicator of measure 4.1. “improves air quality and/or reduces greenhouse gas

emissions” is an impact indicator but certainly no output indicator. Apart from that, the problem here

is, how to measure it in order to generate a statistically significant result. A simple number of

projects or project applications as one of the objectives does not provide an operational interval or

ordinal scale. The yes/no dichotomy does not say anything about the quality, volume and reach of

the “improves air quality and/or reduces greenhouse gas emissions”;

3. Also the NWE Secretarial itself recognised the weakness in the programme indicators and proposed a

revised list of indicators that was approved by PMC 6.2 The proposed changes consist of basic

streamlining and clarification/redefinition of existing indicators. These have been made without

disturbing or dramatically restructuring the method for programme monitoring. The need to

reorganize the monitoring indicators came following the realization that the original indicators were

often inaccurate or too vague. The changes should therefore help the programme and projects

obtain a clearer view of the results and progress of projects and the programme as a whole. The

revised list of indicators was at first used in the Activity Reports submitted by the end of June 2005.

These revised indicators form the basis for the analysis in this update.

2 See JTS document : “Revision of INTERREG IIIB North-West Europe project indicators (targets and attained values)”.


R20090275.doc 22 January 2010

Fig. 7. Achievements and financial absorption

To better illustrate the performance at measure level and the ex-ante realism the following comparative

figure depicts the mean achievement rates related to the financial absorption rate: with variations

between 150% and 350% all interventions grossly exceed the original plan.

Therefore, a sound effectiveness analysis stipulates more analysis of the relevance of such results.

Relevance of achieved results

A further major question relates to the relevance of the achieved results. Relevance is linked to the

intervention logic and the realism of objectives. The above discussed achievements of the programme

suggest that the ex-ante quantifications have been too pessimistic, furthermore, a lack of weighing

among the indicators makes it difficult to distinguish between really important objectives and less

important ones. In a strict sense, only the overall programme indicator ‘Number of projects: 225’ should

reveal whether the achieved results have been relevant. By the end of 2007 in the NWE programme 99

projects were committed. The intended average volume of the proposed projects – based on 225

projects - € 1,4 mln, but increased – based on 99 projects - to ca. € 3,2 mln in the ex-post situation. So,

about 45 % of the number of projects initially proposed in the ex-ante situation had been realized, while

the average volume increased with almost 230%. Although – on the basis of the used number (66) of

intervention codes – one could place here a question mark with regard to the concentration principle, on

the other hand the increase of the average project volume could possibly be considered as a

compensation for this.

If we assume that all these projects were soundly assessed and have coped with the strict criteria of

generating good practice in the sense of transnationallity and sustainability, one could say that these

have been relevant. We can also say that the programme succeeded in realising the broad sectoral


R20090275.doc 23 January 2010

approach as expressed in the chosen priorities/measures. No measure can be assessed as insufficient in

its performance. Another criterion of relevance is the intervention logic of the programme. The major

question here is whether the programme has been designed to systematically address the strengths and

weaknesses that have been diagnosed.

As already mentioned above, a major peculiarity of the NWE programme is the width of the interventions

(66 of the in INTERREG totally used 99 fields of intervention), which should cover to a large extent the

themes /issues of the socio-economic analysis and the SWOT conclusions linked to this. While assessing

the relevance of the interventions of this programme, it should be stressed that such an analysis for such

a large area with an enormous diversity in their territorial and economic structures is rather impossible

and will always be insufficient. This analysis covers in a global way the spatial, demographic and

economic structure of this transnational area as well as all sectoral aspects related to the programme

priorities and measures. So, thematically all major aspects of spatial development were considered in the

baseline analysis. In the final report3 with a retrospective analysis of the projects implemented during

the programme period, it was also concluded that thematic gaps in relation to the SWOT analysis could

for a number of reasons not easily be drawn (see box below):

BOX I. Opportunities for Territorial Change

1. First of all, the policy fields in the SWOT analysis are divided in sub-themes with a different level of detail.

Some sub-themes are formulated in a rather general way (e.g. impact in the field of political culture,

influence on social imbalances). They compiled more positive ratings than the policy fields with more

specified sub-themes. This can be logically explained. The more generally formulated sub-themes allowed

the projects to interpret their results in a broader way, resulting in a higher score on ‘some / strong positive

influence’. The more specific sub-themes often made projects choose ‘no influence’ due to the fact that their

results did not exactly match with the sub-theme.

2. Secondly, projects applications are submitted and approved based on the Programme Priorities and

Measures as described in the CIP and Programme Complement. They are not directly linked to the

weaknesses and challenges identified in the SWOT analysis for the NWE area. The Priorities and Measures

are structured differently and often formulated broader than the particular SWOT issues. Unfortunately, the

CIP does not explain how the Priorities and Measures exactly relate to the weaknesses and challenges

identified in the SWOT analysis. This makes it methodically hard to link projects directly to the policy fields

and sub-themes of the SWOT analysis. This was confirmed by the round of interviews with former contact

points.

3. And thirdly, generally speaking the results of individual projects do not monocausally lead to desired policy

effects, but are rather a contribution to it. Specific impacts are rather difficult to assign to a single project,

whereas this does not decrease the relevance of the project results.

So, these facts make it difficult to draw conclusions on which thematic challenges of the NWE cooperation area as

identified in the initial SWOT analysis have been influenced most by the projects.

3 Consultancy services to deliver an analysis oft he 99 implemented projects under IIIB INTERREG NWE: Final Report from 2009-05-28


R20090275.doc 24 January 2010

Overview of the quality of the intervention logic Criterion Good Avarage Poor

Data use and analysis The baseline situation for all

relevant fields was rather

globally analysed.

Focus The focus of analysis

corresponds to the sectors

and themes addressed by

the programme.

Quality and logic of the SWOT

(conclusions/synopsis)

The multiple SWOT

synopses are highly

complex with many inter-

related variables.

Consistency of the Strategy All major points raised in

the SWOT analysis are

addressed by the strategy.

Determination of measures The determination of

measures is clear and

consistent

Transnational agreement on

the strategy

The strategy has been fully

supported by all partner

regions.

The level of innovation, experimentation and transnational partnership

In the abovementioned study three dimensions of innovation were mentioned: (a) the outputs of a

project, (b) the working methods used and (c) the composition of the partnerships. Through a survey

project participants were asked to rate their estimated degree of innovation from “not innovative” to

“highly innovative”. The interesting outcome from this survey was, that ‘working methods’ and ‘project

consortia’ were assessed as modern ( not new, but already well known), while the project results were

clearly assessed as innovative (were among the first to do this). On the basis of the survey result it was

concluded that not all dimensions need to be innovative, but that a strong partnership and established

working routines form a firm basis for this.

In the same study is as well concluded – or anyway suggests – that cross sector integration, multi-

governance cooperation and cooperation in the so-called ‘knowledge triangle’ – public, business and

research institutions will anyway contribute strongly to innovative and experimental approaches within

the NWE programme. The priorities 1 (cities, towns and regions) and 4 (natural resources and cultural

heritage had the largest cross-sector policy coverage, while topics covered by priority 5 (maritime, sea

and ports) have a stronger sector orientation.

Furthermore, it was concluded in this study, that also priority 3 was not addressed as much as a

secondary field of action (19%) although water resources management generally requires an integrated

approach. The explanation can possibly be found in the fact that this priority was perceived to focus

largely on flood prevention as a more technically specialised topic. Measure 3.2 had the largest budget

share per measure (18%) of the programme.

Project partnerships in the IIIB programme included 3,75 of the 8 NWE countries on average. This

suggests that most projects individually would not have been able to make an impact on the scale of the

NWE area as a whole. A higher average number of countries would be involved in projects if the


R20090275.doc 25 January 2010

programme could increase the transnational relevance of supported actions at project level. This was

confirmed by the round of interviews with former contact points.

Leverage effects of the supported projects

A last interesting aspect from this study to mention here, are the possible leverage effects for follow-up

activities and extra investments. The findings from the survey among project participants show two

major tendencies with regard to the achieved leverage effects:

First of all, the strongest leverage was reported in relation to the leverage effects related to

strengthening international cooperation and triggering follow-up EU-funded projects.

A second tendency that is noted relates to the additional investments (partly) triggered by NWE

projects.

Transnational cooperation projects tend to trigger further actions mainly through “soft” leverage effects,

like strengthening international cooperation or the joint creation of follow-up activities. These effects are

in support of stronger cohesion between European countries and regions.

It would be worthwhile for the NWE programme to put some energy in the highlighting of these effects

as a contribution to improved European cohesion. In this context it is also important to consider how the

achievement of such an effect can be made more rewarding for the project actors.

The survey shows that INTERREG III B NWE project had the potential to trigger rather large investments.

With regard to investments triggered, the projects tended to trigger investments of more

than € 1 million rather than smaller investments.

It remains difficult however to properly value the influence that the NWE project had on triggering these

investments. This implies that projects should be seen in a wider context with regards to their overall

investment environment (national/regional programmes or initiatives). This requires answering the

question how information about the overall investment context to which the project is contributing can

be made clearer? It would also be worth investigating whether these effects are typical for certain

programme priorities

Intermediate conclusions on effectiveness

As in regards to the more global viewpoint (priority topics defined in the Communication) there is a high

correspondence between the results of the NWE programme and INTERREG strand B.

The intervention logic sufficiently justifies the intervention (there are only minor weaknesses); indicators

are less useful for estimating the achieved results as they are too complicated and too qualitative of

nature. Especially the applied quality criteria at the level of the project selection ensure the relevance of

the achieved results.

The implementation corresponds to the pattern of the financial performance, however the simple

indicators do not allow a dependable dynamic monitoring. The analysis at the priority level differs from

that at the measure level.

There were no delays in implementation, while projects funded by the NWE programme are by their

nature rather experimental and complex. Results have strongly enhanced the culture of co-operation in

the NWE region.


R20090275.doc 26 January 2010

3.3. PROJECT-LEVEL CO-OPERATION UNDER THE PROGRAMME

The distribution of projects and the degree of networking

Based upon the structure of the ex-post assessment at programme level that has been outlined, a

further in-depth evaluation at project level is to be executed. This represents a core step in further

deepening the empirical character of the evaluation of the programme.

Before the presentation of the projects selected for the case studies, some relevant information is

presented first below:

Distribution of projects per priority

The number of projects achieved in each priority is dependent on the one hand on the total budget

allocated per priority and on the other hand of the average budget of the projects in each of these

priorities. Concerning the global budget, priority 1 and 3 share the most important part with around 25%

each (see table 2).

Table 2. Priorities financial weight in the programme total budget

Priorities Number of

projects

% Budget share

(Final Report)

% Average

budget per

project

1 31 31,3% 142.315.382 25% 4.590.819

2 17 17,2% 86.523.255 15% 5.089.603

3 18 18,2% 147.329.745 26% 8.184.986

4 19 19,2% 116.519.170 20% 6.132.588

5 14 14,1% 82.061.594 14% 5.861.542

Total 99 100% 574.749.146 100% 5.805.547

Partnerships

The number of partners cannot be considered on their own as a quality criterion or as an indicator of the

transnational dimension of a project. If a minimum of countries must be represented in a partnership,

the transnational dimension will depend on the role and real involvement of each partner, on their

coordination and on the general management of the project. With regard to the types of partners in the

table below some relevant information is systematically presented.

Table 3. Distribution of partners per programme priority

Priority

Amount of projects

Amount of Partners

% Average number of partners per project

Priority 1

31 250 27% 8

Priority 2

17 164 17% 10

Priority 3

18 144 15% 8

Priority 4

19 207 22% 11

Priority 5

14 175 19% 13

Total 99 940 100% 9 The largest amount of partners and the largest proportion of Lead Partners are to be found in the UK and

in the Netherlands (12% and 15% of Lead Partners). On the contrary, France, with the third largest

number of partners is less involved with only 6% of Lead Partners.


R20090275.doc 27 January 2010

Table 4. Distribution of partners/countries

Lead partners Partners % of Lead Partners in each country

Belgium 11 126 9%

France 10 168 6%

Germany 16 158 10%

Ireland 5 48 10%

Luxembourg 1 9 11%

Netherlands 29 190 15%

Switzerland 0 10 0%

United Kingdom 27 229 12%

TOTAL 99 936

The selection of projects

The number of projects and the scope of themes under the NWE programme is rather large. In a pre-

selection of projects the evaluators first looked at the themes and their relationship to the priority topics

of the INTERREG Communication. Secondly, in consultation with the JTS projects were determined that

reveal interesting insight into the mechanisms to be analysed and could generate sufficient results for

such project case studies. The following projects were finally selected:

INTERREG-B

Priority Topics

(Communication)

Pre-selection of projects

Priority 1. SPATIAL METRO - A Network for Discovering the City on Foot

Priority 2. TESIS

Priority 3. PROGRESS

Priority 4. SCALDIT

Priority 5. ECSWA

Appraisal of the projects according to the evaluation criteria

The following chapter contains the reports of the five project case studies, based on document analysis

and interviews with partners. It is embedded in the report of the programme analysis for the NWE

programme as chapter II 3.2 but could be also regarded as a stand alone report. More technical

background information about the single projects can be found in annex 1.

Case study project priority 1: Spatial Metro - A Network for Discovering the City on Foot I. Factual information

The project run for 60 months from June 2003 to June 2008 The total project sum amounted to € 11.950.824 with 45,2 % ERDF contribution. The absorption rate by

mid 2009 was 93%. In total 9 partners from 5 countries were involved in the project ( 2 local authorities and 2 research

institutes from the U.K., 1 local authority from France, 1 local authority and 1 research institute from Germany, 1 research institution from the Netherlands and 1 group of Swiss partners.

The lead partner was the City Council from Norwich (UK) II. Selection process Background On arrival, a visitor is similarly unaided in orientating him/herself and then finding what is available and how to get there. Indeed, it often appears that those responsible for managing cities have contrived to make navigation and orientation more difficult. This is particularly the case in NW European cities where places that once formed an important ‘public space’ role – markets, the stage for civic pageant, meeting and socializing places – are now full of fast moving traffic, the debris of highway engineering and a chaotic variety of urban street impedimenta. Arrival points (car parks principally but also train and bus stations) are frequently unpleasant, unwelcoming and even threatening places physically cut off from main attractions, with no


R20090275.doc 28 January 2010

orientation information. Once out of the arrival point and into the public domain, there is often either no signage or inadequate continuous signage. If the visitor is lucky enough to find her/his way to a tourist information centre they will invariably discover hundreds of uncoordinated leaflets and booklets in different formats but rarely anything providing a coherent view of how and where to see related things of potential interest. Demographic change in NW Europe particularly means a larger aging and retired population with more leisure time and money to spend. Creating the intelligible city will not only aid these peoples’ enjoyment of cities but will assist city economies in attracting this group as short break tourists. Operational objectives The general aim of this project is to provide a structured trans-national response to the challenge of making the NW European city, and its component elements, intelligible, legible and navigable for visitors and local people. Therefore a conceptual model is developed for pedestrian movement based on the diagrammatic plan used to orientate users around metro, u-bahn or underground railway systems and to support this with a broad range of media, human and small scale physical infrastructure. In more concrete sense the objectives are to develop: • Walking metro routes • Virtual routes • Improving public places • Creating distinctive pedestrian links • Pedestrian-friendly transport within the centre Actions / results The project is broken down into thematic project strands/packages. One trans-national partner will lead each package but all partners will be engaged in the projects ( via thematic workshops, exchanges of information/personnel and regular engagement by telephone and e mail). Package 1 - Concept Development Package 2 - Physical Implementation Package 3 - Support Systems Package 4 Movement Infrastructure Package 5 - Engagement & Dissemination Further a number of supportive investments were proposed, as welcome points, audible signs, ‘Station’ Enhancement and infrastructure. Also supporting studies were paid by the project. III. Partnership and sustainability Partnership Partnership in this project had been based on former twinning relations and had been extended through other EIU supported cooperation projects. This project brought for the first time together spatial planning practitioners and academics from across NW Europe to address issues of making cities more intelligible. The Spatial Metro project seeks to learn from current best practices of its partners and to take this a step further by joining it up into a single, innovative, transferable model of city navigation for the pedestrian. Sustainability A key element in the long-term sustainability of the project will be the networks including the project partnership, the networks established and developed through the PEER workshops and wider networks resulting from thematic workshops, seminars and conferences. Once established, these will be sustained through e-mail, telephone and web communication and by face-to-face meetings within and ultimately beyond the project. There may even be potential to establish a NW European network of Spatial Metro Cities. According to one of the interviewees could sustainability be improved by extending these projects also financially. III. Learning and indirect effects Transnational partnership There had been some contact between the lead partner and some of the partners at various international conferences which helped identify common interests. The lead partner visited some partners to discuss and identify shared interests. Very clear benefits and advantages were identified in working trans-nationally in terms of the learning and sharing of information and skills. However the project suffered from changes in project leadership and the loss of some of the project team members. Innovation Use of Virtual reality models of city centers for pedestrian navigation by the University of East Anglia was very successful and the GPS surveys of Delft University were also innovative. Koblenz University's mobile phone information system was also new. The implementation of improvements to the Lanes area of Norwich was also very innovative in the way it combined different design and heritage measures. Future The University of Delft decided to capture the essence of the Spatial Metro experience in a document reflecting the versatility of the transnational response to pedestrian mobility and the regeneration of the historic European city centre. Novel tools are presented to analyze in detail the movement patterns of people visiting these three city centers.


R20090275.doc 29 January 2010

Lessons learned ‐ Not fulfilled expectations of partners among others caused by language problems and difference in

administrative cultures led – especially in the initial phase - to stagnation. But it did not hinder the overall project. Some – French – partner didn’t have experiences with these kind of projects. This asked for extra time to bring them fully into the project;

‐ Main conclusions were the benefits of taking a strategic and multi-layered approach to the issue of improving city centers for pedestrians. Also the cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organizations was experienced as very positive, as well as the involvement of local research institutes.

‐ More focus necessary to define better the objectives to be reached and the problems to be tackled, drafting lengthy and detailed action plans.

IV. Some conclusions The general conclusion is that this – rather expensive - project succeeded in bringing together within a transnational project partners from local authorities together with local research institutes:

- It had been successful in realization of its project objectives and results within the proposed period; - Its final results will contribute to sustainable developments in the regions concerned and serve as a

good example with regard to urban development and a better use of the cultural heritage of the cities;

- It will in the longer run contribute to the general objectives of the INTERREG III guidelines with regard to “strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the EU”, “realization of other important EU policy objectives” and “promoting interaction among actors at different government and non-government levels”.

- It was underlined by during the interview that the process of strengthening cohesion will start with these projects. Cooperation projects should also be seen as demonstrations for other regions how to introduce internationalization in the local and regional administrations.

N.B. According to the interviewee had the JTS been more process than project oriented. The administrative rules formed a burden for management of the project. Case study on priority 2 project: TESIS - Technology Supported Innovation & E-Business in the information Society I. Factual information Some fact: The project run from July 2002 to June 2005 The total project sum amounted to € 1.353.850 with 65 % ERDF contribution. The absorption rate by mid

2009 was 92%. In total 8 partners from 4 countries were involved in the project (1 Belgium, 1 Netherlands, 2 UK and 4

from Ireland. “Údarás na Gaeltachta (Galway/Ireland)” as lead partner. II. Selection process Background Significant investments have been made in all EU Member States in the development of broadband telecommunications networks through the provision of fiber optic cables to support the spatial planning strategies of regions. These networks are transnational interlinked to facilitate the international communications of voice and business communications as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, these networks are generally much underutilized and in many cases they have not been brought into service by telecommunications service providers due to the lack of adequate business communications. In addition on-going investments are being made to enhance and expand these under utilized networks in all Member States as strategic development initiatives that are central to national and regional spatial planning strategies. In this context it is necessary for SMEs to make better use of the available facilities, to become more technology active and to be innovative in their management, production and business activities. They should be more aware that their competitive position in the marketplace should not be eroded by more technically efficient larger and multinational companies. Operational objectives The aim of the project consisted of the development and implementation of individualized ICT and innovation strategies as a complement and support of existing business plans. The project provided through services of ICT, innovation and commercial analysts a tailored ICT and innovation strategy, which meets the needs of each participating company. The project ran from August 2003 until late 2005. The objectives of the TESIS project are: - The application of Technology, Benchmarking, Innovation and e-Business in SMEs; - To develop and implement an activity programme to support companies in fulfilling their strategies; - To establish transnational clusters of SMEs who are involved in similar or complementary activities; - To exchange experiences, form strategic alliances or technology transfer agreements.


R20090275.doc 30 January 2010

Actions / results The TESIS project has been implemented through a three phase’s procedure to develop and implement ICT strategic planning and innovation at selected companies. The three stage process included: Phase 1. SMEs were invited to participate in the project from which 40 companies were selected for a individual ICT and innovation audit. Twenty of them were selected for phase 2; Phase 2. Extensive ICT and Innovation Plans developed for 20 selected companies and existing business strategies revised. Twelve of will continue to phase 3; Phase 3 Implementation of ICT and innovation plans in each of the 12 selected companies, for which a financial support of 50% of the net cost of agreed the system, was made available. III. Partnership and sustainability The partnership established for this project exists of regional/local authorities, NGO’s, a research institute and a number of private enterprises from Belgium (Flandern), Ireland, the Netherlands, and the U.K. (Wales. There did exist already previous successful contacts among most of them in other EU supported projects. Sustainability The on-going implementation of support activities for SMEs after the completion of the TESIS project programme intended to be self financing in so far as they will enable the SMEs to generate new and innovative business activities and relationships. IV. Learning and indirect effects Partnership It is important that the partner organizations do not focus only on their own internal experiences. Lessons can mainly be learned and applied in all regions if they are based on a good exchange of well thought-out projects. Herewith it was confirmed that similar difficulties were experienced by small companies all over Europe irrespective their level of development. Innovation The most innovative aspect of this project was not in the first place the use of new technologies, but the development of an integrated approach, which supported and encouraged innovation in SMEs through the implementation of tailor made ICT systems. Transnational cooperation Some of the more basic aims of the TESIS project could have been achieved at a regional and /or national level, however the inclusion of the transnational element gave a wider level on interest to the SMEs where they could cluster and exchange views with similar companies in the other regions. The transnational component should expanded the scope of the project and allow for greater exchange of experience and cooperation. Lessons learned

• The most successful aspect of the project was its central aim of providing an integrated approach to supporting SMEs in the participating regions.

