Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B)

Transcription

1 Forschungen Issue 138 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) A project within the research programme "Demonstration Projects of Spatial Planning (MORO) conducted by the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS) and the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR) MORO

2 Forschungen In the series of journals Forschungen, the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS) and the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR) publish selected results of the scientific research carried out in their departments in the fields of spatial planning, urban development, housing and building. IMPRINT Publisher Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS) Invalidenstraße Berlin Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR) Deichmanns Aue Bonn Responsibility for the text FORUM GmbH, Oldenburg (Contractor) Dr. Michael Huebner (Direction) Christina Stellfeldt-Koch Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, Bonn (Client) Brigitte Ahlke (Direction) Dr. Fabian Dosch Dr. Wilfried Görmar Kerstin Greiling Verena Hachmann Jens Kumol Nicole Schäfer Editor Nina Wilke BBR, Bonn Translation Steven Smith / Smith Translations, Hildesheim Design and setting Gerlinde Domininghaus / Formsache Printing Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, Bonn Orders from Beatrix Thul beatrix.thul@bbr.bund.de Reference: Research Studies Issue 138 Reproduction and duplication All rights reserved The views expressed in this report by the author are not necessarily identical with those of the publisher. ISSN (Series) ISBN Forschungen Issue 138 Bonn 2009

3 Structure 1 Summary 1 2 Introduction: motivation and task of the study 5 3 Concept and study structure Evaluation and impact analyses The method of examination: cooperative impact analysis 8 Selection 9 Case studies 10 Verification and application 11 4 Findings of the impact analysis Impact of INTERREG Results according to impact areas 14 Mobilisation of financial resources 14 Innovations in the field of brands, standards and procedures 18 Qualification and quality management 22 Development of regional transnational control competence 25 Summary of the results Benefits of INTERREG: what reaches the regions? 33 Benefits of INTERREG for the cooperation areas and Europe 34 Value of INTERREG for the German federal states 35 Value of INTERREG for the regions 35 Value of INTERREG for the local authorities 35 Companies 35 5 Recommendations for action Partnership Programme level Outlook 40 6 Literature Thematic literature Theoretical and process-analytical literature 41 Project Overview - Case Studies 44 Project List - Follow-Up Action 50

4 Table of figures Figure 1 Transnational collaboration 1 Figure 2 Selection stages for selecting the case studies 9 Figure 3 Impact areas and indicators 10 Figure 4 Examination structure of the cooperative impact analysis for INTERREG III B 12 Figure 5 Projects and impact areas examined 13 Figure 6 Flood Hazard Map of Schwedt (Oder) and its surroundings 27 Figure 7 ELLA; From: Cross-border fields of action of the ELLA strategy 28

5 Layout_interreg_eng :18 Uhr Seite 1 1 Summary 1 Summary Motivation and task The study is part of the research programme "Demonstration Projects of Spatial Plan ning". It is occasioned by the start of a new EU funding period that started in This pe riod heralded a stronger focus on the part of EU policy as a whole and with it the INTER REG programmes as well on the goals of Lisbon and Gothenburg and, generally speak ing, on a greater territorial integration within the EU. Figure 1 Transnational collaboration Reykjavik Stockholm Study In order to do justice to the diversity of al most 500 INTERREG projects and a large spectrum of effects, a level of result formula tion has had to be found for this impact anal ysis that does justice to the different follow on effects of INTERREG on the one hand and to the need for a generalised description on the other hand. In this conjunction, four fields of impact have emerged during the course of the research project: mobilisation of financial resources, innovation in the fields of brands, standards and procedures, Tallin Moskva Riga København Dublin Vilnius London Amsterdam Berlin Minsk Warszawa Kyiv Bruxelles/Brussel Luxembourg Paris Praha Bratislava Kishinev Wien Bern Budapest Ljubljana Zagreb Beograd Sarajevo Bucuresti Sofiya Lisboa Madrid Rom Skopje Tirana Ankara Athinai Rabat Algier Tunis 500 km Against this background, the research project has a purpose that is at once strategic and pragmatic: in analysing the impacts of INTER REG III B projects, it is not only a general re search interest on the part of German national government that is in the forefront, but also the wish to design future INTERREG projects in such a way that their benefits can be improved in line with the reorientation of the EU funding policy and in line with a design interest on the part of German federal govern ment in the various cooperation areas. Helsinki Oslo Valletta (INTERREG IV B) Alpine Space North Sea Region Central Europe North-West Europe Baltic Sea Region BBR Bonn 2007 Despite the diversity of INTERREG projects and their wide distribution throughout the European member states, there are hardly any general insights concerning the long-term im pacts or the lasting value of these projects. The essential reasons for this lie in the enormous thematic diversity of INTERREG, with the consequence that the follow-on effects of pro jects have been hardly possible to register within the scope of the ongoing evaluations. For this reason, the present study has set itself the objective of analysing in detail as wide a spectrum of INTERREG projects as possible in order to draw general conclusions about the sustainable effects of INTERREG. Nicosia Regions NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 Geometric foundations: Eurostat GISCO Source: European Commission INTERREG III B - The programme Within the framework of the "European Territorial Collaboration" goal, the European Union promotes transnational cooperation from funds of the European Fund for Regional Development (EFRE) with the objective of an in tegrated territorial development. The cooperation is effected on the basis of joint programmes of the respective partner states participating. The subject areas and spheres of action for the cooperation designated therein are im plemented through transnational projects, which are subsidised by funds from the EFRE. As a result, the interstate cooperation on regional develop ment tried and tested within the framework of INTERREG II C ( ) and further developed through INTERREG III B ( ) is being continued. The majority of the transnational programmes stick to the well established designation "INTERREG B" for the transnational cooperation pro grammes. Germany is involved in five programme regions for transnational cooperation. The transnational INTERREG programmes have contributed to an intensive networking and cooperation among the cities and regions in Europe. Within the scope of INTERREG III B, over 6,500 partners worked together in the five cooperation zones with German participation, including almost 1,000 German partners in around 500 projects.

