Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; challenges and aims for the Programme for the time period

Transcription

1 Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; challenges and aims for the Programme for the time period Final report

2 ECORYS Polska Sp. z o.o. Łucka 2/4/ Warszawa T F E ecorys@ecorys.pl W 2

3 Table of contents List of tables... 5 List of abbreviations... 7 Summary Introduction Aim of the report Structure of the report General information about the research Context of the research Aims of the research Results of the evaluation Part I - The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and the future shape of the Programme in the period Objectives, products and results Partnerships Future shape of the Programme Part II - Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents Projects implementation Administrative structure Conclusions and recommendations Appendix 1 Case studies Appendix 2 - Methodology of the research

4 List of figures Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; Fig.1.Eligible area of the South Baltic Programme Fig. 2. Sum of points ascribed to the activities Fig.3. Sum of points ascribed to the thematic groups Fig. 4. Types of institutions taking part in the South Baltic Programme as AOs Fig.5. Types of the activities undertaken by the Associated Organisations in the projects within the South Baltic Programme [%] Fig.6. Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast Fig.7.Types of the activities undertaken by the Associated Organisations from the Kaliningrad Oblast in the projects within the South Baltic Programme [%]

5 List of tables Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; Table 1.Eligiblearea of the South Baltic Programme Table 2. Number of projects supported in each of the Programme priority axis and measures Table 3.Programme result indicators and their level of achievement (in green: indicators probable to be achieved) Table 4. The most common outputs of the projects led by the German Table 5. The most common results of the projects led by the German Table 6. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Danish Table 7. The most common results of the projects led by the Danish Table 8. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Swedish Table 9. The most common results of the projects led by the Swedish Table 10. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Polish Table 11. The most common results of the projects led by the Polish Table 12. The most common outputs of the projects led by the Lithuanian Table 13. The most common results of the projects led by the Lithuanian Table 14. Most common outputs in the Programme s measures Table 15. Most common results in the Programme s measures Table 16. Results of the finished projects Table 17. Activities included in the research Table 18. Results of the crowdsourcing Table 19. Functions of the AOs in the projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme Table 20.Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast Table 21.Types of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast and their functions in projects Table 22. Compliance between the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and The South Baltic Programme. 59 Table 23. Compliance between flagship projects (initiatives) of the Europe 2020 Strategy and The South Baltic Programme Table 24. Compliance between the investment priorities and The South Baltic Programme Table 25. Comparison of the thematic scope f chosen strategic documents Table 26. Comparison of the thematic scope of chosen ETC programmes Table 27. Comparison of selected rules in chosen ETC programmes Table 28. Possible future thematic areas of the South Baltic Programme Table 29. Comparison between the results of the analyses conducted within the report and the expertise Challenges and aims for the cross-border cooperation programmes involving Poland Table 30. Average results the quality assessment of the rejected projects Table 31.Average point value in the quality assessment in the analysed calls Table 32. Changes in the total point values scored in the quality assessment in project that were two times rejected Table 33. Differences between data from the payment application the expenses planed in the application form Table 34. Differences between the date of the first payment application the expenses planned for the corresponding period in the application form Table 35. Recommendations table Table 36. List of the respondents of the ITI interviews Table 37.List of respondents - Associated Organisations Table 38. Crowdsourcing table

6 Table 39. Experts invited to take part in the forum Table 40. List of projects studied

7 List of abbreviations AOs - Associated Organisations CPE - Centre of European Projects ETC - European Territorial Cooperation FLC - Fists Level Control GIS - Geographic Information System ITC - Information and Communication Technologies ITI - Individual Telephone Interview JTS Joint Technical Secretariat LNG Liquid Natural Gas MA Managing Authority MC Monitoring Committee NGO Non-governmental organization OWE Offshore Wind Energy PPP Public Private Partnership R&D - Research and Development SC Steering Committee SME - Small and medium enterprises SSI Semi-Structured Interview Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; 7

8 8 Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ;