• A bottle-neck in this cooperation project had been the great diversity between the partner regions. The diversity of their economic structures prevented the project to reach its intended objectives.

• Some member states have support facilities for SMEs available that are much better accessible and more generous with less red-tape.

• The project did deliver more benefits for the partner organizations than for the SMEs involved. V. Some conclusions The general conclusion is that this project was partly successful in bringing together within an transnational project relevant partners to develop an useful tool for regional agencies to support SMEs in implementing new technologies and innovating e-Business strategies in their companies.

- It had been successful in realization of its – direct - project objectives and results within the proposed period;

- It intended to contribute to an important “horizontal” objective of the EU with regards to introduce innovating technologies and ICT approaches in SMEs and improve the regional competitiveness;

- It complies to a limited extent with the general objectives of the INTERREG III guidelines with regard to “strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the EU” and the “realization of other important EU policy objectives”.

- It promoted mainly interaction among agencies directly responsible for promoting regional development.

However, no tools /budgets were foreseen to match possible initiatives of members of the target group (SMEs) (e.g. the factual actors of the regional economy). Besides the project lacked an opportunity to monitor the project results after the project had been finished. It was a pity that in the project no budget had been available for direct contacts among representatives of the SMEs themselves. Case study on project priority 3: SCALDIT - Scheldt - and Integrated Testing I. Factual information The project run from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2008, during which extensions were approved in which

additional activities were executed? The total project sum amounted to € 6.504.063 with 50 % ERDF contribution. The absorption rayte by mid


R20090275.doc 31 January 2010

2009 was 91%. In total 6 partners from three riparian countries were involved in the project (3 Belgium, 2 Dutch and 1

French partners, with the “Vlaamse Milieu maatschappij”” as lead partner. II. Selection process Background Demand for sufficient quantities of good quality water is increasing all the time in the European Union. In order to safeguard the water supply and the quality of the river basins, the European Parliament and the Council approved Directive 2000/60/EC on 23 October 2000. This directive, known as the European Water Framework Directive, provides a framework for European action in the area of water management. The intention is to achieve a good status for the surface water and groundwater in all European waters by the end of 2015. In this strategy, the emphasis is on a common understanding of the technical and scientific implications of the Water Framework Directive. In the mean time, a number of informal guidance documents for the implementation of the directive have been drawn up at European level. Its international character, the limited number of riparian states and its relatively limited extent make the Scheldt River Basin District highly suitable for testing the feasibility of the guidance documents. It also poses quite a task, as the political and administrative cultures of the riparian states differ greatly and operate on different levels (central, regional, provincial, local). Moreover, numerous different monitoring and evaluation systems for determining the status of the water exist in the area as a whole. The Scaldit project thus was considered as an interesting test for other cross-border river basins. Operational objectives The overall objective of the project is to establish a transnational analysis of the characteristics of the Scheldt river basin district, a review of the impact of human activities on the status of surface water and groundwater and an economic analysis of water use in the international river basin district of the Scheldt as a basis for an international river basin management plan that will lead to a good water status in the international river basin district of the Scheldt. It should further: contribute to the implementation of the WFD in the Scheldt river basin district and figure as a pilot for all international river basin districts within the EU through the structure of the Common

Implementation Strategy.

Actions / results The EU guidance documents as prepared within the Common Implementation Strategy will be tested on their practicability and (cross-) applicability for the implementation of the WFD. The action program is divided into 5 themes: 1. Characterizations of the river basin district 2. Data and information management 3. Water management and spatial planning 4. Communication and raising awareness 5. Up to the international river basin management plan III. Partnership and sustainability In 1994, the governments of France, the Walloon Region, the Flemish Region, the Brussels-Capital Region and the Netherlands signed a Treaty on the Protection of the Scheldt. This formally established co-operation between the countries and regions of the Scheldt river basin: the International Commission for the Protection of the Scheldt (ICPS).To establish the international river basin district the new Scheldt Treaty was signed and ICPS became the International Scheldt Commission (ISC). Since then the parties of the ISC are striving to achieve integrated water management and sustainable development in the international Scheldt River Basin District. Since then the implementation of the within the Scheldt River Basin District has been one of the ISC’s three political priorities. The Commission is therefore working to create a single river basin management plan for the entire international Scheldt River Basin District. According to the Framework Directive, this should be achieved by the end of 2009. The embedment of the SCALDIT activities within this organizational and political framework ensures as well the elaboration and continuation of the results. Herewith its sustainability has been guaranteed for the next decades. IV. Learning and indirect effects It provided a number of lessons that could be very useful for other transnational cooperation initiatives and demonstrates important bottle-necks for cooperation within an multi-governance context: - Partners in this project originate from different government levels with divergent competences, which

leaded during certain phases to time consuming discussions; - The involvement of different administrations with various competences and responsibilities, leaded in

some cases to reluctance with regard to deliver information about some sources of pollution; - Representatives from some partners were strongly dependent from national or regional authorities which

should contribute to the co-financing of the project costs. Other aspects that did affect the progress of the project implementation were:


R20090275.doc 32 January 2010

- The language barrier between French and Dutch speaking Partners; - The data needed for this project was quite often not comparable or generated in a different way; - Different cultures and divergent economic interests made it sometime difficult to take decisions; - Differences in interpretation and different levels of ambition. With regards to the innovation aspects of the project it is explained that especially the “Transnational River Basin District” approach in which the feasibility of all WFD guidance documents were tested - and thus the pilot character of the project - forms an important innovative aspect. Thanks to this approach highly qualitative results and products were created. The Scaldit project gave new élan to this form of territorial cooperation. V. Some conclusions The general conclusion is that this project was very successful in bringing together within an transnational project all partners in their countries / regions responsible for the quality of surface as well as ground water: It had been successful in realization of its project objectives and results within the proposed period and

even longer with additional activities within the same budget; It disclosed a number of bottle-necks to be used as examples for comparable forms of co-operations

elsewhere in Europe (problems of multi-governance situations); It contributed to an important “horizontal” objective of the EU with regards to the environment (WFD); Its final results will also contribute to a sustainable development of the countries and regions concerned; It complies strongly with the general objectives of the INTERREG III guidelines with regard to

“strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the EU”, “realization of other important EU policy objectives” and “promoting interaction among actors at different government levels”.

N.B. During the interview was discussed the necessity to deliver financial support for the realization of

obligations (objectives WMF) that member states anyway should fulfill. In fact could a great number of other transnational river basins make use of such a facility? By the lead partner – accepted by the JTS NWEurope – was argued that this project was unique because of its pilto character and the fact that this project tested all guiding documents of the WFD.

Case study project priority 4 : PROGRESS - PROmotion and Guidance for Recreation on Ecologically Sensitive Sites I. Factual information The project run for 60 months from October 2002 to October 2007 The total project sum amounted to € 3.767.784 with 50 % ERDF contribution. The absorption rate by mid

2009 was 99%. The Dutch research institute – Alterra – contributes with 11, 5 % in this project. In total 5 partners from 3 countries were involved in the project ( 2 national authorities from U.K., 1

national and 1 local authority from France and 1 Research institution from the Netherlands with the” Forestry Commission” from the U.K. as lead partner.

II. Selection process Background The project looks at the relationship between metropolitan areas and peripheral green space with high conservation and landscape values within the NWE zone. It focuses on the management of two important Natura 2000 sites located close to capital cities. The New Forest and Fontainebleau Forest are two of the largest areas of open space within the hinterlands of London and Paris, who collectively receive some 40 million day visits per annum. They are state owned, designated Natura 2000 sites (under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives) which are subject to considerable pressure to provide informal outdoor leisure to surrounding communities and visitors. Our project seeks the reconciliation of recreation and wildlife conservation objectives and is structured to clarify issues, identify solutions, test them in the field and draw results together into cohesive recreation strategies. Finally the findings are collectively promoted to an as wide as possible audience. Operational objectives PROGRESS (Promotion and Guidance for Recreation on Ecologically Sensitive Sites) seeks to bring together sites in England and France which share common issues arising from the reconciliation of recreation and wildlife conservation objectives in two forest areas. The objectives of the five partners in England, France and the Netherlands are to provide solutions to recreation and conservation issues though discussions and tests on the sites of New Forest (England) and Fontainebleau (France), both Natura 2000 sites. This project opted to generate sustainable solutions to the issues: i) Ecology, by adapting management of such sites to reconcile conservation and cultural heritage with

leisure activities and tourism; ii) Communication, by effectively transmitting focused environmental awareness to local communities and

visitors; iii) Sustainability, by securing resources and partnerships for sustainable recreation management; and iv) wider European transnationality, by gaining from other European examples and developing mechanisms


R20090275.doc 33 January 2010

of environmental sustainability for successful partnerships between land managers and leisure operators in the NWE zone and across Europe, to the accession countries.

Actions / results A very extensive – rather inconveniently arranged- action programme had been elaborate, which contained

three categories of actions and an overview of investments foreseen: I. Ecological - To produce forest-wide maps highlighting where conflicts exist in the delivery of recreation and

conservation objectives. I. Communication - To generate shared key messages and to select target audiences. I. Sustainability - Study on the impact of forest-based tourism on the economy not just for Fontaine/bleau

but for the New Forest as well. Also some investments were foreseen. III. Partnership and sustainability The partnership comprises the: Forestry Commission (UK Lead), Office National des Forets (France), Alterra

Research Institute (The Netherlands), Countryside Agency (UK), Pole touristique Sud Seine et Marne (France). Transnational co-operation is a critical strength to this project because a complementary mix of skills and experience were pooled together that would otherwise not available in the individual countries.

Sustainability was one of the central issues of this project and mainly oriented to reconcile its recreation as well as conservation tasks. Tourism, much of which has been inspired by the forest’s landscape and cultural history, makes a vital contribution to the local economy. The focus for this project was not to increase the number of visitors to the forests but rather to find mechanisms whereby tourism and recreation is better integrated into the Natura 2000 network. IV. Learning and indirect effects Project The clarity of communication was a prominent issue in this project. Although the standard of English was good throughout the partnership, it was clear at times that written communication was misinterpreted. Usually these misunderstandings were only resolved by face-to-face meetings where stalemates were sorted out and the project regained its momentum. Without regular feedback, it was difficult for the lead partner to be clear about progress on actions. Transnational partnership One had already developed a relationship between the public forest services in the UK and France, and had specifically signed a partnership agreement between two specific forests to work in co-operation on funding bids for work of mutual interest and benefit. Innovation Computer modeling was extensively used and was instrumental in getting public acceptance of various, sometimes controversial, proposals and will certainly be used more widely in future consultation with local user groups and the public. Computer-based lessons about sustainable forestry were developed for free nationwide release to primary schools. Lessons learned It was among others learned, that:

‐ Working with transnational partners brings can widen the horizons of the team. ‐ New ideas to be tested with support from more experienced partners save time and money. ‐ One realizes that there can be similar problems but with a different approach to the solution. ‐ Consenting processes can frustrate when the culture in each country varies as well. ‐ Commitments to the project can vary strongly between partners, partly because they have different

aspirations (serving public versus commercial interests). Future The best elements of the computer modeling outputs are taken further development with a number of organizations discussed that have expressed an interest in the principles applied. The Forest Commission will invest in some more development to turn a very technical tool into an user-friendly version to be disseminated among colleagues across the organization. The models used during this project are now also applied in some other countries elsewhere in NWEurope. V. Some conclusions The general conclusion is that this project was rather successful in bringing together within an transnational project all partners in their countries / regions responsible for the management of their natural heritage (forest and mores):

- It had been realized its project objectives and results within the proposed period; - It disclosed a number of bottle-necks which especially related to linguistic and cultural problems; - It contributed to an important “horizontal” objective of the EU (Nature 2000); - Its final results will also contribute to a sustainable development of the countries and regions

concerned, although rather fundamental differences with regards to reconciliation between nature and recreation(tourism) were not removed;

- It complies in a restricted extent with the general objectives of the INTERREG III guidelines.


R20090275.doc 34 January 2010

N.B. These projects are very dependent from personal involvement and interest of the initiating partners.

The danger does exist that as the key actors are deployed elsewhere in their organizations, the momentum of this project can easily be lost or reduced to a much less ambitious level.

Case study on project priority 5: ECSWA - Enhancement of containerised freight flows on small waterways I. Factual information The project run from 26 April 2005 – 31 December 2008; The total project sum amounted to € 999.095 with 48 % ERDF contribution. the expenditure by mid 2009

was 85%; In total 8 partners from three riparian countries were involved in the project (3 Belgium and 5 Dutch

partners, with the “Waterwegen en Zeekanaal NV from Belgium” as lead partner. Four partners from the private sector did participate in this project.

II. Selection process Background Nowadays most of the traffic on small waterways is of a recreational nature. Commercial shipping has largely disappeared. That’s because today’s generation of barge captains and their families want more comfort and more space. The ships that meet their wishes can’t fit through the small locks on narrow waterways. Another factor is that the older types of canal ships, such as the “Spits”, cannot compete with road transport in terms of cargo capacity. Nevertheless, there are industries and businesses located along small waterways that are interested in transporting goods by water, in part due to ecological considerations. One of the objectives of the ‘Waterslag project’ is to build a pushed barge that can independently travel through small locks and along narrow canals using an auxiliary engine. The significance of the barge to be developed for this purpose extends beyond the small waterways of Flanders and the southern Netherlands. Other EU countries could also make use of this innovative inland shipping concept. Operation objectives The objective of the ‘Waterslag project’ (ECSWA) is to utilize better the low carrying capacity of small waterways in Flandern and the southern Netherlands. Inland vessels could transport twice as much cargo if they used pushed barges that comply with all applicable technical requirements and can pass through locks on their own. That would make goods transport by water a more attractive option and reduces its cost, which would benefit mobility, the economy and the environment. Expected results 1. Inventory of the waterway infrastructure (characteristics waterways & barge vessel combinations) 2. Market potential on company level of the push-barge. 3. Regional economic development concept 4. Developed of logistics concept 5. Selecting pilot projects and test runs 6. Assessment pilot results and lessons learned 7. Communication and dissemination& promote this concepts in other NWE-countries III. Partnership and sustainability The Waterslag project (ECSWA) is being elaborated by the joint efforts of Incodelta (located in the southern Netherlands), the two Flemish waterway management organisations Waterwegen en Zeekanaal NV and De Scheepvaart NV, and four private-sector partners in Flanders and the Netherlands. The project was coordinator is Buck Consultants International. All partners – from the public as well as the private sector – contributed / participated actively to the execution of the proposed action fields in this project by delivering relevant information on available waterway capacities, the expected market potentials, technical opportunities and expected impact on the socio-economic development of the regions concerned. The in North West Europe available interreg programmes are – where possible – used to support and strengthen cross border as well as transnational cooperation in this region. The implementation of these kind of projects will certainly contribute to this also in the future. The positive outcome of the Waterslag project could possibly lead to a more standing cross border partnership in this sector. Financial support from the Interreg programme was needed because without this support nobody would have taken the risk to prepare and execute the pilots by which the possible technical solutions could be tested. It was anyway clear that this step would have been postponed for years. Now, it is the firm expectation of the lead partner that – now the appropriateness of the technical solutions have been proved – other private investments will follow.


R20090275.doc 35 January 2010

IV. Learning and indirect effects The partners in this project have strong common interests with regard to a better use of their inland waterways (canals), which for this region can be characterized by their restricted capacities. Although there is no talk of a standing work relation among them, Flemish and Dutch organizations for inland navigation – were feasible – work together in a pragmatic way to find solutions to make better use of their waterways. In their final report the partners expressed the clear ambition to continue working together, because the issues tackled by the Waterslag project needs a transnational partnership and scope to enable knowledge sharing between the partners and to guarantee an efficient approach. As a result of the pilots that were successfully executed, it is to be expected that the positive impact of this project will yield its fruits for many years and also contribute to the improvement of the local and regional location conditions. The expected benefits are obtained and possibilities to improve the concept were identified. The executors of the pilots declared that they will continue its exploitation in the future. The project proved that the accessibility of small waterways with the view to increase their attractiveness as locations for economic activities, and will because of this attract investments and increase the local / regional welfare. The innovative character of this project is related to logistic, technical and infrastructure aspects. A new transport concept is presented that will increase the shipping capacity of small waterways. Coupling of pushed barges to existing vessels makes it possible to overcome problems to pass through the relative small locks and enables reductions in transport costs. So, the project had been successfully implemented and no big problems occurred. The only aspect that caused some delay was the obliged public procurement of the pilot parts of the project. Because the private partners in the project were interested to execute these pilots they had to withdraw their financial contributions in the project. This was because their contributions made it impossible for them to participate in the tender procedure. Finally, none of them was selected to execute the pilot tests. V. Some conclusions The general conclusion is that this project was very successful in bringing together relevant partners in their to find practical / technical solutions for a common challenge:

- It had been successful in realization of its project objectives and results within the proposed; - It contributed to an important “horizontal” objective of the EU with regards to the environment,

transport and regional development; - Its final results will also contribute to the introduction of the tested concept in regions with

comparable small waterways; - It complies strongly with the general objectives of the INTERREG III guidelines with regard to

“strengthening the economic and social cohesion of the EU”, “realization of other important EU policy objectives” and “promoting interaction among actors at different government levels”.

N.B. During the interview the lead partner was asked why this project had been submitted under INTERREG IIIB and not IIIA (South-Netherlands /Flandern) and why the territorial scope of the project was smaller than could be possible Why not to involve Wallonia in this project and/or French or German regions? It became clear that the biggest bottle-neck for this was the strong confrontation with multi-governance problems. The fear for this was too great and could prevent a successful finalization of the project.


The 5 NWEurope projects were all the result of common and joint actions that strongly anticipated on

horizontal EU objectives with regard to urban (Spatial Metro), ICT (TESIS), environment/WFD

(PROGRESS & (SCALDIT) and multi-model transport (ECSWA). All projects were defined on shared

diagnosis of the problems to be tackled. The partnership approach had in most cases been evident

and we tried to organize the partner input in such a way that one can talk about complementary

contributions. Although most projects show levels of complexity and experimentation, the majority of

them tackled concrete problems with possible long-term solutions. With the exception of one of the

project the potential geographical impact of the analyzed projects can be assessed as rather high with

possible demonstration effects.

Three of the analyzed projects (SCALDIT, ECSWA and PROGRESS) continued also after the end of the

project period. SCALDIT continues to elaborate an integrated river basin management, PROGRESS

continues the build up partnerships, while the partners in ECSWA continue to find also other solutions to

make better use of the small river capacities. The partners of the other project will in one or another

carry on with transnational cooperation projects, but not necessarily with the same partners. All


R20090275.doc 36 January 2010

maintained their positive attitudes for this kind of co-operation but will search for partners that will suite

their particular issues of interest.

The programme structure as well as the selected priorities /measures were positively perceived by all

project partners. They did certainly fit the need of the programme stakeholders, land themselves

perfectly transnational partnerships which offered and covered their policy objectives very well. Although

the EU regulations were experienced as useful and clear, most project partners complained about the

complicated administrative procedures. These procedures formed for some lead partners a burden for

management of the project.

Most case studies executed for this programme analysis proved that some very interesting cooperation

projects between government and non-government organisations were implemented. In some projects of

NWE the dividing line between transnational and cross-border cooperation was rather vague (SCALDIT

and ECSWE). It is the personal impression of the evaluator that national authorities play a minor role in

the implemented cooperation projects.

The individual and organizational learning and indirect effects were:

‐ Most stagnations were caused by language problems and differences in administrative cultures;

‐ Partners not common to work in transnational projects need often better advise and training. This

can prevent stagnation especially in the initial phase;

‐ The cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organizations was experienced as

very positive;

‐ Too great difference in the economic structures of project partners can prevent the project to reach

its intended objectives:

‐ The involvement of partners with various competences and responsibilities can lead to reluctance

with regard to deliver;

‐ Commitments to the project can vary strongly between partners, partly because they have different

aspirations (serving public versus commercial interests).

3.4 ANALYSIS OF FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE PROGRAMME

The present ex-post evaluation has developed (1) a synthetic indicator for measuring the depth &

intensity of territorial co-operation achieved under INTERREG III and for exploring the influence of

previous co-operation tradition on this co-operation performance, as well as (2) a wider INTERREG III

taxonomy which allocates programmes - within Stand-specific typologies – to different sub-types (or

Categories). Both concepts also include a number of indicators which assess important geographical /

socio-economic context factors characterising a programme area on the outset (i.e. Strand-A & Strand-B

typologies) and determine the age and maturity of existing co-operation prior to the start of INTERREG

III (i.e. & “historical variables” of the synthetic indicator).

The following sections will now identify which of these general context-related and historical factors have

been the most important ones in the case of the programme concerned and will analyse more in-depthly

some of the most important programme-specific features and conclude on the relevance of these factors.


R20090275.doc 37 January 2010

3.4.1 IMPORTANT CONTEXTUAL FACTORS CHARACTERISING THE TRANSNATIONAL

PROGRAMME AREA

In the typology of Strand-B programmes, the INTERREG IIIB programme “North West Europe”

(NWE) forms part of a group of 4 programmes covering the central & continental parts of the EU27

(Category 1), which is – amongst other aspects – characterised by two context factors which were

important in statistical terms for allocating the programmes to this category:

• A high degree of overall accessibility (i.e. aggregated multimodal accessibility rates clearly or

considerably above the average rate of all Strand-B programmes, see also ANNEX 4).

• A relatively uniform overall pattern of urban-rural relations (i.e. high degrees of urban influence & of

human intervention, see also ANNEX 4).

Due to the existence of a generally dense motorway network, an excellent network of inland waterways,

a high concentration of major seaports, the most developed High Speed Train (HST) network in the world

and the largest airport hubs in Europe, the overall level of accessibility of the NWE co-operation

area is high. This can be illustrated by the NWE’s “aggregated ratio of potential multimodal

accessibility” (125.26), which is in fact the highest aggregated ratio of all Strand-B programmes. The

leading position of NWE which is approximately 168% above the average ratio calculated across all

Strand-B programmes (74.7) distinguishes the programme area also from the three other transnational

areas forming part of Category 1 in the Strand-B typology4. This high overall level of accessibility is

however not universal across the NWE co-operation area, as one can observe a clear core-periphery

pattern which is more or less accentuated according to the specific modes of transport considered.