6 2 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 quality management, and the development of Regional Governance. To conduct 20 detailed case studies and within the framework of a so-called "follow-on action", a total of 40 INTERREG projects were selected that represent the above-mentioned impact areas. In what follows, the study has not primarily geared itself towards the concrete project results, but rather towards the effects occurring predominantly after the project has ended. In s doing, the event chain Output-Result-Impact, which is familiar from evaluation research, has formed the basis. Impacts of INTERREG Organised according to the four impact areas, the results can be summarised as follows: IN TERREG projects can contribute to the mobilisation of financial resources. Depending on the design of the project, investment-steering and investment-accelerating effects are created. Furthermore, INTERREG projects have a structure-forming function when they influence the design of promotion programmes and generate new promotion cases. Classic multiplier effects also occur in some projects: an investment in the tourism sector, for instance, frequently generates many small investments in its wake. INTERREG projects very often develop innovations in the field of brands, standards and procedures within the framework of their objectives, which extend from purely technical to communicative or organisational processes. A special case among the project innovations is that of brands. Corresponding projects are distinguished by the fact that they require a support structure for the ownership of the brand and/or established procedures for further dealings with the product. Here, as also in the case of other innovations, the effect lies rather in the development of these structures than in the "invention" of something new per se. As opposed to simple learning (see Ch Qualification and quality management), which takes place in every project, and the knowledge acquisition of organisations, INTERREG projects, when appropriately imbedded in a local or regional communication system, lead to developments that are similar to quality management after certifications. Although ad-hoc learning continues to take place, procedural routines are also introduced over and beyond that lead to a systematic quality development. One of the central effects of INTERREG is the development of Regional Governance structures. Two different "methods" are possible here: the result structure is more of a technical network than a decision network. Such partnerships can come relatively quickly to common results but have only limited influence on later implementation. In contrast, the impact structure is mostly a large-scale partnership that embraces as many of those later involved in the implementation as possible. Through this networking of many decisive actors, however, the joint decision-making drags on to a very great extent. Most projects examined within the scope of this impact area endeavour to find a compromise comprising both approaches. An important and central observation is the multidimensionality exhibited by many IN TERREG projects in their impact. Frequently, the long-term follow-on effects of projects lie in several of the impact areas specified. In order to highlight the observed impacts of INTERREG more clearly, a project ideal type can be constructed, which, however, does not exist in such a pure form in the actual project situations. The formulation of ideal types, therefore, merely serves illustrative purposes: Ideally typical innovation projects are in the fewest of cases such projects that enable only one insight to be generated or one concept to be produced, but are almost always projects that build up a practical structure for the use of the project results themselves or transfer the procedure developed onto it. Ideally typical investment projects are not necessarily such projects that generate the greatest streams of capital, but are above all projects that enable smaller-scale capital flows to be redirected permanently (through the creation of new products or promotion circumstances). Ideally typical quality management projects are to be primarily found in city networks or in regional partnerships. The impacts of these projects are mostly regionally limited. The interaction density is generally (still) insufficient for a quality development across the entire cooperation region. Ideally typical Regional Governance projects are projects that create important interstate bases of action and initiate their introduction. Their reference is mostly a common transborder territory and, from a thematic standpoint, a relatively complex functional interrelationship with just as complex networks.

7 Summary 3 Benefits of INTERREG Transnational cooperation is required in the cooperation areas in order to be able to act in a decentralised and problem-related manner. Whether it concerns the longterm development of transport corridors, climate protection in sensitive natural regions, the protection of the population against environmental dangers or a systematic linking of economic potential: these tasks are protracted, complex, frequently associated with provisional failures, yet thoroughly imperative and hardly possible to carry out through international regulation. Transnational cooperation creates solutions from which the national states also profit. The benefits of INTERREG accrue not only to the cooperation areas and the national states. The federal states can insofar as this is politically desired deploy INTERREG as an instrument of their own state development. In so doing, plans and conceptions in the area of structural politics and state development are enriched with European and therefore more wide-ranging aspects. Moreover, INTERREG makes it possible for regional alliances and metropolitan regions to sharpen their joint profile in many subject areas. Regionality becomes easier to experience when it is experienced in the context of a European partnership. The transnational harmonisation within the scope of INTER REG is of advantage to the regional harmonisation in the carrying out of voluntary tasks. The "transnational" also produces a better local government politics in many cases. This is especially expressed in the respective subject areas handled. Whether it relates to the revitalisation of quarters, an economic strategy or the establishment of new services for the population through the multifaceted transnational cooperation, errors are avoided, and building and development undertakings are better tailored to their user group with the help of model projects and manifest increased follow-on effects. Companies also profit from INTERREG. Wherever present or future transport routes are served, logistics providers profit through their improved planning horizons and through the creation of discussion links with responsible government bodies in their respective geographical area of activity. The value of small enterprises in tourism is the orientation around what are for them lucrative target groups, a development of quality in their offers, and the chance to join supraregional and transnational marketing systems. Recommendations for action In the case of innovation projects: A concentration of procedural and process sequences is recommendable here. It should also be ensured that new developments, whether of a technical or organisational kind, find application beyond the circle of the partnership as well. In the case of tourism brand development, a homogenous structure of interests within the partnership is important since the brand will only endure if all partners commit themselves to the survival of brand and product. Just as the development of a permanent project management structure, this can be supported on the German side in strategically important cases. In the case of investment projects: Followon effects in the form of investment turn out to be all the greater and more sustained, the more precisely the primary investment is planned. Since investments are generally eligible for promotion within the framework of the funding period, care should be taken during the consultation and approval that the applicants explain what probability exists that the planned investments will trigger follow-on effects (perhaps of a different type). In the case of investment-paving projects, it should be laid out in a clear and transparent way how the beneficiaries of an investment are involved in the organisation of the result. A depiction of the possibilities of economical utilisation of project results and the monetary value that can be expected is helpful when politicians and other key actors are to be won over for a project. In the case of quality management projects: The initiation of regional quality development through INTERREG functions particularly well when a development strategy that is desired (by national or state government) is Europeanised by the project or the INTER REG project can be used as a stimulator for a new regional development strategy. In the case of Regional Governance projects: In the case of projects that are devoted to the development of regional control competencies, and in view of the possibility of choosing between a quick production of results and a longer-lasting implementation, it should first of all be clarified where the target priority lies: should the project rather gain