9 Summary Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; The main objective of the evaluation titled: Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; was to assess the implementation and achievements of the South Baltic Programme. Two detailed objectives of the research were formulated as follows: 1. To assess the level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and the future shape of the Programme in the period To assess effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents. In the evaluation, a variety of research methods has been used. The CAWI surveys, ITI interviews, SSI interviews, Crowdsourcing, Forum of experts, desk research and case studies were conducted. Interviewed were representatives from the Management Authority, Monitoring and Steering Committee, Joint Technical Secretary, National and Regional Contact Points and Euroregions, the Lead Beneficiaries and Partners of accepted projects, Associated Organizations, organisations, whose projects were rejected, potential beneficiaries of the Programme and potential recipients of the projects effects. The report is divided into two main parts which correspond with the detailed objectives of the evaluation. Within each of the parts further thematic areas were delimited. Part I - The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and the future shape of the Programme in the period The implementation of the Programme is successful and the overall objective of the South Baltic Programme will be achieved. The Programme strongly contributes to creation of cross border networks and undertaking joint actions within them. It has rather soft than infrastructural character. The extensive know-how which was built within the Programme can be further used in the future initiatives. Taking into account the results of analyses conducted within the evaluation following thematic areas should be continued in the next programming period: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency; youth, education, life-long learning; entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs. Detailed findings 1. Objectives, products and results Objectives of the Programme The risk of not achieving target values in case of three indicators does not influence the generally successful implementation of the Programme. It is important to stress that in these three cases the indicators will be for surely achieved in more than 50%, which is a positive result. Their achievement is also still possible if next calls for projects from the priority axis 1 will be opened. If so, the next call should first of all be opened for projects concerning measure 1.2 Integration of the higher education and labour market. Three indicators in case of which there is a risk that the target values will be not achieved: Number of projects with politically welcomed and promoted results (Priority 1) (estimated level of achievement 67%) Number of projects unlocking public and private investments (estimated level of achievement 57%) 9

10 Number of projects strengthening liaisons between higher education and labour market institutions of the South Baltic regions (estimated level of achievement 70%) In some thematic areas the implementation of the Programme was even more effective than expected. The Programme contributes very strongly to the creation of cross border networks (the corresponding indicator achieved in over 240%), when undertaking joint actions was one of the most important aspects the Programme objective. The Programme is also particularly successful in strengthening cross-border cooperation between the SME s (over 100% of the indicators target value). Outputs and results of the projects and the Programme The Programme outputs are much differentiated. Taking into account all Programme measures the most common type of outputs are the thematic expertise reports. This indicates that in the projects implemented in the current Programme an extensive know-how was built, which could and should be further used in the future projects. The results of the Programme are less differentiated than the outputs. Looking at all measures the most common results are long term cooperation agreements and new extended cooperation networks. It indicates the soft rather than infrastructural character of the Programme. The partnerships and cooperation built within the projects are also valuable assets for the future projects and will facilitate the future partnerships. To a significant extent, the future South Baltic Programme should build on the current Programme, both when it comes to the substantive issues and projects implementation schemes (partnerships). Complementarity of the projects The complementarity level of the projects supported within the South Baltic Programme is high both within the Programme measures and between projects implemented within different measures also with projects implemented within chosen ETC Programmes 1. No cases were found in which the content of the project would duplicate the actions undertaken within other initiative. 2. Partnerships Finding partners, duration of the partnerships A significant number of the partnerships was created for the needs of the Programme. At the same time the beneficiaries declared they want to continue the partnerships in the future. The opportunity to create new cross-border networks and exchange experiences was also in the opinion of the beneficiaries one of the most important advantages resulting from participation in the Programme. Because of that the structure of partnerships (the number of the new ones and continued) should be assessed as positive. Tasks division between the partners, the efficiency of communication Most of the participants declare that they know each other s role in the project and that all partners are actively involved in the implementation of the projects. The communication between the partners is rather informal. Problems that occurred in the partnership resulted from: cultural differences, language barriers, organisational changes and engagement in too many projects at the same time. Generally they do not significantly affect the implementation of the projects. Future cooperation 1 1) The Baltic Sea Region Programme , 2) European Territorial Co-operation Objective Cross-border Co-operation Programme Lithuania-Poland , 3) Central Baltic Interreg IVa Programme, 4) Mecklenburg-Vorpommern/Brandenburg Zachodniopomorskie Cross-border Cooperation Programme. 10