A large proportion of the EU’s most accessible regions are located in NWE and constitute a relatively

“compact zone” within the wider co-operation area (i.e. Belgium, Luxembourg and the regions of

Western Germany, of the Mid-South of the Netherlands, of North-Western France, including Paris and of

the South-East of England, including London). They score highly on the road & rail accessibility indices

(i.e. >120, with EU27=100 and situation as by 2001) and some of them even draw additional

accessibility benefits from the further widening of the high-speed train network (i.e. regions along the

HST-axes show better scores than for road accessibility). In case of the index for potential air

accessibility, however, only the larger metropolitan areas score highly (i.e. Greater London, Brussels,

Paris, Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Rhein-Main, Stuttgart, Basel) while the rest of the compact zone have a

potential accessibility by air moderately above or below the EU27 average (> 80 and < 120).

The more peripheral parts of the NWE area (i.e. Ireland, Scotland and especially the Highlands &

Islands, West of England & Wales) are characterized by a comparatively lower endowment with transport

infrastructure and thus score clearly below the EU27 average in the context of the indices for potential

road & rail accessibility (i.e. < 80). Only in case of the index for potential air accessibility, the relatively

extreme peripheral position is somehow reduced which is mainly due to the existence of a larger number

of regional airports in these areas either providing direct international flight connections or offering flight

connections to major airport hubs.

The overall pattern of urban-rural relations prevailing in the predominant proportion of the NWE co-

operation area is characterised by a combination of a “high degree of urban influence” and a “high

4 Although still above the Strand-B average rate, the aggregated ratios of potential multimodal accessibility are much lower for the programme areas North Sea (103.28), Alpine Space (108.94) and CADSES (89.42).


R20090275.doc 38 January 2010

degree of human intervention” and thus similar to the one characterising the other programmes of

Category 1.

The “high degree of urban influence” results from the fact that the entire NWE area has an above-EU

average population density and hosts a large number of “functional urban areas”, among them, several

even have a strategic importance in the wider European and even global context (i.e. “Metropolitan

European Growth Areas” or MEGAs). Although the NWE area covered a surface amounting in 1999/2000

to only a little less than one quarter of the EU15 territory, around 45% of the total EU15 population were

living within its boundaries making the average population density almost twice as high as the EU15

average.5 Three quarters of the NWE population were mainly living in urbanised areas with more than

500 inhabitants per km², which also points to the predominantly urban character of the transnational co-

operation area.6 Out of the 76 “Metropolitan European Growth Areas” existing in the EU27+NOR/CH, a

total of 22 MEGAs are located in North-West Europe.

Most important are the two largest and highly competitive /highly connected urban systems existing in

the EU (i.e. the global cities Paris & London) as well as a number large/relatively large and competitive

cities possessing strong human capital and a good accessibility (i.e. the “European Engines” Brussels,

Amsterdam, Düsseldorf, Köln, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Zürich & the “Strong MEGAs” Dublin, Manchester

and Geneva). At a lower level of importance, one can find a number of comparatively smaller cities with

a lower competitiveness and a weaker human capital (i.e. the “Potential MEGAS” Glasgow, Edinburgh,

Birmingham, Lille, Antwerpen, Rotterdam, Luxembourg, Bern & the “Weak MEGAs” Cork and

Southampton/Eastleigh).

The “high degree of human intervention” is due to the fact that the overall land-use pattern of the

NWE co-operation area is characterised by an important proportion of “artificial” or built surfaces and at

the same time by very intensive agricultural use of the soil in zones surrounding the more urbanised

areas. NWE covers an important amount of metropolitan and urban areas, which results in an above-

European average share of “artificial surfaces”. In the extended intermediate areas of the transnational

co-operation zone having a more rural character, a large proportion of land is under intensive agricultural

production at a rate that is far above the EU average and the percentage of forested land is well below

the EU average.

Although less important in statistical terms, a third context factor considered for characterising the

NWE programme area was the “degree of real transnational convergence existing in the

programme area” which was determined on ground of the overall deviation ratio between the lowest

and highest income levels existing within the programme area.7 If compared to the situation prevailing

under other Strand-B typology categories (i.e. Categories 2 & 3), one can observe that Category 1 is

characterised by an extremely wide spread of the programme-level degrees of real transnational

convergence. Income-level disparities are rather modest in case of the programmes North Sea (2.85)

and Alpine Space (2.58), but already more accentuated in case of the North West Europe programme

(4.67) and at the and most extreme situation among all Strand-B programme areas in case of CADSES

(30.92). Although NWE covers a significant part of the ‘pentagon’ which is seen by the ESDP as the only

5 In 2003, the NWE area had a population of 179 million which accounts for about 39.5% of the EU25 population. The average population density of NWE was with 307 inhabitants/km² more than 2.5 times that of the EU25 average (118 inhabitants/km²). 6 Around 180,000 km² (23%) of the NWE co-operation area is sparsely populated, thus displaying particular problems / challenges which are very distinct from those of the urbanised territories. 7 i.e. 10 aggregated highest & aggregated lowest GRP/capita values at NUTS 3 level, on ground of Eurostat data for 2005.


R20090275.doc 39 January 2010

zone of global economic significance, its degree of real transnational convergence is in fact the 3rd lowest

among all 13 transnational co-operation programmes (after CADSES and the Baltic Sea Area with 6.96).

Considered from a more programme-focussed viewpoint, it becomes clear that the strong economy of

NWE is not universal across the co-operation area and that a great disparity exists both within the NWE-

core area and between the NWE-core area and the NWE-periphery as regards a number of core

indicators used for determining the regional-level Lisbon performance (i.e. productivity, employment,

R&D expenditure, share of active persons employed in R&D business sector, share of highly educated

persons).

The above-reviewed contextual factors were all generally relevant for highlighting the main

characteristics of the INTERREG IIIB programme area. The analysis has however shown that some other complementary and programme area-internal factors should have been taken into account at the

level of the typology such as the existence of core-periphery patterns in terms of mode-specific levels of

potential accessibility or regional-level disparities with respect to Lisbon performance and

competitiveness.

3.4.2 HISTORIC FACTORS DETERMINING THE CHARACTER OF TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION BEFORE THE START OF INTERREG III

A brief look at the raw results achieved by the INTERREG IIIB programme North-West Europe (NWE)

under the three variables8 making up the “Historical Criterion” of the synthetic indicator points to one

aspect which is of a particular importance: the very long overall duration of transnational co-

operation in NWE prior to INTERREG III (45 years), as the NWE programme has the longest co-

operation tradition among all INTERREG III programmes examined (i.e. maximum score achieved under

SI 1). Compared to the other Strand-B programmes, the NWE programme scored relatively similar under

the two other historical variables assessing the maturity of previous co-operation tradition.

No specific multilateral inter-state agreements promoting transnational co-operation among territorial

authorities and providing them with a wider range of specific legal solutions (i.e. public law, private law)

for further structuring / adding capacity to their co-operation initiatives exists in Europe. Only specific co-

operation provisions existing in the domestic law of the concerned States and other private law-based

solutions (e.g. associative law) as well as the EU-law based instrument of a “European Economic Interest

Grouping – EEIG”9 can be used (all Strand-B programmes score at a level of 30 under SI 2).

Partly due to the lack of appropriate legal framework conditions for transnational co-operation, no

permanent transnational co-operation structures with an own legal personality had been established

throughout Europe beyond those set up for the management of INTERREG IIC programmes. The only

8 SI 1: Number of years the structured and visible transnational co-operation exists within parts or all of the programme area. SI 2: Nature & quality of the directly applicable legal instrument that can be used for transnational co-operation within parts or all of the programme area. SI 3: Nature & quality of existing permanent transnational co-operation structures established between territorial authorities that operate in parts or all of the programme area. 9 The EC-Regulation 2137/85 on “European Economic Interest Grouping” (EEIG) provides a uniform legal framework that has precedence over national law and establishes a set of directly applicable standard rules on EEIGs. Despite this common framework, EEIGs are still governed by various national legal provisions in the different EU-Member States. In principle, EEIGs may also be used as a legal structure for co-operation among bodies governed by public law (e.g. regional and local authorities, public research centres, universities, etc.), provided that their activities or one of these activities can be considered ”to be of an economic nature, even if minimal or indirect”. The suitability of EEIGs for transnational co-operation among territorial authorities has however been questioned at various occasions (i.e. EEIGs are not entitled to realise purely administrative activities; EEIGs can not take over the management responsibility for a joint co-operation programme / project without the establishment of another structure).


R20090275.doc 40 January 2010

more structured approach, which is however not based upon a structure with its own legal personality, is

the inter-state co-operation among Ministries responsible for spatial planning and development of

countries around the Baltic Sea Region10 (with the exception of the BSR programme, all other Strand-B

programmes maximum score at a level of 30 under SI 3).

In a historical perspective, the continental part of the transnational co-operation area North-West Europe

covers the “heartlands” from which the European integration process took its start in the early 1950’s

with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. Its strategic aim was to secure the state

borders between Western Germany and North-Eastern France and the BENELUX countries and to

guarantee a peaceful use of heavy industry production in order to avoid the resurrection of warfare

characterising the first half of the 20th century.

Long before the emergence of cross-border co-operation initiatives along these borders during the

1960’s/1970’s, the first large-scale transnational co-operation initiative in Europe focussing on spatial

planning and development has been established from a bottom-up perspective. Founded in 1955, the

“Conference of the Regions of North-West Europe - CRONWE” (Conference des Régions de

l’Europe du Nord-Ouest”, CRENO) was initiated as an international and scientific association which

subsequently played a pioneering role in promoting a co-ordinated approach for transnational spatial

planning and development in North-West Europe.11 Initially involving only five countries from North-West

Europe, the CRONWE later covered the entire territory of the three BENELUX countries and parts of

Germany, France and the UK (some western German Federal Länder; several regions in the north and

north-eastern part of France; the south-east of England & the Greater London Area).

Located in Bruges, CRONWE was headed by a President (nominated on a rotation basis by the

participating countries and regions) and its day-to-day affairs were run by a Secretary-General. Its main

task was to initiate and co-ordinate the elaboration of scientific cross-country regional studies focussing

on the CRONWE co-operation area by involving planning officials and scientists from the participating

states and regions. The funding for these activities was mobilised through financial contributions of the

CRONWE members, which had been 16 by the end of the 1980s. Beyond the elaboration of studies, the

CRONWE has also organised 15 “study days”, various spatial planning seminars and published a number

of transnational thematic maps on issues of common concern (e.g. population density; development

axes, transport corridors).

Through these activities, the CRONWE has raised the awareness in the NWE planning community on a

wide range of key spatial development issues. During the first half of the 1990’s, with the growing

attention paid to transnational spatial development and co-operation at the level of the Community, the

previous work of CRONWE has also inspired the elaboration DG Regional Policy’s study exploring

development prospects for the central and capital cities region in North West Europe (Europe 2000

programme, see below) which was also discussed at a specific CRONWE-event in May 199512. At the

same time, however, the interest of some important CRONWE-members financially contributing to such

10 It started in 1992 with the Karlskrona Conference and has been further deepened and institutionalised during the following years in the context of the wider process "Visions and strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010" (VASAB). 11 Doucet, Ph. (2001): Transnational Planning in the Wake of the ESDP: The Northwest Europe Experience. Lincoln Institute, June 2001. 12 i.e. the CRONWE-study days in Villeneuve d'Ascq/France (May 1995), which focussed on exploring strategies for town and country planning against the wider background of a sustainable development of North Western Europe.


R20090275.doc 41 January 2010

activities curiously diminished13 and in the second half of the 1990’s – after some years of inertia - the

organisation stopped operating.

The abovementioned and even long-standing initiative shows that large scale transnational co-operation

in the field of spatial development has remained mainly at an informal stage in North West Europe. Only

at a much more reduced territorial scope, the Benelux Economic Union (Union économique

Benelux) has institutionalised co-operative spatial development planning within its sphere of activities

by the end of the 1960’s.14 In 1986, the first “Benelux Global Structure Outline” (Esquisse de Structure

Globale Benelux) was published and had the status of a recommendation. It can be considered the first

embryonic transnational spatial development planning document. After several years of preparation15, a

radically revised version of the first Outline was published in draft form in 1996 (Second Benelux

Structural Outline).

Other more punctual activities focussing on a large-scale transnational spatial development of North-

West Europe did exist in parallel to CRONWE and the BENELUX approach since the mid 1970’s, but they

were initiated from a “top-down” perspective and did not involve any kind of co-operation among states

or territorial authorities. The first one was a prospective transnational study on “physical planning and

the environment in the megalopolis in formation in North-West Europe”, which has been published in

1975.16 The study was financed by the European Commission and focussed on a transnational analysis of

the evolution of urban systems and the resulting challenges for the environment. In the early 1990’s, the

European Commission again realised a transnational study entitled “Prospects for the development of the

central and capital cities and regions” (i.e. the so-called “CCC-study”),17 which formed part of the DG

Regional Policy’s study programme “Europe 2000”. It carried out an assessment of the existing situation

and trends from a transnational perspective and developed trend scenarios and policy scenarios for

North-West Europe.

Only with the launching of the new Strand-C of the INTERREG II Community Initiative in 1997

by the European Commission, a much more pro-active and less informal approach to transnational co-

operation in the field of territorial development could be introduced in North West Europe. The INTERREG

IIC programme “North West Metropolitan Area” has established transnational spatial development co-

operation at a significantly widened territorial scale (i.e. by including the whole of the UK & of Ireland)

and allowed to realise the first concrete projects involving national authorities, regions and local

authorities or other public/private actors. Beyond this, the new INTERREG IIC programme “IRMA” has

allowed initiating first cross-country contacts in the field of flooding prevention and supporting the

establishment of transnational co-operation networks. Also this more topically focussed programme has

been a major step forward, if one bares in mind that cross-country or transnational co-operation in the

field of flood prevention hardly existed before it.

The INTERREG IIC programme “North West Metropolitan Area” (NWMA)18 was adopted in 1998

and allowed to implement - with ERDF-funding of around € 31 millions - a total of 45 projects involving

13 The author of these lines has some personal insights to the work of CRONWE, as he was the scientific assistant of CRONWE’s secretary general during the last years of operation of this organization (1994-1995). 14 Inter-state agreements on spatial planning between Belgium-Netherlands-Luxembourg (1969). 15 1989-1995: Organisation of study days and conferences, formal adoption of a “Note d’Orientation” (in October 1993) and a “Note d’Approfondissement” (in January 1995). 16 “Prospective Study on physical planning and the environment in the megalopolis in formation in North-West Europe”. European Research Institute for Regional and Urban Planning. The Hague,1975. 17 “Prospects for the development of the central and capital cities and regions”. Mens en Ruimte/Kolpron. 1996. 18 INTERREG IIC Operational Programme NWMA, approved on 3. June 1998.


R20090275.doc 42 January 2010

altogether 369 partners.19 These projects realised mostly “soft actions” such as the elaboration of

thematic studies, data-bases or joint territorial development strategies and the organisation of seminars

for exchanging experiences and good practice in the field of spatial planning and territorial development.

Due to the relatively short implementation period20 and the sometimes considerable differences in the

national / regional planning systems and cultures existing within the transnational co-operation area, the

immediate overall results emerging from this experimental and mostly bottom-up driven co-operation

phase were therefore relatively limited (i.e. an increased cross-cultural understanding on issues related

to spatial planning and territorial development; increased cross-cutting or topical knowledge on jointly

shared problems or development potentials; a very punctual tackling of jointly shared problems; the

creation of new topical or cross-thematic partnerships that did not exist prior to the programme).

An important “top-down” driven initiative launched under the INTERREG IIC programme NWMA was the

drawing up of a transnational spatial vision strategy, which aimed at translating the ESDP-objectives and

policy options into more concrete development objectives adapted to the peculiarities and potentials of

the NWMA co-operation area and at defining priority topics as well as policy recommendations for future

co-operation. At the end of this process, a strategic document entitled “A Spatial Vision for North-

West Europe – Building Cooperation”21 was published which sets out some of the critical issues that

need to be tackled through transnational co-operation and presents an agenda for discussion in relation

to NWMA. It also contains an analysis of the transnational area’s spatial characteristics, a vision for the

future (its general principles) and actions for future transnational co-operation. The document was not

considered a “spatial planning blueprint”, but rather the beginning of a process of developing long-term

spatial strategies. Following the publication of this document, a consultation process was realised on the

vision in each Member State concerned and the responses to this exercise had been published in a

“Consultation Report”.22 This initial spatial visioning process has contributed to establish a network of

planning professionals in North West Europe and to enrich the debate on the future of transnational co-

operation in the field of territorial development.

The INTERREG IIC flood control programme “IRMA” (Interreg Rhine-Meuse Activities)23 was

approved in December 1997 and mobilised a total eligible investment until the extended payment period

fixed for the end of 2002 of approximately € 420 millions (of which € 141 millions of ERDF-support).

Altogether 153 flooding protection projects had been implemented. They aimed to reduce high peak flood

discharges and corresponding flood levels of the rivers Rhine and Meuse by stimulating infiltration and

introducing extra retention facilities along the main rivers and tributaries (i.e. 80 catchment-area

projects & 45 retention facility projects), while others focussed on improving awareness and information

dissemination and transnational co-operation with respect to flood prevention (27 projects). Although

many of the projects having realised local physical investments did not involve transnational co-operation

character, one could observe that especially the “catchment-area approaches” with common goals and

strategies as well as some of the projects focussing on awareness/information dissemination have led to

well-founded transnational co-operation. IRMA projects have however generated innovative

19 An examination of geographical origin of the project Lead Partners shows that 73% of them were led by partners from the Netherlands (16), the UK (9) and Belgium (8), while the remainder 27% were led by partners from France (6), Germany (3) Ireland (2) and Luxembourg (1). 20 i.e. mid-1998 to December 1999 as deadline for funds commitment, which left 18 months to develop and approve projects. 21 A spatial vision for North-West Europe – Building Cooperation. A discussion document co-financed by the Interreg IIC Community Initiative (September 2000). 22 Consultation Report on the Vision Document – Summary of Responses (prepared by the University of the West of England in consultation with the Lead Partner, June 2001). 23 The programme was jointly submitted by France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the two Belgium Regions Flanders and Wallonia.


R20090275.doc 43 January 2010

outputs/results24 which rather quickly led to a change in practical policy making, as it was increasingly

acknowledged that flooding protection must also be carried out in a cross-country perspective while

actively involving and integrating various related policy fields (i.e. territorial planning, water

management, ecological development and agriculture).

If compared to previous decades and while bearing in mind the relatively short INTERREG IIC

programming period, good progress has been made in further improving the nature and quality

of transnational co-operation in North West Europe before the start of INTERREG III. At a

strategic level, the experimental INTERREG IIC programmes NWMA and IRMA have - for the first time -

required the establishment of more formalised but complex technical, administrative and financial

arrangements for a joint strategic management of the transnational programmes (i.e. setting-up of an

joint technical secretariat for the programme; creation of a joint finance management system including a

joint bank account for the ERDF-subsidy, creation of additional support structures etc.).

Beyond these programme-level management structures, however, neither a more formalised

transnational co-operation structure (e.g. with an own legal personality and/or more general tasks

regarding transnational territorial development) nor a less formalised but permanent high-level co-

operation facilitating the definition of long-term development objectives and also a greater political

involvement in territorial planning has been established in North West Europe. This is to some extent

certainly due to the non-existence of an appropriate legal instrument for transnational co-operation

which can be applied directly in a cross-country perspective, but mostly the consequence of a lacking

common political will among the involved partners for overcoming basic differences or operational

problems.25 Progress in this direction can however be made if a common consensus does exist, which

was clearly demonstrated in the Baltic Sea Area by the VASAB-process launched since 1991/92.26 Also

transnational co-operation at project level was still characterised by a number of shortcomings such

as the rather marginal position of NWMA-projects in the context of national / regional administrative

processes (i.e. frequently being concentrated in the hands of a few people in a specific division or unit),

the frequent lack of a truly transnational character of NWMA and IRMA projects, the lacking generation of

real innovation especially in case of NWMA projects and a rather limited involvement of the private sector

(also in financial terms).

3.5 RE-CONSIDERING THE “DEPTH & INTENSITY OF TERRITORIAL CO-OPERATION”

Based upon the synthetic indicator concept developed in the Inception Report of this ex-post evaluation,

the 1st Interim Report has determined a level of depth & intensity of territorial co-operation for each of

the INTERREG III programmes considered (i.e. the “Real Rate”, measuring the programme-related co-

operation performance) and realised an overall scale-placement of these programmes according to their

24 i.e. development of integrated water management / flooding prevention approaches, conception of new technical solutions against flooding; development of a new philosophy of planning in the vicinity of rivers; elaboration of new models to facilitate decision-making; elaboration of new databases on flooding hazards etc. 25 The national/regional spatial planning and territorial development policies are highly diverse in the countries involved in NWE (i.e. different core actors & range of formal administrative powers; different planning cultures and approaches, different formal status of territorial development concepts, different instrumental approaches ranging from a highly legalistic enforcement of planning to pro-active support policies etc.). Major problems regarding the status of transnational planning concepts / their actual implementation through joint transnational measures, as already in a national/regional perspective the actual enforcement of cross-cutting spatial development policies in relation to other sector policies is rather complex and difficult. Another evidence for a lacking will could also be seen in the fact that the political & administrative appropriation of the NWMA-spatial vision strategy document was not very substantial. 26 The VASAB-process is also characterised by a relatively high degree of institutionalisation: Organisation of regular Conferences of Ministers (every 4-5 years); creation of a “Committee on Spatial Development of the Baltic Sea Region” (the CSD-BSR) acting in-between the ministerial meetings; establishment of a permanent secretariat supporting the CSD-BSR.


R20090275.doc 44 January 2010

Real Rate values achieved. Related to this, a regression analysis has been carried for exploring to what

extent the INTERREG III-related co-operation performance would have been different if the influence of

previous co-operation tradition and the maturity of this co-operation were taken into account (i.e. the

"Expected Rate"). The actual “Real Rate” achieved by programmes was finally used as one indicator

among others in the context of the ex-post evaluation’s wider taxonomy, which allocated INTERREG III

programmes to one of the various categories under each Strand-specific typology.

By taking the position of the INTERREG IIIB programme North West Europe within the wider Stand-B

typology as point of departure, the following section will now re-consider its actual co-operation

performance achieved and assess the influence of specific historical variables on this performance from a

more programme-centred and comparative perspective.

The INTERREG III co-operation performance achieved

The four INTERREG IIIB programmes included in the 1st category of the Strand-B typology have either

achieved a high level of depth & intensity of co-operation (3 programmes) or even a very high depth &

intensity of co-operation (1 programme). In this respect, however, the North West Europe

programme is not a “typical” representative of Category 1. Its Real Rate achieved is not only the

highest within this Category, but also the highest among all INTERREG III programmes (Strands A, B and

C). Within the wider Real Rate scale-placement realised for all programmes, the North West Europe

programme therefore leads the class of the 3 programmes which achieved a “very high depth & intensity

level of territorial co-operation” and is - at the same time - the only Strand-B programme having entered

this top-group.