8 4 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 insights, the partnership should be developed in the form of a result structure. That is to say, it is rather composed of technical experts; if one wants to aim at a long-term commitment of the partners and plan concrete implementation steps in a binding manner, as many offices responsible for decisionmaking should be integrated in the partnership (impact structure). In the case of complicated technical problems, a twophase composition of the project should be assumed since the analysis of the structure of interests is frequently not affordable in the run-up to a project owing to the high costs.

9 5 2 Introduction: motivation and task of the study The transnational collaboration within the framework of INTERREG has existed now for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, INTERREG B, as the programme, which has meanwhile become integrated in the so-called mainstream funding of the European structural policy, is still called, still shows no signs of age up to today. Since the first promotion period, organisational, strategic and communicative further developments, in particular, have ensured that the transnational projects can (and must) today operate significantly more professionally and in a more targeted manner than was the case several years ago. Although a host of observations have been formulated and communicated in this connection, and despite the great diversity of IN TERREG projects and their broad distribution throughout the member states, there are hardly any secured insights as to the longterm effects or the sustainable value of these projects. That is all the more regrettable since INTERREG projects still lead a shadowy existence in contrast to the investment aids and infrastructure funding within the framework of the EU Structural Funds and of the Joint Task of 'Improving the regional economic structure' (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur ) and do so due to their comparatively low finance volume and their subject-based method of working, which is often unclear to non-specialists. And when subjects and contents of INTERREG projects excite public attention, the instrument INTERREG remains unknown in its capacity as initiator. The fact that there are no extensive impact analyses relating to INTERREG B is therefore surprising at first since they could serve to cast the success of the projects in a brighter light. But if one looks around in the "INTERREG scene" a little closer, the obstacles to a comprehensive benefit analysis of this instrument become clear: INTERREG projects pursue a broad spectrum of mostly thematically specific objectives in very different large-scale transnational areas with very different partners. They carry out their work deploying different contingents of personnel and with different financial investment. And they realise their results in the context of differing wider political conditions and on the basis of stipulations specific to the cooperation area in each case. Therefore, each INTERREG project is its own world in itself, and it is only too difficult to do justice to the achievements of hundreds of project teams with generalised observations. this is aggravated by the fact that many (interim) evaluations take place at a point in time when no statements can be made about effects that manifest themselves at a later date. A further reason for the lack of impact analyses lies in the task of evaluations: with relation to all EU interventions, and therefore to INTERREG III B as well, the vast majority of the evaluations must make statements about the target achievement of a project and/or the associated programme. Since the evaluations take place in accompaniment to the programme, or must perhaps already make their statements when the programme ends, the respective researcher hardly has a chance to make a long-term assessment of benefits and impacts. Nevertheless, this method of approach is plausible: the respective programme management would like to receive findings as early as possible in order to perform any necessary course corrections 1. Moreover, for budget systems reasons, even expost evaluations have to take place at such an early date after completion of the activities that it is frequently only the so-called outputs that can be recorded, and not the project results, let alone the project's impacts. Perhaps the greatest deficiency of all evaluations in this regard is that they generally have to lay a more or less strongly formalised observation raster over a large number of projects, and it is therefore almost consistently only quantitative analyses that come into question. In the process, all those project impacts not intended at the project outset, which occur in the case of many projects, necessarily are excluded from the observation. These developments mostly take place in the domain of procedural-technical processes and an improved coordination of the respective responsible offices and agencies. Projects are therefore unintentionally become "heuristic networks", and this special value of INTER REG cannot be measured by the "classic" evaluation because of its orientation towards the target-output relation of the projects or programmes. As the research project described here has shown, important and (1) See here the accompanying evaluations carried out in all INTER REG IIIB cooperation areas, with the mid-term evaluation of the Baltic Sea Region: Ramboll Management 2005 singled out to represent them all