11 The Beneficiaries confirmed that they are planning to continue the cooperation with the current partners after the end of the projects as well. However in the majority of cases there are no detailed plans of such cooperation, also no plans about sources of financing for the partnership. The Beneficiaries of the South Baltic Programme are also interested in creating new partnerships with other organisations. Possible instruments and activities supporting the partnerships To support the partnerships within the Programme following actions could be undertaken: simplifying the rules of participation in the Programme, standardising of rules for all countries, providing more support in pre-financing, preparing a list of recommended partners, organising partners meetings, providing external support for partnerships and encouraging potential partners to join the Programme by providing more information about the regions and the Programme itself. In the future programming period all NGOs should have the possibility to become a Lead Beneficiary. The participation of private companies in the Programme should be reinforced (not only as AOs). The Associated Organisations in The South Baltic Programme AOs are engaged in the majority of the projects realized within the South Baltic Programme. The level of involvement of the AOs from Kaliningrad Oblast is rather low. The participation of the AOs from the private sector is slightly less common than of the ones from the public sector. In the case of Kaliningrad Oblast the public institutions are prevailing. AOs role in the project is differentiated in engagement level and scope. Generally the Lead Beneficiaries are satisfied with the cooperation with AOs, although they are sometime less active than expected. The activity of AOs from the Kaliningrad Oblast is limited due to shortage of financial means. Apart from financial shortages the Russian AOs are highly interested in participation in the Programme. 3. Future shape of the Programme Contribution to achieving the objectives of Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region In the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region there are five thematic areas that are not implemented by the South Baltic Programme. These concern: clean shipping, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, maritime safety and security, major emergencies and cross-border crime. Contribution to implementation of the Strategy Europe 2020 In its current shape the implementation of the South Baltic Programme contributes to the achievement of almost all of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, though supporting projects concerning thematic areas accordant with the flagship initiatives. The exception are actions aiming at facilitation connection to high speed internet. Differences between the Programme and other ETC programmes covering/ bordering eligible area of the South Baltic Programme In the scope of the South Baltic Programme there are some similarities to the analysed transnational cooperation programme - the Baltic Sea Programme. When it comes to the analysed cross-border programmes there is a significant difference, mainly in the character of the supported initiatives. The projects implemented within the South Baltic Programme have soft rather than infrastructural character (as in the other cross border Programmes). The South Baltic Programme can be therefore seen as transitional between the transnational and cross-border programmes or as a linking point between them. It is also important to stress the unique character of the activity 2.4 Local community activities. All of the actions realized within this measure are specific for the South Baltic Programme and the measure itself has an innovative character. 11

12 Beneficiaries plans for the future Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; Most of the participants are satisfied with the current scope of the Programme and are interested in participating in the future in the Programme with the same scope. Priorities and activities of the Programme that should be taken into account for the next programming period Taking into account the thematic focus of the draft proposal of General regulation previewed within the paragraph 9 and the results of analyses conducted within the evaluation following thematic areas should be continued in the next programming period: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency; youth, education, life-long learning; entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs. Recommendations resulting from the first part of the report Objectives, products and results Partnerships For the next programming period clear definition of more detailed but closed list of outputs and results indicators which will make the aggregation possible; The rules of participation in the Programme (concerning the formal status of the Lead Beneficiary) should be changed. All NGOs (not only bodies governed by public law) should have the possibility to become a Lead Beneficiary. The minimal budget for the projects or certain thematic areas (currently euro) should be lowered; The rules of participation in the Programme (concerning the formal status of the Partner) should be changed. There should be a possibility of Public Private Partnership (PPP) in the Programme; Future shape of the Programme The future shape of the Programme should include: R&D, innovation; energy, energy efficiency; youth, education, life-long learning; entrepreneurship development, competitiveness of SMEs. Part II - Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents The overall assessment of the projects implementing system is positive, although there are some possible changes which could be introduced to increase its effectiveness. Most problems in the implementation system occur at the FLC level and are referred to the certification process. Important changes needed in the system concern introducing a seed money facility for projects preparation and the system of advance payments. Both on the application as well as on the implementation stage there is a need for stronger support for the potential beneficiaries and beneficiaries by the Contact Point. In order to meet those needs the Contacts Points should be financially strengthened. Detailed findings 1. Project implementation Problems in the project preparation phase The main problems on the application stage were connected with following issues: understanding formal rules of project preparation (cost eligibility, cost sharing between partners, required formal documents), 12