A quick look at the component-results achieved at the level of the synthetic indicator (see overview

table below) points on four important factors27 which have most contributed to the high degree

of co-operation performance achieved by the NWE-programme.

(1) An intense diagnosis of the shared needs / problems was realised at the outset, which

were all fully considered in the initial NWE-programme strategy and also fully reflected by the

financial support allocated to the priorities and measures (Component 2). This maximum score

under both sub-indicators28 places the NWE programme in a leading position within Category 1 of the

Strand-B typology. For preparing the North West Europe programme, an “International Working Party”

(IWP)29 was set up in 1999 which has been assisted by the Technical Secretariat set up for the previous

INTERREG IIC programme NWMA (i.e. realising the drafting of the programme & related co-ordination

tasks). After the publication of a first programme outline, a larger number of follow-up versions (10 in

total) have been drafted which subsequently took into consideration inputs coming from the Member

27 These factors are those where the NWE programme has reached a component-level positioning equal to its RR positioning (highest score). Results at a lower position but still above the component average are considered less important, while a score below the component average is seen as a weakness. 28 The initial needs & problem diagnosis realised at the outset (SI 4) was elaborated for the programmes on ground of an existing transnational spatial vision developed in the context of the preceding INTERREG IIC programmes (only: North West Europe, CADSES, North Sea) and of an joint SWOT-analysis involving a wider range of stakeholders from the programme area (North West Europe, CADSES, North Sea, Alpine Space). The reflection of the needs/problem diagnosis in the initial INTERREG IIIB programme strategies (SI 5) was variable among the Category 1 programmes, ranging from an optimal position in case of North West Europe (all needs/problems considered & importance fully reflected by financial allocations) over a less optimal position in case of North Sea and Alpine Space (only most important needs/problems considered & importance fully reflected by financial allocations) down to rather weak position in case of CADSES (only most important needs/problems considered & importance not fully reflected by financial allocations). 29 The IWP was composed of representatives of national and regional Authorities of the seven participating Member States and an observer representing the Swiss Confederation. The first IWP meeting took place on October 1999 and was followed by ten additional meetings (one meeting in December 1999, seven meetings in 2000 and two meetings at the very beginning of 2001).


R20090275.doc 45 January 2010

States and, more importantly, the comments of a wide partnership of consulted bodies, including the

various levels of public administration, the private and voluntary sectors as well as transnational

organisations.30 Also the inter-active ex-ante evaluation process, organised parallel to this consultation

process, has made an important contribution and helped in particular to analyse the strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the co-operation area and to identify key issues for the

strategy building.31

The “European Spatial Development Perspective” (ESDP), though legally non-binding, was an important

indicative reference base for NWE programme drafting process, whereas the NWMA-spatial vision

strategy elaborated in parallel to programme preparation process (under the INTERREG IIC programme,

see above) was only used to some extent as the final outcomes (i.e. vision document & consultation

report) were finalised after the end of the preparation phase. The mid-term evaluation of 2003 has

confirmed the relevance and consistence of the initial NWE-programme strategy and concludes that there

is little evidence requiring a major revision of the NWE priorities (i.e. the current priorities & measures

are formulated in a broad manner, thereby enabling NWE programme to consider and respond to any

changes and emerging key challenges). Beyond this, the up-dated mid-term evaluation of 2005 also

concluded that the five cross-cutting themes which aimed to stimulate the emergence of multi-

disciplinary / integrated approaches in transnational co-operation beyond the more topic-focussed

priority objectives were also sufficiently well covered by the operations approved under the NWE

programme.32

(2) The NWE programme has established a very inclusive strategic decision-making

partnership and a truly joint / fully decentralised programme management system, which was

formalised through a number of agreements / conventions having facilitated the overall joint

decision-making and management process (Component 3, see also chapter 4.2.1 below):

Saying this, one has to bear in mind that no Strand-B programme could reach a degree of genuinely joint

transnational programme management comparable to certain Strand-A programmes33 as no specific and

directly applicable legal instrument for transnational co-operation existed neither in national legislations

nor in supra-national legislation. Only such an instrument would have allowed establishing a

transnational co-operation structure with an own legal personality to which all INTERREG IIIB

programme management functions could be fully entrusted.34 If one considers the different programme

management arrangements adopted in practice by Strand-B programmes, one can clearly confirm that

the NWE-programme belongs to a larger group of progressive programmes having established a “fully

30 The Member States national authorities organised consultations following their own individual administrative procedures. The NWMA Programme Secretariat was entrusted with consulting transnational bodies. In addition to the consultations, two public events were organised at transnational level (Antwerp on February 2000; Bruges on October 2000) to discuss the content of the 2nd programme draft with NWMA project partnerships, public authorities and various transnational organisations. The results of the four thematic workshops (based on the future programme priorities) were summarised by and included as annex to the programme. 31 Monitored by the NWMA Technical Secretariat, the ex-ante evaluation was carried out as an interactive process between the IWP and the team of evaluators (from the NEI/Kolpron Group). The ex-ante evaluation process involved a series of workshops (bringing together members of the IWP and external experts) and the related recommendations were taken on board and served to improve the content of the subsequent versions of the programme. 32 The promotion of (1) “transnational co-operation through concrete action with clear benefits” has been covered the best, while the (2) “building of a better knowledge base of the NWE area as a whole and of its relationships with other parts of Europe” and a (3) “deeper involvement of civil society and promotion of public-private partnerships” as well as the (4) “Embedding of cooperation within the respective national and regional territorial development structures” were sufficiently covered. The actual coverage of the theme (5) “search for increased coherence and synergy between territorial development objectives and the application of EU sectorial policies within the NWE area” was however most doubtful. 33 e.g. cross-border structures taking over the MA/PA/JTS role under the PAMINA & Euregio Maas-Rhein programmes. 34 A legal personality is however required if the overall responsibility and liability for the programme needs to be ensured (in legal and financial terms) and if specific contractual engagements are to be made (e.g. the subsidy contract which is concluded with approved projects; contracts for the provision of programme-related services; employment contracts for JTS personnel etc.)


R20090275.doc 46 January 2010

decentralised management system”.35 Here, regional authorities assumed in most cases the direct roles

of the Managing and Paying Authority (MA/PA) and hosted the Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) while

under several programmes also (regional) public banks were acting as Paying Authority (NWE, Atlantic

Area) or even assumed the most important share of the programme management functions (“Baltic

Sea”: MA/PA). This approach clearly distinguishes them from two other models, where state-level

authorities have to a varying extent directly ensured the roles of the MA/PA and/or hosted the JTS (i.e.

Strand-B programmes having set up a “partly decentralised” management systems36 or a “fully

centralised” management system37).

(3) Similar to the other Strand-B programmes covered by Category 1, the NWE programme is

characterised by a very high significance of joint projects38 implemented (Component 5): The

NWE projects approved and realised were all truly joint projects, as the programme and the project

application form explicitly required that each project had to be jointly developed, jointly financed and

jointly implemented. Due to this, truly joint projects cover all actors involved in projects approved under

the NWE-programme and also the entire total project cost / ERDF-contribution mobilised under the

operational priorities & measures of the programme (i.e. excluding technical assistance) was dedicated to

joint projects.

(4) Together with CADSES, the projects implemented under the NWE programme have achieved

a high impact at the level of the entire transnational co-operation area (Component 6): The

INTERREG IIIB programme NWE has - to a very great extent strengthened the co-operation culture

between relevant stakeholders in the transnational area (institutional level). A concrete example is the

improved co-operation in the wider River Rhine catchment area which was achieved by a cluster of 9

projects. These projects have carried out surveys and studies, implemented flood warning- and

management systems, realized real investments in water retention-areas and created platforms for

future co-operation. The programme has also to a great extent favoured a stronger integration of the co-

operation topics / themes as defined in the programme strategy (priority topics). A concrete example is

the project “Espace Manche Development Initiative” (EMDI), which created – on the grounds of previous

co-operation results – a regional data tool to establish conditions for a tangible co-operation between

English and French stakeholders located on either side of the Channel and tested such co-operation

through pilot initiatives on different themes (tourism, Integrated Coastal Zone Management, higher

education/R&D/transfer of technology, fishing resources, maritime safety and transport intermodality).

The programme has however only made a relatively modest contribution to furthering the social and

economic cohesion of the NWE co-operation area (convergence).

35 Practical examples are the INTERREG IIIB programmes “Alpine Space”, “Atlantic Area”, “Atlantic-Ultra Peripheral-Regions”, “Baltic Sea Region”, “French Ultra-Peripheral Regions Caribbean”, “North-West Europe”, “Northern Periphery”. 36 Under the INTERREG IIIB programmes “South West Europe” and “North Sea”, regional authorities assumed a part of the programme management functions and central-level administrations assumed either the role of the Managing Authority or of the Paying Authority (“South West Europe” Paying Authority: Spanish Ministry of Economy; “North Sea Region” Managing Authority: Danish National Agency for Enterprise and Housing at the Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs). 37 Under the INTERREG IIIB programmes “CADSES” and “Western Mediterranean”, the Managing / Paying Authorities were in both cases located at central level in the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transports and partly also the JTS (only the JTS of CADSES-programme was located in Germany). Also under the INTERREG IIIB programme “Archimed”, all functions were located at central level in the Greek Ministry of National Economy (MA/PA/JTS). 38 Joint projects / operations are considered to be those projects / operations fully meeting at least three of the following four conditions: (1) A joint development of the project from the outset, (2) a joint staffing of the project, (3) a joint financing of the entire project and (4) a joint implementation of the envisaged project activities.


R20090275.doc 47 January 2010

Degrees of depth & intensity of co-operation achieved by Category 1-programmes

Components of the synthetic indicator determining the RR-result (*)

Programme RR value

Position in the wider RR-scale placement of

all programmes C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 B09 North West Europe

91.60 very high 90 83 88 100 80

B10 Cadses

81.33 High 70 43 90 100 80

B07 Alpine Space

80.53 High 70 57 79 100 60

B06 North Sea

80.00 High 80 57 67 100 70

(*) Weighted component-level result, with the following component-level averages calculated for all INTERRG III programmes considered: C2=71; C3=61; C4=62; C5=89; C6=68 The influence of previous co-operation tradition

The result of the regression analysis shows that the NWE programme belongs to the main group of 10

Strand-B programmes where the actual depth & intensity of co-operation achieved (Real Rate, RR) is

only slightly above what could have been expected if historical variables had been taken into account

(Expected Rate, ER).

If one compares the NWE programme to the other programmes belonging to Category 1 of the Strand-B

typology and to the Baltic Sea programme having the second longest co-operation tradition among all

Strand-B programmes, two interesting conclusions can be drawn (see overview table below):

Influence of historical variables under the Category 2-programmes Programme Residuals

(RR – ER) Comment

B4 Baltic Sea Region -17,218 RR is clearly above what could have been expected (ER) B3 Canarias/Madeira/Azores -13,353 RR is clearly above what could have been expected (ER) B08 Atlantic Area -11.092 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B13 Indian Ocean – Reunion -10.553 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B05 Northern Periphery -10.162 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B01 South West Europe -9.692 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B10 CADSES -8.892 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B07 Alpine Space -8.092 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B06 North Sea Region -7.562 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B02 MEDOCC -6.162 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B09 North West Europe -5.307 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B11 Caribbean -4.443 RR is slightly above what could have been expected (ER) B12 Archimed No data -

Within Category 1, the NWE programme has the lowest residual if compared to those of the three other

programmes. This allows us to conclude that the very long co-operation experience in NWE (i.e.

CRONWE, see above) did not really create an “advantage” for INTERREG III-level co-operation if

compared to the other Strand-B programmes where transnational co-operation has in general started

only after 1997 (exception Baltic Sea programme).

The Baltic Sea Region programme has achieved a much lower INTERREG III co-operation performance

(RR=87) and a lower overall score under the historical criterion of the synthetic indicator (32) if

compared to the NWE programme (RR=91.6; historical criterion=50). The Baltic Sea Region’s co-

operation performance is however clearly above what could have been expected, which is not the case

for NWE. This allows us to conclude that the comparatively younger but more structured co-operation

tradition of the Baltic Sea Region had a much more decisive influence on its INTERREG III co-operation


R20090275.doc 48 January 2010

performance than only the very high age of pre-existing co-operation had in the case of the NWE-

programme.39

3.6 MAIN FACTORS FOSTERING OR HAMPERING TRANSNATIONAL CO-OPERATION UNDER INTERREG III

Based upon the previous analytical results (see: 3.4 & 3.5), we will now briefly summarise in an

aggregated way which factors were most decisive in fostering or hampering transnational co-operation in

the NWE area during the 2000-2006 funding period:

The high degree of overall accessibility of NWE (expressed by the aggregated multimodal

accessibility rate which is clearly the average rate of all other Strand-B programmes) and the

uniform overall pattern of urban-rural relations prevailing in the predominant proportion of the

programme area (i.e. high degrees of urban influence & of human intervention) were important

context factors which have considerably influenced upon the strategic focussing of transnational co-

operation under the INTERREG IIIB programme. They reflect not only a major part of the thematic

fields for which the initial programme diagnosis has identified a larger number of shared needs /

problems, but they were also directly addressed by the majority of measures set out in the NWE-

programme strategy (7 out of 10). Both factors have therefore helped fostering transnational co-

operation in NWE as a considerable amount of programme funding was “channelled” towards the

realisation of many truly joint projects transnational projects which have addressed or tackling

related sub-issues.

The very long overall duration of transnational co-operation in North West Europe prior to INTERREG

III was not a decisive factor which has fostered (or hampered) transnational co-operation under the

INTERREG IIIB programme NWE. Instead, our abovementioned analysis suggests that the short-

term up-grading of the maturity of transnational co-operation achieved under the INTERREG IIC

programmes NWMA & IRMA (1997-1999) was much more decisive for the high degree of overall co-

operation performance achieved by the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE (i.e. at programme and

project level).

In the following overview table below, we have finally identified for each context-related factor and for

each historical factor the concrete effects they had on strategic and project level co-operation under the

INTERREG III programme.

39 Raw scores of the Baltic Sea Region programme under the historical criterion of the synthetic indicator: 16 (age), 30 (existence of legal instruments) and 50 (existence of co-operation structures). Raw scores of the North West Europe programme under the historical criterion of the synthetic indicator: 90 (age), 30 (existence of legal instruments) and 30 (existence of co-operation structures).


R20090275.doc 49 January 2010

Effects on INTERREG III co-operation … Determining Factor

… at programme level … at project level Context factors characterising the transnational programme area The level of urban-rural relations prevailing in a given programme area

The pattern of urban-rural relations prevailing in NWE motivated the programme partners to focus transnational on developing more attractive metropolitan areas in the global/EU context and promoting the development of a polycentric pattern of complementary cities/towns/rural areas/coastal & peripheral regions (Priority 1, measures 1 & 2) as well as on promoting co-operation across / between maritime & inland regions (Priority 5, measure 1) and on establishing a stronger ecological infrastructure / reducing ecological footprint (Priority 4, measure 1).

The prominent status of this topic in the INTERREG IIIB programme strategy has facilitated project-level co-operation in the NWE area focussing on a broad range of related sub-topics.

The degree of overall accessibility

The specific pattern of accessibility prevailing in NWE has motivated the programme partners to focus transnational on promoting the external & internal accessibility of NWE through the management of sustainable mobility & improving the access to the Information Society (Priority 2, measures 1 & 2) as well as on promoting co-operation between sea- & inlands ports (Priority 5, measure 1).

The prominent status of this topic in the INTERREG IIIB programme strategy has facilitated project-level co-operation in the NWE area focussing on a broad range of related sub-topics.

The degree of real transnational convergence

The issue of transnational convergence is not an important strategic issue in the NWE programme strategy, but it is indirectly addressed under measures 1 & 2 of Priority 1 (i.e. contributing to a more balanced growth and spatial development as well as to equal access to employment).

The less prominent status of this particular topic in the INTERREG IIIB programme strategy has not facilitated project-level co-operation in the NWE area focussing on this particular topic.

Historic factors determining transnational co-operation Previous co-operation tradition

The long-lasting tradition of transnational co-operation in the NWE area (CRONWE, since 1955) has not influenced on strategic co-operation under the INTERREG IIIB programme. More decisive in that respect has however been the relatively short but more extended and strategic co-operation experience gained under the INTERREG IIC programmes NWMA & IRMA.

The long-lasting tradition of transnational co-operation in the NWE area (CRONWE, since 1955) has not influenced on project-level co-operation under the INTERREG IIIB programme. More decisive has however been the relatively short but more extended project-level co-operation under the INTERREG IIC programme NWMA, as many of the IIC-projects have initiated follow-up projects under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE.

Prior existence of specific legal instruments

No specific multilateral inter-state agreements promoting transnational co-operation among territorial authorities does exist in Europe. No transnational co-operation structure with an own legal personality could be set up in NWE which was entrusted with all INTERREG IIIB programme management functions. Specific agreements were concluded among the strategic actors for managing the NWE-programme. For the staffing of the JTS a specific co-operation solution was found by applying the EU-law based instrument of a “European Economic Interest Grouping – EEIG” (the GECOTI-EEIG).

No specific multilateral inter-state agreements promoting transnational co-operation among territorial authorities does exist in Europe. Only specific co-operation provisions existing in the domestic law of the concerned States and other private law-based solutions (e.g. associative law) as well as the EU-law based instrument of a “European Economic Interest Grouping” (EEIG) can be used for further formalising project-level co-operation.

Prior existence of permanent co-operation structures

The existence of an embryonic transnational co-operation structure (i.e. CRONWE) did not affect strategic co-operation under INTERREG IIIB, as it stopped operating already at the start if INTERREG IIC. More decisive in that respect has however been the relatively short but intense transnational management experience gained under the INTERREG IIC programmes NWMA & IRMA.

The existence of an embryonic transnational co-operation structure (i.e. CRONWE) did not affect strategic co-operation under INTERREG IIIB, as it did not realise co-operation projects comparable to those currently funded (CRONWE realised workshops & studies). More decisive in that respect has however been the relatively short but more extended INTERREG IIC project-level co-operation, which was enhanced by the JTS of the NWMA-programme.


R20090275.doc 50 January 2010

4 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND IMPACTS IN TERMS OF UTILITY AND EFFICIENCY

4.1 THE EXTERNAL 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 is thus relatively efficient and effective. For this task we can again consider the findings of the two

mid-term evaluations (since this task was also compulsory in those evaluations) and complement them

with a further review from the ex-post point of view. The following related aspects will be considered:

Degree of the cross-cutting themes

Likely achievement of the EU Objectives and Strategies

Relevance of the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies

Clustering and synergies with other EU projects

Degree of coverage of the of the cross-cutting themes

Because the implementation of the various priorities in the NWE Programme is a complex and multi-

disciplinary task, in the NWE Programme Document a number of cross-cutting themes were defined that

could tackle more than one issue at the same time. This had been based on the fundamental concern to

reconcile the sustainable and balanced development of the NWE territory with the various (and

sometimes contradictory) objectives for spatial development, environmental protection, economic

prosperity and social cohesion. The following cross-themes were defined;

a. Building of a better knowledge base of the NWE area as a whole and of its relationships with other

parts of Europe;

b. Deeper involvement of civil society and promotion of public-private partnerships.

c. The search for increased coherence and synergy between territorial development objectives and the

application of EU sectorial policies within the NWE area.

d. Embedding of co-operation within the respective national and regional territorial development

structures.

e. Promoting transnational co-operation through concrete action with clear benefits.

Concerning the coverage of the cross-cutting themes by the priorities and the NWE programme as a

whole, the following conclusions were during the up-date of the MTE drawn from a survey among the

stakeholders in the projects:

- With slightly differences among the sevelal priorities, one can conclude that in general these cross-

cutting themes are sufficiently covered (Priority 4 on Nature and cultural heritage could be considerd

a most successful, while Priority 2 on Transport & ICT was more reticently appreciated);

- Concerning the individual themes one can conclude that the Promotion of transnational co-operation

through concrete action with clear benefits (e) has been covered the best, while Building of a better

knowledge base of the NWE area as a whole and of its relationships with other parts of Europe (a) ,

Deeper involvement of civil society and promotion of public-private partnerships (b) and Embedding


R20090275.doc 51 January 2010

of co-operation within the respective national and regional territorial development structures (d)

were sufficiently covered;

- Coverage of Search for increased coherence and synergy between territorial development objectives

and the application of EU sectorial policies within the NWE area (c), however, was most doubtful.

- Concerning the latter it should be concluded that the assessment of the coverage of this theme is

probably strongly effected by the fact that most respondent are rather unfamiliar with the related EU

sectorial policies.

Likely achievement of the EU Objectives and Strategies

These especially concern the objectives on Cohesion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunities. In the

survey the project promoters and other partners were asked to assess the likely achievement of these

objectives.

The following conclusions were drawn from the survey on the relevancy of the EU objectives:

· All project promoters and partners do consider the contribution of their projects on the sustainable

development objectives as significant;

· This is to a lesser extent the case for the contribution of the NWE projects on the cohesion objectives.

More moderate expectations exist for the Priority 2 and 4 projects;

· The projects in the NWE programme are expected to contribute the least to the equal opportunity

objectives.

Relevance of the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies

The programme objectives of the NWE INTERREG IIIB programme were formulated before the existence

of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies (the Lisbon Strategy was agreed in 2000 and the Gothenburg

Strategy in 2001). Nevertheless, it is interesting to assess the relevance of the programme objectives

with these two strategies. This is perhaps particularly relevant for developing ideas for future

programming under Objective 3 since relevance to the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies are likely to be

crucial. The central policy areas of the 2005 Lisbon Action Plan and the key priorities of the 2001 EU

sustainable development strategy were during the up-date oft he MTE used to assess the relevance of

the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies to the NWE INTERREG IIIB programme objectives in a general

sense. The 10 central policy areas of the 2005 Lisbon Action Plan are:

1. Extend and deepen the Internal Market

2. Ensure open and competitive markets

3. Improve regulation and cut red tape

4. Expand and improve infrastructure on transport, communications and energy

5. Invest in Research and Development

6. Facilitate innovation, ICT uptake and sustainable resource use

7. Contribute to a strong industrial base

8. Increase employment and modernise social protection

9. improve the adaptability and flexibility of the labour market

10. Invest in education and skills

The four key priorities of the 2001 EU sustainable development strategy are focused on:

1. limiting climate change and increasing the use of clean energy

2. addressing threats to public health


R20090275.doc 52 January 2010

3. managing natural resources more responsibly

4. improving the transport system and land use

In summary, many of the priorities and measures and thus the current NWE INTERREG IIIB programme

as a whole are relevant to both the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy. Perhaps the only exceptions

to this observation are the two measures of Priority 3, which seem strongly related to the priorities 2001

EU sustainable development strategy but less strongly related to the main policy areas of the 2005

Lisbon Action Plan. The potential implications of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategies for future

programming have or are also being explored elsewhere and the material from these sources should also

be considered when identifying future directions for programming:

· the Scoping document and summary of political messages presented in May 2005 at the informal

ministerial meeting on Regional Policy and Territorial Cohesion in Luxembourg (‘Territorial State and

Perspectives of the European Union’)40

· the ALSO project (Achievements of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy Objectives by INTERREG),

funded by INTERACT between 2005 and 2007, which examines and evaluates a number of INTERREG

projects against the objectives of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Strategy41

· the NWE Lisbon-Gothenburg Task Force

· ESPON project 3.3 funded between 204 and 2006 on the territorial dimension of the Lisbon and

Gothenburg Strategies42

Clustering and synergies with other EU projects

During earlier mentioned the survey43 respondents were asked to indicate whether their project

harvested any synergies with other EU-funded projects. The response is an indicator for the extent to

which NWE projects targeting similar or related issues interacted during implementation.

It also gives an indication of cooperation with other EU projects outside the NEW programme. Interesting

outcomes were:

Clustering and synergies with other projects

- Of the 68 projects that responded to the survey, 42% reported some form of cooperation with

one or more other EU funded projects.

- Projects that reported synergies with other EU funded projects listed a total of 83 projects they

cooperated with. This implies that many projects interacted with more than one other project.

The majority cooperated with other NWE projects.

- There were also synergies reported with a variety of other EU funding-programmes, as

INTERREG IIIC, INTERREG IIIB North Sea and the 6th Framework Programme.

Modalities of clustering between projects

- Several tendencies can be identified among the 29 projects reporting synergies

- Most projects that cooperated with other project(s), did so through joint meetings and events to

exchange views and experience

40 http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/documents_travail/2005/05/20regio 41 http://www.interact-eu.net/4098/4115/667342/0 42 http://www.espon.lu/online/documentation/projects/cross_thematic/cross_thematic_147.html 43 Consultancy services to deliver an analysis oft 99 implemented projects under IIIB INTERREG NWE: Final Report from 2009-05-28


R20090275.doc 53 January 2010

- Inter-project cooperation resulting in joint outputs (for instance joint policy recommendations or

reports) was slightly less often reported.


The NWE programme had from its first activities been very well embedded in the regulatory framework.

Taking the long history of this cooperation initiative into account one can state that this cooperation area

functioned as a model for these kinds of transnational co-operations.

One can easily state that the experiences of the NWE programme determined among others the spirit of

the 2000 – 2006 regulations. Therefore the intensions of these regulations were also fully taken into

account during its implementation during Interreg IIIA.

Within Interact as well as on bi-lateral level intensive contacts among JTSs of all Strand B programmes

did exist. North-Western Europe even played a leading role in the discussions amongst the programme

managers. The latter had also been necessary because of overlapping territorial interests. Because –

especially within the academic world – great interest did exist to participate in ESPON activities, links

with this initiative were more or less evident. Because of this strong link, activities and results of Interreg

IIIB will be intensively followed and deliver further support to improve the effectiveness of the

transnational programmes.

This is a very interesting aspect that deserves great attention during the last phase of this evaluation

project. From former evaluations it is known that coordination of the CI’s with the mainstream

programmes had been very poor. One could even speak of competition between the CI’s and the

mainstream programmes with regards to the available resources for national and regional co-financing.

Most case studies executed for this programme analysis proved that some very interesting cooperation

projects between governmental and non-governmental organisations were implemented. In some

projects of NWE the dividing line between transnational and cross-border cooperation was rather vague

(SCALDIT and ECSWE). It is the personal impression of the evaluator that national authorities play a

minor role in the proposed cooperation projects.

With regards to this issue one can state that generally the public awareness of this programme is rather

weak. On the other hand - European wide - intensive exchanges of information takes place among local

and regional authorities, which often has a clear demonstration effect for new initiatives. There is one

point that – although with a positive connotation – make transnational rather weak: a lot of cooperation

initiatives are based on personal interest of private people. It seems that transnational cooperation is

often a toy of an interested official in on e of the local or regional institutions. If these people move to

other jobs, the momentum for trans – international cooperation is lost.


R20090275.doc 54 January 2010

4.2 THE INTRINSIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME

4.2.1 THE OVERALL GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE PROGRAMME

For the strategic and joint decision-making process under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE, a

Monitoring Committee, a Supervisory Group and a Steering Committee were established. The

secretariat function for both committees was ensured by the Joint Technical Secretariat, which

assisted both committees - in close consultation with their respective presidencies – in preparing and

following up the respective committee meetings (i.e. sending out the agenda & invitations as well as brief

notes and other supporting documents; establishment of draft minutes & their distribution to the

committee members for comments). During the first years, however, the mid-term evaluators observed

a number of unfavourable overlaps and imbalances in practical operation of the strategic decision making

system which required - in their view - a further streamlining and improvement to ultimately improve the

efficiency and accountability of the programme implementation.

The Monitoring Committee (MC) supervised the effectiveness and quality of the implementation of the

ERDF-assistance and was responsible for the overall strategic management and monitoring of the NWE

programme. The MC was chaired by a President and a Vice-President, with the Presidency and Vice

Presidency rotating every civil year between 2002 and 2008 among the EU-Member States. The MC was

composed of eight delegations, each consisting of a maximum of three representatives from the national

or regional level from each of the seven EU-Member States and from the Swiss Confederation. In

addition, representatives of the European Commission, the European Investment Bank, the Managing

and Paying Authorities, the Joint Technical Secretariat as well as representatives of non-governmental

transnational organisations participated in the work of the MC in an advisory capacity. Each MC-meeting

required a minimum representation of at least five delegations (quorum) and decisions were made by

consensus, with each delegation having one vote. In case of opposition by one or more delegation any

motion was postponed or defeated. A total of 13 MC-meetings were organised between July 2002 and

October 2007 at which in general between 25 and 30 delegates were present. The mid-term evaluation

observed however that the MC was too often caught up in the management of administrative issues

rather than providing the envisaged strategic guidance to the Community Initiative programme. The NGO

delegates were usually present at the MC-meetings as “silent observers”, wherefore the added value of

including them (and paying their venue) is retrospectively somewhat questionable.44

Due to the initially expected low frequency of MC-meetings, a Supervisory Group (SG)45 has been set

up as a “sub-group” to the MC. As a small and effective working group without its own decision-making

power, the SG was initially expected to oversee the work of the Joint Technical Secretariat / the national

contact points (see below) and the implementation of MC-decisions in order to “free space” during the

MC-meetings for strategic matters. The mid-term evaluation observed however that the low and

frequently changing participation in the early SG-meetings had made this tool rather inefficient and was

even threatening the “existence” of this Group.46 This also raised the question which body was in practice

actually bearing the responsibility for supervising the JTS (i.e. the Managing Authority, the MC or the

44 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member). 45 It was composed of representatives of the Managing Authority (in an advisory capacity), of the MC Presidency and Vice-Presidency and of one delegate per Member State which may wish to be represented. 46 The evaluators therefore recommended ensuring a more constant personal membership and presence at the meetings in order to secure the Supervisory Group’s complementary and pro-active role of between MC-meetings. Should this not be feasible, then the Managing Authority should be more strongly involve the in the operational programme management.


R20090275.doc 55 January 2010

SG). These problems also continued during the 2nd half of the programming period,47 as normally the

troika-members (i.e. previous-present-future chair of the programme) and the JTS were the only

strategic actors present on the SG. Due to the lack of decision-making power, every matter of some

importance had to be re-presented / re-discussed again at the MC-level which made the SG in fact a

rather unsuccessful programme management tool.

The Steering Committee (SC) was set up by the MC at its first meeting in April 2002. The primary task

of the SC was to make a joint decision on the selection of projects applying for EU funding and to ensure

the co-ordinated monitoring of the project implementation. The basic composition of the SC was

relatively similar to the composition of the MC but in practice slightly more “centralised”, as for several

countries regional / local-level representatives normally present at the MC were not participating in SC-

meetings (see ANNEX 5). Similar to the MC, also the SC was chaired on an annual rotation basis by a

President and a Vice-President. The SC-president was responsible for reporting to the MC on the

decisions made by the SC in particular regarding project evaluation and selection. At any SC-meeting a

minimum of 5 delegations had to be represented (quorum) and decisions were made - as such as within

the MC - by consensus with each delegation having one vote. The SC was expected to meet twice a year

(in June & November), with the first of these two-yearly meetings being hosted by the Presidency in its

own country and holding the second meeting in Brussels. Between July 2002 and May 2007, ten Steering

Committee meetings were held and a total of 217 applications (representing 164 projects) have been

received and assessed. Also here, the interviews and the questionnaire survey realised by the mid-term

evaluators revealed some inefficiencies in carrying out SC-meetings. This resulted in the formulation of

specific recommendations which were subsequently taken into consideration by an amendment of the

internal rules of procedure (see below, assessment of project selection process).

The INTERREG IIIB programme North West Europe has established a fully decentralised and

joint programme management structure which was characterised by following distribution of roles

and functions:

For the function of the Managing Authority (MA), the Member States participating in the INTERREG

IIIB programme NWE have jointly appointed the Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais (France) to act on

their behalf and to be fully responsible for the efficient and correct management and implementation of

the programme.48 In practice however, as indicated already in Chapter 10 of the Programme

Complement, the NWE Member States have decided to delegate most of the operational MA-functions to

the Joint Technical Secretariat of the NWE-programme while it continued to be the ultimately responsible

structure in legal terms for ensuring the respect of Community regulations and the accuracy / legality of

payment transactions (including internal control).

The French public bank “Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations”, more specifically its Nord-Pas de Calais

Regional Directorate based in Lille, has been appointed by the Member States to act as Paying

Authority (PA) of the NWE programme. In general, the delegation of the operational processing of the

financial programme management to this public bank worked out well in practice and no major problems

did occur during the lifetime of the NWE-programme. And if there had been smaller problems arising in

47 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member). 48 With its seat and main offices in Lille, the Regional Council was formally responsible for (1) ensuring compliance with Community regulations and the correctness and legality of operational payments including internal controls and corrective measures, (2) for implementing the information and publicity actions relating to measures of the CIP and (3) for liaising with implementing authorities and the European Commission.


R20090275.doc 56 January 2010

this process, these were mainly due to the generally complex and complicated regulatory / procedural

provisions of the EU-structural funds.49

To assist the Managing Authority and the MC/SC in the implementation of their actual tasks and

responsibilities, the NWE partners have established a Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS) by further

extending the JTS-team of the former INTERREG IIC NWMA programme during the course of 2001 / mid

2002. As a consequence of this, the JTS of the NWE programme was first based in London up to the end

of November 2001 (i.e. former seat of the NWMA-JTS) and was then transferred to Lille where also the

MA and PA of the NWE programme were located. Once fully staffed the NWE-JTS was the largest

secretariat in terms of employees (16 employees in 2003),50 which appeared to represent the right size

for a programme being the financially most voluminous among the 13 INTERREG IIIB Programmes. Due

to the substantial amount of operational MA-functions delegated to the JTS, it actually undertook most of

the day-to-day implementation of the NWE programme.51 Even though some JTS-staff resources were in

an early phase still bound in completing the preceding INTERREG IIC programme, the extensive set of

tasks relating to the current NWE Programme could be efficiently dealt with by the JTS. This enabled the

secretariat to establishing a strong position within the NWE-programme as well as towards the Member

States and the various decision-making committees and groups. At the end of 2003, the JTS’s legal

employer was changed to improve its efficiency. On 31 December 2003, the French “Société Centrale

pour l’Equipement du Territoire” (SCET) handed over the JTS’s staff work contracts to the “European

Grouping for Transnational and Interregional Co-operation” (GECOTI52), which was in fact a Lille-based

“European Economic Interest Grouping” (EEIG) established on ground of the EC-Regulation 2137/85 as a

partnership between Nord-Pas-de-Calais Regional Council and the Walloon Region.53

Beyond the formally required programme management structures, a network of NWE-Contact Points

(NWE-CPs) was established (i.e. one in each EU Member State & in Switzerland) in order to facilitate

the implementation of the programme and to involve authorities responsible for regional and local

development in the generation of relevant INTERREG IIIB NWE projects. In close co-operation with the

JTS, the NWE-CPs were also expected to assist the process of project development and – additionally –

to play a role in advising the applicants on the preparation and implementation of projects. During a first

phase, temporary CP’s were initially designated in several Member States while the recruitment

procedure was organised in each country. Following this, permanent CP’s were gradually appointed in all

eight countries between January 2002 and January 2003. Since their set-up, the permanent NWE-CP’s

worked well and their network-like operation allowed a quick exchange of information among them. Due

to the fact that each CP was familiar with the institutional environment and the language of the

respective country, they also represented a crucial link and source of information between project-level

(i.e. knowledge about potential project partners from their country) and the wider NWE programme (i.e.

knowledge about the more strategic implications).

49 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member). 50 In comparison, the JTS of the Alpine Space Region was employing 4 people in 2003 (however, with an intention to add staff) and the JTS of the North Sea programme consisted of 13 people. 51 The JTS was responsible for (1) implementing and following up all decisions made by the Monitoring and Steering Committees, (2) preparing and providing the information needed by the Paying Authority in meeting its responsibilities, (3) facilitating and initiating the overall development of IIIB projects in a proactive way in close co-operation with the Contact Points (4) creating application and guidance documents for project partners, (5) assisting applicants in the project development process, including guidance on technical and financial matters, (6) assisting Lead Partners, Project Managers, Financial Managers and Project Co-ordinators during project implementation and (7) implementing the publicity strategy approved by the Monitoring Committee. 52 “GECOTI” stands for Groupement européen de coopération transnationale et interrégionale. 53 The “GECOTI EEIG” also acted as legal employer of the INTERREG IIIC West Zone JTS. On 1 January 2004, GECOTI EEIG appointed Fiduciaire du Nord, a consultancy agency, to perform various tasks previously carried out by SCET, in particular the payment of Technical Assistance invoices.


R20090275.doc 57 January 2010

This overall programme governance structure was ruled by an extensive and interdependent set of

legal agreements which took into account the demanding new control and audit requirements of the

European Commission. These agreements set out in detail the rules and procedures governing the

strategic decision-making process and the operational management / implementation of the programme:

• In March 2002 the seven Member States and Switzerland adopted the Internal Rules of

Procedure for the MC and the SC, which laid down provisions on the tasks and composition of these

committees, chairmanship, meetings and decision-making.

• A Service Level Agreement was approved at the 1st monitoring committee meeting in April 2002,

which formally laid down and detailed the tasks of the NWE-CPs. During 2002, also reporting and

payment procedures for the NWE-CP’s were set up and Grant Offer Letters for the NWE-CP’s were

signed.

• A Letter of Agreement between the EU Member States taking part in the NWE programme, the

Nord-Pas de Calais Regional Council (acting as MA) and Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (acting

as PA) on the implementation of the Community Initiative Programme was drawn up in 2002 and

signed by all parties concerned. Based on the information given in Chapter 10 of the Programme

Complement, its major aim was to provide a legal and contractual basis for the implementation of

the entire NWE programme. This document included provisions of a general nature applying to all

contracting bodies, and of a bilateral nature (Article 11) relating to specific procedures agreed upon

between individual Member States on the one hand and the Managing and Paying Authorities on the

other hand regarding the signature of Grant Offer Letters and arrangements for ERDF payments to

projects.

• A Convention between the Managing Authority and the Paying Authority was concluded,

which defined the relations between these parties for the purpose of the management of the

INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme54.

• In addition a Grant Offer Letter was approved by the Member States acting as Programme

Monitoring Committee, which defines in detail the duties and responsibilities to be observed by the

Lead Partner of an approved project. Grant Offer Letters were issued in each of the Programme’s

four languages (Dutch, English, French and German), depending on the location of the project’s Lead

Partner.

In the view of the programme partners, the existence of these procedural rules / agreements /

conventions has considerably facilitated the joint programme management process55.

Vertical and horizontal communication among all elements of the wider programme governance and

management system was ensured by e-mail (most important) and phone, with the JTS acting as a

central nodal point for information transfer. Also among the NWE-CP’s as well as between NWE-CP’s and

the JTS, frequent phone and e-mail contacts remained a daily practice in order to exchange the latest

information on project and programme developments. Within this process, the online restricted access

area of the NWE website dedicated to NWE-CP’s was regularly used

54 The convention, (originally signed in French), includes articles relating to the opening of accounts and operations (both a Programme account and a Technical Assistance account), checks to ensure administrative and financial compliance of the documents, certification of expenditure and receipts relating to Projects and Technical Assistance, the audit trail, payment demands, payment to the final beneficiaries, repayment of the Community advance and the release of commitment, recovery of amounts due, information, forecasts, compensation, term of the agreement, disputes, early termination, exemption from liability of the Paying Authority and modification of the agreement. 55 Source: Web-survey realised in the context of this ex-post evaluation (i.e. Task 2).


R20090275.doc 58 January 2010

The final total cost of the overall governance and management system of the NWE programme

was relatively low if compared to the initial forecast. The total Technical Assistance budget approved in

2002 for the entire duration of the programme amounted to € 28.70 million and represented 4.4% of the

total programme budget.

From a cumulative point of view (2001-2008), the actual overall expenditure for Technical Assistance at

the end of December 2008 amounted to only € 17.97 million and represents 2.74% of the final total

programme budget. Up to the end of 2008, about € 10.7 million of savings had been made on the entire

TA-budget which were - during previous years - re-allocated to project-assistance under the thematic

priorities of the programme.

To conclude on the above-exposed governance model established for the INTERREG IIIB

programme NWE (decision making & programme management), one can clearly see that the

strategic programme partners have – in the range of their actual possibilities – fully met the key

challenge set out for the 2000-2006 programming period in the INTERREG III Guidelines (i.e.

to build on the positive experiences of genuine co-operation within current programme and progressively

develop structures for such co-operation).

The joint financial management system of the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE was formally

approved by the Member States at the 1st MC-meeting in April 2002:

• The function of the Paying Authority was ensured by the regional branch office of a French public

bank (i.e. Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, Regional Directorate Nord-Pas de Calais). It was

responsible for drawing up and submitting ERDF payment applications to the Commission, certifying

the accuracy of declarations of expenditure presented to the Commission, receiving ERDF payments

from the Commission, making payments to Final Beneficiaries, and ensuring that the Managing

Authority exercises its financial responsibilities in a legal and regular way.

• A joint bank account was set up for the NWE programme in the name of the Paying Authority to

receive the ERDF subsidy for project funding (Priorities 1 to 5) and for Technical Assistance funding

(Priority 6). At the request of the authorising services of the Managing Authority, the Paying

Authority, after checking the regularity and eligibility of the expenditure, realised payments directly

to final beneficiaries and ensured that funds reach the final beneficiary as quickly as possible and in

full. In addition, a second joint bank account was set up which received the Member State

contributions for the Technical Assistance priority.56

In line with Article 5 of Commission Regulation 438/2001, a description of the programme's management

and control systems was submitted by the NWE programme to the European Commission on the 26th of

June 2003. In its response to the NWE-Managing Authority dated of 27 December 2004, the Commission

concluded that, based on an analysis of the documents supplied, the description provides reasonable

assurance that the systems meet the standards required by the regulations. As already mentioned

above, the joint financial management and the financial flows and payments were functioning without

any inefficiency caused by bureaucracy or inadequate decision making within the PA.

56 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member).


R20090275.doc 59 January 2010

During the first years of the programming period, the NWE faced the risk of automatic decommitment of

significant ERDF funds57 several times, following the application of the n+2 rule. The main reasons were

in particular the low numbers of projects selected during the 1st and 2nd calls for proposals and the

implementation-delays of new projects. At the second MC-meeting in December 2002, a list of possible

actions was suggested to reduce the risk of de-commitment (e.g. possibility for projects to submit

payment claims twice a year; reduction of the response time for conditionally approved projects) and

decided to aim for a zero-decommitment while maintaining the quality of projects. Due to the increased

pressure of committing more funding, the percentage of approved projects (out of all proposals) sharply

increased in call 3 (76%) compared to the two previous Calls (18% and 40%). The struggle against

decommitment continued to be one of the key objectives of the NWE Programme during the following

years (2004-2008) and all approved projects were closely monitored to make sure that they implement

their approved action plan on time and reach their spending targets. Apart from their regular tasks, the

NWE-CP’s have played an important role in the JTS’ strategy to reduce the decommitement risk as they

attended many “N+2” meetings and site visits convened by the JTS with projects to discuss various steps

to be taken to increase their expenditure. The CP’s often provided valuable insights on that occasion and

were of great help in keeping track of problems of individual problems. In 2008, it was estimated that

the risk of decommitment at the end of the programme could amount up to € 3.2 million in ERDF.

The INTERREG IIIB programme NWE organised 8 “calls for project proposals” (i.e. 7 general

calls & 1 targeted call58), which led to the approval of 99 projects involving a total of 936 formal

partners. The overall quality of the calls for proposals organised was high and did also fully comply with

the Programme Complement and other regulating frameworks applicable to the programme.

The project assessment and selection procedure, set out in the NWE programme document and in

the different versions of the NWE Programme Complement (see ANNEX 6), was based upon a number of

over-arching principles59 and involved during a first phase mainly the Joint Technical Secretariat (i.e.

receipt & assessment of applications) and then the Steering Committee (final approval / rejection of

applications). Interviews carried out with programme-level and project-level stakeholders in the context

of the mid-term evaluation of 2003 revealed however some initial weaknesses in the envisaged project

assessment and project selection procedure. (1) A first point of criticism related to the JTS’ image of

executing fair and objective assessments of proposals which apparently seemed to have suffered during

the 3rd call for proposals. Although it is acknowledged that a critical but isolated incident had occurred

during the 3rd call (i.e. the full “neutrality” of an individual JTS-member was questioned), the programme

partners did not agree with the suggestion of the mid-term evaluators to generalise the punctual practice

of seeking assistance from “external assessors”60 in a view of complementing the qualifications of the JTS

staff and to emphasise the independence of its assessments towards project-level. In the following,

however, the JTS rigorously ensured that its staff members giving advice to project applicants were not

involved in the subsequent assessment of project applications submitted.61 (2) A second point made by

the mid-term evaluation related more directly to the SC-decision making process, as some procedures

should be restructured in order to increase the efficiency of SC-meetings. The evaluators recommended

that project proposals are introduced only by the JTS (and not also by representatives of the Lead

57 After the first two calls for project proposals, the decommitment risk was at € 52 million. After the third call for proposal (and the approval of 42 projects), the risk of decommitting ERDF-funding amounted still to about € 28 million on 31 December 2004. 58 The 8th call gave the opportunity to previously approved and “well-performing” projects to apply for additional funding, thus committing the Programme’s remaining funds. 59 i.e. priority to quality projects; consistency of criteria appraisal; transparent decision-making process; balanced geographic coverage where possible; sound funding package. 60 The JTS was already supported by external experts in the assessment of “water projects” under priority 3. 61 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member).


R20090275.doc 60 January 2010

Partner’s country) and discussed by priorities and measures (rather than by JTS assessment ranking). In

addition, they suggested introducing majority voting rather than using unanimity to reach SC-decisions,

limiting the number and “influence” of observers and finally better managing “conflicts of interest” during

SC-debates. As a follow-up of the latter recommendation, the SC’s internal rules of procedure were

modified in a way that all SC members declaring any conflict of interest of their organisation in proposals

beforehand should now be asked by the President to leave the meeting room while these proposals are

being discussed for funding62.

Although provisional project selection criteria had already been presented in the NWE programme

document, a much more differentiated set of core eligibility criteria (15 in total) and core selection

criteria (15 in total) was elaborated in the NWE Programme Complement. They formed the basis for an

assessment of all projects by the JTS, which - in a first step – examined their basic eligibility (i.e. a

project was declared ineligible if at least one eligibility criterion is not met) and – in a second step –

assessed eligible projects against the relevant selection criteria and ranked them according to their

performance on a five-level scale ranging from "-2" (very poor) to "+2" (excellent).63 Although the mid-

term evaluation of 2003 did not suggest major changes in the set of eligibility & selection criteria used,64

the first two calls for project proposals organised in 2002/2003 have made obvious that small

modifications of the criteria would be necessary.65 After slight adaptations realised by the programme

partners, one can confirm that the final set of eligibility / selection criteria as presented in the revised

programme complement of 2005 was consistent, sufficient and also of a high quality (see ANNEX 7 & 8).

The provision of advisory assistance to project applicants / operating projects and of

information about the NWE programme was a core task realised by Joint Technical Secretariat in

close co-operation with the NWE-Contact Points (see ANNEX 9). At the very beginning (in 2002), the JTS

prepared an “Infopack” for project applicants (consisting of the “Guidelines for Project Promoters”, the

“Application Form” and the “Application Form Manual”) which was continuously improved after each call

for project proposals in 2003 and 2004. Already during the set-up phase of the NWE-Contact Points and

their first year of operation, regular meetings have been held between the CP’s and the JTS in Lille (four

in 2002 and six in 2003). Phone and e-mails contacts among the CP’s and between CP’s and JTS

increased and became a daily practice for all those involved in the network.

Following the set-up of the new NWE-programme website, the systematic flow of information between

the CP’s and the JTS was also made more efficient through establishing an “online restricted access area”

to share information and documents related to project idea development in real-time (autumn of 2003).

As a consequence, also the impact of advisory assistance provided by the JTS and the CP’s to project

idea development became more visible / tangible and also a more proactive strategy to stimulate project

idea development in still under-represented areas could be launched by the JTS in partnership with the

CP’s (i.e. two thematic workshops on Priority 5 & on Measure 2.2). A survey realised by the mid-term

evaluation of 2003 revealed that the majority of stakeholders agreed to have been provided with useful

support during project idea generation by CP’s (62%) and the JTS (54%) as well as during the project

62 Beforehand, SC-members declaring any conflict of interest had only be obliged to not take part in the SC-debate but were allowed to stay in the room. 63 Project performances were first scored against individual selection criteria 1 to 15. The resulting scores were then determined for each of the “aggregated criteria” I to VI. Finally, a global assessment was proposed for the project. 64 Only a few adjustments were suggested by the MTE mostly as a consequence of other recommendations formulated by the evaluators, which had not been taken over by the programme partners at the 4th and 5th MC-meeting. 65 It became obvious that some of the criteria did not apply to certain projects because of the nature and the content of projects (e.g. water management projects should not be scored against a selection criterion assessing whether a project contributes to a more geographically-balanced development of the European territory). Other projects addressed completely new issues and thus did not build on earlier funded programmes (such very innovative should not be disadvantaged by a criterion assessing whether they have or not resulted from previous funding).


R20090275.doc 61 January 2010

development process (CP’s 81%; JTS 75%). However, 42% of the project partners and applicants were

of the opinion that the respective roles of the JTS and CP's in project development were not yet clearly

defined.

During the second half of the programming period, the JTS and the network of NWE-CP’s have further

intensified their close working relationship geared towards stimulating project development and

promoting the programme’s opportunities at a transnational level. This also led in practice to a more

complementary definition of their respective roles and also to a further development of the regular

communication channels both within the CP-network and between the CP’s and the JTS (i.e. organisation

of regular meetings between the CP’s & the JTS in Lille66).

The JTS dealt with the more mature project applications which were nearly ready for submission67 and

was constantly available to support project promoters in the process of further developing their

project/of searching for other partners and in preparing their application form (e.g. by phone & e-mail

based answering of incoming queries). The JTS also provided “face-to-face guidance” in bilateral

meetings with project promoters (in Lille) or during specific project development events organised

elsewhere in the NWE-area. To guarantee continuity in the advice given during and after bilateral

meetings, each project idea was allocated to one responsible project development officer and one finance

officer.

The network of NWE-CP’s was acting as a “front office” mostly dealing with upcoming initial project

ideas68 and helped potential project promoters to deal with administrative / financial constraints and

regulations specific to each country on the basis of their knowledge of each country’s specific legal and

administrative system.69 The CP’s also facilitated partner search, contributed to the preparation and

smooth running of all publicity / project development events organised by the JTS and pro-actively

stimulated the project development process (e.g. organisation of “Info Days” by the CP’s in their

respective country). Especially during the final phase of project development in 2005, the CP-network

had made decisive contributions which helped to ensure the success of various project development

events organised70 as well as of the last targeted call for project proposals71. Beyond that, all CP’s had

also been proactively involved in the implementation of the NWE-programme’s publicity strategy ( e.g.

organisation of / contribution to regional & local INTERREG information sessions intended for potential

project promoters; giving presentations on the programme & its requirements; promoting the NWE-

programme by attending various conferences and events at European / national / regional levels;

production of country-specific information materials to supplement the materials prepared by the JTS).

As a consequence of this continuously improved advice provided to project applicants, one could also

observe a general increase of the quality of project applications submitted. They were not only more

66 Six meetings took place in 2004, five meetings took place in 2005, five meetings took place in 2006 and four meetings took place in 2007. 67 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member). 68 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member). 69 The advice given by CPs was generally realised in the project promoters’ mother tongue, which has in many cases facilitated the understanding of the programme requirements and helped overcome the language barrier faced by a number of potential project partners. 70 During the two project developments events in 2005 (i.e. thematic seminars & info day in Brussels), the CPs delivered valuable contributions. While JTS staff could only can deal with one project promoter at a time during the individual sessions, the CPs were available throughout the day to provide additional assistance. This has made the events more effective for the project promoters. 71 As the procedure & templates for the 8th targeted call for proposals held in 2005 differed from usual ones, the CPs have played a major role in explaining the focus of this call and could also provide important advice to project partners submitting under that call (i.e. their assistance was particularly appreciated by the applicants).


R20090275.doc 62 January 2010

adept at interpreting the programme’s rules and criteria, but also showed a generally better presentation

and explanation of the project objectives / of the expected activities and final achievements.

The monitoring system INTERREG IIIB programme NWE consisted – firstly – of an impressive

number of output/result/impact indicators defined for every priority and measure which were to be

used for monitoring and evaluating the programme-level achievement expected to emerge from

transnational co-operation.

In Chapter 4 of the programme complement, the use of these indicators and especially the 3-level

approach adopted was explained (i.e. output-indicators relating to operational programme objectives,

result-indicators relating to the specific programme objectives, impact-indicators relating to the global

objectives of the NWE programme). This extensive and over-complex set of initial programme-level

indicators gave quickly rise to a number of problems in effectively monitoring the actual programme-

level achievements and in clearly determining the specific contributions which approved projects were

making in this respect.

Already the mid-term evaluation of 2003 had generally pinpointed weaknesses in the programme-level

monitoring approach which were shortly afterwards also confirmed by the NWE JTS itself in a more

concrete way.72 The JTS proposed in early 2004 a basic streamlining & clarification/redefinition of the

existing indicators73 to address these weaknesses, however without disturbing or dramatically

restructuring the overall method for programme monitoring. The revised list of indicators was approved

at the 6th MC-meeting (April 2004), included in the revised programme complement and at first used in

the activity reports to be submitted by the end of June 2005. The above-mentioned weaknesses also

created a number of negative side-effects in the context of the up-dated mid-term evaluation of 2005.

The evaluators clearly highlighted that the system of indicators did not in all cases allow the realization of

a sound assessment of the priority- and measure-level achievement of the expected outputs, results and

impacts. This was partly due to the fact that in the indicator-system – although distinguishing between

outputs, results and impacts - several indicators were not allocated to the appropriate category (i.e.

some indicators listed under output indicators were in fact impact indicators). More importantly,

however, this was due to the fact that only a few of the numerous programme-level indicators were well

defined and operational (i.e. the rather qualitative and multi-interpretative definitions transformed many

of them into “chewing gum indicators”). As a consequence, the evaluators recommended to revise the

whole system of indicators in view of the new programming period 2007-2013 (i.e. reduction of the

number of indicators, more transparent & univocal definition of indicators) and to carry out a more

careful quantification of initial target values.

As from the outset no attempt was made in the programme complement to “translate” the extensive set

of strategic indicators into more user-friendly and operational project-level indicators.74 The strategic

weaknesses of the indicator system were also transferred onwards to the project-level. The over-complex

and often confusing programme-level output/result/impact indicators were simply replicated in the

72 The original indicators were often inaccurate or too vague, leading to inconsistencies in the data received later on. Many of the initial target values were too low and had already been exceeded, in some case, by up to 1000%. 73 i.e. elaboration of tighter indicator-definitions; general output indicators were made identical across all measures; new indicators for measuring communications actions; introduction of some new measure-specific output- and impact-indicators; re-definition of initial target values through a comparison with current target reported by projects; some indicators being irrelevant to quantitative monitoring or impossible to calculate had been deleted. 74 Although not formally required by the Commission, such an effort should have been made if one bears in mind the particular – and self-declared - status of the NWE programme complement (“The Programme Complement will be of particular relevance to prospective project applicants and their transnational partnerships. It should always be used in parallel with the CIP and all other information contained in the Infopack”).


R20090275.doc 63 January 2010

context of the various documents included in the “NWE Application Pack”, although some feasible options

for improving the overall situation would have existed.75 As a consequence, NWE-project applicants often

had problems in creating a valid/sound link between their more concrete project-achievements and the

rather abstract achievements expected at the programme level.76

For gathering relevant data on these indicators, it was - secondly – envisaged to adapt the

computerised programme management system “PRESAGE” (normally used in France for

monitoring, managing and evaluating mainstream EU-regional development programmes) to the specific

monitoring requirements of the INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme.

A first INTERREG-friendly version of the PRESAGE-system was made available to the JTS/MA/PA of the

NWE programme only by June 2004, but the practical operation of the modified system still did not meet

the specific requirements of a co-operation programme. Due to this, complementary work of the JTS (i.e.

drawing up of specific EXCEL-sheets)77 had to be carried out for providing a clear picture of the

implementation of any NWE project78 and for compiling/aggregating this information at measure-,

priority- and programme level.

The terms of reference for the mid-term evaluation of the INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme were

drawn up following the guidance given in the Commission’s Working Paper and the evaluation mission

was attributed – after a competitive tendering procedure – to a German consultancy firm “Rupprecht

Consult”. The final mid-term evaluation report of 2003 formulated suggestions for a variety of short-,

medium- and long-term actions (31 in total) demonstrating how a total of ten recommendations could be

implemented. The MC discussed in detail the MTE-recommendations / actions mainly at its fourth and

fifth meetings (October 2003, January 2004) to determine which of them should be followed-up in a

short and medium perspective and which of them will be refused.79 In July 2004 the MC-conclusions were

sent to the European Commission together with a revised version of the programme and in 2005 the

necessary actions were taken to put into practice issues relating to the MC-conclusions.80 Also the terms

75 In the “Guidelines for Project Promoters”, a possible option would have been to elaborate clear definitions for project-level outputs / results / impacts, mainly to make project promoters understand what these notions are actually meant to be at the level of an individual operations. Despite the Guidelines’ practical information on a broad range of other important issues, the document was only partially successful in this respect. While specifying further the programme’s expectations regarding “tangible and innovative results” to be produced by individual projects (section 2.3.1 – ii), it actually subsumed (and mixed up) the quite different meanings of “outputs” and “impacts” under the overall heading of “results”. But also in the Application Form itself, some opportunities for improving the situation were missed. A first option would have been to provide applicants with the possibility of directly elaborating a coherent set of project-specific outputs / results / impacts. Instead, they were directed to Annex IV which listed all output / result / impact indicators of the “Programme Complement” and had to select those indicators which were most relevant to the project’s expected own achievements. A second option existed in the context of the “action plan”, which had to be elaborated under Annex I of the application form. However, the terminology used in the column “Concrete Results / Outcomes” was rather confusing and did not oblige the applicants to clearly differentiate between the various project achievements expected. 76 This was also generally confirmed by the “assessment of needs” of actors involved in INTERREG, which was carried out under the INTERACT “Meta Evaluation Study” that has been realised on ground of the mid-term evaluations of INTERREG IIIB and IIIC programmes. Many respondents stated that they had difficulties related to evaluation and the use of indicators to measure project outcomes. 77 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member). 78 General data at project level: names, codes, PSC approval, key dates, names of the partners etc. Financial data at project level: total eligible & ERDF budgets, cumulative eligible costs & ERDF payments. It was also possible to go into further detail, if needed, at partner level: General partner data: (lead) partners’ names, contact details, status, bank details of the lead partner, European referential. Financial partner data: individual (total eligible cost and ERDF) payments, total eligible and ERDF budgets, total eligible budget breakdown per year and per budget line. 79 Although the relevance of the MTE-recommendations was not generally disputed, interviews & discussions held with programme stakeholders during the up-dated mid term evaluation of 2005 revealed that the feasibility of a number of recommendations had been questioned. The opinion prevailed that especially some of the recommendations focussing on the management & and implementation system should not be taken over because they implied strong changes of the current rules / procedures and could undermine running activities of the programme or even have a discriminating effect on decisions already made on projects agreed upon. 80 i.e. better focusing the strategic orientation of NWE Programme; streamlining of the programme structures & working documents; providing for effective project development under priorities 1 and 5; increasing the “quality” of proposal assessment & selection; increasing efficiency of project monitoring & support; revising programme indicators; strengthening the evaluation & monitoring of projects via site visits to those projects nearing completion; increasing awareness about the


R20090275.doc 64 January 2010

of reference for the update of the mid-term evaluation of the INTERREG IIIB NWE Programme

were drawn up in line with the guidance note provided by the European Commission and the evaluation

contract was – after a competitive tendering procedure – awarded to the Dutch consultancy “Research

voor Beleid”. Evaluation activities were carried out during 2005 and focussed on an assessment of the

achievement of outputs and results to date and the likely achievement of the programme impacts. In

addition, the evaluators were asked to analyse the degree of coverage of the NWE programme’s cross-

cutting themes. The final results were presented by the consultants in person on 5 October in Lille in

presence of a European Commission representative and again to the MC at its ninth meeting in

November 2005 with not further debate. Subsequently, the final report was submitted to the European

Commission by the 31st of December 2005.

Beyond the realisation of comprehensive surveys among partners involved in approved NWE-projects

and workshops/meetings with representatives of the NWE programme, both evaluations did however not

carry out particularly innovative or novel evaluation activities.

4.2.2 THE SUSTAINABILITY / DURABILITY OF THE PROGRAMME AND THE WIDER COMMUNITY ADDED VALUE GENERATED BY CO-OPERATION

The INTERREG IIIB programme NWE was characterised by a high degree of overall stability, as the

initial intervention strategy (priorities & measures) has remained valid over the entire programming

period. Very little changes were made in the NWE-intervention strategy during the lifetime of the

programme, as content-related and financial re-programming activities were slightly adjusted on a few of

the initial priorities and measures to better meet the bottom-up project demand. A noteworthy important

financial change was however the shift of a considerable amount of un-used technical assistance funding

(about € 10.7 million) towards the content-related priorities, thus making available additional funding for

projects. Up to 2008, the programme did not face automatic decommitment of EU-funding but it is

expected at date of the final programme closure an amount up to € 3.2 million of ERDF will be

decommitted.

In regards to the robustness / durability of projects implemented under the INTERREG IIIB

programme NWE, the web-survey realised in the context of the present ex-post evaluation revealed

that around 30% of the approved projects continued operating for two or more years after the end of the

ERDF support. Considering the levels of durability indicated by other programmes belonging to Category

1 of the Strand-B typology81, one can observe that the NWE-programme is clearly in a leading position.

Compared to the wider range of Strand-B programmes, however, the position of NWE is more or less in a

mid-range position as several other programmes have indicated much higher levels of durability.82

Although being the financially largest programme within Strand B, the NWE programme did not

mobilise any private funding in the context of the projects implemented. This is not very astonishing

if one looks at the thematic focus of the priorities / measures of the NWE programme, which motivates

primarily public or public equivalent actors to participate directly in projects rather than

private/commercial actors. Yet, one has to say that private match funding could be mobilised in the

programme through newsletters, press releases and attendance at final events/launch events of projects; development of the communication & dissemination strategy; exploiting results on a European level; creating synergies between projects & policies, such as through the Maritime Safety Umbrella Operation. 81 Programmes “North Sea” (12%), “Alpine Space” (20%) and “CADSES” (25%). 82 Programmes “Indian Ocean-Reunion” (50%), “Canarias-Madeira-Acores” (55%), “Caribbean” (70%), “Baltic Sea (75%)”.


R20090275.doc 65 January 2010

context of transnational co-operation as demonstrate the programmes Atlantic Area (€ 9.8 million),

Alpine Space (€ 5.7 million), CADSES (€ 4.5 million) and Baltic Sea (€ 2.4 million).

If one focuses in particular on issues related to transnational co-operation, one can identify the following

wider Community added value which has been achieved by the INTERREG IIIB programme

North West Europe:

The NWE programme widened and further deepened project-level co-operation which had

begun under the INTERREG IIC NWMA and IRMA programmes. Through jointly examining issues

from a multi-sector / multi-governance level in which several NWE-regions were facing similar

challenges (e.g. an efficient organisation of their territories, realisation of sustainable development,

improvement of accessibility & connectivity), many transnational project partnerships were able to

generate a considerable added-value which would not have emerged from purely “national” actions.

Several transnational projects supported and harmonised the implementation of European policies

and directives with a spatial impact across national borders (e.g. EU-Water Framework Directive; EU-

Birds & Habitats Directives), while developing joint strategies in order to better co-ordinate the

implementation of river basin management plans or the Natura2000 network and to harmonise

practices across administrations from different Member States. NWE-projects also supported the

exchange and transfer of know-how in key areas for transnational spatial development, such as flood

risk management practices. These exchanges between regions that are at different stages of

technical and administrative know-how have both resulted in more economical investments by the

public sector as well as a better understanding of flood defence issues by citizens. Transnational

strategic actions for tourism networks, development of urban complementary functions and joint

responses to issues of common concern have also been at the heart of many projects. Towards the

end of the NWE-programme, also first projects concerned with SME development and innovation

support were approved.

At a more strategic level, the NWE programme partners have successfully up-dated the “Spatial

Vision for North West Europe” elaborated during the INTERREG IIC programming phase under

the overall guidance of the NWE Spatial Vision Working Group (in 2005). The outcomes of three

thematic studies on polycentric territorial development & urban relations, transport & accessibility

and natural & cultural heritage were synthesised in a fourth study providing a comprehensive view of

the spatial development trends affecting the NWE-territory. Although not formally binding, one can

observe that the application strategy of the updated NWE-vision document is much more

differentiated and also characterised by a much clearer stakeholder-orientation if compared to the

“old” NWE vision document. This has been achieved through direct consultations with stakeholders in

the countries and regions of NWE (i.e. via seminars & workshops), where key transnational issues for

co-operation had been jointly identified. The stakeholders present also confirmed the important role

of INTERREG in promoting European integration and in establishing long-term networks and more

effective regional development.

In an even wider perspective, the NWE programme also contributed to a specific cross-

programme initiative which aimed to co-ordinate co-operation between Maritime Safety Projects

funded by INTERREG, related initiatives and maritime stakeholders (i.e. the “Maritime Safety

Umbrella Operation”, MSUO). The co-operation between the INTERREG IIIB programmes NWE, North

Sea, Baltic Sea and Northern Periphery under MSUO has become a collective driver for maritime

safety on the European and international agenda. The benefits of this co-operation are also

increasingly acknowledged at all levels of European administrations.


R20090275.doc 66 January 2010

Despite this progress achieved, transnational co-operation in NWE often continues to be ad-hoc and

rarely becomes institutionalised. There is not yet a “culture of co-operation” which would facilitate

exchanges and institutions in NWE often lack the capacity to engage in transnational territorial co-

operation. In national and regional public administration, transnational co-operation projects are

generally undertaken only by a limited number of people in a specific division or unit. In addition,

differences in government and legal structures across administrative boundaries often delay or hinder co-

operation. There is thus a need to find ways to overcome the barriers presented by differences in

governance among the various regions, and to further increase the institutional capacity of key actors in

order to ensure the continuing support for the efforts begun. Furthermore, there is an ever-growing need

to take the territorial implications of sector policies at all levels – from EU to local – into consideration in

order to achieve better territorial cohesion.


Taking into consideration what has generally been possible in the context of transnational co-operation,

the level of formal co-operation within the NWE programme is very high (i.e. wide strategic decision-

making partnership & truly joint management of the programme) and was also backed up by various

programme management agreements concluded among the strategic partners.

The formally required decision-making structures (MC / SC) and a specific structure used for overseeing

JTS activities (Supervisory Group) were set up and the MA/PA functions were delivered on a

decentralised basis. The JTS has played a central role in the day-to-day programme management and –

together with the network of NWE-CPs – has provided efficient support and information to project

promoters.

The initial monitoring system was not very appropriate (i.e. indicators & electronic data processing tool),

but after some adaptations made in 2004/05 the system did much better meet the needs of the

programme.

The joint overall financial management system set up by the NWE-programme was effective. Up to 2008,

no decommitment occurred but it is likely that ERDF funds will be lost after the final closure of the

programme. During the entire programming period, however, the n+2 rule was a permanent challenge

with which the programme had to cope with.

The NWE project selection process was sound and the selection criteria applied only allowed the adoption

of truly joint projects (ratio was 100% under the NWE programme). The provision of assistance /

information to applicants by the JTS & the NWE-CP´s was needs-oriented and allowed generating an

increasing number of quality projects during the 2nd half of the programming period.

The wider Community added-value achieved by the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE is the widening /

further deepening of project-level co-operation, the successful up-dating of the “Spatial Vision for North

West Europe” elaborated under INTERREG IIC and the contribution to the cross-programme “Maritime

Safety Umbrella Operation”.


R20090275.doc 67 January 2010

The programme was characterised by a relatively high degree of overall stability, as the initial

intervention strategy (priorities /& measures) has remained generally valid over the entire programming

period.

If compared to other Strand-B programmes (i.e. those belonging to Category 1), the degree robustness /

durability of the projects implemented under the NWE-programme was high (35% of the approved

projects continue operating two or more years after the end of the ERDF support). If one considers all

Strand-B programmes, the NWE programme is however located only at a mid-range position.


R20090275.doc 68 January 2010

5 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 OVERALL FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPACT OF THE INTERREG III PROGRAMME

The Strand-B programme North West Europe (NWE) has achieved the highest depth and intensity of co-

operation (i.e. Real Rate) among all INTERREG III programmes (Strands A, B and C). In the wider Real

Rate scale-placement realised in the context of the 1st Intermediate Report, the NWE-programme is the

only Strand-B forming part of the class of the 3 programmes having achieved a “very high depth &

intensity level of territorial co-operation” (together with the Strand-A programmes “Germany

Netherlands” & “Sonderjylland-North Schleswig”). The factors having most contributed to the high

degree of co-operation performance achieved by the NWE-programme are:

the realisation of an intense initial diagnosis of the shared needs / problems which were all fully

considered in the NWE-programme strategy and also fully reflected by the financial support allocated

to the priorities and measures, resulting in a highly stable intervention strategy (priorities &

measures) over the entire lifetime of the programme;

the establishment of a very inclusive strategic decision-making partnership and a truly joint / fully

decentralised programme management system which was formalised through a number of

agreements / conventions having facilitated the overall joint decision-making and management

process;

the very high significance of joint projects implemented (similar to all other Strand-B programmes),

which were also fairly robust / durable if compared to the wider range of Strand-B programmes (i.e.

30% of the approved NWE-projects continue operating two or more years after the end of the ERDF

support);

the high impact project-level transnational co-operation had on the entire NWE area, as most of the

99 projects realised were focussed on those strategic themes for which the initial programme

diagnosis had identified a larger number of shared needs / problems83 (i.e. the relatively uniform

pattern of urban-rural relations & the aggregated high multimodal accessibility characterising the

predominant proportion of the NWE area; the theme flooding prevention).

This outstanding co-operation performance achieved by the NWE-programme under INTERREG III (i.e. at

strategic & project level) is however only slightly above what could have been expected if historical

variables had been taken into account (i.e. Expected Rate). Our in-depth analysis shows that the very

long co-operation experience in NWE (i.e. CRONWE, since 1955) did not really create an “advantage” for

INTERREG III-level co-operation if compared to the other Strand-B programmes where transnational co-

operation has generally started only after 1997 (except Baltic Sea Region programme).

The analysis of the two other historical variables measuring the maturity of pre-existing co-operation

suggests however that:

83 A considerable amount of programme funding was “channelled” towards the realisation of truly joint projects which have addressed or tackled issues related to these strategic themes.


R20090275.doc 69 January 2010

the short-term co-operation experience gained under the INTERREG IIC programmes NWMA & IRMA

(1997-1999) was much more decisive for the high overall INTERREG III co-operation performance

achieved by the NWE-programme,

especially the structuring of previous strategic transnational co-operation could have been stronger if

one compares the NWE-situation to what has been achieved in the Baltic Sea Region.

With regard to the financial implementation of the NWE programme one can conclude that more than

50% of the available budget had been concentrated on a rather restricted number of intervention codes.

These codes focused mainly on rural and urban development, labour market issues, research, innovation

and ICT. One can at least state that the majority of the allocated codes also answer to the Lisbon and

Gothenburg objectives. On the basis of the absorption rates are in the majority of the cases on a par or

far above. Compared to the whole initiative, as well as Strand B and the cluster in which this programme

belongs, one can conclude that NWE programme proves to be one of the ‘best performers’ among all

programmes.

As regards the programme effectiveness one can conclude that there is a high correspondence between

the results of the NWE programme and INTERREG Strand B. The intervention logic – with some minor

weaknesses - sufficiently justifies the intervention. The indicators however are less useful for estimating

the achieved results as they are too complicated and too qualitative of nature. Especially the applied

quality criteria at the level of the project selection ensure the relevance of the achieved results.

Projects funded by the NWE programme are by their nature rather experimental and complex, but their

results did strongly enhance the culture of co-operation in the NWE region.

NWE even played a leading role in the discussions among the managers of other programmes. This was

also necessary because of overlapping territorial interests. Because – especially within the academic

world – great interest existed to participate in its activities, links with ESPON were more or less evident.

Because of this strong link, activities and results of INTERREG IIIB programmes were intensively followed

and deliver further support to improve their effectiveness. From former evaluations it is known that

coordination of the CI’s with the mainstream programmes had been very poor. One could even speak of

competition between some CI’s with mainstream programmes to make use of available national co-

financing.

With regard to the public reputation of most Interreg programmes one can state that generally the public

awareness of these programmes is rather weak. On the other hand - European wide - intensive

exchanges of information takes place among local and regional authorities, which have often a clear

demonstration effect for new initiatives. There is one point that – although with a positive connotation –

make transnational rather weak: a lot of co-operation initiatives are based on the personal interests of

private people. It seems that transnational co-operation is often a toy of an interested official in one of

the local or regional institutions. If these people move to other jobs, the momentum for transnational co-

operation is lost.


R20090275.doc 70 January 2010

5.2 SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

While extrapolating from the specific findings relating to the evaluation of the INTERREG IIIB programme

NWE, one can elaborate on a few short- and medium-term policy recommendations at a strategic level

which are capable of informing the current Objective 3 Territorial Co-operation Programme NWE as well

as other transnational programmes implemented during the 2007-2013 period.

Already under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE, a major weakness has been that the importance and

relevance of transnational co-operation could not be sufficiently passed onwards to the wider concerned

public in programme area. This also remains a continuing challenge (and problem) under the current

Objective 3 programme. We therefore recommend taking pro-active communication measures

which should be focussed at two different levels: Firstly at the European level (i.e. across all

transnational programmes), while addressing more clearer the general question of “what do we want to

achieve with transnational co-operation” and issues related to the wider Community added value actually

generated by transnational co-operation. Secondly at the project-level (i.e. on the operational level

within each programme), while addressing the general questions of “how do we do transnational co-

operation in practice” and “what did we actually achieve with transnational co-operation projects”. The

programme level situated in-between the afore-mentioned levels should not be a major focus, as it

represents the merely technocratic element of co-operation which tends to “dilute” the important key

messages to be put forward.

Another concern under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE (but not a weakness) has been the quality

up-grading of submitted projects which also remains a constant task under the current Objective 3

programme for NWE. Many INTERREG IIIB NWE bottom-up driven projects had in fact been so-called

“shopping list projects” (i.e. projects with a lot of ready-made localised field actions & an over-arching

co-operation strategy to bundle/justify such actions), which often only insufficiently addressed an issue

of a wider strategic transnational relevance for the NWE programme. Such a trend can also be observed

under other INTERREG IIIB programmes and seems to be related to the more general problem of project

applicants in creating a valid/sound link between their more concrete project-level activities and the

rather abstract transnational achievements expected to emerge at the level of the programmes. We

therefore recommend that more attention is paid by the secretariats of the current Objective 3

programmes to a more thorough assessment of the real “transnationality” of projects and that the

respective Member States involved in the programmes also take stronger into consideration this

important issue in the final selection of projects (i.e. in the Steering Committees).

5.3 LONG-TERM POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Before presenting our recommendations on the future of transnational co-operation after 2013, we have

to briefly provide more clarity about our understanding of the interconnection between territorial

cohesion and the role to be played by transnational co-operation in this respect. If one acknowledges

that territorial cohesion is a process of spatially cross-referencing and inter-connecting regional/local

assets or weaknesses while paying particular attention to key sector policies affecting territorial

development on the ground (rather than a simple add-on to the existing EU-objectives on economic and

social cohesion), then future transnational co-operation should play the following role: To offer an

intermediate macro-level of action (alongside other levels of action) which generates an integrated

approach to practical cross-country policymaking among different layers of government (local, regional,


R20090275.doc 71 January 2010

national and EU), with a view to achieving a further integration of the concerned transnational co-

operation areas. This is not very new indeed, but in times of increasingly scarce public resources this

future co-operation will have to focus on a more limited number of strategically relevant themes under

which tangible results and lasting impacts can be achieved. This thematically more specialised

transnational co-operation must pro-actively generate synergies with / mobilise complementary

contributions from other territorial development approaches which will be implemented in practice (i.e.

local/regional & national policies; European policies and especially the future mainstream Operational

Programmes / the other territorial co-operation programmes). This can only be achieved if future

transnational co-operation is developed further along the lines “increased quality of project-level co-

operation” and “more widespread durability/sustainability of projects”, rather than by re-shaping existing

co-operation areas or by introducing new co-operation themes which can not be appropriately

addressed/tackled by transnational co-operation.

In line with the above-said, one can now develop the following long-term policy recommendations which

also give some insight on how to practically articulate them within the forthcoming reform of the EU

Cohesion Policy / the Structural Funds:

The experience gained under the INTERREG IIIB programme NWE shows that key success factors for

establishing genuine / truly joint transnational co-operation at the level projects are the existence of a

jointly elaborated intervention strategy with a clear transnational orientation (objectives & actions), a

strong orientation of project’s results and impacts towards an improvement of the life of the citizens

living in the co-operation area and finally the existence of sound information / communication

approach.84 Due to this, we generally recommend for the future programming period that

programmes pay much more attention to the development and approval of high quality

transnational co-operation projects. As rightly highlighted in the joint NWE-response given to the

“Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion”, putting emphasis on quality will create (…) more political added

value in the longer term, both for the local/regional/national level and for the EU-level. For developing

high quality transnational co-operation projects, however, three important preconditions need to be met:

It is firstly necessary that project-level co-operation takes place in a thematically more informed way,

which can be achieved if operational information on territorial development potentials is provided to and

pro-actively used by projects. This provision of information should be ensured at both a strategic level

(e.g. through ESPON) and at a more programme-focussed level (e.g. through elaborating operational

and stakeholder-oriented transnational development perspectives which can either be cross-thematic

and/or topic focussed). Such operational information would not only facilitate searching for the right

project partners, but also allow the programmes to better estimate the expected territorial impact of

future operations.

It is secondly necessary that the vast previous experience made with transnational co-operation

projects over the past 10 years is more systematically assessed and spread to future projects. The joint

NWE-response to the “Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion” rightly points out that (…) to this end a

professional knowledge management is urgently needed (…) which facilitates an efficient use of project-

level data and transforms them into accessible information. Capitalisation should however not restrict

itself to a simple compilation of general project information. More important, it must provide a

84 Interview with the current director of the NWE-JTS (formerly also a MC-member).


R20090275.doc 72 January 2010

professional and comparative practical analysis of different solutions adopted for addressing/solving

comparable issues/problems (i.e. “what can be done”) as well as of the “delivery mechanics” chosen for

achieving the expected outcomes (i.e. “ haw can it be done”). This future capitalisation effort should be

ensured across all programmes (e.g. INTERACT), to avoid isolated views / a duplication of efforts and to

enhance the widest possible transfer and application of good practices made elsewhere.

Although the abovementioned success factors are all valid and important, they alone are not sufficient

for ensuring successful transnational co-operation in the future. From the NWE programme evaluation of

we have seen that the level of durability of projects has remained rather modest under several

INTERREG IIIB programmes, while others have indicated a better performance in this respect. For the

future, we therefore recommend that a more pro-active approach is developed by all

programmes (not only for NWE) which significantly enhances the long-term sustainability of

transnational co-operation projects. Such an approach should consist – alongside the needs and

specificities of each programme – of a combination of incentives and operational provisions which will

have to be observed by future projects. Incentives could for example be the launching of a specific

project-type focussing on the pro-active establishment of durable transnational co-operation structures

or networks85 or the allocation of higher volumes of programme funding to projects which are initiated by

already existing and durable transnational co-operation structures.86 Specific operational provisions could

for example be the establishment of a two-step procedure for programme “newcomers”87 or the provision

of decreasing financial support to projects representing a follow-up / simple continuation of a previously

realised project.

85 i.e. start-up support provided to the establishment & initial running of topic-focussed co-operation structures, which demonstrate convincingly their future self-sustainability and their capacity to establish themselves as strategic actors within the programme (multiplicators). 86 i.e. deliberate support of strategic large-scale projects, provided that they generate a true added value if compared to previous or existing co-operation projects. 87 i.e. a “feasibility phase” during which the project’s transnational relevance is actually demonstrated; only in case of success continuation through an “operational phase” during which the partnership is given the opportunity of implementing concrete co-operative actions / field measures which testing or demonstrate elements of this approach.


R20090275.doc 73 January 2010

ANNEX 1 THE PRIORITIES AND MEASURES OF THE INTERREG III B-PROGRAMME ‘NORTH WEST EUROPE’

ANNEX 1:

The priorities and measures of the INTERREG III B-Programme ‘North West Europe’

CIP

June 2002 (1)

Revised

April 2005 (2)

Priority 1. Regions & Cities

1.1 More attractive metropolitan areas 47.104.804 56.103.683

1.2 Cohenrenr and polycentric patterns 31.403.202 33.506.856

78.508.006 89.610.539

Priority 2. Transport & ICT

2.1 Promotion accessibility 38.534.107 50.375.352

2.2 Improve access to information society 25.689.404 11.854.896

64.223.511 62.230.248

Priority 3. Water & Flood Risk

3.1 Land use and water systems 30.816.327 27.589.274

3.2 Prevention of flood damage 46.224.491 49.451.544

77.040.818 77.040.818

Priority 4. Natural and cultural heritage

4.1 Stronger ecological infrastructure 25.751.203 24.482.560

4.2 Enhancement of cultural heritage 25.751.203 26.728.893

51.502.406 51.211.453

Priority 5. Seas & Ports

5.1. Promotion co-operation maritime functions 21.967.261 13.171.026

5.2 Co-operation maritime and Island regions 21.967.261 26.902.215

43.934.522 40.073.241

Priority 6. Technical Support

6.1 Management, implementation, monitoring 12.352.975 8.852.261

6.2 Other expenditure 2.116.950 1.559.536

14.469.925 10.411.797

Total program 329.679.188 330.578.096


R20090275.doc 74 January 2010

ANNEX 2 FIELDS OF INTERVENTION

Fields of Intervention

Decided amount

(€)

Certified expendutures

(€)

Absorption rate %

Code exp./ program expenditure

Absorption rate % Ref: Interreg

Code exp./ Interreg expenditure

IM Interreg

GM Interreg

113. Agriculture-specific vocational training 636.547 517.323 81,3 0,2 80,05 0,07 1,02 2,86

114. Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products 1.597.226 1.429.734 89,5 0,5 80,55 0,23 1,11 2,17

122. Improving harvesting, processing and marketing of forestry products

1.597.226 1.429.734 89,5 0,5 85,61 0,12 1,05 4,17

125. Restoring forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters, etc

6.713.694 5.828.643 86,8 2,1 84,15 0,23 1,03 9,13

126. Planting of non-farm land 1.931.939 1.694.387 87,7 0,6 86,92 0,07 1,01 8,57

127. Improving and maintaining the ecological stability of protected woodlands

1.931.939 1.694.387 87,7 0,6 79,72 0,22 1,1 2,73

128. Forestry-specific vocational training 636.547 517.323 81,3 0,2 77,79 0,05 1,05 4

130. 21.634.462 19.071.521 88,2 6,8 82,12 4,71 1,07 1,44

131. 17.158.118 15.063.096 87,8 5,4 78,73 3,47 1,12 1,56

141. Adjustment of the fishing effort 836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 94,85 0,02 1 15

142. Renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet 836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 87,16 0,02 1,09 15

143. Processing, marketing and promoting of fisheries products 836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 82,2 0,17 1,15 1,76

144. Aquaculture 836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 84,39 0,04 1,12 7,5

145. Equipment of the fishing ports and protection of the coastal marine zones

836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 87,16 0,02 1,09 15

146. Socio-economic measures 836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 87,16 0,02 1,09 15

147. Actions by professionals (including vocational training, small coastal fishing)

836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 94,88 0,02 1 15

148. Measures financed by other Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF) 836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 84,2 0,04 1,13 7,5

151. Investment in physical capital (plant and equipment, cofinancing of state aids)

1.812.814 1.433.869 79,1 0,5 83,46 0,06 0,95 8,33

152. Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies

4.580.991 3.921.669 85,6 1,4 85,4 0,19 1 7,37


R20090275.doc 75 January 2010

153. Business advisory services technology) 3.285.598 2.744.606 83,5 1 83,52 0,13 1 7,69

154. Services to stakeholders (health and safety, providing care for dependants)

2.649.052 2.227.283 84,1 0,8 84,3 0,05 1 16

161. Investment in physical capital (plant and equipment, cofinancing of state aids)

7.345.918 6.131.706 83,5 2,2 70,64 0,55 1,18 4

162. Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies

7.147.161 5.944.999 83,2 2,1 76,17 1,22 1,09 1,72

163. Business advisory services 5.684.433 4.898.871 86,2 1,7 75,94 2,09 1,14 0,81

164. Shared business services conferences, trade fairs) 5.047.887 4.381.547 86,8 1,6 72,01 1,85 1,21 0,86

166. Services in support of the social economy 5.047.887 4.381.547 86,8 1,6 84,74 0,51 1,02 3,14

167. Vocational training 4.488.241 3.855.223 85,9 1,4 73,54 0,46 1,17 3,04

171. Physical investment (information centres, tourist accommodation, catering, facilities)

4.591.317 3.921.188 85,4 1,4 84,59 1,86 1,01 0,75

172. Non-physical investments 4.591.317 3.921.188 85,4 1,4 74,8 2,6 1,14 0,54

173. Shared services for the tourism industry fairs) 4.488.241 3.855.223 85,9 1,4 72,17 1,74 1,19 0,8

174. Vocational training 2.778.503 2.487.319 89,5 0,9 81,39 0,81 1,1 1,11

181. Research projects based in universities and research institutes 12.863.420 10.916.702 84,9 3,9 76,16 1,21 1,11 3,22

182. Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks and partnerships research institutes

12.863.420 10.916.702 84,9 3,9 77,68 2,01 1,09 1,94

183. RTDI Infrastructure 13.423.066 11.443.025 85,2 4,1 83,77 0,65 1,02 6,31

210. Labour market policy 5.047.887 4.381.547 86,8 1,6 77 0,96 1,13 1,67

220. Social inclusion 6.709.372 5.614.383 83,7 2 82,3 1,63 1,02 1,23

230. Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) 13.423.066 11.443.025 85,2 4,1 75,01 1,59 1,14 2,58

240. Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, etcfirms) 13.423.066 11.443.025 85,2 4,1 81,19 1,88 1,05 2,18

250. Positive labour market actions for woman 5.047.887 4.381.547 86,8 1,6 72,47 0,65 1,2 2,46

311. Rail 2.497.722 2.026.250 81,1 0,7 80,64 0,84 1,01 0,83

312. Roads 12.785.289 10.320.361 80,7 3,7 84,28 5,55 0,96 0,67

313. Motorways 836.237 793.414 94,9 0,3 104,21 2,21 0,91 0,14

314. Airports 1.661.485 1.232.836 74,2 0,4 83,87 0,36 0,88 1,11

315. Ports 3.793.115 3.203.313 84,5 1,1 84 1,23 1,01 0,89

316. Waterways 4.429.662 3.720.636 84 1,3 81,77 0,87 1,03 1,49

317. Urban Transport 4.378.985 3.457.199 78,9 1,2 84,99 0,84 0,93 1,43


R20090275.doc 76 January 2010

318. Multimodal Transport 3.935.878 3.268.103 83 1,2 82,94 1,03 1 1,17

319. Intelligent Transport Systems 3.935.878 3.268.103 83 1,2 79,95 0,76 1,04 1,58

321. Basic infrastructure 3.250.970 2.675.722 82,3 1 80,03 1,49 1,03 0,67

322. Information and Communication Technology 12.409.840 10.485.183 84,5 3,7 77,42 2,2 1,09 1,68

323. Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education)

5.472.101 4.434.882 81 1,6 78,55 2,34 1,03 0,68

324. Services and applications for SMEs 5.472.101 4.434.882 81 1,6 76,14 1,63 1,06 0,98

331. Electricity, gas, petrol, solid fuel 1.938.077 1.499.926 77,4 0,5 84,6 0,15 0,91 3,33

332. Renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass)

2.298.032 1.750.159 76,2 0,5 77,43 0,15 0,98 3,33

333. Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 2.574.623 2.017.249 78,4 0,6 66,14 0,86 1,19 0,7

341. Air 2.298.032 1.750.159 76,2 0,7 85,79 0,17 0,89 4,12

342. Noise 2.298.032 1.750.159 76,2 0,6 81,9 0,23 0,93 2,61

343. Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste)

913.138 784.414 85,9 0,6 89,27 0,14 0,96 4,29

344. Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and distribution) 2.219.805 1.955.956 88,1 0,3 83,47 1,41 1,06 0,21

345. Sewerage and purification 1.931.939 1.694.387 87,7 0,7 82,77 1,41 1,06 0,5

351. Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites 8.107.841 6.857.410 84,6 0,6 82,08 1,05 1,03 0,57

352. Rehabilitation of urban areas 8.311.348 7.048.801 84,8 2,4 87,81 0,57 0,97 4,21

360. Social infrastructure and public health 16.414.890 14.235.382 86,7 2,5 79,27 1,5 1,09 1,67

411. Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 7.985.406 7.070.638 88,5 5,1 65,15 1,75 1,36 2,91

412. Evaluation 519.325 479.818 92,4 2,5 60,61 2,04 1,52 1,23

413. Studies 519.325 479.818 92,4 0,2 78,46 0,32 1,18 0,63

415. Information to the public 520.885 481.259 92,4 0,2 70,94 6,05 1,3 0,03

330.578.096 281.416.074 85,1 0,2 80,59 1,93 1,06 0,1


R20090275.doc 77 January 2010

ANNEX 3 IM AND GM COMPARISON WITH INTERREG, STRAND B AND THE CLUSTER

Fields of Intervention

Absorption rate % ref: Strand

Code exp./ program expenditure.