10 6 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 central aspects within the value spectrum of INTERREG thus wander outside the range of observation. For this and other reasons, the research project has been obliged to keep its method of approach as open as possible so as to be able to analyse such corresponding effects as well. On the other hand, it was necessary not to make any exclusively unique-case observations for the sake of the usability of the results; rather, an analysis level had to be selected that produces general usable statements in the following context. The study is part of the research programme "Demonstration Projects of Spatial Planning". It is occasioned by the start of a new EU funding period that started in This period heralded a stronger focus on the part of EU policy as a whole and with it the INTERREG programmes as well on the goals of Lisbon and Gothenburg and, generally speaking, on a greater territorial integration within the EU. Against this background, the research project has a purpose that is at once strategic and pragmatic: in analysing the impacts of INTERREG III B projects, it is not only a general research interest on the part of German national government that is in the forefront, but also the wish to design future INTERREG projects in such a way that their benefits can be improved in line with the reorientation of the EU funding policy and in line with a design interest on the part of German federal government in the various cooperation areas.

11 7 3 Concept and study structure 3.1 Evaluation and impact analyses The first conceptual spadework for the study began towards the end of Within the scope of this initial approximation towards the universal set of the INTERREG projects, the databases of the INTERREG secretariats of the five cooperation areas with German involvement revealed an existing number of 496 projects altogether (beginning of 2007). In view of this large number, the task of the study consisted in determining the result horizon of the research project. To this end, there were different possibilities or methods of approach: In principle, the possibility existed of gauging project-specific impacts against the benchmark of project or programme stipulations. In view of the large diversity of project objectives, the observation of singular project aims and statements derived from it about the specific impacts of individual projects would have led to an equally large diversity of results. The ability to transfer results, their portability so to speak, would have proved difficult. A further possibility of analysis would have consisted in drawing on programmatic objectives of the cooperation zones as a measuring rod (or search focus) for project impacts and to structure the impact analysis according to cooperation areas. In such a procedure, however, the expert appraisers would have to have weighted their findings against the respective initial conditions of a cooperation area since, depending on the development status of the transnational cooperation, the impacts of thematically similar projects cannot be judged in the same way. What represents a major procedural innovation in one cooperation area might possibly achieve no effects anymore in another cooperation area. In addition, the five INTERREG programmes addressed here relocate in their objectives to general process goals such as the development of the knowledge society, a stronger degree of networking, an improved risk management or the cooperation between urban and rural areas. The political objective of the transnational regional development sets highly generalised process targets because they are intended to have an initiatory and not a restrictive effect. The actors and project partners are to be deliberately left a freedom to design, which has, incidentally, proved to be a major strength of INTERREG. Nevertheless, these objectives are not well suited as a concrete benchmark for an impact analysis: they merely give an indication of the direction in which should look for the benefits of INTER REG, yet do not grasp the desired impacts conceptually. Consequently, it was first necessary to clarify the question: what can a generally describable impact of INTERREG be at all? To answer this question, it was possible to fall back on work that has already been done: firstly, the BBR operates a database containing all the INTERREG projects that were evaluated according to different criteria in These evaluations provided no comprehensive analysis, but they give, inter alia, indications of actor structures and spatial coordinates of networking. Moreover, INTERREG specialists from the BBR and other institutions gathered and discussed initial impressions from the INTERREG activities in a volume that also appeared in In particular, the contribution from Kurnol about strategic projects, from Nagel and Ernst about INTER REG and investments and from Böhme about learning processes in transnational projects provide an informative basis for the search for an appropriate analysis level. In addition, a study commissioned by the BBR was completed in 2007 that shows on the basis of concrete project results which impacts can emanate from INTERREG projects at all and in what way results evolve in the direction of impacts. 4 This study has been very helpful in the formulation of Indicators for the first phases of the impact analysis. It was shown as the result of the preliminary considerations that the analysis of the impacts of INTERREG III B has to relate in general to the sustainable change of actor and decision structures. Here are a few examples on this point: A project develops a new procedure for the transnational coordination of planning approaches. The value of this action must now lie in the fact that this procedure is also actually applied. However, that requires a change in the decision structures of the national partners and a new form of exchange across the borders. In another, also typical INTERREG project, it becomes possible through the linking up of several finance sources to set up an urban or (2) Cf. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (Ed.) 2005 (a). (3) Cf. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (Ed.) 2005 (b) (4) Cf. Planungsgruppe agl 2007

12 8 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 regional infrastructure. The binding of financial resources is not an end in itself, however, but at best an indicator of the valuation of an investment by other investors or financial backers. Since it is in most cases "systematic investors" who are involved, who operate exclusively via certain procedures, the impact of the corresponding project can be seen less in the creation of the infrastructure and more in the change of conduct of the other funding agencies. In a third example, actors are building a transnational network to promote the economic and transport development in a region. Here too, the impact of the project cannot only lie in the provision of planning, but above all in the constitution of a transnational decisionmaking structure, which ensures the implementation of the corresponding plans. Let this short reflection on the possible benefits of projects be sufficient at this point. The impact analysis has been designed in such a way as to allow as many variations of process changes to be observed as possible. The detailed specification of the analysis level also makes it clear the impacts examined here should not be confused with the project results. The results chain Output, Result and Impact used in evaluation research is best suited to elucidate this distinction. For purposes of explanation, here is an example: Output: product of an organisation or of a project, e.g. several information events carried out on the subject of resourcesaving planning Result: result of a project activity, e.g. all the cities or regions involved are informed about the possibilities of resource-saving planning and implement these methods. Impact: project impact: within the cities and regions involved and over and beyond them, a reduction in the consumption of resources occurs through resource-saving planning. Whereas the output is one of the measurable results and is therefore scrutinised by "classic" evaluation research, project results are more attributable to the products, and can mostly only be assessed from a technical perspective due to their respective extremely individual character. The impacts, on the other hand, are those changes that a product (prospectively) generates, and they are therefore the central focus of the analysis procedure selected here. 3.2 The method of examination: cooperative impact analysis Every kind of social research is dependent on the cooperation of people. Without the readiness to answer questions and make data available, there would be no instructive and useable findings from the analysis of political processes and programmes. In the present impact analysis, not only was information to be gained about the emergence of impacts, but a joint (critical) assessment of these results has had to be elaborated at a subsequent stage. Over and beyond a basic willingness on the part of the interviewees to cooperate, the analysis was therefore dependent to a very special degree on the collaboration of specialists, project participants and expert observers. This group of people also included employees at the BBR, who thus played the double role of being both clients (commissioning the study) and INTERREG experts. For this reason, the term cooperative impact analysis was chosen for the research project and, in line with this orientation, the essential elements of the examination procedure consist in a reflection on the results obtained by questioning participants and specialists. A range of projects were to stand in the centre of the surveys that had emerged as representative or typical for a certain process change as the result of prior examination steps. In order to gain an overview of all INTERREG III B projects and to arrive at a meaningful sample to investigate, the case studies as such were preceded by a multistage selection procedure, the results of which consisted in nominating 20 "impacttypical" projects. The individual elements of the procedure are described in what follows: Selection As already mentioned, the expert appraisers have identified 496 INTERREG IIIB projects in January 2007 in the five cooperation areas with German involvement. In order arrive at suitable case studies, a targeted selection was made among the projects on the basis of previously defined criteria. This procedure replaced an initially planned random sample, whose hit rate would have turned out to be much lower as regards impact-typical or even instructive projects. The selection procedure consisted of so-called adverse selection during the first two selection stages. The population (universal set) was, so to speak, "sieved" or filtered, that is to say those

13 Concept and study structure 9 projects were weeded out whose possible effects (on the basis of an increasing information depth with each selection stage) would probably have been difficult to relate to, or which appeared unsuitable for further study for other reasons. In the third stage, a positive selection was made among the remaining projects according to specific criteria. It remains to be noted that, through the repeated observation of a very large number of INTERREG projects during the course of the analysis, the selection process led to an increasingly precise assessment on the part of the processors about the entire value and impact picture of INTER REG III B. These insights then served to inform the following processing stages on each occasion. In the following boxes, the three selection stages are depicted with their corresponding modalities. It should be added that after the complete analysis of the case studies had been completed, a follow-up action or review of 20 further projects was then carried out on the basis of the then-existing state of knowledge. These projects were fished out from the sample of the third selection stage and can play their part in illustrating project impacts despite the lower depth of examination (generally only desktop analysis and, where possible, an interview). (5) In the Baltic Sea Region, the number of registered project partners was frequently very high because associated actors were also listed as project partners. Figure 2 Selection stages for selecting the case studies 1st selection stage Basis: All the projects found in the databases of the INTERREG secretariats on , N=496 Information basis: Brief accounts of the projects within the scope of the websites of the secretariats, in very limited number of exceptional cases further enquiries or additional research. Projects eliminated: 1. Projects with considerably more than 10 partners (required depth of cooperation generally not achievable). Exceptions are possible, the criterion is not applied in the Baltic Sea Region Projects whose most important end product consisted in a study, a handbook, a manual, or the like. 3. Projects of a pure "awareness building" character (effect largely unclear, small need for research) 4. Projects that limit themselves de facto to the pure exchange of information. 5. Projects with task complexes irrelevant for later funding periods and/or German involvement strategies (projects with impacts that are difficult to transfer or extrapolate) 2nd selection stage Basis: Result of selection 1, N=149 Information basis: Websites of the secretariats, further materials from the secretariats, project websites, further enquiries to the secretariats Ausscheidende Projekte: Projects that would have been excluded in stage 1, but that did not occur due to a slender information basis at that time. Projects whose impacts (prospectively) could not yet be estimated due to on-going work. Projects whose impacts could hardly be estimated for research-technical reasons (e.g. technical peculiarities, complex task definition). 3rd selection stage Basis: Result of selection 2: N=75 Information basis: Websites of the secretariats and material from them, project websites, further enquiries to secretariats, further enquiries to experts

14 10 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 Figure 3 Impact areas and indicators 1. Follow-up investments, e.g. P. generates investments that are financed through other programmes or the sponsor's own capital 2. Innovations, e.g. Choice of the case studies In order to make the selection of projects for the 20 case studies easier, a typification or categorisation of the projects was carried out during a first step according to their prospective areas of impact. This took place on the basis of the then-existing state of knowledge and exclusively served to facilitate the selection of the case studies. The sample for examination could therefore be collated according to the presumed impacts. P. leads to the use of brands and standards developed in the project P. leads to the use of inventions, applications and methods outside of the project 3. Qualifications, e.g. P. leads to the further development of skills and proficiencies 4. Projects with strategically important control effects Regional Governance projects or strategic projects), e.g. P. impacts political decisions that are of significance to the respective cooperation area P. generates new capabilities for regional control in a corridor, in a subregion or in the entire cooperation area (6) "Corridor of Innovation and Cooperation" is a cooperation project between German, Danish and Swedish regions or cities, which has been recently sealed by a joint charter. "Shared Space" is a pilot project tested within the scope of INTERREG to dispense with all types of traffic separation on appropriate spaces. This approach has earned a great deal of public attention and is currently being discussed in many places. After all the 75 projects that passed through selection 3 had been judged according to their prospective impact area, a positive selection of 20 projects took place for the purpose of conducting the case studies. In the process, care was taken to obtain as broad a spread as possible of the case studies across the four impact areas. In the choice of projects to be examined, the question was also looked at whether INTERREG projects already exhibiting outstanding effects at this point in time, such as e.g. COINCO or Shared Space 6, should be automatically included in the examination, so to speak automatically. The decision was ultimately made in favour of the systematic research method so as to primarily examine projects whose impacts are not accessible a priori and which therefore serve to represent the majority of all projects. A list of the case studies can be found in the Appendix of this report. "Follow-up action" After evaluating the case studies, the appraisers selected a further 20 projects from the result sample of the third selection for the purpose of a follow-up action. This working step was inserted into the course of the study spontaneously and aimed to effect a further consolidation of the results obtained up to that date. Since only very limited work capacities were available for the followup action, project impacts could only be recorded in a cursory form. The results of the follow-up action have been integrated into the respective remarks and reference is made to them where this appears meaningful. A list of the projects treated within the scope of the follow-up action can be found in the Appendix of this report. Case studies The analysis of the case studies that followed on from the selection together with the follow-up action represents the actual impact analysis. In 20 selected projects, processes, results and analyses were examined through an analysis of the information and the carrying out of, in general, six telephone interviews. In selecting the interview partners, the concrete project partnership and the so-called periphery of the projects were taken into equal account. The periphery denotes the broader event space of the projects. The questioning of persons outside of the project partnership and within the impact area has aimed not only to contribute to a more precise localisation of impacts, but also to illuminate their emergence conditions more closely (see the boxes for details of the follow-up action). The search for dialogue partners from the ranks of the project partners was carried out along the project organisation structure: along with the respective lead partner, the so-called work-package leaders or regional coordinators were also accessed. If such persons did not exist, the dialogue partners were selected from the most important project partners in terms of work input and co-financing level. This has consistently proved to be a sensible method. For the periphery, the study has concentrated in many cases on the German beneficiaries of the project results. This had conceptual and pragmatic grounds: experience has shown that project impacts (or prospective impacts as well) can turn out differently in the various countries involved. That has

15 Concept and study structure 11 primarily to do with the respective initial situation that prevailed at the start: if, for example, there has been little relevant infrastructure within a region up to now (e.g. for cycle tourists, CO2), the accumulated needs (backlog demand) generate a vigorous chain of effects in the investment domain. In those regions where there is merely need for development, such project impacts are felt to a weaker extent. Similar observations can be made in other thematic areas: the collaboration between metropolises and their interacting region is given strong impetus through INTERREG if only a weak context of regional cooperation already exists. In Germany, on the other hand, the regional planning discourse has long concerned itself with a functional distribution of tasks in urban agglomerations. The general process effects are accordingly different in each case. Moreover, the effects and impacts can also depend on the arrangements of the respective national institutions. Who benefits in what way from something is frequently a consequence of the general political guidelines and the institutional arrangements. The research to find periphery partners was conducted systematically: to start with, an estimate was made on the basis of available information which actors might be able to profit from the results of a project. Contact was then taken up with these actors. If this approach did not prove successful, peripheral project partners (partners whose active contribution to a project is small) were contacted and interviewed. A third and last approach consisted in asking the active project partners for peripheral discussion partners. In end effect, this led in a small number of cases to scientists or academics being questioned instead of the beneficiaries of the project results; although these interviewees had no close interaction with the project, they were able to assess it effectively from a technical and specialist standpoint Verification and application This stage of the examination served to obtain feedback once again about the interview and analysis findings from the case studies from the project partners and INTER REG experts from programmatically involved offices at the national and federal state levels. A workshop was carried out for each of the INTERREG impact areas identified (see Ch. 4). At these events, discussions were conducted about the evaluation of results as well as about what factors favour or can accelerate the emergence of project impacts. A further workshop (Workshop of Designers) with the participation of programmatically shaping actors from the German federal states, the Contact Points, the INTERREG secretariats and national government bodies (BMVBS, BBR) concluded the study with an evaluation of possible courses of action to enhance the value of transnational regional collaboration within the framework of the new funding period. Graphic 4 once again illustrates the entire examination structure with each single working step. It remains to be mentioned that the empirical part of the research project extended over a period of 16 months. The first selection stage started in the spring of 2007 and the concluding Workshop of Designers was staged in June 2008.

16 12 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 Figure 4 Examination Structure of the Cooperative Impact Analysis for INTERREG III B Review of the research field and concrete elaboration of the research subject Evaluation of studies, material and information Definition of the research questions Conception of the selection procedure Development of a multi-stage selection procedure to choose case studies from 496 projects Development of a search matrix for the final selection Selection of appropriate projects Three-stage selection procedure: 1. Selection according to general criteria 2. Selection according to specific criteria 3. Selection according to impact dimensions Result of the selection: 20 appropriate projects Execution of the case studies (3 interviews Case studies n= 20 (approx.) with project partners and 3 with the "periphery" in each case) Evaluation of the case studies Workshops on the areas of impact Result from Step 4 = 4 areas of impact Staging of one workshop per impact area with project partners and experts Evaluation of the workshops Elaboration of central impact analysis statements Conference of the "shapers" Conference of the programmatically shaping players from federal and state government with the objective of deriving conclusions from the findings and implementing them Closing presentation Communication of the results Final report and brochure Publication of the results

17 13 4 Findings of the impact analysis 4.1 Impact of INTERREG Apart from the threat of flooding that has already been fended of, the corridors that have been conceived, the revitalised urban centres, the business links that have been cultivated and the infrastructure that has been created, transnational relationships emerge that are consolidated in a way that is at once visible and silent. They are visible because the world is always somewhat different "afterwards" for those concerned than it was at the start of the project. And the repercussions are silent because everyone immediately becomes accustomed to the emergence of a new and better state of affairs and sees it as a matter of course. This is not a specific INTERREG phenomenon but the omnipresent price to be paid for our fastmoving times. Against this backdrop, the in-depth questioning of various sources on the same set of issues has proved to be particularly effective since the task in hand initially also consisted in reconstructing the "before" situation with the respondents so as to appreciate the "after" situation accordingly. During this process, none of those surveyed indulged in any embellishment, whitewashing or glossing over of the facts as regards the results of the projects. First of all, half of them had no reason to do so since they did not belong to the project partnership but to the periphery of a particular measure. But lead partners and centrally involved players have also supported the selected cooperative impact analysis approach to a very great extent through (self-) critical reflection about what was achieved and the results that ensued. The preliminary finding is therefore: INTER REG III B generates changes in the decision structures of cities, regions and entire cooperation areas that have a different profile geographically and spatially and in terms of their thematic and organisational direction. The areas of impact already mentioned have proved to be central here. During the course of the concrete analysis, however, they were conceptually adjusted to the increasingly intensive insight into the corresponding mechanisms. The case studies selected for detailed analysis have almost consistently proved to be particularly illustrative for the analysis and the exemplary documentation of the impacts. It has also become clear in the process that hardly any of the projects manifests a singledimension impact structure. There are indeed projects for which certain effects are typical, but they also exhibit other effects and therefore a broader spectrum of usefulness. Tourism projects, for example, which have attained a brand development, almost necessarily generate a larger number of (smaller) investments in their wake. On the other hand, revitalisation projects with high investment sums, for example, can engender a new quality in the local or regional political process. To present an initial insight into the "multitalent" INTERREG, Figure 5 shows all the projects analysed as case studies in a fictive impact space, the corners of which document the individual and specific spheres of impact. Projects that lie more towards the corners of the graphic have a denser impact spectrum, whereas the projects depicted in the centre exhibit all types of impact. The corresponding is true at the Figure 5 Projects and impact areas examined AlpFrail Mobilisation of Financial Ressources NMC AB Landbridge NSBE CO2 Via Alpina Development of Regional Governance BEEN WIHCC String Oderregio Ella Monitraf Safety at Sea Alpcity EUROB Innovation Artery Harbasins Power MA+ ClimchAlp Regional Quality Management

18 14 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 edges of the surface. The figure thus illustrates where the strongest impact of a project lies proportionally, but does not show the absolute intensity of an impact. In the following sections the reworked conception of the respective impact area will first be described once more. The respective findings will be explained with the aid of several project examples. In the process, the choice of the examples is not necessarily restricted to the strongest impact components evident from the graphic, but also takes (weaker) effects of a different impact spectrum into account insofar as they can serve as an illustration. That is also the reason why several projects appear again in the collection of examples whereas others are completely absent or only mentioned once. Section 4.3 is then concerned with the value and benefit of INTERREG inferred from the effects. 4.2 Results according to impact areas Mobilisation of financial resources During the course of the study, it has become evident that one does not do full justice to the possible impact spectrum of INTERREG with the search for investments in the strict sense. A mobilisation of financial resources becomes apparent most clearly in the form of a building measure or some other "productive investment". Consequently, it is predominantly construction measures and infrastructure acquisitions that are in the forefront of the considerations when appraising the project effects. However, one would not do justice to the "instrument" INTERREG were one not to include a wider circle of consequential financial effects in the analysis: in this sense it is not just productive investments in the spirit of the ERDF regulation that contribute to the long-term success of a project. Essentially speaking, this is any kind of cash flow that occurs beyond the cofinancing of INTERREG funds and subsequent to project results. Excluded from consideration are financial resources that flow into business equipment and consumables and therefore develop no further leverage effect in terms of the project impact. "Mobilisation of financial resources" was selected as the heading for this area of impact. One reason for this not so pleasing paraphrasing of this impact area is the emphasis on dynamics. It is not just the one-off payment, the investment or the sum of many one-off subsidies that effect a sustained change in the process of events. Above all, it is also the transformation in the relevant decision-making structures that finds expression in such altered "payment customs" of public and other bodies. Before looking at the examples, it should be noted once again that budgeted capital flows within the project duration are not among the effects of the project, but represent a part of the output within the framework of the process chain "output-result-impact". That does not mean that a mobilisation of capital has to occur only after the project has ended. Part of the examples shows that results achieved during the course of the project can already lead to a sustained impact before the end of the project term. North Sea Bioenergy (NSBE): construction of biomass heating plants Apart from two demonstration plants funded through the project, further plants have already been created or are in planning in Holland and in Scotland with private financing. Other service enterprises and industrial companies are profiting from this investment. The operation of the plants also opens up new possibilities of revenue for farmers. An international virtual trading centre for biomass and emissions trading, which is still to be set up within the project framework, is likely to generate further effects. The biomass marketplace is to be run on a permanent basis with own funding from individual project partners (e.g. the Lower Saxony Network for Renewable Resources).

19 Findings of the impact analysis 15 Water in Historic City Centers WIHCC: Investment control and quality improvements in the overall concept The partners in the WIHHC project are concerned with the revitalisation of historic city centres in conjunction with watercourses. In Breda (NL) the INTERREG project consisted in budget terms of a three-percent funding share of the entire revitalisation totalling EUR 27.5 million. Despite this relatively small funding share, the INTERREG contribution should not be estimated as small. Here, as in other projects as well, INTERREG represents something like the "keystone of the dome". It is only through its introduction that the bearing strength is reached at all. Moreover, the project has led to an optimisation of the entire deployment of resources within the partner regions: many of the investments made through the project represent significant additions to the overall activities and help achieve an intelligent linking with other resources. In Chester, for example, more than 10 financing instruments were deployed for the urban revitalisation project. WIHCC: New Market in Breda Photo: Wessel Keizer AlpFRail: accelerated establishment of new train connections Against the background of constantly rising freight traffic, different products in freight transport were conceived within the AlpFrail project, including, for example, the Adriazug, TrailerTrain, TrainManu and the direct Ulm - Milan link (Donillo: Donau-Iller Lombardei-Shuttle), which have already been realised in part. For instance, the direct link between Ulm and Milan started operation with the 2007 timetable change. The route is operated by a European logistics service provider based in Basel together with an Italian partner. The installation of the train connections has in part triggered further investments or plans that will result in investments. For instance, it will be necessary to initiate accompanying measures so as to be able to operate the direct Ulm-Milan link economically. For this reason, the construction of a south entrance and exit in the Ulm/Dornstadt container station and an electrification of the Südbahn route from Ulm to Friedrichshafen are envisaged. Agreements on the financing of pre-planning costs totalling EUR 1.4 million were reached at the end of AlpFRail: Munich-Riem transhipment terminal Photo: LKZ Prien GmbH

20 16 Impacts and Benefits of Transnational Projects (INTERREG III B) Research Studies Issue 138 VIA ALPINA/VIADVENTURE: tourist infrastructure and tourism marketing The realisation of the transnational hiking trail has triggered private investments in several regions, particularly in the domain of expanding and instigating accommodation and restaurant offers at the local level (e.g. in Switzerland). Moreover, various tourism organisations and travel operators in France, Germany and Austria have adopted the Via Alpina into their programme (e.g. Swiss Trails GmbH, Chiemgau Tourismus e.v). Numerous hiking and tour guides have meanwhile appeared in the bookshops. Marketing activities for the product are very successful in Switzerland: whereas around 5,000 Swiss francs could be earned during the first year through the sale of all-inclusive offers, this figure reached 60,000 francs in the second year and more than 100,000 francs in This success is particularly attributable to the fact that an especially suitable institution, the Interessengemeinschaft HumanPoweredMobility (HPM), was chosen by the Swiss partners to carry out this task. HPM organises the marketing for all non-motorised tourist activities (cycling, skating etc.) in Switzerland, which meant that no new marketing structure had to be built up. VIA ALPINA: The Pühringer hut Photo: Ch. Schwann In Slovenia, hiking tourism was not established as a subject area in its own right. Public institutions have now designated this segment as a development priority and will be creating an infrastructure of the same kind as that created for the French Alps with the society Grande Traversée des Alpes (GTA). Alpcity: promotion programmes for urban development Although the project has not been able to generate public and private investment in a causal manner, it has demonstrably helped produce increased capital deployment in several partner regions. In the Lombardy region, for instance, a promotion programme for integrated urban development has been implemented with the goal of furthering the retail trade and reviving town centres, which is equipped with EUR 45 million and is funded from national and regional resources. Although private investments cannot be monocausally attributed to the INTERREG project, they are an effect of the abovementioned promotion programme in the region of Lombardia: towns and communities can make applications with their development projects and have to show that private funds also flow into the financing; altogether, over 500 competition applications have been received, and just under 70 are being furthered. Metropolitan Areas MA+: investment preparation for key projects in regional development The primary protagonists engaged in the project Metropolitan Areas MA and MA+ in Norway, Sweden and Germany have implemented the project in various ways for the polycentric development of their regions. In the wake of the planning and conceptional work in the regions, various possibilities of mobilising capital have been utilised. The project revealed very strong financial repercussions in the Berlin-Brandenburg region: for example, it was possible on the basis of the project work to achieve the through-connection of the Regional Express train from Neuruppin to the centre of Berlin. On the basis of a feasibility study drawn up within the project, the federal state of Brandenburg could be won over as "orderer" for the corresponding travel service. Neuruppin itself is arranging for an expansion of the stop station, the setting up of bus lanes and the provision of PR sites, and is investing its own funds for the purpose. A further subproject involves the drawing up of a master plan for an industrial area on the Finow Canal from the 1st stage of industrialisation. The preliminary work in the project has significantly contributed to the fact that the Brandenburg state government is investing EUR 10 million of funding for a subproject. As a further pilot project in the Tempelhof-Schöneberg district of Berlin, the commercial site management was drawn up for an area that represents a special challenge on account of the different structures of interest and ownership involved. A Public-Private Partnership arose from these activities the development of which is now being promoted from the federal Stadtumbau West (Urban Redevelopment West) programme.