13 finding projects partners, Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; cost of project preparation - the desired amount of the seed money should be between and Euro. In response to these problems it is recommended to strengthen the support provided to the potential beneficiaries in the projects preparation phase by the Contact Points in terms of workshops, consultations and partners search promoting wider use of the projects partners data base. Assessment criteria The current projects assessment process and the applied assessment criteria are in the opinion of the evaluator sufficient to provide the selection of the most suitable projects and the criteria are properly adjusted to the types of the projects. No changes in the project assessment criteria are suggested. Reasons of projects rejection Within the South Baltic Programme application rejection rate is high 58%. The share of the applications rejected for formal reasons is low (7% of the rejected applications), so activities undertaken to reduce the rejection rate should concentrate on the substantial quality of the applications. It was observed that the potential beneficiaries had problems with presenting the logical framework of the projects and defining the future benefits resulting from the projects (after projects completion). These two issues should be stressed during the workshops and seminars for potential beneficiaries. Reasons for lack of interest in applying for funding All of the potential beneficiaries who didn t apply for funding heard about the South Baltic Programme before. The most common reason for not applying was that the requirements are too high and application procedure too complicated and therefore too much time and money consuming. The main suggested change in the Programme is to simplify the Programme rules and procedures. Delays in the projects implementation The analysis of the project application forms and the list of payments showed that there are delays in implementation of some projects. This was confirmed by the Lead Beneficiaries in the interviews. In some of the projects the delays are caused by too optimistic preparatory phase. The unexpected changes in the projects environment can also affect the implementation in the negative way. In general the occurring delays don t significantly affect the implementation of the Programme. Reporting progress on the JST and MA level; Project Progress Reports reimbursement (interim payment) and reimbursement of the final Project Progress Reports (final payment) The complaints about the certification project process referred more to the FLC than to reporting process at the JST or MA level. Some of the respondents were also dissatisfied with the long waiting time that passes between the acceptance of expenses and reimbursement, but the monitoring data doesn t show significant delays. If the process was longer than the average then it resulted from the need of clarification. It can be assumed that the Beneficiaries are mainly dissatisfied with the length of the expenditures certification by the FLC, which was not a subject of detailed analysis within the evaluation. 13

14 2. Administrative structure Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; Contribution of the administrative structure to the achievement of Programme goals and the Support of the Contact Points and Regional Contact Points To increase the contribution of the administrative structure of the Programme to the achievement of Programme goals numerous suggestions were given by the respondents, e.g.: expanding the possibilities of Regional Contact Points and Contact Points in the areas concern promotion and information though increasing the financing for Regional Contact Points and Contact Points activities, hiring more staff for these organisations, hiring more international staff for JTS, introducing advance payments system or, providing the funds for projects pre-financing and capacity building. There is also a need for support in finding partners and wider promotion of projects results. Recommendations resulting from the second part of the report Projects implementation Creating for a seed money facility that would offer grants for projects preparation up to euro; Including the topics concerning projects logic and long term sustainability of the project results in the workshops and seminars for potential beneficiaries; The Beneficiaries must prepare at the preparation stage a risk analysis for the project implementation period 2 ; Administrative structure The Contact Points should be strengthened in terms of financial and human resources; Introducing the system of advance payments; Data base of projects partners, which participated the Programme should be elaborated. It should contain information about the willingness to cooperate and the areas of interest. The data base should also include information about the other organisations which showed interest in the Programme and / or participated in Programme s events. The data base should be used in during trainings and consultations for the potential Beneficiaries as an example how to find partners; The data base with the information about the completed project should be elaborated and popularised among the potential beneficiaries of the South Baltic Programme in the next programming period. The data base should contain information if the beneficiary is willing to cooperate in the future in implementation of similar projects. 2 Although the general suggestion is to simplify the rules of participation in the Programme, introducing obligatory risk analysis will have a positive influence on the projects implementation. 14

15 1. Introduction Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; 1.1. Aim of the report The aim of the report is to present the results of the evaluation Effectiveness of the South Baltic Crossborder Co-operation Programme ; challenges and aims for the Programme for the time period The methodology of the research was previously agreed with the Client in the methodological report. Based on the results of the research the report presents a list of suggestions and recommendation, which can be used when planning the scope of The South Baltic Programme in the future programming period Structure of the report The report consists of four main chapters. The first chapter is of introductory character and presents the aims of the report. The second chapter refers to the general information about the research. This includes the context of the research - basic information about The South Baltic Programme and the aims of the evaluation. The third part of the report presents the results of the research. It is divided into two main parts: Part I - The level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and the future shape of the Programme in the period Part II - Effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents The last chapter of the report focuses on the recommendations resulting from the conducted research. In the appendix 1 are the case studies of selected projects. The detailed description of the methodology adopted in the evaluation can be found in appendix 2. 15

16 16 Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ;

17 2. General information about the research 2.1. Context of the research The main objective of the South Baltic Programme is to strengthen the sustainable development of the South Baltic region through joint actions which increase the competitiveness and enhance integration among people and institutions. This objective is implemented through two priority axes: I. Economic competitiveness, and II. Attractiveness and common identity. The first axis focuses on actions promoting integration of economic and labour markets in the area, cooperation in technical and higher education, transfer of knowledge and know-how between public and private actors, and better transport connectivity. The second axis comprises actions connected with management of environmental threats, promotion of sustainable economic use of natural resources and cultural heritage with particular attention to tourism, development of renewable energy sources and energy saving, as well as local initiatives supporting people-to-people contacts. Within both priority axes financial support can be acquired by beneficiaries from Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Sweden and Poland (table 1), as it shown on the map below (fig. 1). Fig.1.Eligible area of the South Baltic Programme Source: South Baltic Programme 17