Ref: Strand

IM Strand

GM Strand

Absorption rate % ref: Cluster

Code exp./ program expenditure. ref: Cluster

IM Cluster

GM Cluster

113. Agriculture-specific vocational training 79,0 0,14 1,0 1,4 79,3 0,33 1,0 0,6

114. Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products 89,0 0,2 1,0 2,5 89,5 0,33 1,0 1,5

122. Improving harvesting, processing and marketing of forestry 89,5 0,13 1,0 3,9 89,5 0,33 1,0 1,5

125. Restoring forestry production potential damaged by disasters. 87,0 0,67 1,0 3,1 87,0 1,69 1,0 1,2

126. Planting of non-farm land 87,7 0,16 1,0 3,8 87,7 0,4 1,0 1,5

127. Improving and maintaining the ecological stability woodlands 86,7 0,33 1,0 1,8 86,7 0,82 1,0 0,7

128. Forestry-specific vocational training 79,4 0,13 1,0 1,5 79,4 0,33 1,0 0,6

130. 83,7 4,97 1,1 1,4 83,2 6,25 1,1 1,1

131. 78,6 3,7 1,1 1,5 81,4 5,6 1,1 1,0

141. Adjustment of the fishing effort 94,9 0,07 1,0 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

142. Renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet 94,9 0,07 1,0 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

143. Processing, marketing and promoting of fisheries products 94,9 0,07 1,0 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

144. Aquaculture 87,5 0,15 1,1 2,0 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

145. Equipment of the fishing ports and protection of the coasts 94,9 0,07 1,0 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

146. Socio-economic measures 94,9 0,07 1,0 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

147. Actions by professionals (including vocational training, fishing) 94,9 0,07 1,0 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

148. Measures financed by other Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF) 86,2 0,07 1,1 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

151. Investment in physical capital 79,1 0,13 1,0 3,9 79,1 0,34 1,0 1,5

152. Environment-friendly technologies, clean energy technologies 85,6 0,37 1,0 3,8 85,6 0,92 1,0 1,5

153. Business advisory services technology) 83,5 0,26 1,0 3,9 83,5 0,64 1,0 1,6


R20090275.doc 78 January 2010

154. Services to stakeholders 84,1 0,21 1,0 3,8 84,1 0,52 1,0 1,5

161. Investment in physical capital 83,5 0,57 1,0 3,9 83,5 1,43 1,0 1,5

162. Environment-friendly technologies, clean energy technologies 79,1 1,28 1,1 1,6 81,9 1,56 1,0 1,4

163. Business advisory services 77,1 1,23 1,1 1,4 79,0 2,01 1,1 0,9

164. Shared business services conferences, trade fairs) 75,2 1,42 1,2 1,1 79,6 1,61 1,1 1,0

166. Services in support of the social economy 85,8 0,71 1,0 2,3 86,8 0,01 1,0 160,0

167. Vocational training 81,4 0,46 1,1 3,0 81,6 1,09 1,1 1,3

171. Physical investment (information centres,etc) 85,6 0,59 1,0 2,4 84,5 0,92 1,0 1,5

172. Non-physical investments 70,6 1,16 1,2 1,2 80,7 1,09 1,1 1,3

173. Shared services for the tourism industry fairs) 77,2 1,65 1,1 0,9 85,9 0,9 1,0 1,6

174. Vocational training 82,1 1,31 1,1 0,7 89.52 0,58 1,6

181. Research projects based in universities and research institutes 80,2 1,55 1,1 2,5 84,9 2,55 1,0 1,5

182. Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks, etc 78,3 2,71 1,1 1,4 80,5 4,12 1,1 1,0

183. RTDI Infrastructure 84,4 1,14 1,0 3,6 84,6 2,8 1,0 1,5

210. Labour market policy 86,8 0,41 1,0 3,9 86,8 1,02 1,0 1,6

220. Social inclusion 79,7 0,76 1,1 2,6 78,8 1,81 1,1 1,1

230. Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) 80,7 1,39 1,1 3,0 81,0 3,29 1,1 1,3

240. Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, etcfirms) 83,7 1,5 1,0 2,7 84,9 2,68 1,0 1,5

250. Positive labour market actions for woman 83,2 0,45 1,0 3,6 83,2 1,13 1,0 1,4

311. Rail 78,8 0,25 1,0 2,8 78,8 0,64 1,0 1,1

312. Roads 79,2 1,16 1,0 3,2 79,2 2,91 1,0 1,3

313. Motorways 94,9 0,07 1,0 4,3 94,9 0,19 1,0 1,6

314. Airports 73,6 0,18 1,0 2,2 73,6 0,45 1,0 0,9

315. Ports 83,9 0,3 1,0 3,7 84,5 0,75 1,0 1,5

316. Waterways 82,3 0,4 1,0 3,3 82,3 0,99 1,0 1,3

317. Urban Transport 78,4 0,52 1,0 2,3 77,8 0,97 1,0 1,2

318. Multimodal Transport 80,3 1,22 1,0 1,0 81,0 0,89 1,0 1,4

319. Intelligent Transport Systems 78,6 1,03 1,1 1,2 81,0 0,76 1,0 1,6

321. Basic infrastructure 80,7 0,46 1,0 2,2 82,3 0,63 1,0 1,6


R20090275.doc 79 January 2010

322. Information and Communication Technology 76,6 2,65 1,1 1,4 80,9 3,8 1,0 1,0

323. Services and applications for the citizen 71,3 1,45 1,1 1,1 76,4 1,69 1,1 1,0

324. Services and applications for SMEs 73,4 0,85 1,1 1,9 76,5 1,53 1,1 1,1

331. Electricity, gas, petrol, solid fuel 77,4 0,14 1,0 3,6 77,4 0,35 1,0 1,4

332. Renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind power, etc 80,1 0,97 1,0 0,5 77,6 0,67 1,0 0,8

333. Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 77,9 0,23 1,0 2,6 78,5 0,56 1,0 1,1

341. Air 77,6 0,27 1,0 2,6 77,6 0,67 1,0 1,0

342. Noise 77,6 0,27 1,0 2,2 77,6 0,67 1,0 0,9

343. Urban and industrial waste 81,0 0,31 1,1 1,9 83,2 0,35 1,0 1,7

344. Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and distribution) 79,6 0,95 1,1 0,3 83,9 0,83 1,1 0,4

345. Sewerage and purification 83,6 0,31 1,1 2,3 85,4 0,56 1,0 1,3

351. Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites 82,4 1 1,0 0,6 82,4 2,51 1,0 0,2

352. Rehabilitation of urban areas 81,4 1,19 1,0 2,0 82,6 2,55 1,0 0,9

360. Social infrastructure and public health 86,7 1,32 1,0 1,9 86,7 3,33 1,0 0,8

411. Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 65,7 2,83 1,4 1,8 62,6 2,77 1,4 1,8

412. Evaluation 38,5 0,15 2,4 16,7 84,4 0,14 1,1 17,9

413. Studies 78,3 13,46 1,2 0,0 73,5 5,55 1,3 0,0

415. Information to the public 71,2 3,97 1,3 0,1 73,1 0,23 1,3 0,9


R20090275.doc 80 January 2010

ANNEX 4 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE ON THE CONCEPT OF “AGGREGATED MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY” & ON “URBAN-RURAL RURAL RELATIONSHIP

ANNEX 4: Methodological note on the concept of “aggregated multimodal accessibility” & on “urban-rural rural

relationship” Aggregated multimodal accessibility Urban-rural rural relationship

A concept for assessing “urban-rural relations” in Europe was developed in the ESPON project 1.1.2. It relates factual information on specific structural and functional features characterising NUTS 3 regions (i.e. population density equalling built up areas; status of the leading urban centre of the region & population density equalising functional specialisation & size of markets = level of urban influence) to factual information characterising the physical environment of NUTS 3 regions (i.e. relative share of the various kinds of land cover = level of human intervention). By combining the two sub-divisions of the first main factor “urban influence” (high, low) with the three sub-divisions of the second main factor “human intervention” (high, medium, low), a typology with six different types is obtained. In the context of this ex-post evaluation, an average score was calculated for every programme on ground of existing ESPON data for NUTS 3 regions on “urban influence” and “human intervention”. The programmes were then allocated to one of the above-mentioned types if the predominant proportion of the programme area (i.e. not all of it) did correspond to the main features of this type.

The concept of potential accessibility has been developed in order to cover several aspects in one indicator: the opportunities to be reached (in this case population) in a certain territory weighted by the effort in terms of time. Multimodal accessibility expresses the combined effect of alternative transport modes, i.e. an aggregated picture of road, rail and air accessibility for a certain location. The ESPON-database provides data for all NUTS 3 regions on their potential multimodal accessibility seen from a European perspective (i.e. a scores related to EU27= 100). In the context of this ex-post evaluation, we have used the potential multimodal accessibility ratios of all NUTS 3 regions covered by a programme area in order to calculate an “aggregated ratio of potential multimodal accessibility” for a given INTERREG IIIB programme (i.e. the average of all NUTS 3-level ratios). The programme’s aggregated ratio shows the extent to which the potential multimodal accessibility is above, equal or below EU27 = 100. The average of the 13 INTERREG IIIB programme ratios is at 74.7.

The ESPON-project 1.1.1 has developed a typology-based description of the European urban system. By using a number of functional criteria, a total of 1,595 “Functional Urban Areas” (FUAs) was identified for the EU27+NOR/CH. On ground of a number of additional criteria, a typology was elaborated which distinguishes FUAs according to their functional importance in the wider European context: (1) A total of 76 Metropolitan European Growth Areas or MEGAs, while the rest are either (2) transnational / national FUAs and (3) regional / local FUAs. For the category with the highest European importance (i.e. the MEGAs), a sub-typology has been created by using the criteria demographic mass, competitiveness, connectivity and knowledge base. The MEGA-typology distinguishes between (1) Global cities, (2) European engines, (3) strong MEGAs, (4) potential MEGAs and (5) weak MEGAs.


R20090275.doc 81 January 2010

ANNEX 5 MEMBERS OF THE MC & SG

ANNEX 5: Members of the MC & SG Strategic partner Monitoring Committee

(total number of representatives & levels / organisations represented in 2006)

Steering Group (total number of representatives & levels / organisations represented in 2007)

Member State delegations (voting rights) Belgium

3 Three from the regional level (Flanders, Wallonie & Bruxelles-Capitale)

3 Three from the regional level (Flanders, Wallonie & Bruxelles-Capitale)

Switzerland

2 One from the Federal government & one of the regional level (REGIO BASILIENSIS)

1 One from the Federal government

Germany

3 One from the Federal government & two from the regional level (Nordrhein-Westfalen also representing Baden-Württemberg; Rheinland-Pfalz also representing Saarland)

2 One from the Federal government & one from the regional level (Nordrhein-Westfalen also representing Baden-Württemberg, Rheinland-Pfalz & Saarland)

France

2 One from the deconcentrated central government administration (Préfecture du Nord) & one from the regional level (Nord-Pas-de-Calais)

5 One from the Central government administration (DIACT), two from deconcentrated central government administration (Préfecture du Nord Préfecture du NPdC) & two from the regional level (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Ile-de-France)

Ireland

3 One from the Central government administration (Ministry of Finance) & two from the regional level (Dublin Regional Authority, Southern and Eastern Regional Assembly).

2 One from the Central government administration (Ministry of Finance) & one from the regional level (Southern and Eastern Regional Assembly).

Luxembourg

3 Two from the Central government administration (Ministry of Interior) & one from the local level (Administration Communale Munshausen).

2 Two from the Central government administration (Ministry of Interior)

Netherlands

3 One from the Central government administration (Ministry van VROM) & two from the regional/local level (Provincie Brabant, Municipality of Rotterdam).

1 One from the Central government administration (Ministry van VROM)

United Kingdom

2 One from the Central government administration (Department of Communities and Local Government) & one from the regional level (Southeast Regional Assembly).

2 One from the Central government administration (Department of Communities and Local Government) & one from the regional level (Southeast Regional Assembly).

Other members (advisory capacity, i.e. no voting rights) Managing Authority

1 Conseil Régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Direction Europe & International

3 Conseil Régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Direction Europe & International

Paying Authority

1 Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations

1 Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations

JTS European Commission

1 DG Regio 1 DG Regio

EIB 1 Policy Support Department - Project Directorate

1 Policy Support Department – Project Directorate

NGO 2 European Environmental Bureau (EEB) 2 European Environmental Bureau (EEB) NGO 1 European Council of Town Planners - - NGO 1 European Federation for Transport &

Environment - -


R20090275.doc 82 January 2010

ANNEX 6 THE NWE-PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (SOURCE: NWE PROGRAMME COMPLEMENT, 2005)

ANNEX 6: The NWE-project selection process (Source: NWE Programme Complement, 2005)

Between the date of receipt of the Application Form and the decision made by the Steering Committee, the following steps will be taken: 1. The Secretariat will immediately acknowledge receipt of the Application Form. 2. The Secretariat will publish a copy of the Application Form and its receipt on a website with restricted access. The National

Authority of the Lead Partner or all appropriate Regional Authorities where delegated by the National Authority, will be asked for comments, especially regarding compliance with national law / policies.

3. The Secretariat will draft a specific report for each Application Form, containing a brief note setting out its main findings and recommendations, supported by a standard assessment form. The report will include three main sections: considerations on the eligibility of the application, appraisal of the project against the core and detailed selection criteria, and concluding recommendations to the Steering Committee.

4. The Secretariat report will be circulated among the members of the Steering Committee before the meeting, as explained in the PSC Rules of Procedure.

5. The national delegations will forward their opinion on the project to the Presidency of the Steering Committee and the Secretariat, prior to the meeting.

6. During the meeting, the Steering Committee will deliberate on the project application. The Steering Committee will first address the eligibility of projects. The project will be declared “eligible” or “ineligible”. If the project is declared “ineligible”, the Steering Committee will clearly indicate which eligibility criteria have not been met and justify that decision. In a second step, the Committee will take a view on the quality of eligible projects. Depending on the assessment, three types of decision may be made:

1. The project is approved, conditionally or not. Should conditions be imposed, they will refer to slight amendments indicated in the Steering Committee decision. The Grant Offer Letter may be issued as soon as the necessary conditions are fulfilled, without any further discussion in the Committee. The relevant National Authority, or appropriate Regional Authority if delegated by the National Authority, and the Secretariat are responsible for the implementation of the Steering Committee decision.

2. The project is referred back to the Applicants. Applicants are advised to submit an improved version. 3. The project is rejected.


R20090275.doc 83 January 2010

ANNEX 7 CORE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA APPLIED DURING THE NWE-PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (SOURCE: NWE PROGRAMME COMPLEMENT, 2005)

ANNEX 7: Core eligibility criteria applied during the NWE-project selection process (Source: NWE Programme Complement, 2005)

Eligibility criteria are minimum requirements, each of which has to be met for a project to be declared eligible. 1. The project is transnational. This is defined as follows: ‘Action’ or ‘Study’ projects involve co-operating partners from at

least two different countries of the NWE area, with each partner contributing to project funding and being active in the implementation of the action plan. The same criterion generally applies to ‘Investment’ projects; however, if the project entails investments in infrastructure, the project may exceptionally be implemented in a single Member State, provided that a significant impact in other countries can be demonstrated;

2. The geographic scope of the project renders it ineligible to INTERREG IIIA. In the specific case of a ‘Study’ project, the scope should be wide enough to deliver a comprehensive contribution to the NWE Spatial Vision on issues addressed;

3. The project will bring about tangible and innovative results to the common benefit of all partners; for ‘Action’ projects, a territorial impact must be demonstrated; if the Member States decide to further develop the NWE Spatial Vision, Study projects shall provide new perspectives for it and address one or more priority research topics included in the list published by the Steering Committee, if available;

4. The project represents a positive contribution to sustainable development and to the implementation of at least one policy option of the ESDP; the expected outputs of the project concerning economic, ecological and social effects over time are indicated in the Application Form;

5. The project does not involve the construction of any large-scale heavy infrastructure such as a motorway or a main road; 6. The bidding partnership is consistent, i.e. it brings together the relevant partners with the capacity to deliver and make

use of the project results; 7. The project does not receive any other Community support, and applicants have committed themselves not to apply for

any such support to finance the activities scheduled in the action plan. However, operations of an ‘Investment’ project may be combined with loans from the European Investment Bank;

8. The solvency of the project ‘Lead Partner’ is demonstrated or covered by a bank guarantee and the mutual financial and legal responsibilities of the project partners have been defined in a joint convention;

9. All sections of the Application Form have been properly and accurately filled in, in particular, those relating to the quantified outputs, activity indicators and targets, the management structure and the budget; an original copy of the application signed by a qualified representative of the Lead Partner has been received by the Secretariat;

10. The project will be completed by 30th June 2008; 11. The availability of the project matching funding has been fully demonstrated by a complete set of original letters of intent; 12. The project complies with EU legislation (in particular those rules applying to the eligibility of expenditure of Structural

Fund support, to competition policy, to State aid, and to environmental impact assessment); 13. The project is consistent with national/regional policies. Detailed eligibility criteria at Measure level 14. The project falls within the scope of the relevant Measure (or Sub-Measure, if any); 15. The project clearly contributes to at least one of the outputs foreseen for the relevant Measure (or Sub-Measure, if any).


R20090275.doc 84 January 2010

ANNEX 8 SELECTION CRITERIA APPLIED DURING THE NWE-PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (SOURCE: NWE PROGRAMME COMPLEMENT, 2005)

ANNEX 8: Selection criteria applied during the NWE-project selection process (Source: NWE Programme Complement, 2005)

Selection criteria will be applied to assess the respective merits of all projects. If a specific selection criterion is not applicable in relation to the nature and content of a project, this will be mentioned in the assessment and the project will not be scored against this criterion. Decisions made by the Steering Committee on individual projects will be based on a pre-agreed list ranking all eligible project applications.

Core Selection Criteria (short version, leaving out more detailed comments)

I. TRANSNATIONALITY 1. The project involves a high level of transnational co-operation. II. TERRITORIAL PLANNING 2. The project adopts an innovative approach to territorial planning. 3. The project will achieve a high level of cross-sector integration. III. EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT 4. The project builds on existing transnational planning documents (e.g. the ESDP, the NWE Spatial Vision). 5. The project contributes to a more geographically-balanced development of the European territory. 6a. The project improves the territorial impact of EU Policies [action and investment projects only]. 6b. The project delivers a useful contribution to the further development of the ESDP [Study projects only]. IV. COMPLEMENTARITY / TRANSFERABILITY / LEVERAGE EFFECT 7. The project takes into account experience from earlier EU-funded programmes. 8. The project has an effective communication strategy. The results and experience acquired by the project will be

transferable and clearly communicated. 9. The project provides good prospect for long-lasting activity and leverage for extra investment. V. OVERALL QUALITY 10.a The individual elements of the project budget breakdown represent good value for money compared to their market

price. 10.b The project budget represents good value for money as it is proportionate to the expected outputs and results. 11. The project financial and management structure is sound and presents good prospect for a quick start and efficient

running.

Detailed selection criteria at Measure level

VI. CONTRIBUTION TO THE STRATEGY AT MEASURE LEVEL 12. The project meets the objectives of the relevant Measure to a high degree 13. The project delivers the outputs of the relevant Measure to a high degree 14. The project achieves the results of the relevant Measure to a high degree 15. The project contributes to the impacts of the relevant Measure to a high degree


R20090275.doc 85 January 2010

ANNEX 9 TASKS REGARDING ADVISORY ASSISTANCE TO PROJECT APPLICANTS / OPERATING PROJECTS & A PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE NWE PROGRAMME

ANNEX 9: Tasks regarding advisory assistance to project applicants / operating projects

& a provision of information about the NWE programme Joint Technical Secretariat NWE-Contact Points

(1) liaison with the NWE-Contact Points in developing project ideas and promoting the Programme; (2) facilitating and initiating the overall development of IIIB projects through a pro-active approach via the publicity strategy in close co-operation with the NWE-Contact Points; (3) assistance to applicants in the project development process, including guidance on technical and financial matters; (4) creation of application forms, an applicant’s manual and one or more models of convention between project partners; (5) assistance to lead partners and project co-ordinators during the course of project implementation; (6) implementation of the publicity strategy approved by the Monitoring Committee.

(1) to function as an ‘ambassador’ for transnational co-operation, especially at regional and local levels (the Contact Points will foster the involvement of regional and local bodies in transnational co-operation, while looking for possibilities to link regional policies to transnational policies/ambitions); (2) capitalising on their specific knowledge of regional and local circumstances (i.e. helping the JTS to identify key contacts in each professional field to project promoters, press or decision-makers); (3) facilitate international partner search; (4) advise project applicants on the best way to improve the transnational nature of their project and stimulate pro-actively the project development process; feedback from CPs to the JTS on the state of project applications or on progress of approved projects; (5) assist the JTS in the development and implementation of the Publicity Strategy to catalyse the overall development of NWE projects (i.e. via sending out specific mailings, organising specific national events or networking with existing networks and communication channels, provision of inputs helping to update information on the NWE-website, pinpoint interesting contributions for the NWE-newsletter);

Documents

Ex-Post Evaluation of INTERREG 2000-2006 Initiative financed by …ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost... · INTERREG ex-post evaluation. In-depth