18 Table 1.Eligiblearea of the South Baltic Programme Country Regions supported within the Programme Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; Poland Sweden Denmark Lithuania Germany szczeciński, koszaliński, słupski, gdański, Gdańsk Gdynia Sopot, elbląski (adjacent area) Kalmar, Blekinge, Skane, Kronoberg (adjacent area) Bornholm, East Zealand and West / South Zealand (adjacent area) Klaipeda; Taurage and Telsiai (adjacent areas) Bad Doberan, Greifswald, Kreisfreie Stadt, Nordvorpommern, Nordwestmecklenburg, Ostvorpommern, Rostock, Kreisfreie Stadt, Rügen, Stralsund, Kreisfreie Stadt, Uecker-Randow, Wismar, KreisfreieStadt According to the Programme Manual, the Lead Beneficiary in the South Baltic Programme must be either: a national (governmental), regional or local authority or their association, or an institution that will need to provide evidence that: it is established under public or private law for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, it has legal personality, and it is financed, for the most part, by the State, regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law; or it is subject to management supervision by those bodies; or having an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law 3. Project partners must in turn fulfil the first two of the above listed criteria. The project applications are submitted by a Lead Beneficiary in cooperation with project partners. Each application has to undergo a two-stage assessment. First stage of the assessment covers the formal issues. The second stage focuses on strategic and operational features of a project (quality assessment). The assessment is conducted in a 4-point scale and covers following issues: 1. Contribution to the Programme Measures and regional strategic plans; 2. Relevance of the subject tackled and adequateness of the work plan; 3. Innovativeness of the project approach and methodology; 4. Impact on the socio-economic development of the eligible area; 5. Cross-border impact; 6. Scope and strength of project partnership; 7. Impact on the situation of the target group; 8. Dissemination of project results; 9. Durability of the project results; 10. Contribution to the EU Baltic Sea Region Strategy and its Action Plan; 11. Contribution to the renewed Lisbon Strategy and the Gothenburg Strategy; 12. Compliance with horizontal policies (equal opportunities, impact on the environment, information society); 13. Project management capacity and capacities to implement the project; 3 Programme Manual p.35 18

19 14. Budget quality. Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ; In the last eight calls for proposals 64 projects were chosen, and 63 are currently implemented 4 by 760 Partners (incl. the Lead Beneficiaries). Out of this group 15 projects were finished. Table 2. presents the number of projects implemented within each of the Programme priority axes and measures. Table 2. Number of projects supported in each of the Programme priority axis and measures Activity I Economic competitiveness Number of projects (Calls I-VIII) Number of implementing institutions 1.1 Entrepreneurial development Integration of higher education and labour markets Transport accessibility 6 98 II Attractiveness and common identity 2.1 Management of the Baltic Sea environment Energy saving and renewable energy Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage for regional development Local community initiatives Total The Managing Authority is responsible for implementation of the Programme. This function belongs to the Polish Ministry of Regional Development, Territorial Cooperation Department. The Managing Authority has asked the Joint Technical Secretariat to do the day-to-day management of the implementation of the Programme. The Certifying Authority Department within the Ministry of Regional Development is responsible for financial certification. The function of the Audit Authority belongs to the Polish Ministry of Finance. The Joint Technical Secretariat is located in Gdańsk. There are Contact Points in the region from the eligible area. The Monitoring Committee and Steering Committee were established according to the European Union rules of programmes implementation. The Monitoring Committee consists of representatives of the involved Member States and monitors the implementation of the Programme. The Steering Committee consists of representatives of the participating countries and selects and monitors the operations Aims of the research Based on the Terms of Reference, the main objective of the evaluation is to assess the implementation and achievements of the South Baltic Programme. Two detailed objectives of the research were formulated as follows: 1. To assess the level of achievement of Programme objectives provided in the Operational Programme and the future shape of the Programme in the period To assess effectiveness of the projects implementing system that is defined within the Programme documents. 4 One project - - WINDUP was first chosen in the IV call but one partner withdrawn and the contract was cancelled. The project was accepted in the VII, when a new partner was found. 19

20 20 Effectiveness of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme ;